text:
debate about God
"Debate on the Evidences for Christianity" – Alexander Campbell vs. Robert Owen (1829) Part 1- Historical Apologetics Debates
Posted by J.W. Wartick ⋅ October 14, 2019 ⋅ 1 Comment
Alexander Campbell (1788-1866)
Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) was a Scots-Irish immigrant in the United States who debated Christianity with a few well-known skeptics. One of his best known debates was with Robert Owen (1771-1858), who argued in favor of agnosticism. This debate was published as "Debate on the Evidences of Christianity" (1829, see link for download). Here, will look at what answers Campbell gave and where his arguments might have been improved. Owen was a fine opponent whom Campbell himself acknowledged as a worthy scholar.
Debate on the Evidences for Christianity Part I
The debate begins with a rather lengthy back-and-forth in which Owen and Campbell confirm and re-affirm their desire to meet and discuss the evidences of Christianity. Yet even in Campbell's opening response to Owen's request for a confirmation of the reasons for the debate, Campbell begins to offer an apology. He states:
Why, then, do you say, apologize for bringing this subject into public debate? Because, in so doing, we may appear to concede that it is yet an undecided question sub judice [under judicial hearing/review]; or, at least, that its opponents have some good reason for withholding their assent to its truth, and their consent to its requirements. Neither of which we are, at this time, prepared to admit. (12-13)
In other words, Campbell apologizes to his audience for giving the possibility of putting "God in the dock," as the older phrase goes. But Campbell notes that Christians are to always have a reason and be prepared to defend their faith, so he presses on in his defense of Christianity.
Campbell then turns to the question of why skepticism is on the rise, a certainly on-point question in our own world. He argues that:
However this may be, for here we would not be dogmatical, we are assured that the progress of scepticism is neither owing to the weakness nor the paucity of the evidences of Christianity ; but to a profession of it unauthorized by, and incompatible with, the [C]hristian scriptures. (14)
Campbell's reasoning, then, is that skepticism is on the rise not because the arguments and evidence for Christianity is poor, but instead because those who profess Christianity are themselves hypocritical and live unChristian lives.
Then, Campbell states some of the positions he believes his opponent will be force to hold, like holding that humans are no more moral than bees. He also outlines how he would defend Christianity. Namely, he would start by arguing for the truth of revealed religion, then move to show historical evidence, then show the divine origin of Christianity, and finally try to show from the "actual condition of the world" and prophecies that Christianity is from the Creator (18).
The outline he gives on page 18 is particularly interesting for those interested in historical apologetics because it shows how arguments can go in and out of fashion over time. This is evident when one reads several works on the Deist Controversy, but also when one reads older works in general, one finds several arguments people of the time thought were interesting or compelling that we have little interest in. The same could be said in reverse–it is unlikely that some of the arguments modern apologists write about would find much sway in the 1800s. Cultural norms and expectations go into an apologetic just as much as do other factors.
For now, we'll leave off here, awaiting Owen's response to Campbell in this first part of the debate.
Do you think it would be possible to prove the divine origin of something? If so, how?
What do you think of Campbell's presentation of Owen's position?
Do you think that professing Christians today harm the witness of Christ? How might an apologist approach such a question?
Apologetics Read-Through: Historical Apologetics Read-Along– Here are links for the collected posts in this series and other read-throughs of apologetics books (forthcoming).
Dead Apologists Society– A page for Christians interested in the works of historical apologetics. There is also a Facebook group for it.
Debate Review: Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein
Posted by J.W. Wartick ⋅ July 30, 2012 ⋅ 47 Comments
Advocates of the presuppositional approach to Christian Apologetics have long hailed the debate between Greg Bahnsen (the late Christian theologian and apologist, noted for his achievements in presuppositional apologetics and development of theonomy–a view of the Law for Christians, pictured left) and Gordon Stein (the late secularist noted for his links to Free Inquiry among other things, pictured below, right) as a stirring triumph of presuppositional apologetics over atheism in a point-by-point debate. Recently, I listened to the debate and thought I would share my impressions here.
Debate Outline
Bahnsen Opening Statement
From the outset, it was clear this debate was going to be different from others I'd listened to or watched. Bahnsen outlined what he means by "God," outlined a few general points about subjectivism, and then quickly dove into a presuppositional type of argument. He began with an attack on the idea that all existential questions can be answered in the same way:
The assumption that all existence claims are questions about matters of fact, the assumption that all of these are answered in the very same way is not only over simplified and misleading, it is simply mistaken. The existence, factuality or reality of different kinds of things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case. [All quotes from the transcript linked below. My thanks to "The Domain for Truth" for linking this.]
Bahnsen then mounts an argument which is perhaps the most important innovation of presuppositional apologetics: the attack on neutrality. He notes that Gordon Stein in his writings puts forth a case for examining evidence in order to determine if God exists. He relies upon the laws of logic and seems to think that this avoids logical fallacies. Yet, Bahnsen argues, Stein has just argued in a circle as well. By presupposing the validity of the laws of logic and other forms of reasoning, he has fallen into the trap he has stated he is trying to avoid. As such, Stein's outlook is not neutral but it is colored by his presuppositions. Bahnsen notes:
In advance, you see, Dr. Stein is committed to disallowing any theistic interpretation of
nature, history or experience. What he seems to overlook is that this is just as much begging the question on his own part as it is on the part of the theists who appeal to such evidence. He has not at all proven by empirical observation and logic his pre commitment to Naturalism. He has assumed it in advance, accepting and rejecting all further factual claims in terms of that controlling and unproved assumption.
Now the theist does the very same thing, don't get me wrong. When certain empirical
evidences are put forth as likely disproving the existence of God, the theist regiments his
commitments in terms of his presuppositions, as well.
Therefore, what Bahnsen presses is that it is only on the Christian theistic presupposition that things like the laws of logic, the success of empirical sciences, and the like can make sense. He makes the transcendental argument for the existence of God:
we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything.
Gordon Stein Opening Statement
Stein opens by clarifying what he means by "atheist": "Atheists do not say that they can prove there is no God. Also, an atheist is not someone who denies there is a God. Rather, an atheist says that he has examined the proofs that are offered by the theists, and finds them inadequate."
Stein then argues that the burden of proof is definitely in the theist's court. He goes on to address a number of theistic proofs and finds them wanting. In fact, the rest of his opening statement is spent addressing 11 separate arguments for the existence of God, including the major players like the moral, cosmological, and teleological arguments.
Cross Examination 1
In the first cross-examination, Bahnsen asked Stein whether the laws of logic were material or immaterial. Stein finally, quietly, admits that the laws of logic are not material. Yet then Stein turns around and in his own cross examination presses triumphantly a point he thinks will be decisive. He asks Bahnsen, "Is God material or immaterial"; Bahnsen responds, "Immaterial."; after a brief segway, Stein poses the following question which, by the tone of his voice, he seems to think carries some weight: "Apart from God, can you name me one other thing that is immaterial?" To this question, Bahnsen responds quickly, "The laws of logic." The crowd erupts. Stein lost that one.
First Rebuttal: Bahnsen
Bahnsen spends most of his rebuttal arguing that the laws of logic are not mere conventions, and that Stein cannot make them such. If Stein does, then, argues Bahnsen, he can't actually participate in a logical debate, because they could each declare a convention in which they each win the debate.
He goes on to re-stress the transcendental argument and point out that Stein failed to address it. He develops it a bit further by attacking the notion that an atheistic worldview can make sense of logic:
And that's because in the atheistic world you cannot justify,you cannot account for, laws in general: the laws of thought in particular, laws of nature,cannot account for human life, from the fact that it's more than electrochemical complexesin depth, and the fact that it's more than an accident. That is to say, in the atheist conceptionof the world, there's really no reason to debate; because in the end, as Dr. Stein has said, allthese laws are conventional. All these laws are not really law-like in their nature, they're just,well, if you're an atheist and materialist, you'd have to say they're just something that happensinside the brain.
But you see, what happens inside your brain is not what happens inside my brain.
Stein First Rebuttal
Stein argues that laws of logic are indeed conventions, saying:
The laws of logic are also consensuses based on observations. The fact that they can predict something correctly shows they're on the right track, they're corresponding to reality in some way.
Oddly, Stein continues to act as though Bahsnen's argument was a variety of cosmological argument. He argues that before we can ask "what caused the universe" we must ask whether the universe is actually caused. He then tries to address the argument more explicitly, saying that it is "nonsense" and that various cultures do indeed have different logic. His most direct argument against the trasncendental argument is that "If matter has properties that it behaves than we have order in the universe, and we have a logical, rational universe without God."
Debate Segment Two
Stein Opening 2
Stein argues that the problem of evil is an evidential argument against the existence of God. He states that it raises the probability that there is no God. He asserts that there is no physical evidence for God. Stein then argues that God has not provided evidence for his existence, but that He should do so. Finally, he turns to the problem of religious diversity, asking why God would allow other religions if there is only one God.
Bahnsen Opening 2
Bahnsen argues that Stein placing the laws of logic into a matter of consensus undermines their usefulness and in fact defeats the purpose of rational inquiry and debate. He argues further that Stein's definition of laws of logic within pragmatic terms doesn't come close to the extent of the laws of logic.
Stein Rebuttal
Stein argues that bahnsen hasn't actually done anything to explain the laws of logic. He argues that simply saying they are the thoughts of God doesn't mean anything, and that it does nothing to explain them. He therefore argues that Bahnsen fails to provide an adequate explanation for the facts of the universe.
Bahnsen Rebuttal
Bahnsen presses the point that Stein's entire system is based upon presuppositions which he cannot justify. Induction is undermined in an atheistic worldview because there is no reason to believe that things will continue to happen as they do currently happen. He briefly addresses the problem of evil by saying that within an atheistic universe there simply is no evil, so it makes no sense from Stein's perspective to press that issue.
Closing Statement: Stein
Stein's closing statement seems to be more of a rebuttal than anything. He argues that there can be evil defined in an atheistic universe as that which decreases the happiness in people. Yet even this, he says, "We don't know"–we don't know that there is evil in an atheistic universe, rather it is a consensus and pragmatically useful.
He argues that we can know about induction because of statistical probability: it is highly improbable that the future will be different from the past because it has been similar in activity to the past for as long as we know.
Closing Statement: Bahnsen
Bahnsen finally presses the transcendental one last time. He argues that while Stein has called it hogwash and useless, he hasn't actually responded to it. Bahnsen states that once more the atheistic worldview can't make sense of itself. For example, saying the future will be like the past due to probability begs the question: there is nothing in the atheistic worldview to say that probability can help determine what the future will be like. It might work pragmatically, but it fails to give any explanation. Finally, Bahnsen argues that you cannot be a rational, empirical human being an an atheistic universe.
Analysis of the Debate
It is abundantly clear throughout this debate that the presuppositionalist takes a very different approach to debate and apologetics than those from other methods. One can see this immediately when Gordon Stein delivers his opening statement, which was presumably prepared beforehand, and goes to answer common theistic arguments like the cosmological and teleological argument. But Bahnsen never once used either of these arguments, and took an entirely different approach. I think this initially caught Stein off guard and that impression remained throughout the debate.
Stein's responses to Bahnsen were extremely inadequate. This became very clear in their debate over induction and empiricism. For example, although Stein held that he could say the future will be like the past based upon probability, he had no way to say that the world was not spontaneously created 5 minutes ago with implanted memories and the notion that the future will be like the past. Bahnsen didn't make this argument, but it seems like it would line up with his reasoning. Of course, he would grant that the theist has to presuppose that God exists in order to make sense of induction, but that was exactly his point: without God, nothing can be rational.
I found it really interesting that Stein kept insisting that the laws of logic are mere social conventions. He kept pressing that some cultures do not hold that they are true as defined. But of course, cultural disagreement about a concept doesn't undermine the truth value of a concept. If, for example, there were a culture that insisted that 2+2=5, that wouldn't somehow mean that 2+2=4 is a logical convention, it would mean the culture who insisted the sum was 5 would be wrong. Similarly, the laws of logic may be disagreed upon by some, but to deny them is to undermine all rationality.
Overall, I have to say I was shocked by how this debate turned out. I have long been investigating presuppositional apologetics and continually wondered how it would work in an applied situation. It seems to me that to insist on a presupposition in order to debate would not work, but Bahnsen masterfully used the transcendental argument to reduce Stein to having to argue that logic is merely a social convention while ironically using logic himself to attack theism.
It seems to me that this debate showed what I have suspected for some time: presuppositional apologetics is extremely powerful, when used correctly. Now I'm not about to become a full-blown presuppositionalist here. My point is that it is another approach Christians can use in their witnessing to those who do not believe. I envision a synthesis of presuppositional apologetics with evidentialism. Some may say this is impossible, that they are anathema to each other, but I do not think so. They can be used in tandem: the presuppositional approach to question the worldview of others, while the evidentialist approach can be used to support the notion that the Christian worldview provides the best explanation for the data we have.
Listen to the debate yourself. Get it here. The transcript I used was also from this page. Thanks to the author for such a great resource.
I've been researching and writing about presuppositional apologetics. For other posts about presuppositional apologetics, check out the category.
I highly recommend starting with the introduction to the most important thinker in the area, Cornelius Van Til.
Choosing Hats– A phenomenal site which updates fairly regularly with posts from a presuppositional approach (the author uses the term "covenental apologetics"). The best place to start is with the post series and the "Intro to Covenental Apologetics" posts.
The Domain for Truth– Another great presuppositionalist web site. I highly recommend browsing the topics here.
William Lane Craig vs. Peter Millican- Thoughts and Links
Posted by J.W. Wartick ⋅ October 27, 2011 ⋅ 17 Comments
Theistic philosopher of religion William Lane Craig recently debated Atheistic Philosopher Peter Millican on the topic "Does God exist?" I daresay this was one of the most interesting debates I've heard. Millican came in with a clear strategy, and the debate covered an extreme range of topics. The friendly nature of the debate was also quite rewarding to hear. Clearly, we can have such discussions without attacking each other. Anyway, to the outline and analysis.
Craig Opening
Craig began by outlining the topic: Does God exist? The topic can be answered as yes or no. Craig argued for the former, and left the latter to Millican.
First, he argued philosophically against an infinite past. This argument would become quite important throughout the debate so I'll outline it briefly. If we had an infinite number of coins, each with a number upon them, and took away ten, the number of coins would still be infinite. If we took away all the even coins, we'd have subtracted an infinite number of coins, and still, there would be an infinite number of coins. If, however, we subtracted all the coins above 3, we'd have subtracted infinite from infinite, and be left with 3 coins, not infinite coins. Craig argued that this is obviously a contradiction because despite subtracting the same amount (or different amounts) we can come up with two different answers (or the same answer). Therefore the past cannot be infinite.
Craig also argued scientifically that the universe began by bringing up the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin theory which shows that irregardless of theories about the multiverse, bubble universes, and the like, the universe had a beginning.
He then presented the Kalam cosmological argument, though with a slight twist. He instead presented it as "The universe began to exist; if the universe began to exist, then it has a transcendent cause; therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause."
He then argued the fine-tuning argument. There are a number of conditions of the universe which have been fine-tuned within a narrow range for the existence of life. Because of this, argued Craig, we can conclude the universe was designed.
Objective morality also necessitates the existence of God, argued Craig. The argument was based upon two major conditions: that objective morals exist, and that they cannot if there is no God. He quoted atheist philosopher Michael Ruse who said (in part): "morality is just an aid to survival" on naturalism.
Yet our moral experience leads us to believe that morality is indeed objective, and we know that, on naturalism, there is no ontological basis for morals. Thus, God exists.
Three facts must be explained by those who argue Jesus did not rise from the dead, and any theory must answer all of them: 1) the empty tomb; 2) on different occasions and settings to different people, Jesus appeared alive; 3) disciples showed a sudden belief that Jesus had risen, despite every predisposition to the contrary.
Craig noted that these three facts are agreed upon by New Testament scholars–both theists and non.
Finally, Craig argued for the experiential awareness of God.
Millican Opening
Millican used a different strategy here. Rather than immediately rebutting Craig's arguments, as most have done in debates with Craig (although, notably, Stephen Law did not either in his debate with Craig), Millican argued against the method used first.
Christianity, he stated, is a hypothesis about reality. It makes a claim about what reality is. Therefore, the burden of proof lands squarely upon the theist.
He argued that people are primed for belief in gods. They have a "permiscuous teleology" which seeks for design. Furthermore, the dominant determinant of religious orientation is place of birth.
Before one could accuse Millican of the genetic fallacy (I actually wrote this on the side of my notes), he stated that he was not arguing these disprove God. Rather, he argued that if a method leads to variant beliefs, then it should discredit the method.
He then turned to rebutting Craig's arguments. He said that quantum mechanics has shown that particles can come into existence out of nothing (note that he did indeed use the word "nothing" here). He furthermore argued that in our experience, we only see physical things being rearranged, not coming into existence ex nihilo. He argued that our experience must establish these truths.
He also cited Vilenkin, in a letter, stating that his theorem did not show the universe had a beginning.
Regarding the moral argument, he asked "what is objective?" He said that based upon how one defines this, one could have different answers about objective morality.
