The Folly of Fairness

Obama used the word "fair" or "fairness" several times tonight... especially when referring to taxes and the economy: McCain's tax policy isn't "fair"; It's only "fair" for the rich to pay more; etc. News flash for you Obama: Life isn't fair and legislating fairness is actually a form of injustice.

(Side note: I thought the debate was horrible. Is anyone else really disappointed with our choices this year? Obama, because I disagree with just about everything he says and McCain because he does not articulate the conservative viewpoint at all... maybe because he's not one. Is there no politician who can explain a conservative worldview?)

Back to "fairness." I was reading a parenting book recently and came across an excellent section on the concept of fairness. I thought I'd leave an excerpt here because it's so appropriate in making my point and in addressing the state of our national psyche. Now, granted, the excerpt is dealing with children, but you have to admit that Obama sounds quite like a playground child when whining that "it's not fair":

"There is a universal tendency to try to make life fair. 'You had your turn, now it is mine.' 'You already have two balls and I have none, so you should be fair and share with me.' 'Daddy gave Johnny one, so Suzy should get one also.' We tend to think of legislated fairness as equality, when in fact it is inequality. This is so ingrained in us that we equate fairness with justice. The communist system is built on a principle of forced fairness. In contrast, the American system of government is based on individual rights.

"Pure fairness is as unlikely and as undesirable as making all mountains the same height. It is unnatural and can only be achieved through forced injustice. When it is a rule handed down by 'Big Brother' it will never be carried out with benevolence on the part of the one being stripped of his abundance, nor can it be received with thankfulness on the part of the one expecting legislated equality.

"This indulgent demand for fairness begins at the earliest age. You can know you have already cultivated self-centerdness in your children when Grandma must buy gifts of equal value for each grandchild in order to keep feelings from being hurt. Trying to keep equal accounts, whether in things, privileges, or discipline, is not wise. It trains children to believe they have the right to weigh and balance, to demand equal share, or to veto the good fortune of another. They are turning selfishness into a childhood occupation. Evil covetousness is being rewarded. Parents are missing one of the greatest opportunities to teach their children to rejoice in the good fortune of another.

"It should never be our intention to show favoritism, but circumstantial inequality is not only just but essential to the very foundations of individuality. Some are naturally tall, while others are short. Some are gifted in many areas, whereas others appear to be gifted in little. One farmer receives rain while another suffers drought. One is born into a family of opportunity while another is born into social bondage. One gets a promotion while another loses his job. Many run the race, but only one takes first place.

"When your child gets knocked down, don't reward his whining of unfairness. Teach him how to get up and walk away with dignity. If the other children run off and leave him, teach him how to organize play that will cause them to want to be a part of his activity. But never make your child the unwelcome tagalong of despising peers. When rain falls on his neighbors' crops but not his, teach him how to irrigate. When his wages are lower, teach him how to manage his finances. When someone else gets the job, teach him how to start a company that provides better services. If he has fewer gifts, teach him how to expect nothing and to make little into abundance. Rather than whine for equality, teach him how to give until others are blessed above himself."

How did we get to the point in America where we feel we are owed something by someone, usually the government? Why is fairness now espoused as a virtue? Why are our candidates afraid to tell people "NO" and willing to promise them everything they desire? Clearly our mommies and daddies did not tell us what we needed to hear, so I will: Quit whining and grow up. Life is not fair.

(All quotes taken from "No Greater Joy. Vol. 1" by Michael and Debi Pearl)

Just wondering...

Some random thoughts I've had as I follow the news this week:

• How is it possible for a company to fail when the guy running it walks away with millions of dollars?
• How is it right for taxpayers to cover bad decisions of politicians and executives?
  
• Does anyone feel like the government operates like they can just pull money out of the sky (oh wait, they kind of can)? I don't know about you, but if I don't have money to buy milk at the end of the month, then my kid drinks water. If I can't buy gas, then I get a ride. Could someone in Washington please operate on a budget!?!?
• How are bureaucrats gonna be effective at handling mortgages and insurance? I haven't seen them handle much well even in their current jurisdictions.
• Why is president Bush a liberal when it comes to spending?
• Does this change Obama's game plan? I highly doubt all those programs he's promised are possible now. Raising taxes would put the final death nail in the economic coffin. Plus, who wants the government running healthcare if they failed miserably with mortgages... FannieMae and FreddieMac?
• Back in 2005, Alan Greenspan warned of the failing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There was a bill proposed to reform the institutions. Republicans voted for it... Democrats blocked it.
• McCain was one of the people calling for Fannie and Freddie reform in 2005/2006. Why is he not playing this up?
• Is Joe Biden serious? This gaffe was pretty funny: "FDR president when the stock market crashed and addressed the nation on t.v." News flash: Herbert Hoover was president and people didn't have t.v.'s. I can only imagine the outcry if Palin had made the same mistake.
  

Sarah Palin Speech

Another historic event last night... Sarah Palin's speech at the RNC.

Like it?

Love it?

Hate it?

What'd you think?

As far as The Sisters Wade are concerned, we LOVED it!

Obama Speech... Palin Pick...

The first black man to win a party nomination... The first woman on a Republican presidential ticket... it's a media feast on all accounts.

