Let\u2019s look some more at this piece by Jillian Bandes<\/a>, on Obama\u2019s new \u201cChief Diversity Officer,\u201d Mark Lloyd<\/a>.<\/p>\n I was a bit snarky yesterday<\/a> when I wrote of this newly-created office:<\/p>\n \nDoes it seem to you that the Obama administration makes up titles and offices the way Bluto made up new names for Animal House Pledges?<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019ll be\u2026the Chief Diversity Officer!\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhy?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhy the hell not?\u201d <\/p><\/blockquote>\n It certainly does seem that the Obama administration<\/strong> is interested in creating a million little bureaucracies to follow-up on and enforce their million new little laws, and it does seem like every unaccountable-to-congress-or-the-people czar and every presidential crony needs some trumped-up and lofty title by which his enforcership is identified, but what struck me about Bandes\u2019 piece was this line:<\/p>\n [Seton] Motley isn\u2019t convinced. \u201cThey don\u2019t want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcomes \u2013 giving equal time for people who get listeners and people who don\u2019t,\u201d he said. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n Equal opportunity is certainly a good and just notion.<\/strong> Everyone who wants to be able to follow a muse, explore an idea or dream a dream should have the opportunity to do so. Everyone should have the chance to try their idea and either succeed or fail by their own efforts (and the occasional act of God or \u201cchance\u201d)<\/p>\n But equality of outcome<\/em> gets a bit dicey, don\u2019t you think? If I have two kids who are both given every opportunity to study for the same math test, using the same materials, and with the same time allowances, but one scores an A and one scores a C, does that mean that both students should be given a B, so that their equal opportunity results in an equal outcome?<\/p>\n Wouldn\u2019t that be a false outcome that is patently unfair to both students, devaluing the work and gifts of the A student and giving the C student a false sense of his own capabilities? Maybe the A student is supposed to be an engineer, and the C student is supposed to be an artist, or a cop \u2013 wouldn\u2019t both of the students lose a sense of their own strengths and weaknesses (and lose track of their respective callings) because of the skewed perspective wrought by the manufactured \u201cequal\u201d outcomes?<\/p>\n If Air America has insipid programing<\/strong> and radio hosts who sneer, condescend and heap cynicism while discussing politics, and Clear Channel has entertaining programing and radio hosts who manage to be energetic and optimistic while discussing the same issues, why shouldn\u2019t their respective listenerships determine who is worth valuable \u201cprime\u201d airtime and who is not, as reflected in ratings and (dare I mention it) ad revenues?<\/p>\n How is it just<\/em> to suggest that inferior and superior products are in fact, \u201cequal\u201d?<\/p>\n How is it just<\/em> to tell radio station owners that they cannot broadcast more popular programming unless they make room for less-popular (and less lucrative) fare as well?<\/p>\n How is it just<\/em> tell people that they cannot listen to their preferred broadcasts, because something they don\u2019t want to listen to has no audience, and so \u2013 for the sake of fairness \u2013 an audience will be manufactured by force?<\/p>\n We can champion equal opportunity loudly while declaring just as loudly that \u201cequality of outcome smacks of something fundamentally false, and therefore negative. What good arises from lies, and how is best-served by them?<\/p>\n I think there is a basic confusion here, between justice and mercy<\/strong>. In today\u2019s gospel reading, we looked at Matthew 20:1-16, the parable of the landowner who went out at dawn to hire workers at the usual daily wage. Throughout the day he hired more and more workers, and at the close of work, he paid each the same. Those who had worked all day grumbled,<\/p>\n \u201cThese last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day\u2019s burden and the heat!\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The landowner said, \u201cI am not cheating you; I have paid you the agreed-upon wage. If I choose to pay these others the same with my own money, is that not my right?\u201d<\/p>\n This was an equality of outcome<\/em>, and it is just and fair, in the sense that the landowner was faithful to his agreement with his earliest workers, and was also free to be as generous with the others as his instincts and his mercy bade him. But the thing is, the owner did not cheat<\/em> anyone. He did not pay the early workers less<\/em> than they had a right to. He did not tell them that they could not<\/em> work, so that others would have a chance to work.<\/p>\n The landowner also paid from his own pocket; he did not take money from all of his neighbors and then arbitrarily decide on the pay scale. What we know of this landowner is that he is both just and merciful, so it is very unlikely that he would use his neighbor\u2019s funds in such a way<\/a> without their consent.