Craig First Rebuttal
Craig noted that Millican's attempt to put all burden of proof on the theist didn't work, because they also make a claim about reality: "There is no God." This claim needs support as well, and Millican did not support it.
Regarding Millican's claim about method, Craig responded that his method is logic, evidence, and personal experience–the same things which the scientific method relies upon. Thus, if the method yields God's existence, it is not to be distrusted but embraced by those who value the latter method.
Not only that, but Millican's argument seemed to suggest that religions all used the same methodology in reaching their truth claims, which is highly contentious and definitely untrue. Religions use a broad array of methods in how they discover truth.
Craig argued that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only if we should expect more proof than there is should we be in doubt of the existence of something due to absence of evidence. Furthermore, argued Craig, he presented a great wealth of evidence already.
Craig then quoted Vilenkin's letter in context. Vilenkin wrote that the beginning could be avoided only if one allowed for a contracting universe, but that this was highly unlikely and would have prevented the expansion of the universe. Thus, Vilenkin said, if he were to give a short answer to the question "Does your theory imply the beginning of the universe?" the answer would be yes. I should note that Millican dropped Vilenkin faster than Dawkins runs from Craig after this quote was read.
Craig then argued that the unembodied mind is hinted at our own experience. Furthermore, epiphenominalism simply cannot ground reality as we experience it.
Finally, regarding the moral argument, Craig asked why we should value humans and not chimps.
Millican First Rebuttal
Millican responded to the fine-tuning argument by saying that perhaps we may explain these evidences later. Further, we can't base it all upon current physics, which may change. He also argued that there is difficulty with using the probability argument because our only sample is our current universe. God, argued Millican, would have been greatly inefficient if he made the universe as he did.
He briefly touched on the evil god thesis (as seen in the Law debate) and argued that the evidences could work for an evil deity.
Millican also suggested we should expect more evidence–why can't there be more evidence for the existence of God?
Regarding the philosophical argument about the beginning of the universe, Millican noted that transfinite math does not allow for subtraction or addition because it yields diverse answers. Thus, he stated, Craig's argument is confused.
He also conceded that the quantum vaccuum is not nothing, which was interesting considering he had literally used that word for it in his opening statement. He pressed his point, however, by stating that it is the closest we can come to nothing in our experience.
Unfortunately, Millican ran short on time and couldn't respond to all Craig's points.
Craig Second Rebuttal
Craig argued there are still no good reasons to support the contention "there is no God." Furthermore, Millican's response to the "absence of evidence" argument was just a personal opinion: 'I think there should be more.'
God's 'inefficiency' presupposes a God-as-engineer, argued Craig. One would have to be limited on time or resources in order to be compelled towards efficiency–limits God obviously does not have. God might be better compared to an artist or chef–enjoying the creation and beauty as he designed the universe.
The philosophical argument about infinites is problematic for Millican, argued Craig. The reason is because while we can slap the hand of a mathematician who tries to do so with abstract math, we can't do the same thing in real life. If we literally had infinite coins, we couldn't prevent someone from taking one away, and leading to the absurdities. In fact, Millican essentially demonstrated the point: such things are excluded in transfinite math because they are absurd, and so can't happen in the real world.
Millican's argument that the fine-tuning argument depends only on current physics illustrates Craig's point exactly, countered Craig. Namely, that current physics supports the existence of God.
Millican Second Rebuttal
Millican argued that it doesn't follow that if epiphenominalism is false, dualism is true. I think it's really unfortunate the debate was so short–it would be interesting to see their views on this matter face off. He argued statistically that there are many moral realists who are not theists.
Why shouldn't an atheist believe in objective moral values? asked Millican. There's no good reason they can't detect them and experience them. Further, we can value humans because they're rational, and the same species.
Finally, he argued that scholars like Bart Ehrman had undermined the evidence for the resurrection by showing that the Gospels weren't independent and unreliable.
Craig Conclusion
Craig noted there still was no good argument for atheism and that he'd presented good arguments for theism.
Bart Ehrman and the others Millican cited actually agree with the three facts Craig used to support the resurrection, so there was still no counter to that argument.
Craig noted that rationality doesn't serve as an objective cut off point for morals. Sam Harris argued that sentience is. On atheism, argued Craig, there is no non-arbitrary line at which to base morality. Why should we value rationality? Why value humans more than chimps? Again, the line is arbitrary. The fact that many atheistic philosophers believe in realism of morality doesn't show that it has grounds ontologically in atheism.
Millican Conclusion
Millican said there are many theories of how objective reality can be established on atheism.
He argued that physics may change and so we can't base the existence of God upon current physics.
Finally, regarding evil, Millican said that our empirical evidence should lead us to doubt whether God exists. What should we see if there is a God? Certainly not this much suffering.
[Millican also argued throughout that there is no experiential evidence for things coming into being out of nothing, so that the causal premise of the Kalam is undermined. I forgot to write down where he started this argument, but wanted to make note of it here.]
The debate was great. There were so many topics covered, it was a whirlwind.
Millican's refutations of the Kalam were dramatically undercut by Craig. His citation of Vilenkin was just utterly demolished when Craig read the rest of the passage. His arguments about how we can't add or subtract from infinity merely demonstrated Craig's point: that it is absurd to suppose actual infinites exist. Regarding the causal premise, Craig argued in the debate that Millican would have to hold there was no essential or material cause for the universe, an argument to which Millican never had a response. To be fair, this may have been due to time.
I thought Millican's response the fine-tuning argument was quite strange. Certainly, physics may change, but that doesn't mean we can't trust what we know now. As Craig argued, physicists today are quite convinced of the trustworthiness of physics. Further, Craig responded to the probabilistic argument by showing that we do indeed know the probability–despite the sample size. There is simply a life-permitting range for the values cited, so we can be justified in holding the fine-tuning argument to be true.
The moral argument was another point of contention. I don't think Millican really undermined it. He merely referenced that atheists think they can have objective moral values, and questioned the meaning of the word "objective." Interestingly, in the Q&A, Craig responded to Millican's confusion: "That's why I defined it."
The resurrection definitely didn't get defeated. Millican's deferment to Ehrman and the like actually justified Craig's 3 facts approach, because the scholars he cited affirmed the three facts.
Overall, I think Millican did much better than Law and definitely better than Harris or Krauss in those debates which I reviewed. That said, Craig still established the existence of God–at least as best can be done in under an hour to speak. Millican's objections were interesting, but ultimately defeated by Craig. I think it's fair to say that this debate showed, once more, that in the forum of rational inquiry, theism has an upper hand.
Check out the audio of the debate at Apologetics 315. Also see their awesome feed which features tons of Craig's debates.
See Wintery Knight's summary of the debate.
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Sam Harris vs. William Lane Craig: Thoughts and Links
Posted by J.W. Wartick ⋅ April 8, 2011 ⋅ 80 Comments
The debate I've been hyping to friends and family happened tonight: Sam Harris, one of the "New Atheists" and author of the books The Moral Landscape, Letter to a Christian Nation, and The End of Faith went up against William Lane Craig, one of my favorite living philosophers. Craig has a PhD in philosophy, as well as a ThD. He's written extensively on philosophy of religion, apologetics, and time. He's the author and editor of too many books to list, but they include The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Reasonable Faith, and Time and Eternity. The topic of the debate was "Is Good from God?"
I wanted to share some links for all of you, along with my thoughts about the debate.
Audio of debate here.
Video of the debate here.
Craig rebuts Harris' allegation of misquotations here.
Craig's brief post-debate impressions here.
Craig's thoughts on his strategy in the debate here.
Another analysis of the debate here.
See Wintery Knight's summary of the debate here.
More links will be posted as I find them.
Analysis of Debate
It is important to note that the topic of the debate is "Is Good from God?" The topic is not "Does God exist?" Nor is it "Is the God of the Old Testament Evil?" Remember this. Also, my apologies in advance for my tense shift throughout. It's almost 2AM and I'm tired.
Craig's opening statement started with him asserting he'd maintain two propositions
I. If God exists, then we have a solid foundation for objective moral values.
He backed this contention up by saying that it is true even if God does not exist, because it is a conditional statement ("If God exists…"). Further, he argued that God's nature provides the standard against which all moral vales are measured. Important: Note that here Craig is not arguing that objective moral values are grounded in arbitrary commands from God, rather, Craig argues that God is the standard against which morals are judged. It would be true to say God is good simpliciter.
As far as moral duties are concerned, it is these which are constituted by God's commands, however that does not mean the commands are arbitrary, but rather grounded in the essential nature of God.
Craig's second contention was:
II. If God does not exist, then there is no strong foundation for objective moral values.
He argued:
1) Why think that human beings have objective moral worth? On atheism, humans are merely "accidental byproducts" of naturalistic evolution. What therefore would mean that humans are more valuable than hyenas, other primates, rocks, etc.?
2) He quotes Michael Ruse, an atheistic philosopher, who points out that morality is, on atheism, illusory. It is a mere socio-biological convention. And to think that morality is objective is simply false. He also quotes Dawkins as saying that we are just machines for propagating DNA. On such a view, how can we be objectively valuable?
3) Craig argues that Harris simply redefines good in nonmoral terms. He argues by stipulation that "well-being" = good, which is to beg the question. Craig argues that Harris has provided no reason to equate the two, and in fact has no grounds from which to do so.
4) Natural science only shows what "is" not what "ought" to be. It can only describe actions, not prescribe them.
5) Harris explicitly denies free will within his writing and so it seems impossible for there to be any culpability for actions. How can someone have "ought" applied to them if they are not free to make choices about their actions?
Harris Opening
Harris begins by noting, as did Craig, the areas of agreement. He agrees that to deny objective morality can lead to some horrific views, and he uses anecdotes to support this claim. Craig and Harris seem to agree that objective morality is something necessary for meaning in the universe. I find no contention with this part of Harris' discussion.
He goes on to argue that there are "facts" and there are "values." He argues that science can move from the subjective facts to objective values, although I found his argument here unclear.
Finally, he gets to the point where he specifically outlines his view, which is based upon the well-being of conscious creatures.
Harris argues that "If the word 'bad' applies, it is 'wrong.'" Further, "The minimum standard of moral goodness is to avoid the most possible misery for everyone." Harris asks us to envision a world in which every conscious being was suffering to the maximum possible extent. He says that this is obviously bad (= wrong) and so we can scientifically determine what is good by working towards the well-being of conscious creatures.
At this point in my notes I wrote "Why?" next to the quotes from Harris. And I think that is exactly the problem. Thus far, Harris has done a good job outlining what he thinks is wrong, but he hasn't done anything to say why it is wrong, other than by stipulating that it is wrong.
Harris goes on to argue that
1) Questions of right and wrong depend upon minds
2) Minds are natural phenomena
3) Therefore, morality can be understood by science because we can study minds
Against Harris, I would note that each of these premises are contentious, and he doesn't argue within the debate to support any of them. First, premise 1) is questionable because it actually goes against the nature of objective morality. If something is objectively wrong, even were there no minds in the universe, the action would still be wrong. Here Harris makes the mistake of thinking that because minds make moral judgments, moral judgments are dependent upon minds. I think that is false, and it needs argumentation to support.
Second, premise 2) assumes physicalism, which is the position that our minds are wholly composed of matter, and there is no non-physical property of mind. I've argued against this position elsewhere (see for example, my posts here and here). But the thing is that Harris simply takes 2) as given. To be fair to Harris, this is a debate so he hardly has the time to make a substantive case for physicalism. My point here is that Harris' argument hardly establishes his conclusion–there is a lot of footwork to be done to establish 1) or 2). I think that both have serious difficulties and are generally non-starters.
Finally, Harris briefly asserts that the God of the Old Testament is evil.
Craig's first rebuttal began with him summing up his contentions I and II above. He points out that Harris didn't attack either contention directly.
Craig points out that the debate is not about Old Testament ethics, but cites Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? for those interested in the topic.
Harris in particular did not argue against contention I at all, so Craig turns his guns against Harris' assertions about objective morality on atheism.
First, Craig asks "If atheism is true, what makes flourishing of conscious creatures objectively good?" He goes on to say "They might like to flourish" but that does not provide an objective reason to ground morality in their well-being.
Second, Harris admits that it is possible for rapists/murderers to be happy (in a state of well-being) to the point of being a "peak" in his "moral landscape." But if that is the case, then an objectively evil entity, on Harris' account, could occupy the peak of the moral landscape, which would entail a contradiction, because an objectively bad person was viewed as an objectively good thing/state of affairs. I found this particularly powerful to refute Harris, and I liked how the camera shifted to him almost immediately after this statement by Craig. Harris did not look happy.
Finally, Craig argued that because Harris denies freedom of the will, he can't actually hold that humans have any obligations whatsoever.
Harris Rebuttal 1
Harris started off by saying "that was very interesting." Fair enough.
Then he says, "Ask yourselves what is wrong with spending eternity in hell". As he continued along this line of reasoning, I wrote "Harris is curiously arguing against hell…?"
Basically, rather than trying to defend his view whatsoever from Craig's lucid attacks, Harris turned to the problem of evil. It was here that any doubt in my mind about this debate faded away. Harris made no attempt to defend his position, but rather argued that we have no way to know that Islam is not the true religion, on Craig's argument, and that the God of the Old Testament is evil. In other words, he abandoned the attempt to defend his position immediately upon the gaping holes Craig's rebuttal blew through it.
He also seems to have missed Craig's point that God is essentially good and instead argues against a straw man by asserting that God is not bound by duties, which Craig had already explicitly denied. Then Harris made some offhand remark about psycopathy and religion. He says that he can't think of a less moral framework than that of the God of the Old Testament.
Craig Rebuttal 2
Craig starts his response by saying, "The less moral framework is atheism!" because it is "not a framework!" Craig seems as baffled as I am that Harris didn't actually respond to any argument he had leveled against Harris' "landscape." Further, he points out that Harris is resorting to red herrings–Sam is trying to derail the debate into a discussion of the problem of evil and Old Testament ethics rather than a debate about whether atheism or theism can better ground objective morality.
Further, Craig notes Harris is totally wrong when he argues the goal of theism is to avoid hell. Rather, theism worships God because He, as the greatest possible being and source of our existence, etc., etc. is worthy of worship, not because of the desire to avoid hell. That is a simple misrepresentation of theism!
Interestingly, Craig also notes that all theists can utilize his contention I, whether they be Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or Christian (etc.). Remember this.
Harris finally attempts to defend his position by saying his position is defended because we "need only assume that the worst possible suffering" for every conscious being would be an objectively bad state of affairs. He says "My argument entails that we can speak objectively about a certain class of subjective facts" namely, moral values. So basically, his argument boils down to "Just believe that x is objectively bad, and my view works!"
Unfortunately, Harris once more gets sidetracked in trying to argue against the existence of God by asserting that the pluralistic nature of religions experience disproves religions. As I've noted elsewhere, a mere plurality of opinions does not entail the falsity of all.
Craig Closing Statement
Craig notes that God is the greatest conceivable being, so to ask "Why should we think God is good?" is like asking "Why are bachelors unmarried?"
Further, he points out that Harris has yet to answer the schoolyard question, "Why?" Why, on atheism, should we think that the worst possible state of affairs is objectively bad? We might not like it, but that doesn't ground it objectively.He closes by saying "All together now, 'says who?'"
Harris Closing
Again, Harris leads with an argument from religious diversity. He also complains that Craig's argument for a theistic ground of morality could equally be used by the Muslim, which is exactly correct. Craig said earlier that any theist could ground their morality on God.
Finally, Harris notes that just as we aren't losing any sleep over the fact that Muslims think we (Christians) are going to hell, he isn't losing any sleep over Christians thinking he is going to hell. But what kind of argument is this? Someone is unconcerned about a rival hypothesis, so we should think the rival is false? I mean, I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that Harris thinks the basis of my religion is psychosis, because I think it is ridiculous!
I simply can't ignore the Q and A from this one. Some of the questions were just silly, but the two that struck me were both asked of Harris. The first question was from someone who basically asked "If a God were proposed that would meet your [Harris'] definitions of objective morality, would you grant that he could ground morality?" Harris answered very well by saying yes, but then there would be no reason to propose God as the grounds for the morality, for one would have to grant Harris' account worked.
The second question was the kicker. The person asked, basically "You base objective morality on the an assumption that the worse possible world is bad, why think that is not subjective [based upon an arbitrary assumption]?" Harris answered the only way he could. He said we have to take it as axiomatic that it is objectively bad.
So basically, Harris admits that on his view, we must simply have faith that some things are objectively bad and that the well-being of conscious creatures is objectively good. We must simply assume that something is true, and that is to be our grounds for belief. As Harris put it, it is axiomatic, so it doesn't have to be justified. On such an account, then, belief in objective morals is, on atheism, a leap of faith–an ungrounded, unjustified (epistemically) leap. I'll have to be forgiven for thinking Harris failed to adequately defend his position.
Overall, I'd say Harris seemed to fare better than Lawrence Krauss in his debate with Craig (my analysis here), but upon thinking about it, I think Harris may have done far worse. The bottom line is Harris lined up atheism's best attempt to ground objective morality like a house made of building blocks. Craig came along and knocked them over. Then he laughed.


