NY Times on Tebow: An Atheist's Amazing Analysis

In an article published at American Thinker last year, I argue that there was a certain magic in Tim Tebow's 2011 NFL performance.  From a broad political perspective, I argue, "He is a personification of the traditional American belief that if people work hard, believe in themselves, and have the humility to believe in something greater than they are, they can exceed what the collective believes them to be capable of.  That the impossible can become possible, even if only for a short while."

In short, a miracle.  But not the kind of miracle that only Christians can relate to -- not the kind that specifically require that you imagine it is the result of God's touch.  It is something innate in human nature, an indescribable component of humanity that we desire such outcomes, and revel in watching events unfold.  I believe that people want to see miracles, as a world where such things can happen is a beautiful world. An interesting world.

But then, I am Christian, albeit of the less devout persuasion.  Stephen Marchie of the New York Times, an atheist, approaches miracles from a different angle.  Though he admits that he was captivated by Tebow's incredible 7-4 record last year and the unexpected success, he describes that he was relieved to see Tebow fail against the Patriots in the playoffs.  "My stomach began to relax," he writes.  The material world made sense. The Patriots won. The problem of joy was momentarily solved."

This is amazing perspective. Where Christians generally want to see miracles, and find them to be an affirmation of their worldview, some atheists, like Marchie, find miracles to be a repudiation of their worldview, and their natural inclination is to be more comfortable in the thought that miracles just don't happen. Nonetheless, he admits that he, too, relishes these unexplained miracles, these gut-wrenching moments of joy -- like the one he relates in the article, in which his friend's 3 year old daughter tumbled down a stairwell in inexplicable, perhaps even miraculous, safety.

He explains that when he discovered she was unhurt, he "kept randomly repeating, “That was a miracle.” It was the only phrase I could come up with. I didn’t know how to deal with inexplicable good fortune. Even after my friends returned to New York, the strange constriction in my chest persisted.

He goes on: 

Christians famously have the problem of pain: how can a benevolent and omnipotent god permit evil to exist? But atheists like myself have our own paradox to contend with: the problem of joy. Why do randomly good things happen? In Graham Greene’s “The Power and the Glory,” a priest gives the explicit defense of their reality to his Red Shirt captor: “Can’t you see the doctors round the dead man? He isn’t breathing anymore, his pulse has stopped, his heart’s not beating: he’s dead. Then somebody gives him back his life, and they all — what’s the expression? — reserve their opinion. They won’t say it’s a miracle, because that’s a word they don’t like.” C. S. Lewis described his conversion to Christianity as a process of being “surprised by joy.”

Emmy was my confounding miracle, my joyful surprise. How had she survived without a single scrape? It didn’t make sense, and I couldn’t make it make sense.

The article (found here) is simply fantastic, and I urge all readers to give a moment to check it out.  Personally, my more recent experience with atheists has been that there is an implied arrogance in their opinion, and an immediate rejection of anything religious, often in the form of anger and ridicule.  (For example, Richard Dawkins linked my article, a critique of fundamentalist Islam, to his website, where the mere possibility that I might be a Christian was enough for many readers and commenters to write off my opinion that they might otherwise agree with -- if I were an atheist and anti-religion)  

This seems to me a respectful analysis, written with a certain humility, deep introspection, and impressive craft.

And furthermore, I agree with his conclusion.  The Jets should let Tebow play.

William Sullivan

America Shows Union Thugs in Lansing the True Meaning of "Solidarity"

This, friends, warms the heart and musters hope.

Clint Tarver, well known in the Lansing area as “The Hot Dog Guy,” had his hot dog cart- the source of his livelihood- destroyed by frothing-at-the-mouth, stark-raving-mad union thugs who launched a bitter protest in opposition to state legislature measures to implement a “right to work” policy for Michigan workers.

What these protesters seem most opposed to is the fact that  a”right to work” policy will give workers the option to not take part in a union, not pay dues, and not have their money fill Democratic politicians’ war chests. This will significantly hamstring the unions’ advantage in negotiating workers’ wages and benefits with the taxpayers who pay for them. And I use the word “negotiating” loosely. In this regard, “negotiation” is more akin to Don Corleone “negotiating” a job for his nephew Johnny Fontane.

How'd He Do That?

Democrat leaders and union bosses understand the danger this portends, so they are warning of “civil war” and “blood in the streets” of Michigan if the unions are not appeased. Likely, that’s why union thugs took to the streets like a gaggle of old, fat Mafioso thugs and raised hell, punching those that disagree with them and destroying a man’s hot dog cart because they arbitrarily judged him to have been part of anti-union efforts. 

The extent to which unions should be able to influence public policy is a conversation we need to have, but union thuggery makes that pretty difficult. The most aggravating thing, for me, is that unions accuse their opposition of being in the wrong, when they are patently guilty of extortion, intimidation, assault, and in some cases, like AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka, curiously implicated with a non-union agitator being shot in the back of the head.

