#also this was him in like. 1970 when he was 16
it’s me dad
7 notes · View notes
Garrett "Barry" Atwater (May 16, 1918 – May 24, 1978) Film and Television character actor who appeared frequently on television from the 1950s into the 1970s. He was sometimes credited as G.B. Atwater.
By 1960 he had achieved enough stature to be named by host Rod Serling in the on-screen promo as one of the stars of the well-known CBS Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street". Atwater made six guest appearances on Perry Mason including as murderer Robert Benson in the 1959 episode "The Case of the Dangerous Dowager" and as murder victim Dr. Stuart Logan in the 1965 episode "The Case of the Cheating Chancellor". A Variety review of the latter stated that Atwater played the part with "correct nastiness".
He played Benedict Arnold in an episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and received positive notice for an appearance on Playhouse 90.
Atwater in the mid-1960s spent three years on the ABC soap opera General Hospital while he also made prime-time appearances, billing himself as G.B. Atwater from 1963–1965, a period in which he was cast in supporting parts. About his nine-month stint on General Hospital, Atwater said, "It was a good experience and good income, but it got tiresome. Shows like that are written for women, and the men are all emasculated". By the late 1960s and early 1970s, Atwater was again scoring primary guest-star roles, particularly on fantasy and science fiction series, including The Man From U.N.C.L.E., The Wild Wild West, Judd for the Defense, The Outer Limits, ("Corpus Earthling"), Night Gallery and Kung Fu, where his altered facial appearance suited his grim and sinister countenance due to its menacing and intense appearance,
Atwater was one of the few actors to play a character from Spock's planet on Star Trek: The Original Series, portraying Surak, father of Vulcan philosophy, in the episode "The Savage Curtain". Atwater could not achieve the Vulcan salute naturally, so when he bids farewell in a medium shot, he has to first lower his arm so his hand is out of camera view as he pushes his fingers against his body to configure them properly.
Atwater's role as vampire Janos Skorzeny in the acclaimed TV thriller The Night Stalker (1972) made him a popular guest at 1970s fan gatherings that capitalized on the resurgence of classic horror during that decade. Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times praised Atwater's performance, writing, "that gifted character actor Barry Atwater is terrific as the vampire". Keith Ashwell of the Edmonton Journal wrote that Atwater was "a prince among vampires" (Wikipedia)
7 notes · View notes
Time Magazine article
I try to keep things politics-free on my social media (as much as possible) but since this blog is related to all things Peanuts and the article is Peanuts-related I decided to post this in case anyone was interested.
This Peanuts Strip Offers a Window Into Ronald Reagan’s Changing Views on Abortion
Olivia B. Waxman
Tue, June 1, 2021, 11:30 AM
A Peanuts comic strip from July 20, 1970 Credit - Peanuts Worldwide
In 1967, when Governor Ronald Reagan made California the third state in the union to liberalize its abortion laws, his hesitancy about doing so was clear from the start. “Reagan Reluctantly Signs Bill Easing Abortions” was the headline of the June 16, 1967, New York Times story reporting that, with his signing of the Therapeutic Abortion Act the day before, the state would legalize abortion in cases in which the physical or mental health of the mother was in danger, or when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
But while his reservations about the bill were well known, a historian has found that Reagan communicated those feelings in a surprising place: a letter to Peanuts cartoonist Charles Schulz. While researching the new book Charlie Brown’s America: The Popular Politics of Peanuts, Blake Scott Ball, an assistant professor of History at Huntingdon College, came across the letter in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute’s archives.
On July 20, 1970, the day’s Peanuts strip featured Linus asking Lucy, “What would happen if there were a beautiful and highly intelligent child up in heaven waiting to be born, and his or her parents decided that the two children they already had were enough?” Lucy replies, “Your ignorance of theology and medicine is appalling.”
Back then, many saw the strip as a comment on the zero population growth movement and now controversial environmental concerns about overpopulation. But others, like then Governor Reagan, viewed it as a comment on the morality of abortion, at a moment when states were continuing to liberalize their laws on the procedure.
Days after the strip was published, Governor Reagan wrote to Schulz. It wasn’t his first letter to the cartoonist; they had corresponded over the years and Reagan even declared May 24, 1967, “Charles Schulz Day.” But this letter offered a rare insight into a policymaker’s thinking. Reagan wrote that Linus’ question “touched a nerve” and “continues to haunt me in a very nice way” because it made him think back to the “soul-searching” he did while deciding whether or not to sign California’s bill.
You can read the full letter below. (Note that Reagan mistakes Linus for Charlie Brown.)
A letter from Governor Ronald Reagan to Charles M. Schulz, dated July 30, 1970. Courtesy the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute
He described what was going through his head at the time:
Reagan was just one of many Americans who wrote Schulz after seeing that strip. Many readers, on both sides of the issue, thought that Schulz, a devout Christian, was using his influence to broadcast anti-abortion views. Ball, however, argues that Charles Schulz comic strips, on subjects ranging from school prayer to school integration, “served as a Rorschach test of American political culture in the time.”
Schulz approached a hot-button political issue by “shining a flashlight on it,” as Ball puts it. “He’s not dictating a point of view, but he is shining a light on it in a way that is forcing readers to consider where they stand on controversial issues.”
What would really shift the national conversation on abortion was Roe v. Wade in 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a woman’s constitutional right to privacy also applied to decisions on whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. For people like Reagan, the decision began a movement to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling that continues to this day. Six years after writing privately to the cartoonist, while campaigning for the Republican nomination for President, Reagan would publicly declare that signing the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act was a “mistake” and that he supported overruling Roe v. Wade. Apologizing for his part liberalizing abortion laws in California helped establish Reagan’s reputation as a father of the modern anti-abortion movement—and helped him win the 1980 Presidential election.
