Denzel Washington on Providence and Promise

There are a lot of things for which Hollywood is known.  If Hollywood culture is to be encapsulated by a single word, a few examples come to mind.

 "Extravagant" might be a universally applicable word.  "Progressive" or "enlightened" might come to mind if you're of a leftish bent, "privileged" or "aloof" might come to mind if you're a conservative.  But regardless of which end of the ideological divide you occupy, it's pretty safe to say that one thing Hollywood is not known for is the humility of its prominent denizens.

That is not to say, however, that humility does not exist among them, exemplified by singularities so rare that they warrant shock and awe.  Such a singularity is Denzel Washington.

His latest is a profound message by any standard.  

It is a message to aspiring young actors about the "power of hard work and the importance of faith:"

I pray that you all put your shoes way under the bed at night so that you gotta get on your knees in the morning to find them.  And while you're down there, thank God for grace and mercy and understanding. We all fall short of the glory, we all got plenty.  If you just start thinking about all the things you've got to say thank you for, that'll be a day.

He goes on:

True desire in the heart for anything good is God's proof to you sent beforehand to indicate that it's yours already.  So the desire you have, that itch that you have to be whatever it is that you want to be... that itch, that desire for good is God's proof to you sent already to indicate that it's yours.  You already have it.  Claim it.

I won't try to dissect these quotes and assign political or spiritual meaning to them.  His words speak enough.  And regardless of what meaning you take away from them, it's difficult to deny -- these words are a powerful expression of conviction and humility, worthy of respect.

Thanks, Denzel.  If nothing else, it's a reminder of a simple truth that I, for one, too often forget.

See the video here.

William Sullivan

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

All in a Day's Work: Obama Kills Keystone XL Pipeline, Thousands of Jobs, and Millions in Public Revenue in One Fell Swoop

It now appears that the Obama administration will reject the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Business Insider reports:

The administration will be unlikely to approve the pipeline under the timeline for the payroll tax cut extension law which requires a decision by February 21

The project has been extremely controversial for two main reasons. Those in favor of the pipeline point to the 8.5% unemployment rate, and point out that the pipeline could create much-needed high-paying jobs. Moreover, it would provide cash-strapped governments with tax revenues. On the other hand after the BP Deepwater spill of 2010 and ExxonMobil's July 2011 pipeline spill, environmentalists are pressuring the Obama administration to nip the project in the bud.

Let's review. The project will provide "much-needed high paying jobs" in a time of excessive unemployment.  That's good for the private sector.  The project would also increase tax revenues.  That's good for the public sector.  It's good for small-government conservatives and big-government progressives alike. It is ready-made middle ground to boost employment and lessen public debt, no negotiation necessary.

Yet Obama will kill the project because environmentalist kooks don't like oil, and because they fear another accident might take place.

 

It would be nice if ideological bulwarks paid the bills- but they don't. I cannot just stop going to work because I don't like traffic and I have been in a car accident before. But that's the real world that we live in- Obama and his far-left zealots do not occupy it. He lives in a world where $4 million dollar family vacations grow on public money trees and another trillion in debt is just "stimulus." 

 

And now, thousands of Americans will remain unemployed by Obama's hand. State coffers that provide for teachers, police, firefighters, and their pension funds are in dire need of revenue to remain afloat- Obama has ensured that they get millions less than they could potentially have. He is willfully suppressing job growth and depressing government revenues to appease the environmentalist fringe.

Independent voters, are you paying attention?

 

William Sullivan

Janeane Garofalo Waxes Stupid About Racism... Again

Forgive me, but I must indulge.  One school of thought is that addressing Janeane Garofalo's stupidity empowers her.  That the mere mention of it gives her words the power of sensationalism, thereby lending some sort of credence to her wild and senseless rhetoric.

I do not subscribe to that school of thought. 

True, only the zaniest of the zany liberals even take notice of Garofalo.  The rest of us generally do ignore her, as we would ignore the crackhead that we encounter on the street corner, pacing about as he incoherently babbles on about God knows what.  But the sheer inanity of Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo's recent little pow-wow sends this conversation to an other-worldly level.  Stupidity the likes of which can only be cultivated by the prevailing pseudo-intellectualism of modern progressives.

According to Garofalo, conservatives have a good reason to back Herman Cain.  She says that conservatives support a black presidential candidate because they are trying to hide their racism against black people.