<\/p>\n The objection made by those who had worked in the field all day<\/strong> certainly strikes all of us as a reasonable one. And the landowner does not tell them that they are unreasonable because he knows that he has<\/em> trampled on \u201cfairness\u201d as it is humanly understood. He knows that fairness, justice and mercy are all very different things. The landowner chose to be merciful, and because of his mercy -and his singular omnipotence- his actions were just. But fair? Only in the subjective case.<\/p>\n The thing is, our government is not the omnipotent landowner who need answer to no one. That they seem to think they are suggests that they have a very distorted view of what a representative democracy is about. Their selective disdain*<\/strong><\/a> for capitalism and free markets is obvious, but they are clearly working outside the scope of what our founders intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights.<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 parable was meant to explain the mercy of God, in much the same way as the parable of the Prodigal Son. The faithful, loyal workers in the field of the Lord will receive their reward, but the mercy of God may extend to whomever He wishes. That\u2019s because mercy, in the end, has very little to do with fairness. If it was about fairness, it wouldn\u2019t be called \u201cmercy.\u201d<\/p>\n But mercy is always tempered with justice<\/em>. When the father of the Prodigal Son rejoiced in the return of his offspring, he took nothing at all away from his faithful son. The landowner does not simply toss out His earliest workers, or push them aside, for the subjects of his mercy. As we have said before<\/a>:<\/p>\n [Monasticism]\u2026the perfect manifestation of the socialist ideal only works if entered into freely, willingly, with open hearts and generous intentions. On a large scale, with less-than-willing subjects\u2026[socialist] ideals\u2026lead to stifling bureaucracy, the stagnation of creativity and no reason to excel beyond a standard of mediocrity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a monastic setting, it works, because the self-effacement, sacrifice and surrender of the will is all voluntary. In a public setting, these weird \u201cmandatory sacrifices\u201d use language of fairness and opportunity, but the notions are skewed, or redefined, and profit-taking is only evil for some<\/em><\/a>. I don\u2019t think Jesus would like it. No justice, no peace.<\/p>\n Speaking of which, Jesus did not tell us whether the generous landowner was able to find workers, the next day, who were willing to work all day in the sun for him, or if the workers all waited until late in the afternoon to finally offer their services, reasoning that the generous landowner would again pay them a day\u2019s wage for an hour\u2019s labor.<\/p>\n I wonder if they formed a union?<\/p>\n Related (and yes, it\u2019s all related, since it\u2019s all of a piece):<\/strong> Let\u2019s look some more at this piece by Jillian Bandes, on Obama\u2019s new \u201cChief Diversity Officer,\u201d Mark Lloyd. I was a bit snarky yesterday when I wrote of this newly-created office: Does it seem to you that the Obama administration makes up titles and offices the way Bluto made up new names for Animal House […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":112,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,12,30,44,57,58,59,60,63,72,74,89,91,102,112,150,175,188,231,240,251,257,261,275],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-remaking-america","category-alternative-media","category-blogs-and-blogging","category-catholicism","category-constitutional-stuff","category-crisis-opportunity","category-critical-thinking","category-crooks-and-liars","category-culture-of-treason","category-dumb-democrat-moves","category-economic-woe","category-english-language","category-erosion-of-rights","category-fascism-in-america","category-free-speech","category-king-is-a-fink","category-monasticism","category-obama-bad","category-secularism","category-socialism-doesnt-work","category-the-fourth-estate","category-touch-of-evil","category-tvpop-culturemusic","category-why-cant-weeee-be"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n
\nThe government, no matter what it thinks of itself, is not God<\/strong>, and it proves this when it seems to suggest it can extend inclusive \u201cmercy\u201d to some by unjustly pushing out others, and that this action will somehow promote \u201cequality.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nWill ACORN be monitoring lifestyle regulations under Obamacare?<\/a>
\nAT:<\/strong> Megaphone Envy and Fairness Doctrine<\/a>
\nThe Banality of Evil<\/strong>: Health Care debate takes dangerous turn<\/a>
\nCaroline Baum:<\/strong> Impromptu Obamanomics getting scarier<\/a>
\nRep Massa:<\/strong> You opponents are enemies and traitors<\/a>
\nAlthouse:<\/strong> Obama keeps saying the most disturbing things\u2026<\/a>
\nJohn Kass:<\/strong> Tossing Pink Slippers in the Health Care Debate<\/a> (H\/T<\/a>)
\nJames Lewis:<\/strong> Death Care and the Commodification of Life<\/a>
\nSiggy: UK Medical records database a catastrophe<\/a>
\nNY Car Dealers:<\/strong> Pull out of Clunkers program<\/a>
\nBookworm:<\/strong> Hold on to your teeth<\/a><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"