Music Monday:Religion and Chris Martin part 4

Coldplay – In My Place (Live in Dallas) June 22 2012

Published on Jun 24, 2012 by

Coldplay performing at American Airlines Center in Dallas, TX

Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful show

 

 7/11

Chris Martin was brought up as an evangelical Christian but he left the faith once he left his childhood home. However, there are been some actions in his life in the last few years that demonstrate that he still is grappling with his childhood Chistian beliefs. This is the fourth part of a series I am starting on this subject and today we will see how a few verses in the Book of Romans chapter one are relevant to a song written by Coldplay.

On June 23, 2012 my son Wilson and I got to attend a Coldplay Concert in Dallas. It was great. I wish they had played “Cemeteries of London” at the Dallas concert since I like that song a lot. Let me show you two points from the Book of Romans:

God reveals Himself in two Ways 

Lets take a look at the lyrics from the song “Cemeteries of London:”

God is in the houses
And God is in my head
And all the cemeteries of London
I see God come in my garden
But I don’t know what He said
For my heart, it wasn’t open
Not open

Romans chapter one clearly points out that God has revealed Himself through both the created world around us  and also in a God-given conscience that testifies to each person that God exists.
Notice in this song that the song writer notes, “I see God come in my garden” and “God is in my head.” These are the exact two places mentioned by the scripture.  Romans 1:18-20 (Amplified version)

18For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)

Concerning these verses Francis Schaeffer said:

The world is guilty of suppressing God’s truth and living accordingly. The universe and its form and the mannishness of Man speak the same truth that the Bible gives in greater detail.

This is what Chris Martin is having to deal with and he  is clearly searching for spiritual answers but it seems he have not found them quite yet. The song “42“: “Time is so short and I’m sure, There must be something more.” Then in the song “Lost” Martin sings these words: “Every river that I tried to cross, Every door I ever tried was locked..”
Solomon went to the extreme in his searching in the Book of Ecclesiastes for this “something more” that Coldplay is talking about, but he found riches (2:8-11), pleasure (2:1), education (2:3), fame (2:9) and his work (2:4) all “meaningless” and “vanity” and “a chasing of the wind.” Every door he tried was locked.

Solomon is searching for the meaning of life in the Book of Ecclesiastes and that reminds me a lot of the search that Chris Martin is currently in.  By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. My prediction: I am hoping that Coldplay’s next album will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

Kerry Livgren of Kansas found Christ eventually after first trying some Eastern Religions. I remember telling my friends in 1978 when “Dust in the Wind” was the number 6 song in the USA that Kansas had written a philosophical song that came to the same conclusion about humanistic man as Solomon did so long ago and I predicted that some members of that band would come to know the Christ of the Bible in a personal way. You can hear Kerry Livgren’s story from this youtube link:

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

Coldplay – Cemeteries of London ( FULL VIDEO)

The brilliant video for Cemeteries of London. It’s the perfect mix between music and image, Coldplay sold around 8 million albums with Viva La Vida.

_________________________________________

September 24, 2012 – 6:40 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 144 B)

Jane Roe’s prolife commercial

Uploaded by on Jun 18, 2008

“Jane Roe” or Roe v Wade is now a prolife Christian. She’s recently done a commercial about it.

___________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Let me start out by saying thank you for bringing Chen Guangcheng to the USA. That was a great thing that you did!!!!

I sincerely hope that the world will continue to look upon Chen as the hero that he is. He has taken up for the ladies of China and their right to have their children.

Did you know that many in China when given the chance would abort unborn girls in order to have boys. This has created a huge problem.

Fox News reported, “Twenty-five million men in China currently can’t find brides because there is a shortage of women,” said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute in Washington, D.C. “The young men emigrate overseas to find brides.”

Of course, the real problem is the one child restriction that started this to begin with. I wish you would join me speak out in favor of China’s women’s rights.

Sarah Torre

May 16, 2012 at 3:00 pm

Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng called into a congressional hearing again yesterday, detailing reported abuse of his relatives and friends in the wake of his escape.

When lauded for his courage and tireless advocacy for victims of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization, Chen simply remarked, through translation: “I am not a hero. I’m just doing what my conscience asks me to do. I cannot be silent when facing these evils against women and children.”

Chen described to the committee how, shortly after his escape from house arrest last month, local government officials allegedly stormed a family member’s house, beating relatives and arresting Chen’s brother. When Chen’s nephew attempted to defend himself and his family, officials arrested him on what Chen calls “trumped up” charges of “homicide with intent.”

Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, testified on the status of He Peirong, the woman who drove the rescue car for Chen. He, also known as “Pearl,” endured a week of confinement and interrogation in a hotel room by Chinese officials because of her involvement in Chen’s escape. Likewise, Jiang Tianyong, a human rights lawyer in China, was beaten to the point of possibly losing hearing in one ear after attempting to see Chen at the Beijing hospital, according to Littlejohn.

The actions reportedly taken against Chen’s supporters and family are just an extension of the coercive tactics used to enforce the country’s one-child policy. As panelists at yesterday’s hearing detailed, forced abortions, coerced sterilizations, and fines or physical abuse for neighbors and family members of women with unauthorized pregnancies remain a daily reality in China.

Mei Shunping, a victim of five forced abortions, described her time as a factory worker in China, where routine checkups for women were used to guard against unlawful pregnancy: “When discovered, pregnant women would be dragged to undergo forced abortions—there was no other choice. We had no dignity as potential child-bearers.”

Chai Ling, founder of All Girls Allowed, detailed just a few horrific stories of child abandonment, bride trafficking and prostitution, and forced abortions that have occurred because of the one-child policy. Just this past October, explained Ling, a woman reportedly died after a late-term, forced abortion procedure when she was discovered to be pregnant with an unauthorized child. Similar atrocities have been documented in U.S. congressional reports as well.

“I wish I could tell you that these stories were rare, but they are not,” remarked Ling. “They are mere glimpses into the dark environment that the One-Child Policy creates for women. This is the darkness into which Chen Guangcheng tried to shine a light.”

That light of respect for human dignity and individual liberty should be supported by the U.S. and other international leaders who claim to defend human rights. As Heritage’s director of domestic policy Jennifer Marshall writes in commentary this week:

U.S. policymakers have long expressed concern over China’s security and economic challenges to global stability. They ought to be equally concerned about the chilling long-term consequences of gross abuse of human dignity and the destruction of civil society. It’s time for China to end the barbarism of its One-Child Policy.

Denouncing the unjust treatment of Chen Guangcheng, his family, and fellow activists is important. But so too is condemning the coercive population control policies that strip women and men of fundamental rights and prohibit China from becoming a truly free and flourishing society.

____________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

September 24, 2012 – 6:18 am Categories: Current Events, President Obama, Prolife | Post a comment

Francis Schaeffer affected pro-life movement (Part 4) “Schaeffer Sunday”

Part 1

Part 2

Below is a summary of “A Christian Manifesto” which is a very important book written by Francis Schaeffer just a couple of years before his death in 1984. Schaeffer had a great impact on the pro-life movement.

A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer

This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title.

The January 11 Newsweek has an article about the baby in the womb. The first 5 or 6 pages are marvelous. If you haven’t seen it, you should see if you can get that issue. It’s January 11 and about the first 5 or 6 pages show conclusively what every biologist has known all along, and that is that human life begins at conception. There is no other time for human life to begin, except at conception. Monkey life begins at conception. Donkey life begins at conception. And human life begins at conception. Biologically, there is no discussion — never should have been — from a scientific viewpoint. I am not speaking of religion now. And this 5 or 6 pages very carefully goes into the fact that human life begins at conception. But you flip the page and there is this big black headline, “But is it a person?” And I’ll read the last sentence, “The problem is not determining when actual human life begins, but when the value of that life begins to out weigh other considerations, such as the health or even the happiness of the mother.”

We are not just talking about the health of the mother (it’s a propaganda line), or even the happiness of the mother. Listen! Spell that out! It means that the mother, for her own hedonistic happiness — selfish happiness — can take human life by her choice, by law. Do you understand what I have said? By law, on the basis of her individual choice of what makes her happy. She can take what has been declared to be, in the first five pages [of the article], without any question, human life. In other words, they acknowledge that human life is there, but it is an open question as to whether it is not right to kill that human life if it makes the mother happy.

And basically that is no different than Stalin, Mao, or Hitler, killing who they killed for what they conceived to be the good of society. There is absolutely no line between the two statements — no absolute line, whatsoever. One follows along: Once that it is acknowledged that it is human life that is involved (and as I said, this issue of Newsweek shows conclusively that it is) the acceptance of death of human life in babies born or unborn, opens the door to the arbitrary taking of any human life. From then on, it’s purely arbitrary.