But amidst all this, there is hope. Lorilea Susanne has created a webpage to help Mr. Tarver replace his hot dog stand that the union drones destroyed. As she’s made perfectly clear, it is not political for her. It is just an effort to show solidarity to support a good, hard working man who was clearly wronged. And America responded in spades. The initial goal was to raise $2,000. In just a day, the webpage accumulated over $28,000, and has already linked the funds to Mr. Tarver’s account. (You may donate here, if you please)

To me, there could not be more a more stark contrast to union “solidarity” on display in Lansing. Americans don’t identify with Mr. Tarver because he is a member of their club and agree with their politics. I don’t know his political affiliation, nor do I care. But as is my right, I will offer my rather political opinion on why he has garnered so much support from Americans everywhere.

It is because he is an industrious entrepreneur, and he adds value to his community by doing a good job that warrants voluntary, repeated business. He does not demand that his community pay a specific price for his hot dogs, and then become violent when they counteroffer with a lower price.  This is precisely why he is worthy of admiration, and precisely why union goons like those in Lansing are not.

Furthermore, by all accounts, he is a good man. His reaction to the incident, as recorded on the Dana Loesch radio show, is evidence of that. Honest. As understanding as could be expected. And most of all, civil.

Thank you, Mr. Tarver. Thank you for showing America the yin to the yang of union thuggery. And may you and your family have a Merry Christmas.

  This post authored by William Sullivan, first published at Red Pill Report, found here.

Romney's Biggest Mistake

By 10 pm on November 6, 2012 it was becoming painfully obvious to conservatives that the election was, for all intents and purposes, over and Barack Obama would be serving a second term as President of the United States.  Everyone playing Monday morning quarterback will tell you that Mitt Romney made mistakes.  What these mistakes were is already a heated topic of discussion by people on both sides of the aisle.  Some will say Mitt went too soft, while others will say he just could not make that connection with the lower and middle classes.  As all the election data comes together, it is obvious that Mitt Romney did make one huge mistake that far overshadows any other.  That mistake was believing in the American people.

Mitt Romney believed the American people were smart.  He honestly believed that the American people were smart enough to realize that a president that has had his way for four years was still somehow campaigning on what he would do if given the chance.  He believed that the American people were smart enough to realize that the slight upticks in the economy were not because of Obama's regulations and fiscal policies but in spite of them.  He didn’t feel that he had to present this to the American people in a harsh, mud slinging, negative way.  Instead his approach was based more on presenting a better alternative, a better America.  He did this in a no-nonsense and yet never condescending way.  Polls consistently show that people overwhelmingly disdain negative attack ads when asked face to face.  Romney took them at their word, and unfortunately the actual results of many a political race have proved negative ads have quite a different effect when a person is behind the voting curtain.  This race was no different.

Romney also believed that the American people, as a whole, are not satisfied being subsidized by the government.  He believed that 16 million more people on food stamps is a horrible statistic that should outrage Americans.  He never believed in stripping away the helping hand but instead instituting a plan where people would get themselves back to work.  He believed that Americans would jump at the opportunity to have a life where the sky is the limit, not one where you are capped by a welfare check.  A nation where people are constantly striving to improve their lot in life so that next year has the possibility of being better than the last, not because the government gives you a slightly larger handout, but because the government no longer impedes or punishes your success.

Mitt Romney truly believed in the American people.  Today it is obvious he was mistaken.

Calvin Parker
@murph_clp on Twitter

Vikings Punter Chris Kluwe and Same-Sex Marriage

(Warning: Language)
According to Deadspin.com:

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

Hold it right there, you arrogant schmuck.  I can't stand when people flex their grammatical skills and lexicon as if that somehows lends added weight to their argument. So at this point of Kluwe's letter, you know that  what follows is going to be a garbled mess of purposefully pompous verbiage that the author uses to express how much smarter he is than you. But let's read on:

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain...

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

All fine and good, Chris. You spoke your mind, flexed your lexicon and all that, so I imagine you feel pretty good about yourself. But it doesn't change the fact that in your "personal quibble," you falsely assume that gay marriage opposition is about hate and bigotry. So for all the philosophical prowess and wit you tried to exhibit in this letter, it could have just as well been, "Dear Representative. You're a dickhead homophobe. Fuck off. Sincerely, Chris Kluwe"

No, he should not have admonished Ayanbadejo for speaking his opinion. Being a fan of this "freedom" thing America touts, I will never be against your right to express your opinion.  You and he are for gay marriage. Fine. Dandy. I'm not, and have legitimate reasons for it, and in publication I've laid out Constitutionally viable reasons why the federal government has no right to legislate on the matter of gay marriage. (Ex: [www.americanthinker.com]) But despite my legal and reasonable opposition to it, I'm sure you'll assume that I'm some homophobic hatemonger bent on suppressing freedom.