The lead article in the business section of yesterday's New York Times describes the VIX index (the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index) as "the Fear Index." The NYT's article explains that a "rising VIX is usually regarded as a sign that fear, rather than greed, is ruling the market." Although this may be the generally accepted nomenclature, it is misleading to describe what the VIX measures as indicative of the level of "fear" in the market.
The best way to understand the difference between what the VIX measures and our common sense notion of fear is through the use of an analogy. Think of the equity markets as a person driving along a curvy road. Suppose we ask that person: how curvy is the road up ahead? The driver answers: "the road gets much curvier up ahead." Now suppose that same person is driving along that same curvy road, and suddenly slows down. We ask the driver what happened, and he says: "all of a sudden I am not very comfortable driving around those curves at such a fast speed." Clearly the second scenario is much closer to our notion of an increase in fear than the first. Would it even be logical to conclude based on the first scenario that the driver had become more fearful? Perhaps the driver in the first scenario is simply acknowledging that the terrain is more challenging ahead.
Let me now translate this analogy into finance terms. The VIX measures how curvy people expect the road ahead will be, not how fast people are willing to drive. But it is the willingness to drive quickly on a curvy road which comports with our sense of what it means to be more or less fearful. The metric that tracts the willingness to drive quickly is the return that the marginal investor demands in exchange for holding a risky asset, which is the equity risk premium. In an earlier post on this blog I discussed how a stock market crash can be explained in terms of a sudden increase in the equity risk premium demanded by the marginal investor. This would be analogous to the average driver suddenly choosing to drive much slower, a choice made because of an increase in fear. Such a change, which would be matched by a dramatic drop in the value of equities, provides a better measure of an increased level of "fear" in the market than the VIX index.
Though the more accurate metric, there are certain limitations in using the marginal investor's equity risk premium as an indicator of the level of "fear" in the market. First, no index exists to measure the marginal investor's willingness to hold risky assets at a given time. Thus, this metric proves useless in generating a number that can be tracked by CNBC. Second, in early finance work the equity risk premium was assumed to be fixed over time, suggesting that the level of fear in the market was essentially static. However, the assumption of a fixed equity risk premium was largely used for simplification, and financial economists now reject the assumption that the equity premium does not change. We should not use the VIX as a measure the level of "fear" in the market, as it only leads to a misinterpretation of attitudes toward risk in the market.