"People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert," she says. "And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"

Let it be known- this is not the first stupid thing Janeane Garofalo has said regarding racism in America.  I once heard her vehemently deny that the Democratic Party offered the staunchest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In her mind, Republicans are invariably the bad ones, not Democrats.  Always have been, always will be, "truth" and "history" be damned.  Lousy God and gun clingers.  Fostering equal rights for minorities, how dare they!

But, to be sure, this rant is even more ridiculous.  The meat of her argument is that racist conservatives don't like Barack Obama because is a black man, but they love Herman Cain because he is a black man.

If you're scratching your head at that, don't.  All you need to know, Garofalo says, is that our country is more racist now than ever before- now that we have a black president, "how could it not be?"  Of course, this black president won a popular election at a national level, signifying "less racism," but don't get hung up on that- such cohesion only mucks up Garofalo's logic.  So you probably also don't want to consider that for the first time in history, significant swathes of diametrically opposing political parties in America are both considering a black man for leadership. 

But hey, I guess she figures with eyeglass frames and an elitist tenor that thick, Americans would just believe any damn thing she says without such considerations.

So what are we to make of Garofalo, really?  It's not hard.  She's just following Spencer Ackerman's formula that came to light in the Journolist scandal, where he suggested that calling Republicans racist is the best way to discredit them: 

Take one of them [on the right] — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?

[...]

What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

Beyond this, she proves herself to be something of a racist.  So focused is she on the fact that Herman Cain is black that she finds it impossible that conservatives could support him based upon his ideas, or the substance of his achievements, or the character he exhibits.  No, they must be just looking at him as a "black guy to be supported so they can hide white guilt."

And perhaps the funniest thing of all?  She derides FoxNews and others as having "zero credibility"- in the very moment that she mounted the edifice of relevance and took a 10-story swan dive right into the pavement. 

And I loved every second of it too much to not comment.

William Sullivan

Video found here.

Jesus was a liberal? Guess again...

Recently, I was reminded by friends of some dated writings in which liberals work against all odds and logic to convey that Jesus Christ, both Biblically and historically, would be considered liberal by today's standards.

In almost all cases (two good examples found here and here) the authors relate the basic definition of liberalism. Then, that definition is set against cherry-picked quotes that are taken entirely out of context in order to prove the argument correct. Where Jesus' words were meant to shape people's ideology, these authors have shaped Jesus' words to meet their established ideology. This, expectedly, calls the intellectual and Christian integrity of the argument into serious question.

But rather than jumping to the defensive and crying, "Jesus was quite obviously a conservative," I will simply point out one story that proves that Jesus' ideology doesn't fully jive with that of today's liberal.

The American left as a whole generally decries the disproportionate distribution of wealth in America. Despite having a robust middle class and a poorer class that enjoys a fantastic standard of living by global standards, liberals incessantly decry the "obscene" wealth of the top 10% of American earners. This is generally followed by a call to extract more tax revenue from the wealthy. That revenue will then be redistributed to the less wealthy, and thereby the rich will be become less rich and the poor will become less poor.

But does Jesus think it's okay for the government to steal money from the wealthy to redistribute among the masses? Liberals think so. In fact, this is likely the first thing that you'll hear when liberals want to convey that Christ shared their opinion. Jesus didn't like rich people just like the liberals don't like rich people, so shouldn't the act of taxing the wealthy be justified, even to conservative Christians?

It is true that Jesus warns of the dangers of greed and against being miserly. Note that in Matthew, chapter 19, Christ relates to the apostles: "Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." (19:23) Now, it is at this point that your average liberal will set down the book, entirely convinced: "Well, that's all I needed to hear. Jesus was obviously liberal."

This is likely what Gary Vance was thinking when he penned his article conveying that Christ is a liberal. "The labor movement of the early twentieth century was aided significantly when major Christian denominations got behind it. No average American would have a fair wage today if it weren't for liberal Christians and labor activists."

In other words, if unions and the government hadn't overcome greedy businessmen like Christ would have wanted, we'd all be worse off. But if Mr. Vance were to read past the previously quoted verse, he may find how wrong he is. He would find that in chapter 20 of Matthew, the parable Jesus tells is entirely antithetical to very notion of unions and the "tax-the-wealthy" mentality of today's liberals.