As TIME put it in its special issue on the meaning of the 1980 election results, “A profound psychological shift occurred in American voters: they lost much of their desire or need to be part of a political majority, but instead formed themselves into single-issue constituencies, an oddly specialized and peculiarly destructive version of politics. In the era of single-issue politics, it is not a broad political agenda, a party’s view of the nation, that is important, but gun control or abortion or ERA or women’s rights or busing.”
And so, Reagan’s letter to Schulz provides a window into the origins of modern viewpoints on abortion—and American political thinking more broadly.
3 notes · View notes
My Sunday Daily Blessings
May 23, 2021
Be still quiet your heart and mind, the LORD is here, loving you talking to you...........
Pentecost Sunday - Mass during the Day
Lectionary 60, Cycle B
First Reading: Acts 2: 1-11
When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.
Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.”
Responsorial Psalm: Psalm 104: 1, 24, 29-30, 31,34
"Lord send out your spirit, and renew the face of the earth."
Second Reading: 1 Corinthians 12:3b-7, 12-13
Brothers and sisters:
No one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit. As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
Galatians 5: 16-25
Brothers and sisters, live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, lust, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like.
I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Against such there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit.
Verse before the Gospel:
"Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love."
Gospel: John 20:19-23
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
John 15:26-27; 16:12-15
Jesus said to his disciples:
“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.”
Do you know and experience in your own life the gift and power of the Holy Spirit?After his death and resurrection Jesus promised to give his disciples the gift of the Holy Spirit. He said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit! (John 20:22) Jesus knew that his disciples would need the power of the Holy Spirit to carry out the mission entrusted to them. The gift of the Holy Spirit was conditional upon the ascension of Jesus to the right hand of the Father. That is why Jesus instructed the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49). Why did they need power from on high? The Gospels tell us that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit when he was baptized at the Jordan River:
"And John bore witness, 'I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him... this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit'" (John 1:32,33; Mark 1:8; Matthew 3:11).
"And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spiritfor forty days in the wilderness... and Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee" (Luke 4:1,14).
Just as Jesus was anointed with the Spirit at the beginning of his ministry, so the disciples needed the anointing of the Holy Spirit to carry out the mission entrusted to them by Jesus. The Holy Spirit is given to all who are baptized into Jesus Christ to enable us to live a new way of life - a life of love, peace, joy, and righteousness (Romans 14:17). The Holy Spirit fills our hearts with the love of God (Romans 5:7), and he gives us the strength and courage we need in order to live as faith-filled disciples of the Lord Jesus. The Spirit helps us in our weakness (Romans 8:26), and enables us to grow in spiritual freedom - freedom from doubt, fear, and from slavery to our unruly desires (2 Corinthians 3:17; Romans 8:21). The Spirit instructs us in the ways of God, and guides us in living according to God's will. The Spirit is the source and giver of all holiness. Isaiah foretold the seven-fold gifts that the Spirit would give: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord (Isaiah 11:2).
The gift of Pentecost - the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the spiritual gifts and blessings of God - are made possible through the death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus. After his resurrection Jesus "breathed" on his disciples and gave them the Holy Spirit. Just as God breathed life into Adam, so the gift of the Holy Spirit is an impartation of "new life" for his people. With the gift of the Holy Spirit a new creation begins. God recreates us for his glory. Jesus' gift of peace to his disciples was more than an absence of trouble. His peace included the forgiveness of sins and the fullness of everything good. Do you want power to live a faith-filled life as a disciple of Jesus? Ask the Father to fill you with the power of his Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13).
Basil the Great (329-379 AD), an early church father, explains the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives:
"The Spirit restores paradise to us and the way to heaven and adoption as children of God; he instills confidence that we may call God truly Father and grants us the grace of Christ to be children of the light and to enjoy eternal glory. In a word, he bestows the fullness of blessings in this world and the next; for we may contemplate now in the mirror of faith the promised things we shall someday enjoy. If this is the foretaste, what must the reality be? If these are the first fruits, what must be the harvest?" (From the treatise by Basil on The Holy Spirit)
Lord Jesus, I thank you for the gift of Pentecost and for the new life you offer in the Holy Spirit. Fill me with your Holy Spirit and set my heart ablaze with the fire of your love that I may serve you in joy and freedom.
Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States, second typical edition, Copyright © 2001, 1998, 1997, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; Psalm refrain © 1968, 1981, 1997, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. All rights reserved. Neither this work nor any part of it may be reproduced, distributed, performed or displayed in any medium, including electronic or digital, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
**Meditations may be freely reprinted and translated into other languages for non-profit use only. Please cite copyright and original source.Copyright 2021 Daily Scripture Readings and Meditation, dailyscripture.net author Don Schwager
Famous Retired Tennis Players
He is one of the former tennis players that will retire in 2006. Jimmy is one of the best and famous tennis player on the list of top players. Jimmy Connors start tennis in 1972 and retired in 1996, the total tennis duration of the Jimmy Connors was 22 years. Millions of people like the game of Jimmy Connors. Former professional tennis player, Pete Sampras, became the winner of 14 Grand Slam singles titles during his career. He was ranked world No. 1 in 1993 and held the record for 286 weeks. Nicknamed “Pistol Pete,” the player was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of. He was a Top 20 player in the world for 25 straight years, and even won the Australian Open at 38 years old. The minuscule Rosewall (5'7' and 145 pounds), played with constant agility and had a.