It'd be one thing if you were simply expressing your opinion that gay marriage should be legal in Minnesota- it's another that you say anyone who disagrees with you is a hate-filled asshole and their desires should be suppressed in favor of your cultural opinion that is in no way representative of the majority of Americans.  If, you know, popular state voting on the issue, i.e., quantifiable data, is important to you.

You've obviously read a book or two, so I shouldn't need to tell you that legislating gay marriage in spite of broad opposition to it would rightfully be called "fascism." 

I hope that you will read this, and that, in some small way, you can comprehend the silliness in your assumption that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot.  As I have written, the issue is not about hate or homophobia.  The real issue "is that Americans have a problem accepting a political mandate that they must fall in line with a cultural agenda that they, for the most part, disagree with. And that, in a land of liberty, should be entirely reasonable."

Regards,
William Sullivan

P.S. You're no Jackie Robinson, guy. You're a Rosie O'Donnell that happens to be able to kick a football.

A Sad Day for Free Speech

I'm sickened this morning. I awoke to news that the filmmaker, whose "film" was nothing more than a straw man in the calculated attacks made by Islamists in the past days, had been confiscated by the government for "questioning."

Regardless of where your politics lie, there are certain things that are constant, and beyond any negotiation. Among those things is our natural right to free expression, which, if stripped or limited, is an act of tyranny. No more, no less. If we allow this, we cease to be America. Our contract we made with our government becomes null and void, as we, the people, who drew the terms of that contract, will have been wronged.

As I said, this is not negotiable. You can think it's a great thing that the filmmaker was arrested. Hell, the majority of Americans can think it's a good thing. But I will not accept mob rule in my country. The freedom to follow the mob or buck its will is my birthright, and it will not be taken from me, and I'll fight to see that it is not taken from you. And I will not apologize for being blessed to live in a nation where I am free to express a faith in God, a faith in government, or a faith in nothing with equal zeal.

Nothing can capture the absurdity of what we are witnessing. But Mark Steyn comes as close as can be hoped for here:

So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets. Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. No, no, a novelist would say; that’s too pat, too neat in its symbolic contrast. Make it Cleveland, or Des Moines.

The president is surrounded by delirious fanbois and fangurls screaming “We love you,” too drunk on his celebrity to understand this is the first photo-op in the aftermath of a national humiliation. No, no, a filmmaker would say; too crass, too blunt. Make them sober, middle-aged midwesterners, shocked at first, but then quiet and respectful.

Read it all here.

Bill Maher Outclassed and Outmatched by Dinesh D'Souza

A week ago, Dinesh D'Souza met Bill Maher on his home turf of “Real Time with Bill Maher” for a debate.  Apparently, Bill Maher hasn't shared much talk time with Dinesh D'Souza in the last ten years, and given the outcome of this interview, it's not hard to imagine why. By no small measure, D’Souza destroys Maher in terms of substance and class.

Of course, Maher is a little too smug to realize that he looks as foolish as he does. Emboldened by his audience's loud encouragement that can only be likened to the zeal of a blind religious following, he never loses that trademark "I'm the smartest guy on the planet" look of self-satisfaction.

Maher’s problems occur when his comments are appraised by someone unencumbered by a zealot's devotion to the idea that Maher is as smart as he thinks he is. Because when viewed through a more logical lens, it becomes clear that he is fabulously wrong in nearly everything he says.

This article on the website Reading the Score points out much of this, including:

It really is a marvel to witness. Every time D’Souza was allowed to speak he completely refuted Maher’s points. D’Souza didn’t seem even slightly threatened by Maher’s trite points.

Maher makes several embarrassing comments when he was trying to refute D’Souza’s points, such as “the whole thing was a republican plan” referring to the health care bill. This is a comment that would get him laughed out of the room with even a moderate audience. And when D’Souza makes points that any rational audience would see as fair, Maher can just dismiss it by insulting D’Souza, and his audience will back him up.

Throughout the interview, Maher makes it clear that ideology drives his thought process, not facts. Among many other falsehoods Maher cites as evidence for his beliefs, the most glaring is perhaps seen when he defends Barack Obama's stimulus efforts that have yielded what is, in the most positive way of describing it, and extremely flaccid economic recovery.

Maher suggests that resorting to taxpayer-funded stimulus to combat economic recessions is just natural- as if Obama didn't have any other choice but to seek tax increases and massive spending on social programs.  This is, of course, the great Keynesian lie that the left hopes can be uttered often enough to make it truth.  However, it is unequivocally false, and to believe it requires an insane disregard for historical evidence.  

