Level or Fair?

Level or Fair? (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

Do you want a level playing field or a fair playing field?  That is the question before you.  They are not the same thing.  You must choose one, since the choice of one rules out the other.  Let’s consider the options more closely.  Perhaps that will help with your decision.  What is a level playing field?  What is a fair playing field?  And what’s the difference anyway?

A level playing field means everyone is equally matched.  No one is allowed to be smarter, richer, more talented or better looking than anyone else.  If someone starts to gain an advantage, rules are in place to check such actions and keep things “level.”  Similarly, if someone discovers a new way to gain advantage, the rules are changed or more rules are added to, again, keep things “level.”  In a level playing field, if someone chooses to sit in the sidelines, that person is “awarded” points taken from those playing the hardest.  A level playing field is all about equality of outcome regardless of ability.

On the other hand, a fair playing field means everyone is allowed equal opportunity.  Everyone has equal access to the field.  On a fair playing field, the rules ensure equality of access, not equality of outcome.   Everyone on the field has equal opportunity to pick up the ball and run with it.  In a fair playing field, people are encouraged to use their intelligence, ability and determination to score as much as they want.  However, no one is forced to score or forced to play; but those who choose to sit on the sidelines are not “rewarded” by being given points taken from those playing.

We’re often told the playing field must be kept level or it’s not “fair.”  However, as we’ve just seen, “level” is about outcome; “fair” is about access and opportunity.  If your access and opportunity are denied or restricted, such a system could hardly said to be “fair.”

Would we consider it “fair” if rules were in place forcing sports teams to always be equally matched (a “level” playing field)?  Would we think it “fair” if rules forced a player out of a game if he started scoring “too many” points?  Would we think it “fair” if the rules took points away from a high-scoring player and gave them to the other team simply because he was scoring “too much?”  Would we think it “fair” if winning teams were prohibited from participating in playoffs?  Would we think it “fair” if outstanding individual sports talent was somehow “punished” or discouraged?

I think almost everyone would see immediately such rules are not fair and would see clearly the difference between “level” and “fair.”  Yet, when it comes to government, we are repeatedly told that enforcement of a “level” playing field is fair – and far too many people go along with this nonsensical definition.

Since at least the early 1900s, progressives from all political parties, in the name of “fairness,” have worked to make things “level” (which, if examined in detail, for them means the powerful remain powerful and everyone else remains, well, not powerful).  We can see this all around us, with mountains of laws and regulations which now affect nearly every aspect of every person’s daily life.  Can you even name one thing you do which is not in some way affected by at least one law or regulation?  This “leveling” of the playing field is always done, they say, in the name of “fairness.”  Is it really fair?

Is it really fair, for example, for a person to be granted or denied college access based not on ability, but skin color?  Is it really fair for an entrepreneur to face a nearly un-navigable sea of bureaucracy in order to start a business?  Is it really fair for someone to work hard only to have the fruits of his labor forcibly taken from him and given to those who choose to be idle?  Is it really fair for government to “punish” productivity and productive people?  The list could go on and on, but I think the point is clear: “level” is not “fair” and “fair” is not “level.”

So, what do you think?  Which is it: level or fair?  It’s time to chose.

As an aside, my sports team analogy is already happening in youth sports: http://sedalia.fox4kc.com/content/undefeated-youth-football-team-banned-playoffs.  What kind of lessons are we teaching our younger generations?

Bush’s 2006 Post-Midterm Speech

I’m not exactly a fan of George W. Bush, who in many ways was nothing more than a progressive pretending to be a conservative in the vein of John McCain.  However, it’s enlightening to consider how he reacted to defeat of the GOP in the 2006 midterm elections compared to Obama’s remarks yesterday:

George W. Bush
Post-Election Press Conference: The Resignation of Donald Rumsfeld
Washington, DC
November 8, 2006

Say, why all the glum faces?

Yesterday, the people went to the polls and they cast their vote for a new direction in the House of Representatives. And while the ballots are still being counted in the Senate, it’s clear the Democrat Party had a good night last night. And I congratulate them on their victories.