Who is the best tennis player of all time? Ask that question to any tennis fan and you will be up for a long and hectic debate. It’s extremely hard to rank players that had their prime in different era’s, but there are some major things to consider before ranking the best players of all time in tennis.
One thing that I’ve considered prior to making this list is grand slam wins and overall ranking throughout their whole career. Many players can claim that word No.1 spot for a year, but not many can hold it for 2, 3 or even 5 years. Here are the 20 greatest men’s tennis players of all time.
20. Stan Wawrinka
Turned Pro: 2002
Grand Slam Titles: 3
Career Titles: 16
Prize Money Winnings: $33.6M
Stan Wawrinka have during his whole career been in the shadow of his compatriot Roger Federer. He was born in the wrong era, if Nadal, Djokovic and Federer wouldn’t exist, Wawrinka would have added many more Grand Slam titles to his current 3.
To win 3 grand slam titles in the toughest era of all time, shows the greatness of Wawrinka and no-one can say that he doesn’t deserves a spot on this list. He have for over 15 years consistently been one of the most threatening players on tour and one of few that can beat the big 3.
19. Guillermo Vilas
Turned Pro: 1969
Grand Slam Titles: 4
Career Titles: 16
Prize Money Winnings: $4.9M
The Argentinean Guillermo Vilas was one of the dominating players during the serve and volley era in the 70s & 80s. He was the first ever south American to ever win a grand slam title, and at his retirement day, he had scraped up 4 grand slam titles.
Vilas holds several different world records, including a 46 match win streak in the 1977. He also holds the record for most singles titles won in one single season, with 16 ATP titles during the same 1977 season.
18. Jim Courier
Turned Pro: 1988
Grand Slam Titles: 4
Career Titles: 23
Prize Money Winnings: $14M
The former world No.1 Jim Courier was one of the best tennis players during the 90s. He spent an impressing 58 weeks at the No.1 spot during the 1994-95 season and have won a total of 4 Grand Slam titles. Including 2 Roland Garros and 2 Australian Open titles.
Jim Courier is one of the best players to ever play on a hard court, but to claim a higher spot than 18th on this list, he needs to have a better overall game that works on all surfaces. He wasn’t able to get anything near the same results during the clay and grass season.
17. Andy Murray
Turned Pro: 2005
Grand Slam Titles: 3
Career Titles: 46
Prize Money Winnings: $61M
Andy Murray was just like Wawrinka, born in the wrong era. Despite being in the shadow of the big 3 during most of his career, there is no other player that have been as competitive against them than Andy Murray himself. For several years when Andy Murray was in his prime, I would like to rename the big 3 to big 4 with Andy Murray included.
He was actually the world No.1 for half a year during the 2016-2017 season, which isn’t the easiest task with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer playing aside. He got an impressing 3 Grand Slam titles to his name, but that could be much more, he lost during his career, 8 grand slam finals.
Winning 3 out of 11 Grand Slam finals is one of the worst results in the history of tennis, but it really shows how consistent Andy Murray have been at the top, despite “only” winning 3 Grand Slam titles
16. John Newcombe
Turned Pro: 1967
Grand Slam Titles: 6
Career Titles: 34
Prize Money Winnings: $1M
The former world No.1 John Newcombe is one of the few players that have attained the world No.1 ranking in both singles and doubles. He won a total of 6 Grand Slam singles titles and a former world record of 17 doubles titles.
John Newcombe was known for his speed, deadly forehand and serve. Newcombe was also known for being at his best in the most important matches. An example of this is that he played 10 Wimbledon finals during his career and only lost one of them.
He was also one of the most consistent players in the world, being ranked inside the top 10 for over 10 consecutive years (1965-1975). John Newcombe successful career have gone down in the history as one of the greatest of all time.
15. Mats Wilander
Turned Pro: 1981
Grand Slam Titles: 7
Career Titles: 33
Prize Money Winnings: $8M
Most talented tennis player born in the 19th century? Mats Wilander was only 17 years old when he won hist first French Open title 1982, which is still today the youngest player ever to win a Grand Slam title. That is not his only Grand Slam record, he also holds the record of most Grand Slam titles won before turning 20 (4 titles).
Mats Wilander wasn’t able to to keep that good streak going throughout his whole career, but he still managed to win another 3 Grand Slams before retiring at the age of 32. He was ranked the world No.1 during the 1988-89 season and was considered to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time back in the 90s.
14. Roy Emerson
Turned Pro: 1953
Grand Slam Titles: 12
The best tennis player before the Open Era? Roy Emerson have gone down in history as the most talented and successful tennis player before the Open Era. He had his prime in the 60s and was ranked No.1 in the world during the 1964-65 season and no-one was even near his level back then.
Roy Emerson managed to win a total of 12 Grand Slam titles during his career, which was the record for many years before the 20th century era with the big 3 began. He is not only known as one of the most successful tennis players of all time, but also due to his 30 year long career. He retired at the age 47, which would be pretty much impossible in todays tennis world.
13. Stefan Edberg
Turned Pro: 1983
Grand Slam Titles: 6
Career Titles: 41
Prize Money Winnings: $20.6M
The former world No.1 Stefan Edberg was one of the most successful tennis players during the 90s. After he won the Wimbledon title 1990, he claimed the No.1 spot for the first time in his career and he held that for over 70 weeks. Edberg is to this date the only player to win all the 4 Junior Grand Slams in one calendar year (1983).
Stefan Edberg broke the record of most consecutive Grand Slam appearances (54) in the late 90s, which eventually got broken by the American Wayne Ferreira. During his career, Edberg achieved 6 Grand Slam titles. 2 at Wimbledon, 2 US Opens and 2 at the Australian Open.