Here's my two cents:

It was quite moving to see a black man's presidential nomination acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. I'm sure I can't fully grasp the significance of such a moment for an African American, but still it was quite a scene to behold. Though I disagree with Obama's politics, I esteem and applaud what he has achieved.

Two glaring inconsistencies/contradictions stood out to me as I listened to Obama. First and foremost, he kept referencing his "new" and "fresh ideas"... "new times"... and "new politics." However, all I find new about him is his face. The outline of his programs (and all I've seen of his voting record) was a generic democratic platform. Those ideas have been around long before he was born.

Secondly, he had a small sidebar about how the government can't solve all problems and how we need to take personal responsibility. He even challenged fathers to be home and involved with their children. I agree with these sentiments and was glad to hear them. However, most of the domestic programs he's proposing and every increased reach of the government's arm that he stands behind, takes the "personal" right out of responsibility and undercuts the natural duty in each American home. What father, that already tends toward neglect and abdication, would find any more incentive to provide and care for his children if these children can get free healthcare and a "worldclass education" right from the hands of Daddy Obama?

Moving on. So McCain selects Sarah Palin as his running mate. Definitely a surprise! I honestly don't know whether this choice will hurt him or help him, but on a personal level I liked what I saw of her today. She had an attractive personality and story. I don't have much to say about her, just wanted to hear your opinions...

So what did you think about Obama's speech?

And

What do you think about Sarah Palin?

Saddleback Follow Up

Most agree that the Saddleback Forum last weekend was well-conducted by lead pastor Rick Warren. He had a chance to ask both candidates some straight-forward honest questions (whether they answered honestly remains to be seen). And he did an excellent job. But what does he himself think about politics? Where does he fall on the issues? He has not been as politically outspoken as say a Dr. James Dobson or the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and that has caused some to criticize him, some to mischaracterize him and some to appreciate him. Warren's lack of candidate endorsement and political rhetoric in no way means he's soft on the issues or trying to appease all sides. I have heard him speak on government/politics a couple of times and he is well-versed in the arena. He is a man of strong conviction and in my opinion has a pretty good grasp of the biblical worldview.

You can read some of his thoughts here in a rare interview with the Wall Street Journal. The article is worth the read but here's a brief summary of Warren's main points:

• He's pro-life and believes abortion is the most significant issue affecting the evangelical vote in the fall.
• He rejects the idea of tolerance as far as it has come to mean that all ideas are equally valid. He is no relativist.
• He views McCain as a limited government guy and Obama as a big government guy.
• He wants a non-government solution to things like poverty and disease, believing that churches should lead the way in this fight.
• Though he's one of the most generous men in the world (giving away 90% of his income), he believes "the answer to poverty is business development, not charity." He believes free market, enterprise and creativity are vital to a society.
• He knows that true answers to societies ills can only come from Jesus and His Church. The government cannot be a savior.
  
• He wants to return civility to the public square, wishing that people could "disagree about the issues without demonizing each other." And Saturday night was one of his efforts in doing so.

All I have to say is "Amen!" (And read the article...)

Saddleback Forum

I’m curious what other people thought about the Rick Warren forum last week. I haven’t been too excited about John McCain, but his answers to these questions were really encouraging. Although I don't agree with all of his positions, he knows where he stands. He answered the questions directly and conclusively.

Obama, on the other hand, seemed to me to waffle throughout, trying to answer in such a way as to include the greatest number of people possible. How can you answer moral questions when for you there are no moral absolutes? All of his answers were “relative”; in fact, he even used that word himself. How can we be confident in a president who has no absolute moral basis for any of the decisions he makes?

Take, for example, the question of abortion. Warren asked both candidates at what point a baby should be given the protection of human rights. McCain’s answer was simple: “At conception.” Obama, however, actually said that question was above his pay grade. Then why on earth is he running for President? What more fundamental question could there be? And if you’re really not sure when life or human rights begin, why err on the side of death? He said a lot about wanting to work with as many people as possible, and about how women don’t come to these decisions lightly. By that logic, if I don’t lightly come to the decision to murder someone, because I believe it’s in my best interest, does that make it okay?

Or what about when Warren asked the candidates to define “rich”. I thought this was a great question. Obama has talked so much about “taxing the rich”, it leaves one to ask who, exactly, is rich. Obama did put a number to it, those making above $250,000, but then admitted that it’s completely relative, dependent on factors such as what region of the country you live in. The problem is, the tax code won’t be relative. It won’t look at what region of the country you live in, for example. It just doesn’t seem fair to tax the rich, when it’s virtually impossible to define “rich”. To most people, rich probably means anyone making one dollar more than they themselves make. Where do you draw the line?

I wasn’t able to see the whole broadcast, so I’d be curious to hear people’s reactions to some of the other questions. And I’m also curious about something else—for those of you who hold to a worldview of moral relativism and have nothing absolute on which to base your decisions and values, how do you go about deciding what you believe about any given issue? Do you use your own reason? Do you try to do what’s best for the greatest number? (And if so, how do you decide which greatest number to be in favor of when it comes to issues like abortion—is it the women or the unborn children?) Anyways, what did you think about the forum and where the candidates stand on these issues?