Tag: television

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!

The Bachelorette Term of the Year is Not Positive

I have a confession to make.  Every Monday night, I sit down, open a bottle of wine, and watch The Bachelor.  My sister used to text me to ask what I was up to, and I would send her a picture of some food, wine, and The Bachelor on television in the background.  In fact, the picture of pizza on top of the Steve Connally’s Brain Facebook page is one of them.  She would laugh at me back then, but eventually she started joining me to watch.  Now we get together every week for the spectacle.

Obviously, you should not look to The Bachelor franchise for your morals and values.  Between drunken arguments, fantasy suites, and dramatic rose ceremonies where grown adults cry over a person they have spent less time with than their dentist, the show is the definition of a guilty pleasure.  This year, however, The Bachelorette has annoyed me with a recurring theme.  No, I’m not talking about the super woke firing of host Chris Harrison for having the gall to think that a 24-year-old girl should not be labeled a racist and cancelled from society for wearing a pretty dress to a party, although that is very annoying.  What I am talking about is a term that they have used over and over again to describe the current Bachelorette, Katie Thurston, throughout this season of The Bachelorette.  The term is “sex-positive.” 

Both my sister and I noticed “sex-positive” being used multiple times in the first few episodes, to which I observed, “I think sex-positive is just the politically correct term for slutty.”  She said, “No.  I think you can be sex-positive and still have moral standards.”  I agreed that sex is definitely a positive thing within a certain framework, namely between a married husband and wife, but I doubt that is what they meant considering the progressive, secular slant of mainstream entertainment, and the fact that none of the people on the show are married.  So, I looked it up, and as usual, I was right. 

The current definition of “sex-positive” not only lacks any moral standards other than consent, but it forbids them.  An article on healthline.com explains that sex-positivity “involves being nonjudgmental and respectful regarding the diversity of sexuality and gender expressions, as long as there is consent.”  It goes on to say that any morality attached to sex is “sex-negative,” including abstinence-only education, purity pacts, slut-shaming, and the “good girl” versus “bad girl” trope.  Another article on Yahoo even quotes Dr. Jess O’Reilly worrying that Bachelorette Katie’s definition of sex-positivity might not be inclusive enough.  She opines that, “some people claim to be sex-positive, but their definition of sex is narrow — they may not support and show reverence to sex workers, who provide essential services, for example.”  So, if you don’t think that prostitution is awesome, or if you think that a girl who wants to save herself for marriage is a good girl, you are considered sex-negative. 

If you think as I do that there should be moral standards attached to sex, and for example, it is not a good idea to try to have sex with a bunch of people you just met on a television show, you will probably be accused of “slut-shaming.”  Don’t worry about it.  Shame is not a bad thing.  The Oxford Dictionary definition of “shame” is, “the feelings of sadness, embarrassment, and guilt that you have when you know that something you have done is wrong or stupid.”  What is the alternative?  Should we prefer that people feel happy and proud when they do something wrong or stupid?  No!  I feel shame for bad things I have done.  That is good.  The shame should make me want to correct those behaviors.   The definition of “shaming” as a verb is, “to make someone feel ashamed.”  I don’t see that as a bad thing.  Would it be wrong to shame someone for beating their girlfriend?  For stealing?  For rape?  Of course not.  They should feel ashamed. 

Here’s the funny thing.  The people who say it is bad to shame someone constantly try to shame people they disagree with, including shaming people for shaming people.  Even worse, they shame people for doing what is right.  For example, while researching I came across an article ripping on The Bachelor for portraying Madison Prewitt, a contestant from last year, in a positive light.  Let’s see if you can guess why they did not like Madison with a multiple choice quiz.

A) She got super drunk and threw a pizza from a hotel balcony

B) She supports rocket attacks against Israel

C) She is a Christian and a virgin

Although it seems like A or B should draw more criticism, if you guessed C, you are correct.  Madison actually was disparaged for having good character and doing things the way God intended, because that is sex-negative.  (If Madi happens to be reading this, I’m single!)

On the other side of the coin, when season 11 Bachelorette Kaitlyn Bristowe had sex with Nick Viall on their first one-on-one date, “Bachelor Nation” went out of their way to show their approval.  Anybody who dared to question the wisdom or morality of the decision was denounced as a slut-shamer and a meanie.  Now, I actually liked Kaitlyn (not so much Nick), and nobody should bully her for doing what she did, but it was certainly wrong.  Saying so is not mean.  It’s just a fact.  God created sex for marriage.

People tend to think that God is cruel for giving us rules, but they are looking at it wrong.  God tells us how to do things to help us, not to be mean.  He is not saying, “I made some arbitrary rules to keep you from doing what you want.”  He is saying, “This is how I designed creation.  If you do things outside of that design it will lead to more harm than good.  I love you, so I’m telling you this to protect you from doing things that will hurt you.” 

Katie seems like a sweet, fun, and likeable girl.  When we first saw her get out of the limo with a big, pink vibrator, I thought it was funny.  What is not funny is trying to eliminate morality and implying that doing what is right is a negative thing.  Let’s get back to the shouting matches, drama, and finding out who is there for the right reasons, and stop with the politically correct buzzwords.  I’ll bring the wine.