It was this view that opened the door to all that followed in Germany prior to Hitler. It’s an interesting fact here that the only Supreme Court in the Western World that has ruled against easy abortion is the West German Court. The reason they did it is because they knew, and it’s clear history, that this view of human life in the medical profession and the legal profession combined, before Hitler came on the scene, is what opened the way for everything that happened in Hitler’s Germany. And so, the German Supreme Court has voted against easy abortion because they know — they know very well where it leads.

I want to say something tonight. Not many of you are black in this audience. I can’t tell if you are Puerto Rican. But if I were in the minority group in this country, tonight, I would be afraid. I’ve had big gorgeous blacks stand up in our seminars and ask, “Sir, do you think there is a racial twist to all this?” And I have to say, “Right on! You’ve hit it right on the head!” Once this door is opened, there is something to be afraid of. Christians should be deeply concerned, and I cannot understand why the liberal lawyer of the Civil Liberties Union is not scared to death by this open door towards human life. Everyone ought to be frightened who knows anything about history — anything about the history of law, anything about the history of medicine. This is a terrifying door that is open.

Abortion itself would be worth spending much of our lifetimes to fight against, because it is the killing of human life, but it’s only a symptom of the total. What we are facing is Humanism: Man, the measure of all things — viewing final reality being only material or energy shaped by chance — therefore, human life having no intrinsic value — therefore, the keeping of any individual life or any groups of human life, being purely an arbitrary choice by society at the given moment.

The flood doors are wide open. I fear both they, and too often the Christians, do not have just relativistic values (because, unhappily, Christians can live with relativistic values) but, I fear, that often such people as the liberal lawyers of the Civil Liberties Union and Christians, are just plain stupid in regard to the lessons of history. Nobody who knows his history could fail to be shaken at the corner we have turned in our culture. Remember why: because of the shift in the concept of the basic reality!

Now, we cannot be at all surprised when the liberal theologians support these things, because liberal theology is only Humanism using theological terms, and that’s all it ever was, all the way back into Germany right after the Enlightenment. So when they come down on the side of easy abortion and infanticide, as some of these liberal denominations as well as theologians are doing, we shouldn’t be surprised. It follows as night after day.

I have a question to ask you, and that is: Where have the Bible-believing Christians been in the last 40 years? All of this that I am talking about has only come in the last 80 years (I’m 70… I just had my birthday, so just 10 years older than I am). None of this was true in the United States. None of it! And the climax has all come within the last 40 years, which falls within the intelligent scope of many of you sitting in this room. Where have the Bible-believing Christians been? We shouldn’t be surprised the liberal theologians have been no help — but where have we been as we have changed to this other consensus and all the horrors and stupidity of the present moment has come down on out culture? We must recognize that this country is close to being lost. Not, first of all , because of the Humanist conspiracy — I believe that there are those who conspire, but that is not the reason this country is almost lost. This country is almost lost because the Bible-believing Christians, in the last 40 years, who have said that they know that the final reality is this infinite-personal God who is the Creator and all the rest, have done nothing about it as the consensus has changed. There has been a vast silence!

Christians of this country have simply been silent. Much of the Evangelical leadership has not raised a voice. As a matter of fact, it was almost like sticking pins into the Evangelical constituency in most places to get them interested in the issue of human life while Dr. Koop and Franky and I worked on Whatever Happened to the Human Race, a vast, vast silence.

I wonder what God has to say to us? All these freedoms we have. All the secondary blessings we’ve had out of the preaching of the Gospel and we have let it slip through our fingers in the lifetime of most of you here. Not a hundred years ago — it has been in our lifetime in the last 40 years that these things have happened.

It’s not only the Christian leaders. Where have the Christian lawyers been? Why haven’t they been challenging this change in the view of what the First Amendment means, which I’ll deal with in a second. Where have the Christian doctors been — speaking out against the rise of the abortion clinics and all the other things? Where have the Christian businessmen been — to put their lives and their work on the line concerning these things which they would say as Christians are central to them? Where have the Christian educators been — as we have lost our educational system? Where have we been? Where have each of you been? What’s happened in the last 40 years?

September 23, 2012 – 2:33 am Categories: Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Post a comment

We must change the upward trend of spending in our country now or entitlement debt will bankrupt us

Federal Spending by the Numbers

Uploaded by on Jun 10, 2010

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/10/new-video-federal-spending-by-the-numbers The Federal Government is addicted to spending. Watch this video from the Heritage Foundation to learn about the trouble we are in and where to find solutions.