Today is my day to post at the Cricut FANatic blog!
So, I thought I would do a little special Halloween decorating of Me And Ashlyn!
I have wanted to make my own paper beads for a while now, and when I flipped through the DCWV The Bewitched Stack I knew it was time.
I chose two patterned papers, a glitter polka dot paper and the gorgeous orange glitter cardstock. Love it!
I used CCR to stretch a simple triangle from the George cartridge for my beads.
I made two different sizes one being 1.5″ wide and the other .75″ wide.
The length of your triangle will determine the thickness of your bead.
I used a kitchen skewer to wrap the paper around and glued the ends with Glossy Accents.
I set them aside to dry for a few hours.
I dug into the wonderful collection of Blue Moon Beads that DCWV sent me to make my jewelry. Thanks DCWV!!
I must share that these were super easy and fun to make.
I even made all those paper beads without gluing my fingers together. Yippee!
And even better was the fact that my teenage daughter was actually a little excited to try the jewelry on.
She even smiled while wearing them. Double Yippee!!
This is really a fun way to use paper! Really cute and I love the way you photographed it on a pumpkin—great idea!
I have been making paper beads for years and find the cutting tedious. I've used CCR for just about a month and have this cartridge. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING TWO AND TWO TOGETHER FOR ME!!!!


We are pleased to have joined the national campaign to tackle funeral poverty and pledged to provide a fair deal for local people on low incomes.
Funeral poverty exists when the cost of a funeral is beyond a person's ability to pay. One in seven people now experience serious financial difficulty when paying for a funeral and the cost of dying has risen ten times faster than the cost of living. Over the past ten years the cost of a basic funeral has more than doubled – from an average of £1,920 to £3,897.
White Rose Modern Funerals have signed up to the Fair Funerals pledge to help tackle this problem.
We believe funerals should be affordable for all and that funeral costs should be more transparent. There is no reason why funerals have to be expensive and lower cost options should always be offered up front. As a direct cremation specialist, at White Rose we help our clients minimise the unnecessary costs, whilst ensuring a beautiful and meaningful way to say goodbye.
Next PostWhat is a Direct Cremation?


Here at Cape Girardeau Honda, we value our community, and want to ensure that we do everything that we can to ensure that it and the people in it are thriving. Community involvement is important to us at in Cape Girardeau, and we want to do what we can to make a positive difference in our community. Whether that includes offering citizens in the Jackson area with quick and easy access to high quality Honda vehicle at an affordable price, or assisting in sponsoring a local event, we want to do what we can to lend a helping hand.
Cape Girardeau Honda prides itself on being active in the Jackson-area community. Over the past few years, we've done our best to play an active role in our community, providing help where we can with various sponsored events, assisting with a variety of different charities and more. We hope to use our position as a top-notch local Honda dealer and our convenient location in the main hub of southeast Missouri to use our resources to help our community flourish.
If you or your club, school or organization are hosting an event in the Cape Girardeau, Jackson City or Perryville area and are looking for a sponsor, or are looking to raise money for a local charity or cause, we'd love to help out! Just give us a call, contact us here on our site, or stop by and visit us directly here at our dealership, located at 385 Siemers Dr. in Cape Girardeau, MO. We'll be happy to provide you with more information about how your event can be sponsored by Cape Girardeau Honda.