In the Parable of the Vineyard, we discover how Jesus feels about compensation for labor and the private property of the wealthy. One day, a farmer went out at sunrise to seek workers for the vineyard. Those he found he told that he would pay "1 denarius" for a day's labor, which was the going rate for such work. Three hours later, he hired more workers telling them that he would "pay them what is right." At 12, 3, and 5 o'clock he again hired more workers, each time telling them the same. At the end of the day, he called the workers to be paid:

“The workers who were hired about 5 in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

If American labor unions were involved, do you think the landowner could have gotten away with this? Certainly not. He would have to pay more because that is what would be "right" for those who labored all day. They would strip from the landowner the right to pay the wage he would choose. How, again, are labor unions the result of Christian doctrine?

And as far as redistribution of wealth, can you possibly read this and think that Christ would advocate the government taking the landowner's wealth and distributing it to all in Judea that did not work on his fields? Envy is the root of such an argument. American liberals are envious of the wealthy and do not feel they are entitled to their property because others have less, which leads to the belief that their property can be taken and distributed among the masses. And this parable warns against such envious ambition.

Beyond a warning about envy and a verifcation of Jesus' opinion that a man has a right to his property and to do with it what he pleases, this parable is also a lesson about charity. It is important to note that the landowner is a private landowner- not Caesar or his appointed representatives. It is he who is charitable, not the government. This is a lesson much better practiced by conservatives, as the charitable giving of conservatives eclipses that of liberals.

In truth, as Christians believe that Christ is God and not man, to paint Him entirely in the box of either liberal or conservative is to do Him disservice. But for the sake of argument, I will say that there is no question that Christ would have been viewed as a liberal in the Roman province of Judea in his time. And I would be dishonest to say that Christ did not share some values that the common liberal of today holds dear. But the truth is, as this one parable suggests, Christ did not believe, as American progressives do, that government redistribution is a justified course of action, and he would not agree with a union strong-arming a business owner. So the calls of liberals saying that Christ believes the same as a modern liberal needs to be taken for what they are: inconsistent and illegitimate political rhetoric.

William Sullivan

TIME Magazine Fails Again

It seems that TIME magazine does everything it can to capitalize on trending popularity, truth be damned. And thanks to a rising tide of conservatism in this country and the fact that the magazine is pot-committed to the Obama administration, they’ve stooped to a new low with their latest cover, “Why Obama [Heart] Reagan,” which shows smiling images of each president enjoying a friendly embrace.

Obviously, this is meant to capture the attention of young liberals that love Barack Obama, and validate their suspicions that he desperately seeks bi-partisanship with Republicans. Perhaps TIME expects that young liberals will buy just about anything if it’s said in the right tenor and from the right pulpit, and given the fact that a relatively unknown community organizer and junior senator became president on the wave of popularity among this group, I can’t say I blame them. But as far as older liberals and all conservatives, it’s amazing that TIME could have thought they could get this one by the goalie. It is nothing less than an insult to our intelligence, so inarguably untrue that it could only be the result of deliberate fabrication or the innocent result of the TIME editors' stupidity.

Any sane person could go on for hours about the differences between the two. Obama is a proponent of expansive and powerful government, while Reagan viewed such a government as the most dangerous threat to American liberty, and particularly when it comes to the healthcare industry that Obama just consigned to federal administration. Reagan believed America had a responsibility to foster the notion of individual freedoms and limited government by globally exercising "leadership through strength," whereas Barack Obama believes that he should bow to foreign diplomats and apologize for America’s arrogance by quietly homogenizing our position with the rest of the globe.

The two could not be any more different, and even if Obama did "learn" something from Reagan as this cover implies, there is not one shred of evidence that he implemented any of it. If TIME really wanted to correlate Obama with a figure of the late twentieth century, and if the magazine had an ounce of integrity, that cover would have read, “Why Obama [Heart] Carter.” It would be far more believable, and Americans would not have to look past the crisis in Egypt to see the parallel. Both have vocally demonized American-friendly regimes as “enemies of the people,” and both have effectively opened the door to allow fundamental Islamic theocracies to take power in opposition to Western freedoms and Israel.

William Sullivan

Bravo, Yoram Dori!

It’s no secret that anti-Semitism is alive and well, and Helen Thomas’ comments that the Jews should just “go home" to Germany and Poland has proven that such hatred is burrowed even within our “impartial” press corps.