_______

We must change the upward trend of spending in our country now or entitlement debt will bankrupt us.

Back in 2010, I posted a fascinating map from the Economist website, showing debt burdens (as a share of GDP) for nations around the world. This data showed lots of red ink, with Western Europe generally being more indebted than the United States.

In 2011, I posted some charts from a study by the Bank for International Settlements, revealing that the long-run fiscal outlook for the United States is worse than the outlook for European nations.

In other words, our politicians to date haven’t over-spent as much as their counterparts in Europe, but it appears that – if government is left on auto-pilot – America will suffer more from excessive government than European nations in the future.

Here’s some new evidence about the perilous long-term state of public finances in America. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States has to do more than almost every other nation to avoid becoming another Greece.

If this data is correct, the United States isn’t just in danger of becoming Greece. It’s actually in worse shape than Greece. Not just Greece, but every other European welfare state as well. That doesn’t bode well.

But time for some caveats. The OECD research mistakenly focuses on debt levels and what needs to happen to reduce red ink to a certain level. This isn’t a meaningless issue, but it puts the cart before the horse. What matters most is the size of government and the total burden of government spending – not whether it is financed with borrowing rather than taxes.

This doesn’t mean the long-run estimates are wrong. But if the focus is on the real problem of government spending, then it is much more apparent that the only feasible solution is to restrain the growth of government spending.

If the burden of government spending grows slower than the economy’s productive sector (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule), then deficits and debt fall. To be blunt, if you cure the disease, the symptoms automatically disappear.

Which helps explain why I’m a fan of the Ryan budget, particularly his reforms to Medicare and Medicaid.

P.S. Regular readers know I’m not a fan of the OECD (for many reasons), but the economists at the Paris-based bureaucracy generally are competent at putting together good data. It goes without saying, of course, that this doesn’t justify raping taxpayers to subsidize economists.

September 21, 2012 – 6:31 am Categories: Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 144)

John Stossel – Influence of Milton Friedman

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

When I think of the last 4 years and where the federal government has gone crazy spending our money trying to be “fair,” it makes me realize how wise Milton Friedman was when he talked about how to best achieve equality:

Here are some quotes from Milton Friedman that I thought you would enjoy:

  • Spending by government currently amounts to about 45 percent of national income. By that test, government owns 45 percent of the means of production that produce the national income. The U.S. is now 45 percent socialist.
  • The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before. The most dramatic period of instability in output was, of course, the period between the two wars, which includes the severe (monetary) contractions of 1920-1, 1929-33, and 1937-8. No other 20 year period in American history contains as many as three such severe contractions.
    This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System… and that the severity of each of the major contractions — 1920-1, 1929-33 and 1937-8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities…
    Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank…
    To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers.

  • I know of no severe depression, in any country or any time, that was not accompanied by a sharp decline in the stock of money and equally of no sharp decline in the stock of money that was not accompanied by a severe depression.
  • The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of money in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933
    • National Public Radio interview (Jan 1996)

One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results.

______________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

September 21, 2012 – 6:29 am Categories: Milton Friedman, President Obama | Post a comment

“Friedman Friday” Quotes from Milton Friedman (part 1)

Milton Friedman  discusses collectivism

Uploaded by on Aug 20, 2010

Despite its dismal track record, collectivism continues to hold appeal for some. Professor Friedman discusses this dynamic.

____________

People should have more of their own money to spend than they do now. We have gone from the federal government spending less than 5% of our money 80 years ago to spending 24.8% of GDP today.

Here are some quotes from Milton Friedman that I thought you would enjoy:

  • I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.
    • An Economist’s Protest (1975), p. 6; often quoted as “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”
  • I want people to take thought about their condition and to recognize that the maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing and it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind.It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding that if you step in to do something about them you not only may make them worse, you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere.
  • I say thank God for government waste. If government is doing bad things, it’s only the waste that prevents the harm from being greater.
    • Interview with Richard Heffner on The Open Mind (7 December 1975)
  • One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.
    • Interview with Richard Heffner on The Open Mind (7 December 1975)
  • In this day and age, we need to revise the old saying to read, “Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.”
    • “Bureaucracy Scorned” in Newsweek (29 December 1975), later published in Bright Promises, Dismal Performance : An Economist’s Protest (1983)
  • Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful.
    • Free to Choose (1980) p.148
September 21, 2012 – 6:27 am Categories: Milton Friedman | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 143 B)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The flat tax is the way to get the job creators in our nations geared up. Is there any better way to get job creation started?

