Whenever Barack Obama talks about everyone getting their ‘fair share’ I cringe and am instantly transported back to my Elementary school playground.
In grade school terms, “fair share” usually meant that despite the fact that I may have been one of the better softball pitchers on the team, the lazy kid who didn’t even like sports was going to get a turn at pitching. And at some point, our P.E. teacher would inevitably bench the entire A Team to allow the B and C Teams to play out of ‘fairness’. (Meaning—we were going to lose, which was usually the case…)
When I protested, I was called ‘selfish’ and/or a ‘poor sport’. But to me, if the goal of a game was to win, why did we have to load up our team with losers in the name of fairness?
(Sorry any non-athletic types out there; after re-reading that I suddenly realized why I got called a lot of names in grade school…)
Still, if they really wanted to be fair– or to make sure the non-athletic kids got exercise–why not let them do jumping jacks or something non-competitive so they wouldn’t feel the stress of having to do something that probably gave them nightmares in the first place?
I’m always skeptical when someone tries to use a blanket statement like ‘fair share’ without clarifying. Obama never explains it and no one ever seems to ask him: What exactly do you consider fair?
In my acting days, ‘fair’ usually meant letting someone without any acting experience or charisma have the part instead of me because she was someone’s daughter–or girlfriend.
For example, I was once up for the lead in a new sitcom. The producer of the show was a very famous actor and for 6 months I worked with him and his writers to help create my character. Despite the fact that the star was a drug-addicted womanizer, he was always very respectful of me—but then, without notice, he chose a different girl.
The girl was a horrible actress with zero personality and I didn’t understand what had happened until I later learned that the girl was sleeping with the star. Fair for her, not so much for me…True story, but back to Obama…
In the name of fairness, just how does the president plan on leveling that famous playing field without being un-fair to someone else?
Since I’m in elementary-mode, let’s say “Archie” has worked hard his entire life and owns a big mansion and 6 cars.
Archie’s next-door neighbor (we’ll call him “Jughead the Drughead”) is a lazy bum who lives in a run-down shack that’s about to go into foreclosure and drives a Cadillac he can’t afford.
Archie and his wife Veronica initially tried to help Jughead, giving him money and food–but after getting burned several times said they finally said ‘no more.’
In Obama’s perfect world, would the government force Archie to continue giving Jughead his money in the name of ‘fairness’? And what happens when Jughead once again spends all that money on drugs?
When does it end–when Archie and his family lose their own home to foreclosure?
How is this “fair” for Archie and his own family?