This morning I spoke with the Republican and Democrat leadership in the House and the Senate. I spoke with Republican leaders, Senator Frist and Senator McConnell and Speaker Hastert and John Boehner and Roy Blunt. I thanked them for their hard-fought contest. I appreciated the efforts they put in for our candidates.

I’m obviously disappointed with the outcome of the election and, as the head of the Republican Party, I share a large part of the responsibility.

I told my party’s leaders that it is now our duty to put the elections behind us and work together with the Democrats and independents on the great issues facing this country.

This morning I also spoke with the Democrats. I spoke with Senators Reid and Durbin. I congratulated them on running a strong campaign in the Senate. And I told them that, regardless of the final outcome, we can work together over the next two years.

I also congratulated Congresswoman Pelosi and Congressman Hoyer. They ran a disciplined campaign. Their candidates were well organized and did a superb job of turning out their votes.

I told Congresswoman Pelosi that I looked forward to working with her and her colleagues to find common ground in the next two years.

As the majority party in the House of Representatives, they recognize that in their new role they now have greater responsibilities.

And in my first act of bipartisan outreach since the election, I shared with her the names of some Republican interior decorators…

(LAUGHTER)

… who can help her pick out the new drapes in her new offices.

I believe that the leaders of both political parties must try to work through our differences. And I believe we will be able to work through differences.

I’ve reassured the House and Senate leaders that I intend to work with the new Congress in a bipartisan way to address issues confronting this country. I invited them to come to the White House in the coming days to discuss the important work remaining this year and to begin conversations about the agenda for next year.

The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work together to address the challenges facing our nation.

We live in historic times. The challenges and opportunities are plain for all to see.

Will this country continue to strengthen our economy today and over the long run? Will we provide a first-class education for our children? And will we be prepared for the global challenges of the 21st century?

Will we build upon the recent progress we’ve made in addressing our energy dependence by aggressively pursuing new technologies to break our addiction to foreign sources of energy?

And, most importantly: Will this generation of leaders meet our obligation to protect the American people?

I know there’s a lot of speculation on what the election means for the battle we’re waging in Iraq. I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there.

Yet, I also believe most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat. In the coming days and weeks, I and members of my national security team will meet with the members of both parties to brief them on latest developments and listen to their views about the way forward.

We’ll also provide briefings to the new members of Congress so they can be fully informed as they prepare for their new responsibilities.

As we work with the new leaders in Congress, I’m also looking forward to hearing the views of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co- chaired by Secretary James Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton.

This group is assessing the situation in Iraq and are expected to provide — and the group is expected to provide recommendations on a way forward.

And I’m going to meet with them, I think, early next week.

The election has changed many things in Washington, but it has not changed my fundamental responsibility, and that is to protect the American people from attack.

As the commander in chief, I take these responsibilities seriously. And so does the man who served this nation honorably for almost six years as our secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Now, after a series of thoughtful conversations, Secretary Rumsfeld and I agreed that the timing is right for new leadership at the Pentagon.

Our military has experienced an enormous amount of change and reform during the last five years while fighting the war on terror; one of the most consequential wars in our nation’s history.

Don Rumsfeld has been a superb leader during a time of change. Yet he also appreciates the value of bringing in a fresh perspective during a critical period in this war.

Don Rumsfeld’s a patriot who’s served our country with honor and distinction. He is a trusted adviser and a friend, and I’m deeply grateful to his service to our country.

I’ve asked Bob Gates to serve as the secretary of defense. Bob is the former director of the CIA and current president of Texas A M University.

If confirmed by the Senate, Bob will bring more than 25 years of national security experience and a stellar reputation as an effective leader with sound judgment.

He’s served six presidents, from both political parties, and rose from an entry-level employee in the CIA to become the director of central intelligence.

During his service at the CIA and at the National Security Council Bob Gates gained firsthand knowledge that will help him meet the challenges and opportunities that our country faces during the next two years.

He is serving as a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission. He is a steady, solid leader who can help make the necessary adjustments in our approach to meet our current challenges.

I will have more to say about Secretary Rumsfeld and Bob Gates later today here at the White House.

Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines: To our enemies, do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of America’s strength, and liberty and democracy will lift up the hopes and desires of those you are trying to destroy.