Of course, most anti-Semites in America can’t just be forthright and say that they hate Jews, because those same people are constantly at conservatives’ throats for being racists and against black people, brown people, whatever. So anti-Semitism has become anti-Zionism.

Regardless of how she wants to paint her prejudice, how dare she make light of the sacrifice and hardships the Israelis have suffered for their small plot of Middle Eastern soil! As some sort of purgatorial penance, perhaps when Helen leaves this Earth, it would be fitting for our Maker to exile her to an ethereal version of Germany or Poland. In the guise of a Jew, circa 1939.

Helen Thomas, all Americans, and all Israelis should read this letter found below, written by Yoram Dori. This wonderful letter expresses relevant history, a longing for peace, and a wish that that Israel's enemies prosper in their own endeavors. This is compassion the likes of which I have never seen in any Palestinian representative.

And Ms. Thomas, rather than being blinded by your hatred, perhaps you can pay attention for the few minutes while reading this letter to pick up on the facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that have eluded you in your decades of “reporting.”

William Sullivan

As published on The Jerusalem Post:

By Yoram Dori

Dear Ms. Thomas, I read on numerous Web sites the remarks attributed to you (and I did not see any denial) that we, the Jews must “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany or Poland. I am convinced that you are aware of the events which took place during the years 1939-1945 but, to be certain, I think it appropriate to tell you a little about my parents and their families.

My mother was sent to Palestine from Germany in 1933 with the rise of the Nazis to power by her farseeing parents. The British blockade, which prevented Jews fleeing the Nazi horrors from entering, made it difficult for her and only the pretext of coming on a tourist visit enabled her to enter and remain alive. Her older sister, Sarah, her husband and three children aged 12, 10 and seven did not succeed in finding a way of coming to Palestine and were sent by the Nazis to Poland and from there, their journey to the Auschwitz gas chambers, was short. I understand that it is there that you wish to send me.

My father, who lived in Austria, also showed resourcefulness and immediately on the German invasion and sailed to Palestine. On the way – again the British blockade – he was forced to throw his passport into the sea so that, heaven forbid, they would not send him back to Austria, another country you wished I was moving to. His older brother and his wife, who did not go with him, were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators.

My parents, who, as mentioned, with lifesaving initiative, fled from Europe before they were murdered, arrived in a desolated and barren country, worked in orchards, barely supported themselves and, by the way, were happy with their lot. In 1947 upon hearing of the UN resolution on the partitioning of the country, they danced in the streets, even though most of the area of Israel was torn from its sovereignty. For brands who survived the fire, it was enough.

The Palestinians and Arab countries, who gained most of the area, refused to accept the UN resolution and began a war to annihilate us. Only three years had passed since the liberation of Auschwitz and again we – the Jews – faced the danger of annihilation. To our joy, 600,000 Jews were victorious over millions of armed Arabs. It appears that justice has power and strength of its own.

IN THE 62 years of our existence, we have had seven wars, thousands of terror attacks, buses which have exploded in streets, firing into schools, mortars fired on kindergartens. Yet you wish to exile us back to the inferno, as if nothing happened 65 years ago in Europe, as if our hands have not been stretched out for peace since the establishment of the state?

We were victorious in the wars imposed upon us by Egypt and we signed a peace agreement with it after yielding all the territory and all the oil. We signed a peace agreement with Jordan. We yielded all the territory and much water. We withdrew from Lebanon to the international border and, in return, we received Hizbullah katyushas on our citizens. We left Gaza and in return, we received massive firing on our citizens in the South. Are you aware, Ms. Thomas, that many children from Sderot and the area around Gaza wet their beds until a late age out of fear of the Hamas missiles? And it is us that you wish to exile? Why? Because you think that we are weak or because it annoys you that we are not defeated?

As someone, who throughout his adult life has been a member of the Israeli “peace camp,” notwithstanding you and your strange and angering views, my friends and I (and I hope also my government) will continue to turn over every stone and scour every corner to attain peace. Peace, which will enable us to the smallest extent to live and our neighbors, the Palestinians, to establish a country and to flourish and prosper. To achieve this, we are prepared to make great concessions, to give back all the territories gained as a result of wars which our neighbors forced on us. There is only one thing we want in return – life. A quiet life, a life without terror, a life without missiles, a life like the one you have in Washington and which I, in Israel, also deserve.

