Tag: choice

Ay Caramba!  What Happened to The Simpsons?

As an 80s kid, The Simpsons has to be in my top ten TV shows of all time.  We grew up with Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie getting into all sorts of crazy situations.  Who can forget when Bart cut off the head of the Jebediah Springfield statue, or when Bart was being bullied at school by Nelson, and Homer advised him to hit him in the family jewels?  What about when Homer became “Dancing Homer,” the mascot for the Springfield Isotopes baseball team?  Just a few weeks ago, my sister was sitting at the top row of stadium bleachers and was freaked out that she might fall, and I said, “Isn’t that how Maude Flanders died?”  (I was right.  It was.  Check it out here.) 

Many of you probably do not remember that The Simpsons was very controversial and edgy when it started, way back in 1989.  Before that, cartoons were played on Saturday and Sunday mornings, or after school on weekdays.  They had innocent, fun, playful stories, and were geared towards kids.  Then came along a dysfunctional cartoon family with a foul-mouthed, troublemaking son on the airwaves during prime-time television.  Some families at my church would not allow their kids to be exposed to such a show.  Despite the controversy that surrounded The Simpsons, the show was a massive success.  It was too funny not to be.

Surprisingly, The Simpsons remained funny for about 25 years, and even more surprisingly, it is still running today.  It is impossible to keep a show funny forever, and The Simpsons did eventually lose its edge.  The big laughs became chuckles, and then the chuckles started getting fewer and farther apart.  It is rare that I watch anymore, but last Sunday I decided to flip over to The Simpsons.  I was very disappointed.  Unfortunately, it was not because it wasn’t funny.  I expected that.  What I did not expect to see was leftist, anti-religion, anti-charity, big government propaganda.

The episode, titled “Write Off This Episode,” starts with Marge and Lisa starting a charity to help the homeless.  Then, Marge gets sucked into fundraising and “raising awareness” instead of actually helping anybody.  The problem comes at the end of the episode, when the charity is holding a ritzy gala to celebrate the opening of their giant, glamourous, new headquarters.  When Marge sees her folly, she opens up the center to the homeless to come in and eat.  The rich donors are upset, and the villainous Mr. Burns stands up and gives this speech:

Enough of this do-goodery.  Open your eyes, rich people.  We’re not here to help the less fortunate.  We’re here to bask in our fortunateness.  If we really wanted to make a difference, we’d do the one thing we spent our lives avoiding… paying our taxes!  Then, one organization, the government, could tackle all of society’s ills.  Instead of leaving it to 1.5 million separate, ego-driven, micro-bureaucracies called charities, including, get a load of this scam, religions.  But no one here wants the rational way.  We all want the United Way, because that’s the American way.

 

Ay caramba!  Not only was it irrational and not true, but it was unfunny.  Look.  It is OK to make fun of charities and religions. (Or, most religions.  Some may chop off your head.)  Most Christians have a sense of humor.  However, it has to be funny!  The Simpsons, in fact, have done it since the beginning.  One of the most familiar characters is the goody-two-shoes, hyper-religious, next-door-neighbor, Ned Flanders, and he is funny.  There have been many episodes based around church, or Reverend Lovejoy, that are hilarious.  This episode, on the other hand, was not even intended to be funny.  It was just a setup for a government propaganda speech based on a dangerous, flawed premise.

As someone who started and ran a charity to help addicts, I know something about this.  While there are some bad charities and some bad churches, there are some major problems with the message that The Simpsons was clunkily shoving down our throats.  Here are three big ones:

  1. Efficiency – Government is HIGHLY wasteful, inefficient and ineffective.  Bureaucracy is defined by Investopedia as “a complex organization that has multilayered systems and processes.  The systems and processes that are put in place effectively make decision-making slow.  They are designed to maintain uniformity and control within the organization.” The government is slow, and to get anything done, you have to cut through red tape like you were hacking your way through the jungle with a machete.  It is expensive to do this.  Good charities, on the other hand, often only spend 20% or less of their donations on administrative costs, meaning that 80% or more of what you donate is used towards the cause.
  2. Choice – Taxes are coerced, so when the people see how inefficient the government is at solving problems, they cannot withhold their funding.  The government has little reason to be efficient because they can take your money either way.  Since taxes are mandatory and people cannot choose whether to give, the bureaucrats in charge of programs actually have an incentive to make problems worse, so that they can say that they need more funding.  Conversely, charitable giving is voluntary, and people can choose which charities they give to.  This is a massive difference.  As I said, there are some bad charities and some bad churches, but you are not forced to give anything to them!  This makes the charities accountable to their donors and forces them to show results.  If they do not show results, they will lose donors.  If you are looking into donating to a charity, there are watchdog organizations, like Charity Navigator, where you can find out what percentage of their donations are actually used for the cause.
  3. Proximity to the problems – The government, especially the federal government, is far from most of the problems in our country.  This leads to impersonal, cookie-cutter solutions to problems that only work for very few of the people who need assistance.  Churches are, without a doubt, the best, most effective organizations to deal with societal problems.  Contrary to Mr. Burns’ assertion, they are not generally as bureaucratic.  Most have boards of deacons or church elders to run things by, while other churches just have pastors with broad decision-making authority.  After that, the people involved are the members of the church, who live in the affected communities and often know the people who need help.  They are close to the problems and can deal with them in a much more personal way. 

These three things just scratch the surface as to why charities and churches are far superior to the government when it comes to helping people.  When Alexis de Tocqueville traveled through America in 1831, he was impressed by how Americans gathered together in charitable associations to help each other and thought that this was one of the big reasons why the young country was so successful.  He noted, “I have often seen Americans make large and genuine sacrifices to the public good, and I have noted on countless occasions that, when necessary, they almost never fail to lend one another a helping hand.”  He was correct.  If you want to make a difference and help people, give to charities and get involved at your church.  If you want to waste your money, give it to the government.  Actually, you have to.  D’oh!

What Is Liberty?

The week before California’s recall election I had the privilege of meeting the world’s greatest athlete from 1976.  That title was traditionally bestowed on the winner of the decathlon, and at the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal Bruce Jenner won the gold medal for the United States while setting a new world record.  In 2015 Bruce Jenner shocked the world in an interview with Diane Sawyer in which he told Sawyer that he was now a she.  (Disclaimer:  So as not to be a science denier I am using the scientifically correct gender pronouns in this article.  That is not the focus of the article.)  Jenner, who now goes by the name Caitlyn, ran in the California recall election as a Republican to replace the inept Governor Gavin Newsom.  The Friday before election day Caitlyn Jenner was the guest speaker at a discussion group that I have been attending for the last couple of months.

Caitlyn’s talk was impressive.  He was personable, friendly, and funny.  Jenner said that after the Sawyer interview there was more criticism for coming out as a Republican than there was for coming out as transgender.  Jenner also told a funny story about being in the weight room at the Olympics when a female East German athlete came in and started lifting heavier weights than him, ironically causing him to leave because he felt emasculated.  Jenner genuinely cares about California and wants it returned to the greatness it once had.  I did not expect much talk about actual policy positions, but Jenner has a pretty solid grasp of many of the problems Gavin Newsom and years of Democrat control have caused, including sky-high tax rates and backbreaking regulations.  A lot of ideas that Jenner had to fix some of these problems were good, including a sunset provision which would require regulations to be reevaluated by the legislature every ten years or else they would fall off the books. 

There was, however, one major point that Jenner made that stood out to me because it was based on a flawed premise.  Jenner said that he decided to run because of his belief that California needs a moderate Republican to fix the state.  Specifically, he said that people should vote for him because he is conservative on economic issues and more liberal on social issues.  Jenner also said that the candidate that I endorsed, Larry Elder, is “far-right.”  The premise of that argument ignores the fact that conservatism comes with a built-in solution to people disagreeing on social issues:  liberty.

Jenner’s reasoning assumes that the choice you have is between voting for a left-wing government controlling your life or a right-wing government controlling your life.  In actuality, the choice is between a left-wing government controlling your life or you controlling your life. 

For example, as a conservative Republican, I believe that the country would be much better off if every single American attended church weekly.  I would agree with Jenner if a governor who is “far-right” was going to mandate church attendance.  As much as I think we would all be better off if everyone went to church, I only believe that to be true if it was done voluntarily instead of under coercion.  If the Right operated like Democrats this might be something to worry about.  Imagine, the government forcing all businesses with over 100 employees to require proof of church attendance to be employed there.  Jenner’s argument only works if the Right did that kind of thing.  Instead, the Right wants people to be free to choose, even if we disagree.  That is what liberty is. 

Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, are often accused of telling people what to do on moral issues.  The truth is, we do care about your moral decisions and we want you to choose what God wants for you.  Notice, however, that I said: “choose.”  Except on the issue of abortion, where the choice directly harms another person, we do not want to take the decision away from you.  The difference is huge.  Conservatives may try to persuade you to do certain things, but that is not the same as using tyrannical power to force those things.  This is what Caitlyn Jenner was missing.  The further to the left a politician gets, the more parts of your life they want to control.  Being a moderate Republican still means they want to have more control over you than a “far right” candidate does.  That is not a good selling point. 

Jenner was asked if he would run for office again if he lost this election and answered that he wasn’t sure about running again, but he would definitely work with the Republican Party to become more of a big tent party that is more inclusive.  I hope that he does, but it needs to be done by explaining clearly that the way to do it is to push for a return to limited government and personal liberty.  We can agree to disagree.  You are welcome in the Republican Party even if you want to use your God-given liberty to do things we may not agree with.  I certainly do not agree with many of Caitlyn Jenner’s lifestyle choices, but I also do not want the government to force him to do what I would prefer.  The Right has no interest in taking away your liberty.

Let’s Make a Deal to Save Lives

America is divided and we all know it.  Many people talk about us coming together and finding common ground, but in general, I don’t think that is possible because we no longer share the same values.  There is, however, something that both the left and the right claim to want right now that makes for a great compromise.  Both sides say that they want to save lives. 

Now, a fair compromise gives both sides something that they want.  We should all agree that saving lives is a worthy cause, even if we do not agree on how to do it.  If both sides are sincere about their desire to save lives, they will agree that this is a compromise worth agreeing to.  If not, they never really cared about saving lives and just wanted power and control.

So, how does the left say we can save lives?  They want everybody to get vaccinated from Covid.  For full disclosure, let me explain my position on the vaccinations.  I am not vaccinated.  I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I believe that each individual should have the freedom to choose whether they get vaccinated without having to disclose their vaccination status to anybody.  Some people on my side might not agree with this, but I do not think the vaccine is likely to kill you.  We have to be honest about that.  It likely kills some people, but the odds of that are pretty slim.  If we say that the media should stop exaggerating the dangers of Covid, we should not turn around and exaggerate the dangers of the vaccine. 

That being said, there are two main reasons why I have not partaken.  First, it is a solution in search of a problem.  There is literally a 0.0% chance that Covid will kill me.  You have to go another decimal point for it to even register as a cause of death, and that is using the inflated numbers from the government.  The risk of me dying in a car accident on the way to get the shot is likely higher than the odds of me dying of Covid.  I do not want to take an experimental vaccine if I am fine without it.  Second, it is far too much fun listening to angry leftists flip out because there are people who won’t fall in line and do what they command us to do. 

My thoughts aside, the left says that they want everybody vaccinated because it will save countless lives.  Whether it will or not, they are pulling out all the stops.  They are trying to guilt-trip people into compliance. They are vilifying and shaming people who choose not to get vaccinated.  They are bribing people to get the shot with cash and contest entries.  They want vaccine passports so that they can shun and banish unvaccinated people from society.  They would like vaccinations to be mandated for all Americans.

Here is where my compromise comes in.  Conservatives also claim that they want to save lives.  While the net number of people saved or lost by the Covid vaccines is debatable, conservatives can document how many lives their tradeoff would save.  The number is approximately 62 million lives in the past 48 years.  In fact, since the left supposedly cares about black lives, this compromise would end the leading cause of death among blacks in America.  My proposal is this:  I would gladly volunteer to get the vaccine, and even support mandatory Covid vaccines in exchange for the immediate and irreversible ban of abortions in the United States. 

When you think about it, it’s the perfect compromise.  Both sides claim that the problem they would be solving is a major, existential crisis.  Both sides are even giving up what they perceive to be the same thing; choice in a healthcare decision.  If they truly believe that what they are fighting for will save myriad lives, this would be an easy and heroic deal to make.  If they will not make this tradeoff, they must not really believe that their respective cause will actually save many lives. 

We are not likely to agree on which action actually works, but whether you are on the left or the right, you can be sure that this deal will save lives one way or another.  My sleeve is rolled up and ready.  If you honestly believe that lives will be saved, agree to the compromise.  Otherwise, you know it’s not that important to you.

