jv_coach

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

Chuck Collson said “It turns out the man who witnessed to me, Tom Phillips, then the president of the Raytheon company, had been converted at a Billy Graham Crusade at Madison Square in New York City in 1968. How unlikely are God’s ways. Here was the head of one of the largest corporations in America going forward with a stream of repentant sinners and then returning to his business where four years after I left the White House, I returned to be his Washington counsel. Phillips shared his faith with me at the darkest moment in my life. And from that encounter has come my experience in prison and then the launching of a ministry that is now active in 88 countries, reaching into literally thousands of prisons, touching countless hundreds of thousands of lives. This is how the gospel spreads: Graham to Phillips to Colson.”

Goober says hey Andy.
Hey to Goober.

I still watch the rifleman

Great post...from the article:
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.

Sorry coach, but I can't tell if this is real or a joke.  It should be a joke, but Maxine is uniquely qualified to have written this, word for word.  What a congressional embarrassment.

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

  I say this because too many people all over the world, America included, still focus on judging people by criteria other than character — and not just by skin color. It diminishes us as human beings when we do so, for character is ultimately more important than any other factor. It defines each of us. It’s what we’ll likely be remembered for more than anything else — and that’s as it should be, because character results from our choices in life and not from some accident of nature.
Yet, every day you see people being judged by others according to their political views, their place of origin, their personal faith, the way they dress or wear their hair, their sexual orientation, the school they attended, or any number of other irrelevant, unavoidable or unrevealing criteria.
As I’ve written elsewhere (especially in my small book, Are We Good Enough for Liberty?), character is what decides almost everything in your life, from how you regard yourself to how you relate to others to whether or not you’ve added or subtracted from society as a whole by the time you’re done on this earth. Why waste your life judging yourself or others by things that ultimately don’t matter?
I think Dr. King would want Black History Month to be celebrated in ways that unite us rather than divide us. Though one race is the focus of the month, I believe he would want us to celebrate the best values and the highest character of those black men and women all people should be proud of. It’s with that in mind that I’ve assembled this ebook anthology of 17 essays previously published by the Foundation for Economic Education.
 

Read this thinking mans article.

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

let me know when you get it.

I think that before we continue taking shots at our favorite targets, I think we need to step back and remember that these are not professional franchises that have barrels of money.  Most of the districts are ones who have very little in way of a tax base and must make what little they have stretch out to EVERY facet of the school district.
If WO-S is at the point where they can afford upgrades like those proposed, great.  But to rag on facilities without providing the means to correct it is disingenuous.
 

You seriously find the most interesting reads.  Thanks for sharing. 

well said.

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

Me too.  I loved the brothers aspect of the story but that sermon really hit home with me.  We have all been there with a loved one and felt helpless to do anything but love them.   “But we can still love them.  We can love completely, without complete understanding.”  Those words have stayed with me since the first time I saw this movie in college.  
The line from his father in the narration right before was pretty great as well. 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

The whole movie actually.

Since Dumb and Dumber was the movie we would watch every Thursday in (actually it was wensday but I keep mispelling that day) while in college( remember , I went to school on an athletic scholarship) my Junior year. This would be the second best movie scene in the history of cinema.
 
 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

Move along, citizen...nothing to see here.  

Sounds like a Wildcat infestation in Madionville's gym. 

I taught her how to block out, foul and miss freethrows. Everything else she learned on her own.

Or, at the very least, drinking water bottled in California.  Which of course should come with a warning that it affects your ability to think rationally.
 

One of the best. 

Funny how old people's minds work.  Sometimes you'll try to think of something, can't, then weeks later, Shazam.  Well pilgrim, this thread wouldn't be complete without this scene.
 