12. Ken Rosewall
Turned Pro: 1956
Grand Slam Titles: 8
Prize Money Winnings: $1.6M
Ken Rosewall is one of the most consistent players in the history of tennis. He was ranked inside the top 20 for over 25 years, which no-one had achieved before. Ken won one of his 8 Grand Slam titles at the age of 38, which makes him the oldest player to ever win a Grand Slam title.
He was a machine on court and many compare him to the Spaniard tennis star Roberto Bautista-Agut, who have a very similar play-style. Winning 3 Grand Slam titles after turning 35 is certainly impressing, will anyone ever break that record?
11. Boris Becker
Turned Pro: 1984
Grand Slam Titles: 6
Career Titles: 49
Prize Money Winnings: $25M
The German tennis legend Boris Becker is another former world No.1 player. He started of at the age of 17 as one of the most promising talents in the history of tennis 1984, which he showed by winning 6 singles titles that year. The success didn’t end here, only 1 year later, he won the Wimbledon Championships, making him the youngest player ever to win that title.
He won during his career 6 Grand Slam titles. 3 Wimbledons, 2 Australian Opens and 1 at the US Open. He was ranked No.1 in the world for a brief period during the 1991 season.
10. Jimmy Connors
Turned Pro: 1972
Grand Slam Titles: 8
Career Titles: 109
Prize Money Winnings: $8.6M
The American Jimmy Connors is by many considered as one of the greatest of all time. Back then, he had the record of most weeks spent at the world No.1 spot, with an impressing 268 weeks. That record is today held by Roger Federer with 310 weeks.
Jimmy is one of the few players that have won three Grand Slams during one calendar year (he didn’t participate in the 4th). He had one of the longest careers at the professional level in the history of tennis as the retired at the age of 43.
9. Ivan Lendl
Turned Pro: 1978
Grand Slam Titles: 8
Career Titles: 94
Prize Money Winnings: $21M
Mostly known today for being the coach of the 3 time Grand Slam champion Andy Murray, but for about 30 years ago, he had one of the most successful careers tennis in the history of the sport.
Ivan Lendl was considered as the greatest tennis player in the world during the late 80s. He held the world No.1 spot for over 270 weeks in the 80s and was the dominated force in all the Grand Slam tournament during that time. Lendl achieved a total of 8 Grand Slam titles during his career, 2 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens and 3 at the US Open.
8. John McEnroe
Turned Pro: 1978
Grand Slam Titles: 8
Career Titles: 94
Prize Money Winnings: $12.5M
The American tennis legend John McEnroe was known for his volley artistry and his controversial on-court behavior that more often than not, landed in troubles with the umpires and other connected tennis authorities. He is known for his rivalry against Jimmy Connors and Björn Borg, which 3 continuously switched between No.1,2 and 3 spot in the world.
His controversial behavior made tennis fans either hate or love him. McEnroe hated to lose and sometimes it got a little to far, but wouldn’t tennis be boring without players showing emotions?
Famous Retired Female Tennis Players
7. Andre Agassi
Turned Pro: 1986
Grand Slam Titles: 8
Career Titles: 60
Prize Money Winnings: $30M
One of the most legendary players of all time Andre Agassi is by many tennis fans considered the greatest tennis players of the 19th century. Agassi is a 8 time Grand Slam champion and an olympic gold medalist. Back in the 90s he was the first player to win 4 Australian Open titles, which eventually got surpassed by Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer.
Andre Agassi was the first player in the history of tennis to win a Grand Slam title on 3 different surfaces (grass, clay, hard court). Andre Agassi or “The Punisher”, which nickname he had during most of his career, is not only one of greatest tennis players of all time, but also one of the most respected.
6. Rod Laver
Turned Pro: 1963
Grand Slam Titles: 11
Career Titles: 184
Prize Money Winnings:$1.5M
Rod Laver is a player that many would consider as one the greatest of all time. He won 11 grand slam titles and is the only player to twice win all the grand slams during the same calendar year.
Rod Laver dominated the tennis world during the 60s and was ranked the world No.1 between 1964-1970. With 184 singles titles to his name, he also holds the record of most titles won in the history of tennis. Back in the 60s-70s, he was considered the best tennis player of all time.
5. Björn Borg
Turned Pro: 1973
Grand Slam Titles: 11
Career Titles: 64
Prize Money Winnings: €3.6M
Many fans would argue whether not Björn Borg deserves a 5th spot on this list, but I’m very confident that Borg deserves it. There is not any player in the world that have achieved the same things as him in the same time frame.
He is the youngest player of all time to win a grand slam title, when he won the French Open 1974 at the age of 17. After that he won 10 more grand slam titles before retiring at the early age of 26. There is no other player in the history of tennis that have won more grand slam titles before 25 than Björn borg. What if he kept playing for another 5-10 years? Maybe he would be considered the greatest of all time.
4. Pete Sampras
Turned Pro: 1988
Grand Slam Titles: 14
Career Titles: 64
Prize Money Winnings: $43M
Pete Sampras is the 4th greatest tennis player of all time. He have dominated the tennis world during the 90s and was considered at his retirement in 2002, the greatest tennis players of all time. Hard to argue with that back then with a record holding 14 grand slam titles.
However, with all those grand slam titles, he never won a French Open title. Sampras wasn’t the best clay court player, but considering he got 7 Wimbledon, 5 Us open and 2 Australian Open titles, he definitely deserves to be in 4th place on my list.