Curtis Dubay

May 10, 2012 at 2:30 pm

There he goes again. It seems that President Obama just can’t help himself. He keeps pushing Congress to pass policies it has rejected in the past or has foolishly passed to little beneficial effect.

The latest recycling of policies comes from the President’s Post-It note to-do list for Congress. If only Congress’s actual to-do list was so small.

Besides leaving out the most pressing issues facing the country—reforming entitlement programs and full-scale tax reform—the President’s to-do list for Congress curiously leaves off the most urgent issue it needs to tackle right now. That would be Taxmageddon and the $494 billion tax hike that will slam the economy on January 1, 2013, unless Congress and President Obama act soon to stop it.

In addition to calling for an extension of the Wind Production Tax Credit and an expansion of the 30 percent tax credit for investments in clean energy manufacturing, the tax polices the to-do list contains are a credit for small businesses that hire new workers and the President’s misguided “insourcing” agenda.

Really? Again with this hiring tax credit stuff? We’ve been there, done that, and have no jobs to show for it. In 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law a tax credit for businesses that added new workers. It failed to create jobs then, and repeating it will fail to create jobs now.

Hiring tax credits do not work, because businesses add new workers when those additional employees will increase profitability over the duration of their tenure. A temporary one-year credit does little to tip this basic calculation in favor of adding new positions, because most businesses expect to retain workers for longer than a year.

The President first proposed his insourcing plan earlier this year. It would take away tax deductions for businesses that supposedly move jobs overseas and reward businesses that move jobs here. The whole premise of the idea is fatally flawed, and his pushing this plan shows that President Obama fundamentally misunderstands how the global economy works.

U.S. businesses rarely pack up their operations here and move them overseas. Instead, they open new operations in other countries as a way to chase growing demand for their goods or services in new, emerging markets. This is nothing but good news for the U.S. An American business finding a new market for its product means more jobs created at the business’s U.S. headquarters and more income flowing back to America. Why would President Obama want to discourage this?

By punishing companies that seek opportunity abroad and rewarding those that happen to bring jobs back, Obama assumes that those businesses doing the latter are better for the economy and are creating more jobs. But he cannot possibly know which businesses are better or which create more jobs.

The government can never know which businesses are better at creating jobs, because it does not have access to the broad range of information available to the diffuse network of individuals and businesses that comprise the free market.

It is time for President Obama to stop rehashing and recycling old, failed tax policies for perceived narrow political benefit and focus on the tax policies that would be broadly beneficial to the economy. First, stop Taxmageddon right now. Second, implement fundamental tax reform along the lines of the New Flat Tax.

Now that fits neatly on a Post-It note.

______________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

September 21, 2012 – 6:08 am Categories: President Obama, Taxes | Post a comment

SEC football as strong as ever

Arkansas defensive tackle Jared Green (57) and linebackers Alonzo Highsmith (45), and Tenarius Wright (43) attempt to tackle Alabama running back Eddie Lacy (42) as offensive lineman Barrett Jones (75) looks on during second quarter action of an NCAA college football game in Fayetteville, Ark., Saturday, Sept. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/David Quinn)

Arkansas defensive tackle Jared Green (57) and linebackers Alonzo Highsmith (45), and Tenarius Wright (43) attempt to tackle Alabama running back Eddie Lacy (42) as offensive lineman Barrett Jones (75) looks on during second quarter action of an NCAA college football game in Fayetteville, Ark., Saturday, Sept. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/David Quinn)

___________

When you look at the conference at this point in the season you have to conclude that with 6 schools in the top 25 that the SEC is as tough as ever. Some people want to conclude that since Tennessee and Arkansas dropped out of the top 25 that the conference is somehow down. I disagree.

Miss St jumped into the top 25 this week when Tennessee dropped out. Arkansas could not be expected to play with Alabama when the Hog’s quarterback Tyler Wilson was out. I said before the game that with Tyler Wilson that the Hogs had a 20% chance to beat Bama but without him they had a 2% chance.

Do I think the SEC will win the national championship this year? No I do not. Why? Our luck has just been too good lately. We have won 6 in a row and it must end sometime. I am guessing that Oregon will get lucky this year and beat a SEC team in the final game of the year.