In order to help NES emulator authors to update their code so that Pulsar (and PR8) will run on them properly I decided to try to put together this post to explain what the issues are.
Pulsar and PR8 both require 32KB of battery-backed RAM and SXROM seems to be the only configuration that allows this. SXROM is MMC1-based and is a combination of SOROM and SUROM, addressing both 512KB of PRG ROM and 32KB of PRG RAM according to this wiki article.
Please note: don't confuse SxROM with SXROM. SxROM (with a small 'x') is referring to the S- group of board/ROM configurations whereas SXROM (with a capital 'X') refers to a specific configuration.
To my knowledge, only two platforms correctly support this configuration. Nestopia (emulator) and PowerPak (development cartridge for use on NES hardware – though you do need the mapper update supplied with Pulsar and PR8).
Hopefully there is enough information here to allow other emulators to be updated.
Please use this post as a place to post questions or more/clearer/correct information.


Two weeks of low 20-degree temperatures overnights (unheard of in the Sacramento Valley), and there is not much left to show you in the garden.
It got an overdue drink this weekend – after the hoses thawed out. The forecast says the worst is behind us for a while.
the only birds that made an appearance today were stuffed.
two pups that arrived at Homeward Bound barely four months of age. They were accompanied by a very unwelcome guest: parvo. You can read their full story here. Suffice to say, they were blessed to have Homeward Bound guardian angels looking down on them. Most times, the prognosis is not good. A few weeks later, our miracle pups are healthy, happy and ready to roll.
Both went home this weekend, just in time for Christmas.
I can't think of a greater gift.
I will try to remember that, Judy! Thank you.
So happy they are well and have homes. Wonderful story.
I can't think of more wonderful news!! Were they adopted together or by separate families?
I love those "good dog" ornaments! They look like they were made with tender loving care! Did you make them?


text:
David Fincher Finally Addresses P.T. Anderson's Testicular Curse
TAGGED: movies | testicular cancer
Filmmakers carry with them a lot of grudges and big feelings. Hollywood is a competitive place, and there's not much room at the top. One of the most interesting and bizarre feuds of the last few decades came from Paul Thomas Anderson, the idiosyncratic director of films like Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood. Upon seeing David Fincher's cult classic Fight Club, Anderson had quite the reaction.
In a 2000 Rolling Stone interview, Anderson had some pretty intense words for the director, saying "I would love to go on railing about the movie, but I'm just going to pretend as if I haven't seen it. It's just unbearable. I wish David Fincher testicular cancer, for all of his jokes about it, I wish him testicular fucking cancer."
A subplot of Fight Club involves the main character attending a number of support groups, including one for testicular cancer where he meets supporting character Robert Paulson. Apparently Anderson didn't find this bit entertaining, and let the vitriol out. In a recent chat with the same magazine, Fincher addressed the issue.
The director claimed that he wasn't trying to make light of the condition, saying "Look, I've been through cancer with somebody that I love, and I can understand if somebody thought… I didn't think that we were making fun of cancer survivors or victims. I thought what Chuck was doing was talking about a therapeutic environment that could be infiltrated or abused. We were talking about empathy vampirism."
That's definitely a sensible explanation, but your mileage may vary. We wonder if it will be 20 more years before Anderson responds.
Read more at The A.V. Club.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home » Feature » "If I am approached for my songs to be 'recreated', my answer would be 'absolutely no!" – ghazal singer Pankaj Udhas
"If I am approached for my songs to be 'recreated', my answer would be 'absolutely no!" – ghazal singer Pankaj Udhas
Charakhadi, a tiny hamlet in the state of Gujarat, is the native to one the most famous family of ghazal singers in India. Born into a family of landlords, the Udhas brothers would venture out on a musical sojourn and etch their names in music history. One of them being, the ghazal legend Pankaj Udhas.
Most musicians would be handed a musical instrument in their childhood. This was not particularly the case in the Udhas household. Though their mother was passionate about singing, it was limited to festivals, family functions and wedding. Their father was the first in the family to receive musical training. He learnt the art from one of the musicians in the court of the Maharaj of Bhavnagar. After Independence and the implementation of a new constitution, he took up a job with the Government of India. This did not restrict his daily riyaaz of the 'ishraj'. This dedication to music was the first trigger which generated an interest in music among the brothers.
"The combination of our parents' interest in music worked on us and we developed a liking. The exposure to film music and mainly the radio were the other influences," recounted Pankaj.
The youngest of the 3 brothers, Pankaj would attend college functions in Rajkot where his brothers would sing. A young Pankaj was inquisitive and impressed by them but it was the tabla that fascinated him. He underwent formal training in the instrument at the Sangeet Natak Academy in Rajkot. It was here that he would be exposed to Hindustani vocals.
The film music of 1960s-70s was phenomenal in every aspect. There was a tremendous amount of poetry. The composers used a lot of ragas in the music. Bollywood music played a great part in Pankaj's development of interest. It was the legendary Begum Akhtar's voice that mesmerised him.
"She had an unusual voice which was apt for ghazal. I thought there was something very attractive in her singing and style. I probably did not understand what she sang at that time but she was the trigger for me taking up ghazals. She was the catalyst which made me think about this form of singing at a very young age," said Pankaj.
The ghazal singer then moved to Mumbai where his elder brother, Manhar, was singing with Kalyanji-Anandji. Kalyanji had advised Manhar to learn Urdu to have clear pronunciation and diction. Following Manhar's footsteps, a long haired, bell bottoms clad college going Pankaj approached his brother's teacher to learn Urdu. Reluctantly the teacher agreed and it made Pankaj's foundations stronger. It was a bigger driving force towards turning professional.
Gujarat has always had a big ghazal base. Poets like Mariz, Barkat Virani, Shahida were big names at a time. Gujarati ghazals also played its role in influencing Pankaj's musical ambitions.
"There are a lot of similarities between Urdu and Gujarati ghazals. The format is the same. I still listen to a lot of it. Somehow the attraction of singing Urdu ghazals was far more than Gujarati ghazals for me," quipped Pankaj.
Creating his signature style
The ghazal singer's debut was during the time when legends like Mehdi Hassan, Ghulam Ali, Jagjit Singh et.al were ruling the charts. Breaking the stereotype and exploring newer possibilities, in the realm of ghazals, was Pankaj's challenge. He took a rather unusual route while composing and presenting his songs. The traditional barriers and protocols were respected in the process but what emerged was a fresh new sound of ghazals.
"When I was working on composing the music for my first album, the selection of poetry was of paramount importance. I had a dear friend Sheikh Adam Abuwala from Ahmedabad who wrote in Gujarati and Urdu. We both figured out the selection process of poetry's for the album. We hit upon a ghazal 'Aap jinke khareeb hote hai' by a very old poet Noor Narvi. The ghazal was very simple yet poetic. That is when we decided that we will select poetry which is simple but at the same time conveys the meaning properly making it easy for a layman to understand. This is what set me apart from many other singers at that time," asserted Pankaj.
Pankaj's sound was lapped up by the audience. His rather 'popstar' like demeanour struck well with the younger lot of the time. Breaking the mould of a kurta-pyajama clad ghazal singer, Pankaj would be seen wearing a casual t-shirt over a pair of jeans. His performances were more energetic and livelier with an interactive audience. This image was not created by a marketing strategy, it was just a reflection of what the man was and is.
Keeping relevant with the changing times
Pankaj released a very 'different kind of ghazal album' titled, Stolen Moments in 1994. These were the times when India was changing. The markets had opened up to world music and the influences were clearly felt. The music channels were keen to beam only specific genres of music to live up to their 'music for the youth' policies.
"The music channels of those times were kind to me but my music did not fit in their company policies. I was irritated and I took it as a challenge. Also around that time there was a general decline in interest for ghazals in the younger generations. So I created my album Stolen Moments. I made it sound very contemporary with a specific approach that the younger lot would relate to it. The marketing team decided to do a video. The same music channels then beamed the video 10-15 times a day," smiled Pankaj.
From a ghazal singer to a pop star
The ghazal singer regained his popularity and was now playing 'cupid' to the children of his older fanbase. His simple work ethics and a keen sense of observation, saw his songs surging the charts. Pankaj was now labelled as a 'pop singer' from being a 'ghazal singer'.
This however is not the first time he had been 'labelled'.
Pankaj's discography as a ghazal singer includes songs which are socially relevant to highly romantic ones. Somehow down the line, he got known as the ghazal singer whose songs had to be played at a drinking session.
Urdu poetry and its metaphors
Urdu poetry has one element that really is a contrast. 'Sharaab' is considered a taboo but every Urdu poet has written about it. The biggest example would be the Iranian poet, Omar Khayyam. He wrote his entire body of work on alcohol. 'Sharaab' in Urdu poetry is basically an expression with many dimensions. The beauty of Urdu poetry is that when you recite a couplet, there is one layer which you will grasp immediately but if you think deep there are 100's of layers to that one couplet. Alcohol is basically used as a metaphor. It has never meant to be the physical alcohol in a bottle. But this may be beyond a layman's understanding.
"If you take my whole discography, songs about alcohol are not even 5% of it. What happened was a smart guy from the music label compiled a list of my songs based on alcohol from my various albums and released it under an album called 'Paimana' which became a big hit. He followed it with 'Maikhana' then 'Nasha'. It was commercial exploitation. It is very unfortunate for me to be labelled. I have to give a clarification to people even now that I do not particularly sing only on this subject," Pankaj pointed out.
'Recreations' and 'Covers'
Misfortune also carries fame and Pankaj is quite averse to it. His firm belief lies in creating original content that would get an artist adulation and fame. Pankaj's views on creating original content may get a mixed response in this age of 'recreations' and 'covers'. Good music is creativity. You like a song because it is well created.
"I might be from the old school of thought but I believe every creation should be an original. Over a period of time I have been disappointed that the whole approach towards creativity is diminishing. I have never been in favour of 'covers'. I am against it as I feel this country has a lot of talent and creativity. If I am approached for my songs to be 'recreated', my answer would be 'absolutely no!" said Pankaj.
Hardik Joshi
More articles here
2020.12.23The Gems We Lost in 2020
2020.12.21The Executive Shuffle – ErosSTX appoints Rajitta Hemwaani as Eros Music Business Head
2020.12.17Benny Dayal to Present Hits by Bruno Mars in His Inimitable Style
2020.12.15The Year in Music Streaming – Apple Music
September 3, 2019 // Feature, Missed Articles 2019 2
Barkat ViraniBegum AkhtarBollywood musicGhazalGhazal SingerGhazalsGhulam AliGujarati GhazalsJagjit SinghKalyanji-AnandjiManhar UdhasMarizMehdi HassanNirmal UdhasNoor NarviOmar KhayyamPankaj UdhasShahidaSheikh Adam AbuwalaUrdu Ghazals
Author: Hardik Joshi
View all posts by Hardik Joshi
Previous Previous post: Digital sales stealthily gaining grounds in Japan, while physical sales remain strong
Next Next post: The Dynamics of Being A Modern Day Independent Artist
Born in 71, Still Awesome in 2021
Mummy Kasam enters the Plus Chart while Ghungroo reappears
The Way Forward in Artist Management
Album Talk – Robbie Williams' Sing When You're Winning
Where Are The Superstars and The Hits?