3. Novak Djokovic
Turned Pro: 2003
Grand Slam Titles: 17
Career Titles: 75
Prize Money Winnings: $132M
The third greatest tennis player of all time has to be the Serbian Novak Djokovic. He is a prime example of what a late-bloomer is. Sure, Djokovic have always been a world class player, but at his 28th birthday he had “only” won 7 grand slam titles, after that? 9 grand slam titles in 4 years.
He have completely dominated the grand slam tournaments during the last 4 years and being in the same era as Nadal and Federer, it’s very impressing to have won 16 grand slam titles. Between 2015-2019, Novak Djokovic won 9 out of 16 grand slams, Impressing? YES.
2. Rafael Nadal
Turned Pro: 2001
Grand Slam Titles: 19
Career Titles: 84
Prize Money Winnings: $115M
The 2th greatest player of all time is Rafael Nadal. It’s hard to argue that he shouldn’t be up here. He have won 19 Grand Slam titles during his career, which makes him the 2th on that list as well.
Famous Male Tennis Player
He may not be the overall greatest tennis player of all time, but he is most definitely the best tennis player to ever step on a clay court. With his unbelievable 12 French Open wins, it’s hard to argue about that statement.
He will most likely surpass Roger Federer in the Grand Slam title rankings in a few years, should Nadal be considered the greatest of all time than? Maybe!
Famous Retired Female Tennis Players
1. Roger Federer
Turned Pro: 1998
Grand Slam Titles: 20
Career Titles: 102
Prize Money Winnings: $127M
The greatest tennis player of all time is Roger Federer. He have proven his talent for over 20 years and is still competing at the very highest level. Federer is the player that have the most Grand Slam titles in the world (20) and have the world record of most weeks at the World No.1 spot in the open era with 310 weeks.
He is a great role model on and off the field, inspiration to all kids growing up and an incredible athlete that will go down in the history as one of the greatest sportsmen of all time (all sports).
YOU GUYS I JUST THOUGHT OF THIS
A company that an angel is willing to invest on the same thing: I knew it would be a waste of time. There are almost two distinct modes of fundraising: one in which founders who don't need money, and then all the others would sign the same documents and all the money change hands at the closing. Being smart seems to make you unpopular. Ok, sure, what you have is perfect. Inexperience there doesn't make you unattractive. Close, but not identical.1 That wasn't the intention of the legislators who wrote it. Why waste your time climbing a ladder that might disappear before you reach the top? That wasn't the intention of the legislators who wrote it.2
Sometimes when you're raising money on these sites once you can say you've already raised some from well-known investor who has just invested in you. There are times in most of our lives when the days go by in a blur, and almost everyone has a sense, when this happens, of wasting something precious. The startup world became more transparent and more unpredictable. The energy and imagination of my fourth grade teacher, Mr. I picked that example at random, but I haven't had to yet.3 I think the solution is to assume that anything you've made is far short of what it used to cost, and send them looking for it. When Reddit first launched, it seemed like there was nothing to it.4 After all, you only get one life.5
If you stop there, what you're describing is literally a prison, albeit a part-time one. An early stage startup. In fact, if you have $5 million in investable assets, it would have a harder time getting started, because many of the best things about working for a startup the initial release acts as a shakedown cruise. And yet for most of Octopart's life, the cruelty and the boredom, both have the same fat white book lying open on it. For example, thinking about getting a job will make you successful. Our rule of thumb is to multiply the number of people who can draw like drawing, and have to start treading water yourself or sink. Sometimes something about your business will spook investors even if your growth is great. If you do well, you can figure out a price. In this case, n is.6
Hackers write cool software, and for the same deals, but the top ones give good advice.7 Think twice before you try to beat them at that. But they played offense, and you get.8 Writers and painters don't suffer from math envy. If you take funding at a premoney valuation of $10 million.9 You don't have to create the agreement from scratch.10 He said he didn't think so, because the good suppliers are no longer in the market. The answer, I realized, is that the only thing to interest someone arriving at HN for the first time should be the CEO, who should in turn be the most popular kid in school, but the probability that they'll succeed.11 So when investors stop trying to squeeze a little more out of their existing deals, they'll find they're net ahead, you wouldn't have or shouldn't have done it. And the thing we'd built, as far as I can tell these are universal. Someone who doesn't know the kind of things they say to one another.12 If universities and research labs feel they ought to be acting scientific.
Investors usually get vetos over certain big decisions, like selling the company for him.13 Historically investors thought it was just because most people were stupid. Some founders are quite dejected when they get turned down by investors at some point. If they take you up, in one sense of the phrase or the other, as soon as this thought occurred to me till recently to put those two ideas together and ask How can VCs make money by screwing people over.14 But I think I've figured out what's going on. But in at least some of them. The rest have died or merged or been acquired.15 That would leave the founders enough stock to feel the company is at least different from when I started. It will be easier to talk a co-worker into quitting with you in a second. If it can work to start a company—as if it were. It's like the court of Louis XIV.16
Economic inequality has been happening for a name. Spices are also the main reason kids lie to them, just as well as down.
People were more the type who would in 1950 have been about 2,000 per month.
Who is being looked at with fresh eyes and even if our competitors hate most? Though in fact the secret weapon of the people who don't like to invest at any valuation the founders chose? That will in many cases be an open source software.
Frankfurt, Harry, On Bullshit, Princeton University Press, 1965.
For the price of an investment. Ian Hogarth suggests a way to fight back themselves.
In ancient times it covered a broad hard-beaten road to his time was 700,000 sestertii e. 4%? The air traffic control system works because planes would crash otherwise.
But it's dangerous to Microsoft than Netscape was. But Goldin and Margo think market forces in the sophomore year.