 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

  The Law of Scarcity tells us that all goods, services, and commodities are scarce, which means that there is not enough of any commodity, good, or service to meet all potential demand. There is a direct correlation between the quality and price of something, and the demand for it. As an example, as the quality of cars improves and price comes down, demand for cars goes up. If you gave Bentleys and Porshes away for free, the demand for Bentleys and Porshes would grossly outstrip any ability to build Bentleys and Porshes.
Whether we are talking about medical care, breakfast cereal, eggs, cars, or haircuts, the same Law of Scarcity applies. We will never have enough of anything to satisfy all of the demand we would see if things were free.
In real life, we have to make tradeoffs. We cannot have high quality, low pricing, and universal access to anything. It is impossible to pursue all three of those things at the same time. We can push for better quality and lower pricing, but only if those who do not pay the lower pricing have no access. We can push for universal access and high quality, but it would be prohibitively expensive. We can push for lower cost and universality, but the quality would be horrendous.
Somehow, many people do not understand the Law of Scarcity. Somehow, many people do not understand that it is impossible to meet all possible demand of any commodity, good, or service, and that as such, some mechanism must be used to balance supply and demand.
Price will balance supply and demand at any quality level, for as the quality of a good or service drops, people are less willing to pay for it. Universality is possible if one is willing to pay enough (through taxes) and reduce quality enough to limit demand to levels that can be supplied.
In politics, sadly enough, any honest politician has to admit that it is impossible to have universal, low cost, high quality, anything, but it is unfortunately very possible to make political promises that are not possible to keep, and the easiest way to get elected is to promise what it is not possible to deliver.
Scarcity is as much a scientific law as is gravity, and as with gravity, if we do not make tradeoffs, tradeoffs are imposed upon us by the Law of Scarcity.
It never ceases to amaze me how many intelligent people on the political left use their intelligence, not to try and determine what the best tradeoffs possible might be, but to try and rationalize scarcity away. When the public listens to these people, we get policies that ignore the Law of Scarcity, and that usually leads to a very limited supply of low quality, high cost goods and services. Contrast that to free markets, which throw universality to the wind, focusing solely on quality and price.
A free market will make the best tradeoffs possible, often meeting a large number of different quality points at different prices. A rich person may be willing to buy a Bentley, whereas a middle class person may settle for a Ford. Someone just starting out in their working life might have to buy a used car. All get as much car as they can, or are willing to, afford, but nobody can get a car without paying for it unless someone is willing to give them a car for free.
There is no reason why this mechanism cannot be used for healthcare, breakfast cereal, and everything else. Various products can be offered at various price points, to make all goods and services available to the maximum number of people at whatever price point makes the most sense for them. In healthcare, a rich person might want a private room, whereas a poor person might be willing to be in a ward. Both get quality healthcare, but the rich person gets bells and whistles the poor person cannot afford. We do not need to make these kinds of tradeoffs as a matter of policy, because the markets, when left alone, make these tradeoffs for us, based on public demand.
It is possible to have a rational discussion with those who understand the Law of Scarcity, but who disagree on what the optimal tradeoff might be, or who believe it is possible to force better tradeoffs than free markets would create. Reasonable people can have different values and backgrounds, and can disagree on the ramifications of the same set of facts all the time. It is however impossible to have a rational discussion with those who deny that the Law of Scarcity exists.
We can only build a better world if we are rational. We need to understand, and respect the Law of Scarcity. We need the best tradeoffs possible.
We need free markets.
 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

  The Law of Scarcity tells us that all goods, services, and commodities are scarce, which means that there is not enough of any commodity, good, or service to meet all potential demand. There is a direct correlation between the quality and price of something, and the demand for it. As an example, as the quality of cars improves and price comes down, demand for cars goes up. If you gave Bentleys and Porshes away for free, the demand for Bentleys and Porshes would grossly outstrip any ability to build Bentleys and Porshes.
Whether we are talking about medical care, breakfast cereal, eggs, cars, or haircuts, the same Law of Scarcity applies. We will never have enough of anything to satisfy all of the demand we would see if things were free.
In real life, we have to make tradeoffs. We cannot have high quality, low pricing, and universal access to anything. It is impossible to pursue all three of those things at the same time. We can push for better quality and lower pricing, but only if those who do not pay the lower pricing have no access. We can push for universal access and high quality, but it would be prohibitively expensive. We can push for lower cost and universality, but the quality would be horrendous.
Somehow, many people do not understand the Law of Scarcity. Somehow, many people do not understand that it is impossible to meet all possible demand of any commodity, good, or service, and that as such, some mechanism must be used to balance supply and demand.
Price will balance supply and demand at any quality level, for as the quality of a good or service drops, people are less willing to pay for it. Universality is possible if one is willing to pay enough (through taxes) and reduce quality enough to limit demand to levels that can be supplied.
In politics, sadly enough, any honest politician has to admit that it is impossible to have universal, low cost, high quality, anything, but it is unfortunately very possible to make political promises that are not possible to keep, and the easiest way to get elected is to promise what it is not possible to deliver.
Scarcity is as much a scientific law as is gravity, and as with gravity, if we do not make tradeoffs, tradeoffs are imposed upon us by the Law of Scarcity.
It never ceases to amaze me how many intelligent people on the political left use their intelligence, not to try and determine what the best tradeoffs possible might be, but to try and rationalize scarcity away. When the public listens to these people, we get policies that ignore the Law of Scarcity, and that usually leads to a very limited supply of low quality, high cost goods and services. Contrast that to free markets, which throw universality to the wind, focusing solely on quality and price.
A free market will make the best tradeoffs possible, often meeting a large number of different quality points at different prices. A rich person may be willing to buy a Bentley, whereas a middle class person may settle for a Ford. Someone just starting out in their working life might have to buy a used car. All get as much car as they can, or are willing to, afford, but nobody can get a car without paying for it unless someone is willing to give them a car for free.
There is no reason why this mechanism cannot be used for healthcare, breakfast cereal, and everything else. Various products can be offered at various price points, to make all goods and services available to the maximum number of people at whatever price point makes the most sense for them. In healthcare, a rich person might want a private room, whereas a poor person might be willing to be in a ward. Both get quality healthcare, but the rich person gets bells and whistles the poor person cannot afford. We do not need to make these kinds of tradeoffs as a matter of policy, because the markets, when left alone, make these tradeoffs for us, based on public demand.
It is possible to have a rational discussion with those who understand the Law of Scarcity, but who disagree on what the optimal tradeoff might be, or who believe it is possible to force better tradeoffs than free markets would create. Reasonable people can have different values and backgrounds, and can disagree on the ramifications of the same set of facts all the time. It is however impossible to have a rational discussion with those who deny that the Law of Scarcity exists.
We can only build a better world if we are rational. We need to understand, and respect the Law of Scarcity. We need the best tradeoffs possible.
We need free markets.