Timan A/S was established in 2004 by Henning Pedersen and Birger Pedersen.
The foundation of the company was the newly developed tool carrier Tool-Trac which was launched in 2004.
In 2009, Timan A/S introduced another product to the market– the remote controlled slope mower RC-750.
In 2012, Timan A/S acquired the bankrupt company VPM Machines and took over the production of the tool carrier VPM 3400 - later named Timan 3400.
The remote controlled toll carrier on tracks – the RC-1000, was launched on Galabau in Germany and on Agromek i Denmark in 2014 and during the spring of 2015 it is presented with a complete range of attachments such as a stump grinder, a rotary mower and snow clearing equipment.
In 2015, Timan A/S is developing a new Tornado sweeper system for the Timan 3400. The efficiency is much higher than previous. This is why Timan A/S has patented the technique.
Latest in 2017 a newer version of the RC-750 was launced - the RC-751.


text:
College of Saint Joseph's weekly athletics roundup
Courtesy of CSJ
Athlete Tommy Grant rounds the bases during a recent baseball game this spring. The Saints spring sports season is heating up as the grounds dry out.
By Justin Lemanski
College of St. Joseph drew a crowd at several home games this week, with both baseball and softball earning victories.
The Lady Saints defeated Fisher College in an away softball doubleheader. Despite a strong start at the top of the first inning by Fisher's Jayla Vega and Mikayala Zimmerman, the Falcons were unable to hold off the Saints. Vega took the loss for the Falcons, giving up eight hits, two walks, and striking out three as the Saints defeated Fisher 6-2 in game one. The Saints quickly took the lead in game two, and by the bottom of the fifth, the Saints had scored five runs on a double, single and a three-run home run, gaining a 14 run lead.
Fighting Saints baseball came up short in a home doubleheader against Fisher College, dropping two games. The Saints lost game one 12-1. Sander Vargas, Devin Perry, Dominic Zaher, and Cody Mercier led Fisher with a combined nine hits and eight RBIS. Late in the sixth inning, the Saints made their only run on an RBI single by Tyler Kunzmann.
The Saints fought for a comeback in game two with Alan Madsen on the mound. The Saints were unable to push past Fisher, in game two with an 8-6 loss.
The Saints baseball team lost to Saint Michael's College in an away doubleheader, with game one ending 6-2 and game two 9-5. Alan Madsen was charged with the loss in game one, lasting five innings, walking two, striking out two, and allowing three runs. Two runs in the sixth helped the Saints close the lead before Saint Michael's scored three runs in the sixth. John Coppola did his best to give the Saints a rebound in game two, but was unable to hold off Saint Michael's, ending in a 9-5 loss in seven innings.
Fighting Saints baseball defeated Central Maine CC in home doubleheaders on Sunday. The Saints scored five runs in the sixth of game one, led by Jayson Osborne at the plate. Tyler Kunzmann kept damage to a minimum on the mound, retiring 11 Central Maine batters, allowing one earned run, two hits, and one walk over six innings.
The Saints kept that momentum in game two, as Ryan Cummings earned at no-hitter with a final score of 19-0.
The Lady Saints fell to Johnson State in a home doubleheader on Sunday. Game one ended 5-1, and game two 15-5.
College BaseballCollege of Saint Joseph's weekly athletics roundupCollege of St. JosephCollege SportsCSJJustin lemanski
Early birds ski cheaper
Fish stocking underway in Vermont


text:
Venezuela Sends Military to Escort Iranian Fuel Tankers Over US Threats
Officials in the Trump administration have told the press that the US will consider mobilising its forces in the Caribbean against Iranian shipment of petrol en route to Venezuela.
Peoples Dispatch
Iran and Venezuela have lodged their protest over this US aggression at the United Nations (UN).
Venezuelan government deployed warships and fighter planes to escort the incoming fuel tankers from Iran on May 21, Thursday. The announcement came in the backdrop of a speculated attack or military confrontation with the United States after it threatened to mobilise forces in the region to prevent the shipment from reaching Venezuela.
"When they enter our exclusive economic zone, they will be escorted by Bolivarian National Armed Forces boats and planes to welcome them in and thank the Iranian people for their solidarity and cooperation," said Venezuelan defense minister Vladimir Padrino López. Thanking Iran for its support, Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro told the media "we're ready for whatever, whenever."
Iran has dispatched five supertankers, viz, Fortune, Forest, Petunia, Faxon and Clavel, carrying petrol to Venezuela. The shipments were sent to alleviate the severe fuel shortages caused by US-imposed sanctions. The tankers are expected to reach Venezuela by next week. Despite being one of the largest producers of oil, Venezuela's refinement capabilities are severely restricted because of the confiscation of its foreign assets and refineries by the US and its allies.
The US has opposed the Iranian oil shipments to Venezuela and stated that it will consider all options to ensure the tankers do not reach their destination. Both Iran and Venezuela are already under unilateral sanctions imposed by the US and hence there are very little options left with the US administration of Donald Trump except using military threats and tactics as punishment for violations.
The US has also recently expanded its military presence in the Caribbean under the pretext of combating drug cartels, which it accuses the Venezuelan government of engineering. Last week, senior officials of the Trump administration stated that they are considering sending warships in the region to confront the tankers.
Iran and Venezuela have lodged their protest over this US aggression at the United Nations (UN). On May 17, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote to UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, raising objection with US opposition to the shipments.
The letter insisted that Iran reserves every right to make appropriate response to US actions, adding that "hegemonic gunboat diplomacy seriously threatens freedom of international commerce and navigation and the free flow of energy." Zarif's letter also told the UN that it views attempts to disrupt the fuel shipments as "a dangerous escalation."
Venezuelan permanent representative to the UN Samuel Moncada Acosta also spoke on the matter at the UN Security Council. Moncada insisted that the tankers are carrying essential goods that are made all the more necessary due to the global coronavirus pandemic. "In the midst of a pandemic, forbidding those vessels from reaching our ports would thus constitute a crime against humanity," he told the UNSC.
Iran, nevertheless, has recently indicated hope that no military escalations would occur. In an interview with EuroNews, Iranian ambassador Gholam Hossein Dehghani stated "it's completely out of any expectation that conflict would be started by Iran there, by an oil tanker."
Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch,
Original published date:
Mohammad Javad Zarif
Samuel Moncada Acosta
US Imperialism
US sanctions on Venezuela
Vladimir Padrino López
European Union Will No Longer Recognize Juan Guaidó as President of Venezuela
Perfect Storm Gathers in Persian Gulf
Venezuela Sends Oxygen Tanks to the Brazilian Amazonas State Amid COVID-19 Surge
At the request of President Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan government is sending tanks of oxygen to the Brazilian state of Amazonas.


This analysis is used to determine the break-even point of the business in addition to provides a great help to managers and other business professionals to make short term economic decisions. CVP analysis provides managers with the advantage of being able to answer specific realistic questions needed in business analysis. However, a good understanding of variable and fixed costs provides the organization with a clear view of how it can make a profit using CVP analysis. The basic CVP concept is that the difference or margin between sales and variable cost must first be used to cover fixed costs. Once the organization achieves that breakeven point, then the remaining margin becomes profit. Questions such as what the company's breakeven point is help managers project how future spending and production will contribute to the success or failure of the company. For instance, when a manager knows the breakeven point, he can twist spending and increase production efforts to increase profitability. Because CVP analysis is based on statistical models, decisions can be broken down into probabilities that help with the decision-making process. Although, if manager did not set up or establish the break-even point business plays the risk to suffer financial failure.