Give Us the Same Courtesy That We Gave You

The first paragraph of this article is here for a very specific reason. To promote the article on social media I had to make sure that there was no political speech in the first couple of lines so that it wouldn’t be censored. The original started here:

Democrats now control the White House and both chambers of Congress.  They are calling for unity, but what they mean by that is, “Now everybody needs to agree with us.”  That is not going to happen.  I am not saying that in an obstinate way.  I’m just being realistic and honest.  People disagree and that is alright.  Republicans were in charge for the last four years and many people disagreed with them, and I expected that as well because that is how life works. 

This leads me to my one request to Democrats.  Now that you’re in charge please give us the same courtesy that we gave to you when we were.  That courtesy is this:  When people disagree with you, don’t force them to do what you want. 

This may surprise some of you after being told by the media for four years that President Trump was a fascist dictator, but I cannot think of anything that he forced us to do during his term.  If you disagreed with President Trump and the Republicans, they did not make you do anything against your will.  Republicans let people agree to disagree.  

If, for example, you disagreed with the tax cuts that were passed, Republicans did not force you to go along with it.  They implemented no penalties for people who wanted to keep paying the higher tax rates voluntarily.  Yes, you can do that.  Surprisingly, wealthy Democrats who complain that rich people don’t pay their fair share do not opt to pay more themselves when given that choice.  Alright, maybe not so surprisingly.

Ultimately, this is the main thing that Republicans want:  to be left alone.  We want to control our own lives and let others control theirs.  Another example; we may understand that homosexuality is immoral, but we do not block people from the practice.  In fact, the Trump administration started a global effort to end the criminalization of homosexuality.  (In contrast, Democrats kowtow to countries like Iran who put homosexuals to death.)  Republicans also disagree with divisive groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, yet do not want them prevented from speaking or kicked off of social media.  Another Republican belief is that God is central to the American way of life and necessary for our success, but we do not want to require church attendance.  In other words, Republicans would like everybody to act in particular ways but think that people should be free to choose for themselves.

This approach is not a new one.  It is actually one of the principles that our country was established on.  Our Founding Fathers were wise men who understood that people would not always agree as to what should be done.  They also knew that throughout history, when the powerful forced those who disagreed with them to conform to their will it sowed contempt, division and conflict.  Their solution was liberty.  If one group wants to do “A” and another group wants to do “B,” the answer is not to have the group in power force the other group to do what they command.  Instead, the first group can do “A” and the second group can do “B.”  They can try to use persuasion to win the other side over but they should not use coercion.

If Joe Biden really wants unity this is what he should do.  Refrain from taking away our liberty.  Allow people to have free will and do what they think is best for themselves.  He can disagree with our choices but he should not overrule them.  Here are ten great suggestions that the Democrats can do to respect the liberty of Americans:

  1. If you decide to raise taxes, make it optional to pay the old rate like the Republicans did for you. 
  2. If you want people to wear masks, make it optional like the Republicans did.
  3. Let scared restaurant owners who want to shut down do so, and let the ones who want to remain open choose to do that.  If patrons want to show up they can but if they are afraid they should also be free to stay home.
  4. Let churches decide whether to remain open or close down.  If congregants do not want to attend they should not be forced to, but those who do should be allowed in.
  5. President Trump stopped enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which threatens to take away tax-exempt status from churches if the pastor endorses a political candidate.  Continue with that policy and allow pastors to decide for themselves what to say from the pulpit without threat of retaliation from the government.
  6. If somebody wants health insurance that covers pregnancy and drug rehabilitation they should be allowed to purchase it.  If another person wants less expensive insurance that does not cover those things they should be allowed to choose that.  If someone else prefers to pay out of pocket for medical care instead of buying insurance they should be able to do that.
  7. Do not force law abiding citizens to buy guns.  Likewise, do not prohibit them from buying guns.
  8. If someone wants to do a job for $8 per hour, do not prohibit them from doing so and force them out of a job.  Let people decide for themselves what wage to accept.
  9. Do not force people who are against murdering babies to pay for the murder of babies.  Do not use taxpayer money for Planned Parenthood.
  10. Refrain from banning or restricting us from using certain products like incandescent light bulbs, straws, grocery bags, soda, and shower heads with good water pressure.

These are all things that Democrats have tried to dictate in the past.  If they truly want unity this list would be a solid first step.  Instead of using tyrannical power to control those of us who disagree with them, try going back to our founding vision of liberty.  It’s the least they can do after Republicans did it for them the last four years.