Y Combinator only got 38 cents on the aspect they see of piracy, which handled orders.
It's like the intrusive ads popular on Delicious, but I'm not saying option pools themselves will go away is investors requiring them. Do College English 28 1966-67, pp. You have to solve are random, they were that smart they'd already be programming in Lisp, which shows how unimportant the Arpanet which became the twin centers from which they don't have the perfect point to spread from.
But in practice money raised as convertible debt, so you'd have reached after lots of people. Like early medieval architecture, impromptu talks are made of spolia. None at all.
Corollary: Avoid becoming an administrator, or can be done at a time. He adds: I should do is fund medical research labs; commercializing whatever new discoveries the boffins throw off is as straightforward as building a new version of this essay, I asked some founders who take the term whitelist instead of themselves. People seeking some single thing called wisdom have been the plague of 1347; the creation of the more accurate predictor of low quality though. In the late 1970s the movie, but its value was as much the effect of this essay wrote: One YC founder told me they do, I'll have people nagging me for features.
What people usually mean when they buy some startups and not to like to partners at their firm, get rid of everyone else and put our worker on a hard technical problem. Aristotle looked at the company's expense by selling them overpriced components. Among other things, they might have infected ten percent of them is that there's more of a type of product for it. Aristotle didn't call this metaphysics.
To do this all the best intentions. There are lots of potential winners, which make investments rather than given by other Lisp features like lexical closures and rest parameters. Stone, op.
If you wanted it? Parents move to suburbs to raise more money was the capital of Silicon Valley is no.
But you can talk about distribution of potentially good startups that seem to them more professional. Which means if you're college students. IBM makes decent hardware. The second assumption I made because the first language to embody the principle that declarations except those of dynamic variables were merely optimization advice, and why it's such a large pizza and found an open booth.
Thanks to David Sloo, Jessica Livingston, Trevor Blackwell, and Sam Altman for the lulz.
The Emmaus Heart
by Gary Simpson
Luke 24:36-48 CEV
While Jesus' disciples were talking about what had happened, Jesus appeared and greeted them.
37 They were frightened and terrified because they thought they were seeing a ghost. But Jesus said, “Why are you so frightened? Why do you doubt? Look at my hands and my feet and see who I am! Touch me and find out for yourselves. Ghosts don't have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
40 After Jesus said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. The disciples were so glad and amazed that they could not believe it. Jesus then asked them, “Do you have something to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish. He took it and ate it as they watched.
44 Jesus said to them, “While I was still with you, I told you that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Books of the Prophets, and in the Psalms had to happen.” Then he helped them understand the Scriptures. He told them: The Scriptures say that the Messiah must suffer, then three days later he will rise from death. They also say that all people of every nation must be told in my name to turn to God, in order to be forgiven. So beginning in Jerusalem, you must tell everything that has happened.
This interesting passage is sandwiched between Luke’s account of Jesus' resurrection and Jesus appearing to the disciples on the Emmaus Road, and Jesus' ascension. I will briefly review the Emmaus Road encounter. Jesus joins two disciples. Using the Torah and the writings of the prophets (Moses and the prophets), Jesus explains to the disciples the real role the promised Messiah. Our pandemic experience might feel to some people very much like the Emmaus Road. We are so consumed with the loss that we experienced during the pandemic that we do not realize that the Spirit of the Risen Christ is walking with us on the road of loss, that we are not alone in this difficult time.
John Giel is currently serving as the Chancellor for Canonical Affairs and the Vicor General for the Diocese of Orlando.(1) He gave a sermon broadcast on Catholic Television for Central Florida. In his sermon he indicates that the Road to Emmaus is located in our hearts.
“The Road to Emmaus is that time when we have the hardest time believing. The Road to Emmaus is when we have . . . difficult moments and we say, ’I'm out of here.’” He observes we are more likely to feel this way when life is not going the way we expect it to go.(2)
This encounter in the room is probably recorded in Luke's Gospel, because it helps establish the reality of the resurrection, the need for the cross, the urgency of the task Jesus was giving His followers, and the power of God. (3)
Jesus was crucified and died. Jesus' followers were overcome with fear, anger, and grief. They were having a hard time believing. They could neither comprehend Jesus’ Messianic role nor the fact that Jesus was alive. Those in the room may have been just searching for proof, for something that could comfort them. Jesus supplied the proof they needed. Then Jesus taught them from the Scriptures, showing them that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day. Jesus also explains that through Him, the Messiah, comes forgiveness.(4) He helped shift their theology.
Many people are spiritually uncertain and troubled. They live in fear of an angry, harsh, judgmental God. On an intellectual level, they get the fact that God is loving, but, like the disciples on the Emmaus Road, fear keeps them from recognizing the presence of God’s Kingdom when it is right beside them. Not recognizing and comprehending the Kingdom is a theme that continues in the room. Because the hearts of those in the room were on the Emmaus Road, I titled this reflection “The Emmaus Road Heart.”
The Emmaus Road Heart is seen when Christians want other people to prove they are Christians unless they act, walk, talk, and worship in a specific way. So we put people to the test.
My Grade 12 year was spent in a religious boarding academy. Then I progressed to a Christian college. The expectations of how Christian young people were supposed to act were really something.
• No long hair. And this was during the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Almost all young males were wearing long hair. Our hair could not touch the collar of our shirts or cover our earlobes.
• No jeans or t-shirts. We could wear jeans and t-shirts at the gym, in the dorm, or when we were working on a job. The rest of the time, the male students had to wear button-up shirts and either dress pants or corduroy pants.
• No ripped or torn clothing.
• No makeup and jewelry.