Hair has more to offer than dandruff to grow and accommodate. Strands have superpowers, like a sense of smell, and help some creatures to hang on their hair.
Aside from the biological wonders, there is the fascinating world of hair archaeologists exploring the enigmatic patches and fabrics that were once fashionable in long-dead cultures. Hair can also appear in unusual places, from synthetic skin to tumors that resemble humans. It's almost as strange as Canada's frozen hair tournament.
Red hair and skin pigments are already associated with a higher risk of cancer. In 2012, a study found that red hair had another disadvantage – the cessation of antioxidants. The latter are valued for their ability to fight the free radicals that damage cells, sometimes with a carcinogenic effect.
The study focused on wild boar in Spain. However, because humans share the same red pigment – pheomelanin – with the pigs, the results were counted for both species. The researchers found that animals with the pigment had less antioxidants such as GSH and more free radical damage.
The production of pheomelanin requires GSH, which depletes the body's supply of the crucial substance. In fact, boars with gray hair lacking a color pigment had more GSH and less cell damage.
To President George Washington's 18th-century life, people gave hair as a gift. Washington also gave this hairy compliment to several people. In 2018, an archivist at Union College in New York found an old almanac.
The book bound in leather was printed in 1793, and in a cover letter stood the owner Philip Schuyler. There was an envelope in the book. On the cover were the words "Washington's hair," which contained some yellowish-gray strands.
By nature, geckos are not sticky. You also have no problem getting up the walls or hanging upside down. The reptiles are hanging on the toe hairs. Each toe is filled with microscopic hairs that are individually divided into hundreds of bristles. This blur is the secret.
In 2014, researchers developed a mathematical model to excise the details. Incredibly, the model showed a sensitive but powerful system. As long as the hair stays dry, the tiny reptiles can attach and loosen their paws so fast that they can move 20 body lengths per second without falling.
Pharaoh Echnatenen ruled Egypt from 1353 BCE. Until 1335 BC The king is usually known to abolish all Egyptian deities in favor of a single god named Aten. Akhenaten built a brand new city and made it a capital city. This desert settlement was called Amarna, which was abandoned after the death of Akhenaten.
In 2014, archaeologists excavated a nearby cemetery. Among the things they wanted to find out about Amarna were the hairstyles of the city. Based on the 28 skulls that still had hair, braids and extensions seemed popular. One woman had 70 extensions arranged in complex layers.
The reason for her sophisticated hairstyle is still puzzling, but was probably done in preparation for her funeral. It could also have reflected a hairstyle that the citizens of Amarna enjoyed during their lifetime.
Every day, hairdressers sweep hair into small piles to throw them away. A recent study could make this abundant waste a response to oil spills. It may sound strange, but the snippets on salon floors could absorb one of the biggest environmental disasters in the world.
Australian researchers began an ongoing study in 2017 based on the hopeful fact that human hair collects oil. In fact, a strand can absorb its own weight in oil up to nine times. Therefore, the head becomes so greasy that a petrol contaminated site may benefit from hair drained in the ocean.
If reused as a giant mop, the environment would benefit from a cleaner sea, and landfills would avoid filling themselves with huge amounts of hair. The researchers hope that the same amount of hair could be reused for multiple oil spills.
Janet Stephens is a hairdresser from Baltimore. During the day she snaps and styles the heads of the customers. At night she works at home and restores hairstyles that no longer exist – more precisely, the hairstyles of ancient Rome.
Many Roman statues show extinct hairstyles, some are so weightless that experts write them off as wigs. Stephens did not buy wig theory. In her search for the lost techniques she discovered that many of the curls, buns and bumps could be made with natural hair.
To achieve this, the ancient Roman barbers used something that salons would never consider these days – a needle and a needle thread. Stephens breakthrough came in 2005, as she worked extensively with the sewing together of the bits and braids.
The human nose is not the only body part with a sense of smell. In 2018, researchers discovered that hair follicles have the same olfactory receptors that line the nasal passages. These receptors bind to odor molecules and signal to the brain that there are donuts in the office or that the garbage stinks.
Although hair may smell, this is not so obvious. However, tests have found that hair likes the smell of sandalwood. A synthetic version called Sandalore provokes follicles and the discovery could boost the hair growth business.
Hair's olfactory receptor is a special type called OR2AT4. While natural sandalwood gives no results, Sandalore positively affects this receptor in keratinocytes. These cells produce keratin, the protein that gives the hair a good look.
In 2016, Japanese scientists create skin in the lab. Incredibly, this artificial skin can make your own hair grow and even sweat. The researchers dabbed the gums from mice and transformed the gland cells into stem cells before using them to build skin-like structures with sweat glands and hair follicles. When these structures were transplanted to mice without hair, the rodents became bushy.
Artificial skin is not a new invention, but the Japanese technique was the first to pull hair through new skin. This was due to the fact that all major layers of the skin developed naturally after transplantation, even the growing connections within the fibers and muscles of the animal.
One of the strangest tumors is called Teratom. They develop in the ovary and often grow on human body parts. Such growths are not the result of pregnancy or parasitic twins. These are normal cells that get mixed up in a really bizarre way.
In 2017, a Japanese teen was hospitalized for a routine. The 16-year-old patient was supposed to perform an appendectomy, but during surgery, the surgeons noticed growth on one of her ovaries. After that things got weird.
The annual Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous Festival in Canada includes several winter sports. All of these aching muscles prompted athletes and devotees to immerse themselves in the hot springs of Takhini.
This resulted in an interesting side effect – the International Hair Freezing Contest. Frozen hair happens naturally at the springs. Steam rises from the hot water and collects in the hair of a person, where cold air turns it into ice.
In 2011, the owners of Takhini launched the first tournament to see who could freeze the most monstrous mane. The word spread and the annual competition now welcomes participants from around the world in February and March.


text:
Haiti and The German Connection
Rubens F. Titus - April 21 2008, 11:37 PM
The earliest known german settlement in St. Domingue was Bombardopolis, south of the Mole. About a thousand Germans came to Bombardopolis in the eighteenth century and eked out a living growing coffee.
They received Haitian citizenship from Dessalines after 1804, and gradually mingled with the rest of the population.
Christophe had German military engineers designed the citadel La Ferriere and supervised its construction.
They never left Haiti.
A little known story about Haitian hospitality and virtue: in december 1840, a ship from Bremen with a hundred and seventy German emigrants onboard had been wrecked at Point Isabella and driven on shore in heavy wind. No lives were lost but the passengers were brought to the Cap-Haitian deprived of all their belongings.
Their misfortunes aroused the sympathy of the good people of Cap-Haitien.
Having no german consul present in Cap-Haitien in 1840, they might have perished of hunger if it wasn't for the generous assistance of all classes of Cap-Haitian citizen.
They were housed and cared for with food, medical assistance, and clothing.
Some of them stayed back in Haiti and never made it to their destination.
German merchants began to settle for good in Haiti in the 1850's.
By the 1870's german merchants were in a player in the game of Haitian politics: bamboozling government officials while bankrolling insurections.
It thus came about, on the morning of 11 June 1872, that two german naval gunboats steamed unauthorized into Port-au-Prince harbour to claim indemnities on behalf of german merchants for the sum of 3000 british pounds.
The money was raised and paid by the Haitian government in a hurry.
Nonetheless, the german marines shit on the Haitian flags of caputured Haitian ships before returning them to us. Toward the end of the 19th century, german commercial and political interests in Haiti were well known.
Internal loans floated by the corrupted Haitian governments on discounts as high as 40% were taken by German merchants whose rewards included concessions for electric companies, ice plants, the wharf, and railroad franchises.
In september 1897, Emile Luders, half-haitian german national was jailed then deported.
Consequently, in december 1897 two German warships anchored off Port-au-Prince and demanded $20,000 dollars, and professed other insults to the Haitians or all Haitian ships would be sank and Port-au-Prince bombarded.
The money was raised hastily and paid.
German influence continued unabatted in Haiti until the American occupation of 1915.
So much ungrateful dead toward the Haitian people, it is heart breaking.
Is Haiti ever gonna get some gratitude?
welcome to the revolution
Achille says...
"Is Haiti ever gonna get some gratitude?", he asks! What for? Possibly for having expropriated, dispossessed and... more »
Serge,Toulimen think his work should be "problem...
It is has been a long fight since 1865 after the...
Whow!!! Is this all you guys can do, call each other...
Toulimen is doing a very good job for all Haitians...
Long Overdue: End of Haitian's Prime Minister To Presidentialism Type
We will need some clowns to work in Coney Island...
Toulimen's Last Posting On The CIA-Preval Blog
Nothing else to add, you are making the right point...
Linda, the dual citizenship law is tolerated nor...
Martelly is right when he said that Preval should not...
Haiti need a reduction of vices not more vices such...
This Blog Manager Is Contacting Your IP Provider
Hi mrs would be happy to help haiti do you know how...
Dirty cop,that movement is bigger than you and the...
I am not afraid of CIA like you or macoute like you...


text:
Q: SCP using Expect Spawn comand in Linux #!/usr/bin/expect -f

set login "root"
set addr "10.10.10.10"
set pw "123!"

set localDir "/home/user/www/*"
set servDir "/var/www/html/"

spawn scp -r $localDir $login@$addr:$servDir
expect "connecting (yes/no)?"
send "yes\r"
expect "$login@$addr\'s password:"
send "$pw\r"
interact

I need to copy all the files in /home/user/www/ to /var/www/html/ but when I run the SCP command in SPAWN using the directory string /home/user/www/* it gives an error.
Running it as /home/user/www/ doesn't but it copies the www folder straight off which is not what I need to happen.

A: OPTION A:
The best way is to set up password-less log-in. It is not a good idea to throw your password naked on the network. Once the auth keys are set up, you can use scp without password prompts,or even in a crontab.
First log in on Sys_A as user a and generate a pair of authentication keys. Do not enter a passphrase:
a@Sys_A:~> ssh-keygen -t rsa
Generating public/private rsa key pair.
Enter file in which to save the key (/home/a/.ssh/id_rsa):
Created directory '/home/a/.ssh'.
Enter passphrase (empty for no passphrase):
Enter same passphrase again:
Your identification has been saved in /home/a/.ssh/id_rsa.
Your public key has been saved in /home/a/.ssh/id_rsa.pub.
The key fingerprint is:
3e:4f:05:79:3a:9f:96:7c:3b:ad:e9:58:37:bc:37:e4 a@A

Now use ssh to create a directory ~/.ssh as user b on Sys_B. (The directory may already exist, which is fine):
a@Sys_A:~> ssh b@B mkdir -p .ssh
b@Sys_B's password:

Finally append a's new public key to b@Sys_B:.ssh/authorized_keys and enter b's password one last time:
a@Sys_A:~> cat .ssh/id_rsa.pub | ssh b@B 'cat >> .ssh/authorized_keys'
b@Sys_B's password:

From now on you can log into Sys_B as b from Sys_A as a without password:
a@Sys_A:~> ssh b@Sys_B
OPTION B
Use expect .
#!/usr/bin/expect
eval spawn ssh -oStrictHostKeyChecking=no -oCheckHostIP=no usr@$myhost.example.com
#use correct prompt
set prompt ":|#|\\\$"
interact -o -nobuffer -re $prompt return
send "my_password\r"
interact -o -nobuffer -re $prompt return
send "my_command1\r"
interact -o -nobuffer -re $prompt return
send "my_command2\r"
interact

Sample solution for bash could be:
#!/bin/bash
/usr/bin/expect -c 'expect "\n" { eval spawn ssh -oStrictHostKeyChecking=no -oCheckHostIP=no usr@$myhost.example.com; interact }'

This will wait for enter and than return (for a moment) interactive session.
Please see this SO question

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


In this paper, you will learn about financial reporting and accounting systems. You will learn to read and create trial balances. You will become familiar with the different items in the debit and credit columns and learn how to identify and correct errors. In addition, you will be able to prepare and interpret financial statements. You will learn the difference between incorporated and unincorporated entities and their financial risks and consequences. In other words: you make sure the company makes healthy financial decisions.
Markus Verbeek Praehep has Silver Learning Partner status with ACCA, guaranteeing high quality and learning standards.
Your training will be recorded and can be watched online within our virtual learning environment. This enables you to revisit subjects and optimally prepare for your exam.
The paper will be concluded with a computer-based exam. The exam will be conducted by the external examination authority ACCA. See www.accaglobal.com for more information on the planning and booking of your exam. Costs have to be paid directly to the examining body. Upon passing the exam, you will be awarded with the certificate ACCA Financial Accounting by ACCA.
This course consists of 4 consecutive days. This covers the ACCA syllabus for this paper and prepares you for your exam.
Training days start at 10.00 a.m. and end at 5.00 p.m. Each day consists of 2 meetings and a lunch.
Monday - Thursday: 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.
Friday: 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.


