Archive for November, 2006

h1

Entitlement for Fun and Profit

Saturday, November 25th, 2006

I know what I want
I know what I need
I want a miracle
I know what I need
I know what I want, I know what I need, give me
(A new car!)

I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I do deserve the best (Keep on confessing)
The very, very, very, very Best
I’m one of the king’s kids
I deserve the best, I want
(A new car!)
- Terry Taylor, “New Car!”

In my line of work (which I shall only make vagues references to) I have, for 20 years, had to deal with those under the spell of the Entitlement Myth. If something goes wrong, these people immediately start looking for someone, not only to blame, but to give them what they feel they are “entitled” to. In fact, blame is not usually as important as the “deep pocket,” whoever that might be. “Somebody owes me something,” is the general premise.

The Christian side of entitlement thinking is not much different than the secular side, except for the focus: ultimately, it is God’s responsibility. However, most entitlement-oriented Christians will never say that, because it sounds sinful and selfish, and because religious people can’t get mad at God for anything. Instead, usually the target is shifted from God to the church. The church, after all, is made up of sinful people, so as sinners, they’re more easy to blame.

I’ve seen it over and over - those with terrible work habits, various lifestyle issues, horrendous money-management skills and just generally unwise will look to those around them who are industrious (and therefore more “blessed”) for handouts. Some unskilled individuals actually want to learn “to fish.” However, the entitlement crowd would rather have you give them the fish. Since you already know how to fish enough to share, why should they learn, too?

The sin of the Entitlement Myth is named in the 10 Commandments: “Thou shalt not covet …” Obviously this is nothing new. Whether they spiritualize the issue or not, the issue is still the belief that they deserve what someone else has. This is a totally different issue than the command to “give to anyone who asks of you,” although these folks don’t see it that way. Paul clarified the issue somewhat when he said plainly, “he who won’t work shouldn’t eat.” Feeding widows and orphans is one thing; feeding lazy slobs is another thing altogether.

There are those who have legitimate needs, due to work layoffs, illness, disaster, etc. Then there are those who are simply stupid, who overspend, under-work and in general live a lot like the Prodigal Son. However, notice that in the story, the Prodigal didn’t expect his father to give him anything- he had repented enough to have learned the value of work. Often, I think we enable prodigals to continue in their sin by letting our misplaced sympathies and guilts move us to bail them out, before they have had opportunity to repent. In effect, by not listening carefully to God, we can thwart God’s plans by being generous when generosity is not called for.

We tend to try to balance out issues in our minds, by thinking that the command to feed the poor somehow relates to an entitlement by the poor to what the rich have. However, I think this is a grave error in reasoning; the call of God on the rich to be generous is simply that. The poor are not told to look to the wealthy, or to the establishment (the church or the government) - they are to ask God directly. How God works that out is His business.

Now (to go back to the song quoted above), the concept of being entitled to a blessing seems to me to be a contradiction. If you’re entitled to something, it’s not a blessing. However, there are those who believe that they are entitled to be blessed, which is a fair segue into the next post …

h1

The Entitlement Myth and Liberal Logic

Monday, November 13th, 2006

I love it when my themes come together. That is, except when it’s in response to negative situations, as unfortunately is the case at present.

I’ve been writing on the issue of “The Entitlement Myth” and will continue the theme for a couple of more posts. I’ve also started a “Liberal Logic” theme, and will no doubt continue with that. Today, I’m hitting 2 birds with one stone.

The Entitlement Myth exists on many levels, the most common being the belief by a large number of Americans that by nature of their particular “disadvantage,” whether it may be race, age, location, profession, economic situation, education level or [lack of] motivation, they are owed something by the rest of the us. “Us” could be us normal working-class individuals, rich people, corporations or, more than likely, the government (as if the government is something other than “us”). Okay, so you can probably guess how I feel about this way of thinking. It is the “give a man a fish” thinking, as opposed to the “teach a man to fish” approach. The Entitlement Myth also completely ignores the fact that someone actually has to pay for this.

Now, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t help people. I’d rather give to the poor than to most people who ask me for money. But, this entitlement thinking is wrong; it has been shown to undermine people’s self-worth, demotivates people, leads to dependence on the system and requires higher taxes to pay for all of the entitlement programs. The band Ten Years After summed it up nicely in their song of years past, I’d Love to Change the World: “Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.” It is the second cousin of socialism.