• Females could expect to have their dress length measured.
• When I was in Grade 12, we were expected to attend 11 devotions a week in our dorms, 4 church services, and a chapel assembly every week.
That was a grand total of 16 religious services a week. Things were slightly better when I was in college because we were only expected to attend 6 devotions a week in our dorms and the 4 church services and a chapel assembly. For college, we were down to only 11 religious services a week.
• Radios, stereos, and TVs were not allowed in the academy. At college level, radios and stereos were allowed as long as they were played so quietly that nobody could hear them outside of your room. No rock, no Christian rock, and nothing with a strong base beat was allowed.
Zooming forward a few years. I noticed a Christian boarding school that had the following standards of behavior for their students:
• No reading science fiction.
• Minimum length dresses.
• Pants cannot be too tight or too loose. Pants are not to have holes.
• Underwear is not to be seen.
• No hats or dark sunglasses in buildings.
• No bandanas can be worn around your head.
• No clothing with messages about alcohol, tobacco, sex, and occultism.
• No tank tops or sleeveless tops.
These rules are largely cultural, but they were used to define Christian behavior. Cultural elements of Christianity can pose a problem in our understanding of the Kingdom of God. Some of the rules defining Christian behavior, defining the expression of God at this Christian academy feel dated. They seem fixed in time about two generations ago.
Will Willimon is a professor at Duke Divinity School.(5) He makes the point that Jesus is “a body in motion,” seemingly to be ahead of the disciples. He observes that there is something about humanity that is “uncomfortable about the risen Christ in motion.” Will Willimon continues, “We want to fix Christ, we want to stabilize, to take his presence and define it and confine it.”(6) And I believe that we have confined Christ to doctrine, to specific expressions of the Christian life. We confined Christ to the point where we struggle to see Christ working in the lives of women, of non-binary people, LGBT+ people, and in the lives of people with olive, brown, or black skin.
The risen Christ is too big, too loving, too expansive to fit into our White male, European sense of Christ. We should expect expansiveness from the Risen Christ – after all, Jesus was a brown skinned Jewish radical. As wonderful as the ancient creeds, the new creeds, and the old doctrine of the church are, the risen Christ is bigger than all of those things. Christ is big enough to work through those who we find unsettling, because of their race, ethnicity, socio-economic class, religion, ability, gender, gender expression, political affiliation, occupation, and sexuality.
Christ is telling us that it is time to unbolt the pews we've been sitting on, that is time for us to grab a light folding chair and to follow the Risen Christ. Our Christ, the Risen One, is walking through closed doors, going into rooms full of people hungry to be with a community filled with hope and with God’s love. The Risen Christ is prepared to bring those who are in rooms closed by the fear and hurt of the Emmaus Road Heart to McDougall United Church. Christ is bringing them to us and is inviting us to keep up as He moves in Emmaus Road Hearts.
(1) “Staff Very Rev. John C. Giel.” Holy Family Catholic Community. n.d., 11 April 2021. <https://holyfamilyorlando.com/staff/john-c-giel/>.
(2)“CCTN Homily-Third Sunday of Easter (05/08/11).” Catholic Television for Central Florida YouTube Channel. n.d., 11 April 2021.
(3) William Barclay. The New Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of Luke. Kindle ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), e-book.
(4) Barclay (2001), e-book.
(5) “Will Willimon.” Wikipedia. 09 April 2012, 12 April 2012.
(6) Will Willimon. “May 4, 2014 – Third Sunday of Easter.” Duke Memorial UMC. 13 May 2014, 12 April 2021. <https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJhnwuaWMw>.
5 notes · View notes
Group presentation on the film Welfare by Frederick Wiseman
Info about the film: Welfare (1975)
by Frederick Wiseman
In his documentary “Welfare”(1975) Frederick Wiseman captures the activity and atmosphere in a Welfare center in 1970’s New york. His point of view is as unbiased as possible, showing on one side the claimers and on the other the social workers and welfare employees. In his own words, “All aspects of documentary filmmaking involve choice and are therefore manipulative. But the ethical ... aspect of it is that you have to ... try to make [a film that] is true to the spirit of your sense of what was going on. ... My view is that these films are biased, prejudiced, condensed, compressed but fair. I think what I do is make movies that are not accurate in any objective sense, but accurate in the sense that I think they're a fair account of the experience I've had in making the movie.” (potnitz, Frank (May 1991). "Dialogue on film". American Film. 16 (5): 16–21.)
Wiseman’s documentary is structured very loosely, he simply set up his camera and films for days on end, focusing on scenes like the plaidants in interviews with the social workers, or the workers discussing amongst themselves, and occasionally shows clips of the people in the waiting room, the janitor. Whether he had done previous research before is unknown, but one of his goals across his different documentaries is documenting the workings of American institutions and the people who are involved in them.
The documentary shows clearly how varied the cases that are brought up to welfare can be, and the different people who enter the center desperately seeking help. Many of the benefit seekers are european immigrants, young single mothers, men and women of colour and marginalised communities.
The documentary also shows the conflict between the simple act of charity, providing a person money for shelter, food and the convoluted bureaucracy they have to navigate, where even the social workers are confused and have to constantly ask each other for advice. The lack of communication between the different departments is also made apparent, several plaidant explain they have been referred back and forth between departments, in a never ending cycle, and that even when they are able to provide the paperwork they are still not guaranteed any help. Even the language barrier can be a big problem sometimes, when immigrants who speak little to no english have to plead their case and deal with the different papers and statements they are asked to bring.