Ronald Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's horrible economy and “chronic deficits,” and yet he reacted with the Economic Recovery Tax Act, signed into law his first year in office, which was “the largest tax cut in American history.”  And the tax cut was indiscriminate- 25% across the board.  The result is either something unknown to Maher, or something he just ignores.  Tax revenues increased under Reagan from an annual $599 billion to $1 trillion. After the bulk of the tax cuts were implemented in 1983, there were significant spikes in GDP.  By 1984, Reagan was able to explain to the American people how his tax cuts had put Americans on the right track, and America agreed.  Inversely, Obama’s speech at the DNC did not mention the words stimulus, ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act- not even once.  While stumping for his second term, Reagan was able to convey that “the best “stimulus” relies on the tried-and-true American way: Letting free individuals stimulate the economy through their earnings and activity.”  Why then, is Obama finding it so difficult to reference how his platform of tax hikes and taxpayer-funded stimulus is the right path for America?

Because there is no proof in the pudding, and because that is not the “tried-and-true” American way- it is the way of Euro-socialism that we are currently watching collapse under the weight of the concept of an entitlement state. 

Given time, and given D’Souza’s intimate acquaintance with Ronald Reagan’s presidency, I imagine he could have enlightened Maher of these facts.  But instead, Maher quickly changed the subject and resorted to childish attacks.  He brings up a scenario from years ago that has apparently been festering, when D’Souza shared time on a panel with Maher.  D’Souza made comment on September 17^th, 2001, that the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were not cowards.  Maher agreed, and added that we, Americans, are the cowards for lobbing missiles from thousands of miles away.  Maher rightfully received backlash from our military and patriotic Americans everywhere and was fired from ABC, but he was a little miffed that D’Souza didn’t shoulder some of the responsibility for the comment.  D’Souza simply reminds him that he said that the terrorists were not cowards, but he never said that the American military were cowards.  Maher cannot grasp that distinction, and in his confusion, he says that D’Souza escaped the media’s ire at the time because he was a nobody, and Bill Maher was somebody.

This display of elitism is a wonderful conclusion to the interview.  Here, a comedian who fancies himself a great political thinker is captured deriding a Dartmouth alumnus, a proven intellectual, a bestselling author, and the mind responsible for this year’s underdog political smash, 2016: Obama’s America.  And maybe that’s what Maher’s really miffed about. D’Souza’s film has already crushed Maher’s own political documentary, Religulous, and is already one of the most successful political documentaries of all time, poised to surpass even Al Gore’s popular documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

But if that is Maher’s beef, he’s got a long list of grudges. For example, Kirk Cameron (who I’m sure Maher would suggest is of lower cultural esteem) made a low-budget, widely panned Christian film called Fireproof- it also trounced Religulous at the box office.  Next time Maher wants to flex his intellectual chops and impugn a fellow filmmaker for his more successful film, perhaps he might do better to invite him on the show.

William Sullivan

DNC Pushes All-In on American Serfdom

A few months ago, Democrats unveiled their promise to America when they revealed the “Life of Julia” storybook ad, depicting a woman who enjoys cradle-to-grave assistance from the government.  Implied in this, of course, is that without government, Americans are vulnerable to the harsh realities of life.  The message is that you can’t do it on your own, and you need the government’s help.

Barack Obama doubled down on that message in July, telling an audience, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”  The implication is even less vague here.  Barack Obama suggests that even if you think you can do it on your own and have seemingly proven that fact, not only do you need government’s help, but the government has already helped you and you couldn’t have done it on your own.

This week, with the unveiling of their DNC video, Democrats gave Americans this message again in the clearest terms imaginable.  Not only can you not do it without the government, and not only has the government already helped you even if you think it hasn’t, but “the government is the only thing we all belong to.”

“Belong.”  This implies possession.  There is no ambiguity here. The Democratic message is that “we the people” are possessions of the government, and are beholden to see to its success as a collective machine. 

There is nothing- I repeat, nothing- that is more antithetical to American values than this gross assumption of ownership by a government.  Our founders believed, above all things, that we “belong” to our Creator alone, who has granted us inalienable individual rights, and that a government’s only reasonable function is to protect those rights.  Among these is the fundamental right to individual property ownership, a concept which cannot exist in a social contract that includes our servitude to a government that can take away one’s property, absent his consent, for the purpose of providing that property to someone else.  Our freedom, our birthright-- established by God, nurtured by America’s founders, and protected by brave men and women-- will cease to exist.

It is such a fitting juxtaposition to set the DNC’s message of our “belonging” to the government alongside Clint Eastwood’s message last week at the RNC, when he said to his audience, also in the clearest of terms, that “you, we-- we own this country.”  This polar dichotomy is the single best representation of the fundamental choice that lies before us in November.  Do you believe that you belong to the government, or do you believe that the government belongs to you?

And do you feel the need to elect a savior, or do you feel the need to elect someone who will protect your ability to save yourself?

It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

William Sullivan

This commentary first appeared in American Thinker, found here.