Of course, at this point in the season we are looking better than any other conference since the two top teams in the country are from the SEC. No other conference can say that. Unfortunately both of those teams are the in SEC West and my Razorbacks just got beat by Bama 52-0 in Fayetteville and we have #2 LSU still on our schedule too.

SEC looks and is good, just not top to bottom

DAVID BRANDT – AP Sports Writer (AP)

Originally published 06:43 p.m., September 19, 2012
Updated 09:44 p.m., September 19, 2012

The mighty Southeastern Conference has six schools in the Top 25, with Alabama and LSU atop the rankings and the toast of college football once again.

An impressive eight SEC teams have managed to break into the Top 25 this season.

But while it seems everyone in the SEC is enjoying success, that’s not the case. The bottom half of the league has had some downright embarrassing moments.

Mississippi State coach Dan Mullen said even the SEC can’t win every game.

“I know as a league, we have a lot of pride. We expect to win every game no matter what,” Mullen said. “That’s a good thing. But in today’s college football, that’s not always possible.”

Not even when teams are playing at home.

Louisiana-Monroe went on the road and shocked Arkansas and had Auburn on the ropes while Western Kentucky stunned Kentucky in overtime in Lexington. Mississippi was crushed 66-31 by No. 14 Texas at home; the Rebels haven’t given up that many points since 1917.

Vanderbilt’s loss to Northwestern on the road was certainly disappointing for a program trying to build a better reputation under second-year coach James Franklin. Mississippi State barely escaped an upset at Troy.

But the surprising losses and close calls haven’t done much damage to the SEC’s reputation as it goes for a sixth straight BCS championship.

The six SEC teams in the Top 25 are more than any other conference. It seems when one SEC team drops out of the rankings, another pops in.

After Arkansas was knocked out, Tennessee moved up. Once the Vols fell out of the rankings, Mississippi State was there to take their place.

LSU center P.J. Lonergan said he’s been surprised by some of the early season scores, but points out that underestimating any SEC opponent is a bad idea. The No. 2 Tigers travel to face Auburn on Saturday.

“Arkansas losing to (Louisiana-Monroe) was unexpected. Auburn struggling has been unexpected,” Lonergan said. “But I’ve been here for games against opponents when you are not pumped up for because you think they are not up to your level. You get a surprise.

“Everybody is good in the SEC. The record doesn’t matter.”

Maybe, but some are much better than others.

And the problems have contributed to the perception that the SEC is top heavy. Mullen disagrees.

“I think that’s just football,” the coach of the 23rd-ranked Bulldogs. “There’s a lot more balance in college football than there used to be. There are very few teams who can just roll the ball out there and play. If you don’t play well, you’re probably not going to win the game and it really doesn’t matter who is on the schedule.”

Even most of the league’s struggling teams seem to have reason for hope.

— Arkansas quarterback Tyler Wilson, who has been out since suffering a concussion against Louisiana-Monroe, is expected to return soon — though Wednesday morning he hadn’t been medically cleared for contact. His presence will immediately make the Razorbacks a factor in all their remaining games.

— Ole Miss has proven to be one of the league’s most explosive offensive teams, ranking second out of 14 teams with 500.7 total yards per game. The Rebels just have to find ways to stop opponents.

— Vanderbilt appears headed in the right direction even after the Northwestern loss. The Commodores nearly knocked off South Carolina in the season opener and have another chance to break through this weekend at Georgia.

— Kentucky has looked inept, but sophomore quarterback Maxwell Smith leads the league in passing, throwing for 966 yards, eight touchdowns and four touchdowns. The Wildcats are much like the Rebels in that an inexperienced defense is the main problem.

One problem for SEC teams that struggle is the poor performances are magnified by nearly flawless efforts by the league leaders. Alabama has outscored its first three opponents 128-14. LSU has a 145-31 advantage.

But Arkansas coach John L. Smith isn’t complaining.

“I think it’s good for the league,” Smith said. “Again, anytime you have that power at the top … We all strive to get there. I think it makes us all better — the entire league.”

_____

AP Sports Writers Kurt Voigt, Brett Martel, John Zenor and Gary Graves contributed to this story.

September 20, 2012 – 7:13 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Mark Levin and Senator Hatch discuss the balanced budget amendment and it’s importance.

Uploaded by on Jan 28, 2011

Mark Levin interviews Senator Hatch 1/27/2011 about the balanced budget amendment. Mark is very excited about the balanced budget amendment being proposed by Senator Orin Hatch and John Cornyn and he discusses the amendment with Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch explains the bill it’s ramifications and limitations. Senator Hatch actually worked on this bill with renowned economist Milton Friedman. This ammendment is the first big step in saving our country.