To the people of Iraq: Do not be fearful.

As you take the difficult steps toward democracy and peace, America’s going to stand with you. We know you want a better way of life, and now is the time to seize it.

To our brave men and women in uniform: Don’t be doubtful. America will always support you.

Our nation is blessed to have men and women who volunteer to serve and are willing to risk their own lives for the safety of our fellow citizens.

When I first came to Washington nearly six years ago, I was hopeful I could help change the tone here in the capital. As governor of Texas, I had successfully worked with both Democrats and Republicans to find common-sense solutions to the problems facing our state.

While we made some progress on changing the tone, I’m disappointed we haven’t made more. I’m confident that we can work together. I’m confident that we can overcome the temptation to divide this country between red and blue.

The issues before us are bigger than that and we are bigger than that.

By putting this election and partisanship behind us, we can launch a new era of cooperation and make these next two years productive ones for the American people.

I appreciate your interest. Now I’ll answer some questions.

Click here for the rest of the Q&A session.

We’re Open and Tolerant – of Our Own Opinions

Juan Williams (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

Shame on NPR and especially its CEO, Vivian Schiller, for firing Juan Williams.  Your actions simply prove my earlier point that progressive liberals are “open” and “tolerant” of any viewpoint as long as it’s their own.  Ms. Schiller, in one fell swoop, you have single-handedly exposed the rottenness and evil of progressivism for the world to see – thank you!

Ms. Schiller, if anyone is in need of a psychiatrist, it’s you (as an aside, if you want to sincerely apologize to Mr. Williams for your remark, do so by personal phone call to him instead of a “cover my ass” “statement” – funny how progressives consistently label anyone who disagrees with them as someone in need to mental help).  My friendly advice is for you to close your mouth and simply resign.  Every time you keep opening your mouth, you do nothing but expose more and more the hypocrisy of the liberal media and progressive agenda.  You claim you fired Williams for violation of objectivity standards, yet have done nothing about your “journalists” at NPR who repeatedly disparage conservatives.  Apparently, in your mind, objectivity only applies if someone deviates from the approved progressive liberal talking points supplied by George Soros’s liberal think tanks (more actually, attack machines), like the Tides Foundation and Media Matters.

Speaking of Soros, Ms. Schiller also reveals the progressive’s contempt for the average American.  She, like most progressives, seems to believe the American people are brain-dead, gullible idiots incapable of independent thought.  How else does one explain the fact she thinks we don’t see the connection to Williams’ dismissal and NPR just receiving $1.8 million from George Soros for a program to hire “journalists” to “report” on “news” from every state capital?

Yet, I owe a debt of gratitude to Ms. Schiller.  This whole incident has exposed the progressive liberal mindset and agenda unequivocally to the light of day.  You are an idiot or liar if you look at this incident and cannot see progressives for what they are:  They claim “openness” and “toleration” of all viewpoints, but shut people down as soon as they express a viewpoint in opposition to the progressive agenda.  Open and honest debate of ideas in the public forum, where the best solution wins, is simply not allowed.  Progressives think the average American is a moron, incapable of rational self-thought – and certainly incapable of self-government.  Without their guidance, progressives believe, we uneducated and uncouth serfs will do nothing but rape, pillage and murder “Mother Earth.”  We are simple children and any deviation must be severely dealt with – for our own good after all.

Elected representatives, remind me again why my hard-earned tax dollars are going to support NPR and PBS?  The liberal bias of these organizations is inarguably clear at this point.  If they chose to have such bias, that’s fine, but it should be done without the use of public money.  After all, if liberal progressive ideas are so good, shouldn’t they be capable of standing on their own without the need for public subsidies?

I disagree with Williams on many of his opinions.  Even so, I respect him as a man of integrity and one of the only liberals I’ve seen who’s willing to engage in an open, honest and civil debate of ideas.  He is a stand-up guy who doesn’t rely on the progressive fall-backs of baseless ad hominem attacks like Bill Clinton and Barry Obama or simply walking away when a discussion isn’t going his way like the clueless, liberal progressive “ladies” on The View.