Original article found here:
http://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-edcontributors/article.aspx?id=177668

Assault on Amendment 1

There is a reason that our forefathers did not pen the "freedom of speech, or the freedom of the press"(1) clause as the second, third, or tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. There is a very direct meaning in its placement as the first. And that is because it is this one right, above all others, that guarantees the influence of the People in governing this nation. Very specifically, this right is granted to keep the People abreast of any possible legislative wrongdoings, so that a government must always be made to defend why its actions are the execution of the People's will. This is, quite simply, a formula to prevent tyranny.

Few Americans would argue with that logic. So why are Americans complacent about the government's attempts to seize the power to regulate the most prolific forums of free speech? We encountered this months ago, when Congress presented options for "internet neutrality." Now, the FCC is attempting their own version of this travesty, this time calling it an "open internet" initiative. (2)

The internet is the most essential podium for free speech the world has seen. Never have so many been able to voice their opinions in a meaningful and widely viewed manner. Considering television and print mediums provide little more than bias and political slant in scripted fashion, what better way would one have to feel the American pulse than to hear it directly from the public's mouth in a spontaneous discussion where one must defend his position, without the luxury of a teleprompter or a pre-prepared volley of questions? It is now only in live talk radio and the internet that this interactivity with citizens is seen. Therefore, it is only in these two mediums that dissent is trumpeted.

And that, dear friends, is the very reason why this administration has targeted the internet for regulation. If the government is allowed to stifle the information relay on the internet, it will have effectively silenced the ability of the People "to petition the government for a redress of grievances."(1) If this occurs, we can expect nothing short of tyranny. Any person that expects a different outcome is ignorant of history. Any person who feels this is not a stepping stone on the path to socialism or statism knows nothing of those ideologies or their principles. And if any person says such an action would coincide with the ideals of our founding fathers, he admits that he knows nothing of them.

In the immortal words of our wise colonial:

Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
-Thomas Jefferson

William Sullivan

Source:
(1) Excerpts from the 1st Amendment
(2) http://www.reuters.com/article/regulatoryNewsConsumerGoodsAndRetail/idUSN2237873320091022?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604

Taking His Time

According to recent news(1), it has now been 76 days since General McChrystal has submitted a request to supply more troops to bolster American efforts in Afghanistan. President Obama has refused to come to a decision on the matter.

Which makes the observant American invariably ponder... why the sudden deviation from his MO? We passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act before the bill was read by Congress, on the pretenses that the economic bottom would fall out if we did not. Cap-and-trade passed through the House before any representatives read the bill, because Obama and his ilk told us that, somehow, unless we tax carbon emitters our grandchildren will die of famine on a scorched earth. He has been adamant that we must act now on health reform, and casts aside any suggestion that we slow down to design a well-crafted bill that Americans can agree on.

As Americans, shouldn’t we ask ourselves why he coaxes us to act with all haste to fight intangible phantoms, but then coaxes us to be patient when there is a very real and hostile threat to our soldiers in Afghanistan?

Whether he decides to send more troops or to begin a withdrawal, this is truly something to be prompt in addressing. But our president seems to be more focused on propagandizing his healthcare package, attending late-night talk shows, stepping out to swanky restaurants, promoting Chicago in an Olympic bid, etc. You know, all of the really important issues and actions that made him a mysteriously unaccomplished Nobel Prize laureate.

The Taliban surge, the American lives being lost, how our defeat could affect national security and position in the Middle East: to him, it seems, that stuff can wait.

William Sullivan
(1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6879511.ece

Welcome

Welcome to Political Palaver. This blog was started as an outlet for political thought and commentary primarily focused on current events. As of right now there are two contributing authors, William Sullivan and Calvin Parker. We both enjoy writing about and debating political ideology and discussing how these ideas and actions effect the world around us. Until now our writings have been limited to group e-mails, political chat rooms and editorial responses in newspapers and magazines. By starting this blog, we hope to have a place not only to express our ideas, but also to reach a wider audience and receive feedback. Comments and feedback are a vital part of what we hope to accomplish here. After all, debate is healthy. We pride ourselves in being well researched when discussing a topic and whenever possible, we will provide figures and sources to reinforce our opinions. We do ask that the same care is given when commenting or providing feedback. We will try to write between 2-5 articles a week and respond to any feedback as soon as possible. We hope you enjoy whats to come and thanks for reading Political Palaver.