_______________

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

I really wish we would restraint the growth of the federal budget and the only way to do that is to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. My favorite economist was Milton Friedman and he discusses that below:

 

Written By : John Hawkins
February 25, 2012

 

Yesterday, I did a twenty minute interview by phone with Milton Friedman. Of course, Mr. Friedman has an INCREDIBLE resume. He won the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science, won the “Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1988 and received the National Medal of Science the same year”.

He was also an “economic adviser to Senator Barry Goldwater in his unsuccessful campaign for the presidency in 1964, to Richard Nixon in his successful 1968 campaign, to President Nixon subsequently, and to Ronald Reagan in his 1980 campaign.”

There is much, much, more I could add. But I think the fact that Mr. Friedman finished in a tie for the 15 slot when RWN had conservative bloggers select, “The Greatest Figures Of The 20th Century gives you some idea of Mr. Friedman’s stature.

Enjoy the interview!

John Hawkins: Slate’s Chris Suellentrop has pointed out that Howard Dean has said “that he would demand that other countries adopt the exact same labor, environmental, health, and safety standards as the United States” if they wanted trade agreements with us (Dean said something similar to the WAPO). If that policy were ever implemented, what sort of damage do you think it would cause to the US economy?

Milton Friedman: I think it would cause immense damage, not to the US economy, but to other economies around the world — much more to the others than to us.

John Hawkins: Really? So you don’t really think it would hurt the US economy that much?

Milton Friedman: It would hurt the US economy, but it would be disastrous for the countries that are smaller than we are. World trade depends on differences among countries, not similarities. Different countries are in different stages of development. It is appropriate for them to have different patterns, different policies for ecology, labor standards, and so forth.

From my point of view, we in the United States have gone overboard in respect to the extent of regulation and detailed control of labor standards, industry, and the like. It’s bad for us, but fortunately we had two hundred years of relatively free development to provide a strong basis to sustain the cost. But to impose this on other countries that are not at that stage would be a disgraceful thing to do.

John Hawkins: Because it would keep them from ever getting to the point we’re at?

Milton Friedman: That’s right.

John Hawkins: Do you think George Bush, with the economy being as it was, did the right thing by cutting taxes?

Milton Friedman: I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, “How do you hold down government spending?” Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.

John Hawkins: Now let me ask you about that. In the Reagan years, we cut taxes and it ended up leading to economic growth which increased the amount of revenue that came into the government.

Milton Friedman: Well, economic growth will inevitably increase the amount of revenue coming into the government. But so far as the Reagan years were concerned, we have to be careful there. There were initial cuts in 1981-1982 and then there was a very good income tax law in 1986. But in between that, there were increases in taxes as well. So it’s not an entirely clear picture that you can attribute the growth in revenue entirely to the tax reductions. But it’s a hard thing to disentangle the effects of several things happening at the same time. In particular, there’s no doubt that growth is very favorable to government revenue.

John Hawkins: Well let me ask you a related question about holding down the deficit. Really, I’m not seeing much political will on either side of the aisle to hold down costs. Do you think we should consider a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Milton Friedman: What we should consider and what has been considered is a Tax And Spending Limitation Amendment, an amendment to hold down total spending. I don’t think it needs to be in the form of a Balanced Budget Amendment, but that’s one form it can take.

John Hawkins: So would you favor for example a 3/5th’s majority to raise taxes like they suggested in the “Contract with America”?

Milton Friedman: Yes, but the example that comes to mind really is the Colorado Tax And Expenditure Limitation Amendment that requires the spending to increase no more from year to year than population and inflation. Also, it requires that any revenues in excess of spending have to be returned to the taxpayers.

September 20, 2012 – 6:31 am Categories: Milton Friedman, spending out of control | Post a comment

The primary cause of higher hospital care and education costs in the USA is?

Is Washington Bankrupting America?

Uploaded by on Apr 20, 2010

Be first to receive our videos and other timely info about economic policy. Subscribe at http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
————————-
According to a recent poll, 74 percent of likely voters are extremely or very concerned about the current level of government spending. And 58 percent think the level of spending is unsustainable.

Is the public right? Is Washington bankrupting America? Some facts from the video:

Spending per household has risen over 40 percent in the last 10 years and is set to do so again in the next 10 pushing debt (and interest on the debt) to unprecedented levels. But that’s just a result of PAST spending…

Our government owes $106 trillion in FUTURE spending commitments – that cannot be paid for.