NPR and Vivian Schiller, your actions are inexcusable.  You toss out Juan Williams, the only African-American male broadcaster on your network, because he’s not towing the “party line.”  Then you disparage the American people by offering idiotic “evidence” as some sort of justification for your actions, all the while seeming to think we’re too ignorant to notice the timing of your actions — right after George Soros buys your network for $1.8 million.  Give me a break!  But on the other hand, again, thank you for so clearly exposing the liberal progressive mindset to the light of day.

Anything but the Issues

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Progressives, why is it so difficult for you to discuss issues?  Surely, if your ideas are as good and as solid as you claim, you’d welcome open and honest debate on the issues?  Doesn’t “openness” and “toleration,” which you claim to support, mean we debate issues and ideas in the public forum where the best solutions win?  Why is it “openness” and “toleration” for you apparently means openness and toleration for only your own ideas?  Why is your consistent response to those who disagree with you nothing but ad hominem attacks and divisiveness?

The other day, Bill Clinton claimed Republicans need psychiatric help and by implication, those who vote against Democrats are nothing but mindless GOP puppets.  Obviously since liberal progressive ideas are so wonderful, the only possible explanation for anyone disagreeing with them is because the person has a mental problem.  Bill, how exactly do comments like yours foster dialogue and discussion?  As with all progressives, you claim openness and toleration, but then immediately dismiss or attack anyone who holds differing ideas.  Doesn’t exactly sound like openness and toleration to me.

Then we have Team Obama® relentlessly attacking the US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) over nebulous claims of using foreign money for campaign contributions.  Yet, Team Obama® offers zero proof to support their accusations, instead saying no one can prove the USCC isn’t doing it.  Huh?  So now we’re guilty until proven innocent?  Aside from being yet another tactic to avoid debate on actual issues, someone needs to warn Team Obama® those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

While spouting their baseless claims against the USCC, they forget (or more likely conveniently ignore) the fact Clinton and Gore were caught accepting Chinese campaign contributions.  Team Obama® received numerous unidentifiable and untraceable campaign contributions.  Even more damning is video evidence of phone banks in Palestine soliciting donations for Team Obama®.  So while actual proof exists of Democrats and Team Obama® doing exactly what they baselessly accuse the USCC of doing, that proof is conveniently ignored – an actual inconvenient truth.  The media won’t bring it up and Team Obama® supporters remain drunk on their kool-aid, not wanting to be bothered with such a “downer” as the truth.

This brings us back to my first point: why the fear to discuss issues?  Why is every serious question about issues met with dismissal or attack?  Could it be, progressives, that you know when held to the light of truth, your platform falls apart like so many cockroaches scattering when the light comes on?

I base my opinions, principles and positions on independent critical research of the facts.  Therefore, I’m willing to stand by my ideas and defend them.  Why the fear on your part to do the same?

The REAL Alvin Greene Story

Alvin Greene

 

The media is in a feeding frenzy over the Alvin Greene story – he’s the guy who won the recent South Carolina Democrat primary while being unemployed and apparently doing no campaigning.  Everyone wants to know how he came up with the fee to get his name on the ballot and if he’s really a GOP “plant.” 

As usual these days, everyone is missing the real story in the Alvin Greene story.  South Carolina apparently requires a person pay $10,400 to get his or her name on the ballot.  Ten thousand, four hundred dollars – how many of you have that kind of change just “sitting around?”  So if most of us don’t have this kind of money, what does that mean when it comes to elections?

The answer, and the story the media should actually be covering, is this means only those endorsed by the parties (and therefore gaining access to party campaign funds) or the independently wealthy are able to get on the ballot.  The regular person – you know, the people our founders thought should run for office – are eliminated from consideration since most of us don’t have and can’t raise this type of money just to get on the ballot. 

If we the people, who want to restore the system back to its Constitutional bounds, can’t get our names on the ballot, how can we remove the “career politicians” and effect actual American-value based change?  The system, at every level, is designed to favor the party-favorite “career politician” candidate. 

We must change election laws so that everyone who wants to run – not just the uber-rich or the “party candidate” – can get their name on the ballot.  Nothing will change unless we change the system.