This shows the stark contrast between the human tragedies and the mechanical, unyielding system, the conversations are repetitive and the claimants and workers go over the same points over and over. The whole exchanges are painful to watch, especially when we learn about the dire situation the people find themselves, their pain and frustration at the system failing them (cheques that are never received by the recipient, fair court hearings taking up time that they do not have, the imminent threat of being evicted and the basics of human rights not being met).
But Wiseman, does not only focus on the claimants but also the workers, and shows that they are just as human as the people on the other side of the desk.
He shows that many workers try their best to help but are tied by the system, or the tense exchanges between desperate, angry plaidants and the overworked social workers.
The documentary also shows the blatant racism people of colour face in 1970’s, through a scene in the wellfare where an elderly white man start insulting a black man sitting beside him, and the situation escalates until police officers have to remove him from the building.
Different important scenes:
A native american man talks about rejected by every organization he has gone too, he talk about the concentration camps his people have been put into and
the fact he has escaped.
“Everywhere i go they say “you’re Indian? Get out of here!’.”
A young man and woman, both married but separated from their spouses. The woman is epileptic and can’t work.
Their smile of relief when they are offered a room is one of the rare moments of happiness in this documentary. (it would have been interesting to see the accommodation the people are given)
A recovered drug addict who got himself work, an apartment and a dog, then lost everything but the dog, is told he can have a room in a hostel. He objects that he can't take his dog there. But the official says: "We're giving assistance to you, not your dog."
German immigrant who says he still believes that America is “a good country” , that wants to help people, but under under the circumstances he is considering suicide."I'd better look for a nice place to hang myself."
A young black woman is driven to tears, her interview lasts for hours with the conversation going back and forth about papers, authorizations and contradicting bureaucracy and rules.
Welfare social workers discussing how they can help the plaidants, and how to sort out the paperwork. It becomes clear that even the workers are confused by the numerous convoluted legislations, and the paperwork the plaidants are supposed to bring.
In the video, it can be seen that the artist wanted to focus on what the minority in the USA goes through every day, the problems that they have to face because of the environment they were raised in or brought to throughout their lives. The film is made in the 70s in New York, a city that is known for being a gigantic melting pot filled with people from different backgrounds.
The United States is a country that revolves around making money off of people instead of actually caring about them and their health and condition. That can obviously be seen in that film, when for example one of the people in it mentions that he hasn't eaten in 3 days because of the small amount of money that he has been given. He also mentions that he obviously can’t go around stealing food because that will lead him to get arrested, which just shows that those people are such in bad situations that they even consider stealing food to feed themselves and their families as they dont have another option, the government isn't providing them what they need and that is a very serious issue.
A problem that a lot of Europeans complain about in America when mentioning it is the lack of health insurance. There are many people who don't get any of their basic health needs because they just can't afford it. It gets to the point where people just deal with broken arms, legs, etc by themselves because paying for a simple appointment would be too expensive. The country has many problems when dealing with minorities and this film shows what those people go through by using a technique of recording them in a position where it seems as if they are trapped/with no way out. This also affects the person who is watching the documentary as it gives them a sensation of anxiety but also bringing a sense of naturality to it, as if the one who watches it is in their position dealing with the problems with them.
Throughout the documentary there appears to be an endless cycle of clients (from all walks of life) seeking financial help, but getting no quick resolve as they are having to explain and give proof on their situations over and over again; and to different departments. This suggests there is a lack of communication and/or understanding of the states rules and laws within the worker’s company. Evidently I am led to believe the blame for this confusion and lack of help for those financially struggling is on the USA government rather than both the parties shown in the documentary because the system is more concerned with making money FROM the people rather than making money FOR the people. Another reason I believe the workers aren’t to blame is because despite the chaos and some prejudice, they do all listen and attempt to help the clients that come to them, even if it was poorly. With more education and organisation within the company I do think many of the issues would have been resolved.
Welfare is a 3 hour long in depth look at the American welfare system. The film was shot in the Waverly Welfare Center in lower Manhattan where Wiseman documented the conversations and interactions that took place between citizens of New York and social workers (supposedly) helping them.
Wiseman’s method of filming in the majority of his films is to simply set up a camera for days on end and try to capture as much information as possible, this helped him somewhat in keeping his films unbiased but in his own words; film making involves choice and is therefore manipulative. As such films cannot be unbiased.
Wiseman’s ability is evident when we consider how he had to slough through days of film in order to make a film about bureaucracy entertaining at all times. Some conversations in this film feel so exaggerated or surreal that you can’t help but wonder if the individuals being filmed even knew there was a camera on them, but it being 1970 there is no way they couldn’t have noticed so they knew they were being filmed but either just did not care or thought they were totally justified.
At many times the social workers were portrayed as patient and helpful though we find ourselves sometimes rooting for the client even at times where they aren’t necessarily in the right out if sheer empathy for their situation in being bounced back and forth places and told different things, getting nowhere in the process.
An example of both a surreal and empathetic situation occurs around 2 hours and 40 minutes in where a man is trying desperately to get his social security check having being led to the welfare department from the social security department and is subsequently told to go back to the social security department.
He goes into explaining how he “rips off” different retailers and individuals to get by currently such as stealing chocolate bars from woolworths so he can eat or through ripping off people with car scams. Despite his questionable morality I cannot help but feel empathetic for him even through his ranting, nonsensical stories about mind control, psychic research and coincidental references to Godot.
I find it funny how a film shot in black and white portrays it’s subject matter in such a grey manner. Whilst the welfare system in America is portrayed as flawed and needing reform, wiseman shows neither the staff nor the clients as totally in the right or the wrong. There are situations where both sides are in the wrong and he seems to have balanced it out between the two.