We can solve it, but politicians will have to make tough choices. Increasing taxes can’t do the trick ($106 trillion is equivalent to taking all of the taxable income from every American nine times over), nor is it fair to saddle taxpayers with a problem created by government irresponsibility.

We need real spending reform. Merely returning to the spending per household levels of the 1990s would balance the budget in three years.

____________

David Boaz has rightly noted:

The fact that “the price of hospital care and higher education” has risen much faster than the cost of other goods is not an exogenous variable. Why do those costs rise so much faster? Because the government purchases them, reducing or eliminating the normal effects of supply, demand, and competition.

The Cost of Government

Posted by David Boaz

In today’s Washington Post Lawrence Summers demonstrates with mathematics that you can’t shrink the federal government — as long as (he doesn’t say) you don’t change the tasks you assign to it. True enough, if the government is still going to engage in “sustained deployments” of our military across the globe, and provide retirement income and health care to tens of millions of people, then the size of government isn’t going to shrink. But surely those are the issues we should be debating.

Michael Cannon below notes another key point in Summers’s argument:

[I]ncreases in the price of what the federal government buys relative to what the private sector buys will inevitably raise the cost of state involvement in the economy. Since the early 1980s the price of hospital care and higher education has risen fivefold relative to the price of cars and clothing, and more than a hundredfold relative to the price of televisions.

I would elaborate on Michael’s response. The fact that “the price of hospital care and higher education” has risen much faster than the cost of other goods is not an exogenous variable. Why do those costs rise so much faster? Because the government purchases them, reducing or eliminating the normal effects of supply, demand, and competition. I wrote about this in a 1994 article reprinted in my book The Politics of Freedom responding to an argument made by the economist William Baumol and the scholar-statesman Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

Moynihan identifies a number of services afflicted with Baumol’s disease: “The services in question, which I call The Stagnant Services, included, most notably, health care, education, legal services, welfare programs for the poor, postal service, police protection, sanitation services, repair services . . . and others.” He points out that many of those are provided by government and posits that “activities with cost disease migrate to the public sector.”

But maybe he has it backwards. Maybe activities that migrate to the public sector become afflicted with cost disease. The conservative magazine National Review, which, surprisingly, seems to accept Moynihan’s thesis, has inadvertently supplied us with some evidence on this point.

Ed Rubinstein, National Review‘s economic analyst, writes, “For more than three decades health-care spending has grown faster than national income. . . . The trend in health-care costs is no different from that of other services.” He cites education and auto repair as examples. However, the numbers Rubinstein provides don’t support his–or Moynihan’s–point. Look at the accompanying figure.

The cost of auto repair, a service provided almost entirely in the private sector, has barely outpaced inflation. The cost of medical care increased twice as fast as inflation. Government’s share of medical spending increased from 33 percent in 1960, when the chart begins, to 53 percent in 1990. Meanwhile, the cost of education, almost entirely provided by government, increased three times as fast as inflation–despite the constant complaints about underfunded schools.

The lesson is clear: Services provided by government are afflicted with Baumol’s disease in spades. Services provided in the private sector, where people spend their own money, are much less likely to soar in cost.

Medical care is a good area in which to test this theory because over the past 30 years it has been paid for in three different ways: out-of-pocket spending by consumers; insurance payments, mostly provided by employers; and government payments. As out-of-pocket spending declines in importance, medical inflation heats up. And private-sector spending on medical care rose only 1.3 percent a year between 1960 and 1990, while government spending rose more than three times as fast–4.3 percent a year.

When services are provided privately, and consumers can decide whether to purchase them, or choose another provider, or do without, there’s a powerful incentive to improve productivity and keep costs down. Stagnant productivity in government-run services reflects not so much Baumol’s disease as what we might call Clinton’s disease, the notion—even now, in 1994—that government can provide services more efficiently and cost-effectively than can the marketplace.

Now, I think Larry Summers knows this. He knows that when consumers don’t face full costs for services, they tend to consume more of them without worrying about the cost. So he knows that these costs could come down, if only we moved these services into the market, or at least found ways to get consumers directly concerned with costs. He should rethink his claims about the inevitability of more expensive government. These realities are in fact choices, decisions that voters and taxpayers can change.

September 20, 2012 – 6:14 am Categories: Current Events, Healthcare | Post a comment

Tagged |