Now, consider last week’s elections. You’ve probably heard many wild interpretations on why the Democrats now have the majority in both the House and the Senate, most of which are mostly wrong. I won’t go into detail about this (today, anyway), but keep in mind that many of the Democrats who were voted in ran as conservatives. The election many have been a Republican loss, but not necessarily a Conservative loss.

The problem is, however, that the Democratic Party is not run by moderates or conservatives, but by liberal extremists, and the newcomers will have very little power to do anything. They will be pressured to follow along, as they always are, and chances are they will follow, no matter what they said during their campaigns (it happens to both parties).

So, guess what? We are already hearing the plans of the far left, echoing the pre-election warnings by the conservatives, including raising taxes and funneling more cash into “gimme” programs. This, in spite of the fact that the economy is booming. Why? Because liberal logic says that since there are poor people (regardless of the reason), we should raise taxes so we can give them money.

I admit that at first glance, it seems to make sense; it even seems like the compassionate thing to do; except when you start to think about it logically. “Give a man a fish” and he’ll learn to become dependent on the handouts. Some liberals may actually want to encourage this dependent thinking - as it also makes them dependent upon the liberals to keep the programs going. That’s how “pushing” works, isn’t it?

Conservative logic also says that we should help the poor - but by doing things like growing the economy to provide job opportunities, or even by being one the “thousand points of light.” It says that the government should encourage faith-based programs (people who already care about their communities) rather than have government create ill-managed programs. Conservative logic, in this case, also tends to be more Biblical: “if you don’t work, you shouldn’t eat.” Compassion doesn’t create dependency, compassion enables responsibility and independence.

But, the true conservatives failed to actually be conservative, and for the most part they deserved to be kicked out of office. The downside, however, is that now we have another opportunity to become too familiar with liberal logic, and you and I will end up paying for it, one way or another.

h1

Today, I voted (plus, Orson Scott Card and Liberal Logic)

Tuesday, November 7th, 2006

As many of you know, Oregon is the “mail-in voting” state. In a country where people yell and scream over dangling chads, stolen ballot boxes and voter disenfranchisement, we Oregonians trust the U.S. Postal Service to send us our ballots and then return them. Of course, to use the mail-in option, you actually have to vote several days before the election, which I find highly suspect, if not just plain wrong.

So, in the spirit of American Independence, I chose not to vote early. I vote on the 2nd Tuesday of November, period. I wait until the last minute, allowing for any late-breaking scandals, and proudly deliver my vote, in person. So, today, in true Oregonian fashion, I filled out my ballot (in black ink), sealed and signed it, and drove down in the pouring rain to the City Hall.

Our City Hall is an unobtrusive structure - in fact, it’s cleverly disguised as a steel building with a partial brick facade, with all of the character of a double-wide trailer. So, I parked in the lot, stepped out into the drizzle and wandered around the building looking for the front door. I found it around the corner and opened it, allowing for 3 other patriotic citizens to exit the lobby.

Our City Hall lobby is reminiscent of many other cheap government offices, filled with posters, stacks of forms and people behind counters who completely ignore you. But, I quickly found the ballot boxes, two highly-secure Rubbermaid tubs with rectangular slots cut into the ends. I selected a box, and proudly deposited my ballot. Unlike the many other voting halls I have been in over the years, no one thanked me for voting or handed me an “I Voted!” sticker. No one checked my ID, or even watched me to make sure I didn’t toss a match into the boxes.

Voting isn’t what it used to be, at least in Oregon.

So, all of you people in Ohio, Tennessee and Florida, don’t complain. At least you seem to have people who actually care about the process.

But wait, there’s more…

Some of you may be familiar with Orson Scott Card, author, Mormon & Democrat. He’s written several very intriguing sci-fi and fiction novels. He also is the author of an article published yesterday, titled “The Only Issue This Election Day.”

Card is no Venusian (see yesterday’s post if you need that explained). He, though a Democrat, expresses very succinctly and logically why the worst thing that could happen to this country would be for the Democrats to control the House and the Senate. It’s worth reading, so please do so.

This just goes to show you that not all Democrats are Venusians. It is possible to be a liberal while retaining your ability to think. It’s encouraging.