Competitive Knicks are good for everyone | Online sports news.
It's been a long time since anyone could say the words "competitive" and "Knicks" in the same sentence. In fact, the Knicks had been terrible for so long that it was to remember when they were ever good. But NBA fans remember the days the John Starks, Oakley and Patrick Ewing and Pat Riley. Some of us more distinguished gentlemen may even remember the days of Frazier.
These days, many of us are trying to forget the days of Isaiah Thomas, Balkman and the like. We're trying to block out the days of Marbury and focus on the future. And the future looks bright for the Knicks. Amare Stoudamire and the new look Knicks are packing the seats at the Garden again, and a competitive and relevant Knicks team is good for everyone.
A competitive Knicks team makes the Eastern Conference respectable. The old Knicks seemed to have had a rivalry with damn near every single team in the conference from the Bulls, to the Pacers, to the Heat. It's all coming back. We saw glimpses of that intense rivalry when Amare made comments to the media that his team was not afraid of the Heat. The Knicks then backed that up with a win on their home floor against the Heat. The only thing missing was a fisticuffs and balding coach being dragged across the floor.
The atmosphere in the Garden for that game reminded us all why the NBA needs the Knicks to be relevant again. When the Knicks are good, the Garden is filled with stars. And there's no place like the Garden during the playoffs. Right now, the Knicks currently sit in 6th place in East and look like a team bound for the playoffs. I don't want to jinx it, but it looks like playoff basketball will be returning to the mecca.
More importantly, as far as the gaming industry is concerned, when the Knicks are good, New Yorkers are betting on them.
Sportsbooks have been offering odds on whether Carmelo Anthony ends up in New York since the offseason. Rumors have continued to fly, but there's still no deal on the table. One thing is for sure, Anthony is missing piece to making the Knicks championship contenders. And if the Knicks being good is as good for the NBA as it looks, you'd almost expect David Stern to force this deal to go down.


text:
HitTrax
Swing Faster Program >
SwingFaster Video Series
Throw Faster Program
Intro to Baseball
Catcher Lessons
SwingFaster with Coach Gold
Camps >
Upcoming Clinics
Outlaw Program
10U-13U Outlaws
High School Outlaws
Outlaws FAQ
9U-13U Outlaws
Cody Meyer - Performance Training
Hometown: Mason City
College: NIACC, Kirkwood, Blackburn - Sports Management with minor in Business and Leadership | Graduated with honors
Experiences/Accomplishments: Played 5 years of college baseball, school record holder at Blackburn for most hits in a game going 5-5. Threw a no-hitter on Coast To Coast All-Star Team in Puerto Rico. Weight room director at Blackburn College. Internship with Cutting Edge Fitness. Worked for Cutting Edge Fitness for 1+ year. Level 1 Sports Performance Coaching Certified with USAW. Assistant Sophomore baseball coach at MCHS.
Hobbies/Enjoyments: Attending concerts, University of Auburn fan, volunteer at Rhythm Church and spending time with friends and family.
Other: Biggest dream is to get married and have a family | Favorite quote: "I don't want to inspire you, it's way deeper than that. I want to plant a seed in you so you can change someone else's life." Biggest inspirations: Giavanni Ruffin and Eric Thomas.
Shawn Schlechter - Baseball
College: NIACC
Assistant Baseball Coach - NIACC
Catching and Outfielders Instructor - The Yard
Experiences/Accomplishments: Before he became a coach, from 2010-12, Shawn attended NIACC and was a catcher for the Trojans. When done playing due to a shoulder injury, Schlechter became a student assistant for the NIACC baseball program for the 2013 season. He then accepted a full-time assistant coaching position for the 2013-14 season, taking charge of the catchers and outfielders while also assisting with offense and recruiting.
Shawn served as the catchers and outfielders coach for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons as well. Both teams won Regional Tournaments, District Titles, and made NJCAA World Series appearances. Coach Schlechter assisted 2 catchers in reaching the Division 1 level in that time span: Zach Fricke, University of Iowa and Blake Whitecotton, Creighton University. Schlechter also assisted with offense during those seasons.
Shawn was recently appointed to take over as NIACC's hitting coach for the 2016-17 season. Coach Schlechter worked with the talents of former NIACC sluggers Robbie Glendinning, Malique Ziegler, Troy Bullingham, Austin Ladoux , and Spencer Halloran. All players combined for a total of 73 doubles and 93 home runs in the 2015-16 season alone. Three of these players went on to sign to play Division 1 baseball (Robbie Glendinning, University of Missouri; Troy Bullingham, Creighton University; Spencer Halloran, Houston Baptist University) Another became NIACC's first ever draft pick when selected to play professional baseball in the 22nd round of the 2016 MLB draft (Malique Ziegler, San Francisco Giants) Schlechter will also serve as the 3rd base coach and assist with recruiting.
During the summer months of 2016, Shawn took on the role as the head baseball coach at Garner-Hayfield-Ventura high school. The team finished with a record of 18-12. This was the first season that the team posted a winning record since 2008. Coach Schlechter and the GHV Cardinals brought home the Top of Iowa Conference-West title for the first time in school history, finishing with a 13-3 record in conference play. Schlechter went on to be named the 2016 TIC-West Coach of the Year after turning the program around.
Outside of coaching baseball at NIACC and as a hitting instructor at The Yard, Shawn holds a job on campus working in the Campus View Housing.
Lee Gealow - Baseball & Softball
College: NIACC, Iowa State University
Pitching and Hitting Instructor - Offering baseball and softball lessons to ages 9-13
Experiences/Accomplishments: After graduating from Mason City High School in 2010, having the privileges of winning the Bernie Saggau Award and being honored as Male Student of the Year, Lee had the pleasure of helping set the Mason City Mohawk baseball single season wins record (36). He went on to pitch at NIACC from 2011-12 while completing his Associate's Degree. While attending, it was his distinct pleasure to accept the Student Leadership Award. Teachers and coaching staffs - at Mason City and NIACC - were invaluable to him as a player and, now, coach.
From there Lee graduated from Iowa State University with a Bachelor's Degree in English and is currently completing student teaching at Newman Catholic Middle School and Central Springs High School via the University of Northern Iowa; after which he will be certified to teach 6-12 English courses.
Beau Stringer - Baseball
Hometown: Amarillo, TX
College: Hill Junior College - Hillsboro, TX; Wayland Baptist University, Plainview, TX
Offering baseball catcher lessons for grades 3-7.
Experiences/Accomplishments: Three year letter winner in baseball at Amarillo High School in Amarillo, Texas. Honorable mention all-district 2-5A catcher (junior season) and 2nd team all-district 2-5A catcher (senior season) "Dick Jones Fighting Heart Award" recipient in 2007. Played 2 years of collegiate baseball at Hill Junior College in Hillsboro, TX and Wayland Baptist University in Plainview, TX.
Freshmen Volunteer Assistant coach at Mason City High School (2012). Head Freshmen Baseball Coach at Mason City High School (2013-2016). Varsity Assistant Coach at Mason City High School (2017-Present).
Hobbies/Enjoyments: Watching sports on TV, attending Minnesota Timberwolves & Minnesota Twins games, rooting on the Texas Longhorns, and spending time with friends and family.
Connor Faix - Baseball
College: Oberlin College - Cleveland, Ohio
Throwing Instructor - The Yard
Experiences/Accomplishments: Connor Faix has joined the NIACC coaching staff in the spring of 2018 to assist with all facets of pitcher development.
Prior to NIACC, he served as a volunteer assistant for six months at NCAA Division 3 Oberlin College near Cleveland Ohio. At Oberlin, Faix filled many of the conventional roles of pitching coach at fall practices. Additionally, he was in charge of crafting throwing programs for each pitcher while introducing a functional movement screening with daily corrective exercises, creating a nutrition template to supplement weight lifting goals, and adding many new pieces to each pitcher's warm up, recovery, and overall mechanical work. Faix was able to successfully contribute to the recruiting efforts at Oberlin as well. Many of these same roles will be applied at NIACC.
Prior to Oberlin, in 2017 Faix graduated from Case Western Reserve University, another NCAA Division 3 school in Cleveland, Ohio. There, as a catcher converted to pitcher, he played his first two seasons. After that, he decided to independently focus on his own physical development as a pitcher where he came up with his own approach to training throwers while learning from some of the best baseball developmental minds in the country.
For the last several years, Faix has been heavily involved with a prep travel baseball program in Cleveland called the Brownlee Lookouts. There, he helps direct player development for the whole program by means of throwing, lifting, nutrition, and functional movement, along with serving as a coach.
Member/Non Member Login
Keep tabs on what's happening at the yard!
19 8th St. SE • Mason City, IA 50401


How can I find the best rental cars near Chennai?
Once in your vehicle, you are the master on board. Decide when and where you want to go. Don't hesitate any longer, discover the nooks and crannies of your favorite city. A car is the best way to visit Chennai at your own pace.
Find the perfect car at Chennai. Travel more economically any time of the year with our rental car search engine.