Fairness Doctrine, Part I

As the title suggest, this will be the first installment on this topic.  I am not sure how many installments there will be, or even if there will actually be another one.  Just thought I would give you a heads up that this may be a multiple part topic.

I am sure most of you have heard, said or used the phrase, "Life isn't fair". Words of little or no consolation to someone who has just suffered an actual or perceived injustice.  More often than not those injustices are perceived. Yet more often than should be, there are real injustices which occur.

People want fairness in life, their jobs, their government.  They want everyone to play fair.  Noble concepts.  Ones I think everyone will agree with, or should.  The only problem is what I consider fair, may not be what you consider fair.  Everyone wants everyone else to "play by the rules", except it seems when those rules are applied to them.  

I have been hearing a lot lately about fairness as it relates to politics.  This is any easy fairness topic to deal with. 

There is absolutely nothing fair about politics.  Never has been, and probably never will be.

Politics is the original blood sport.  Using our country as an example, if you read about the elections in this country throughout its history, you might be surprised to find that what passes for dirty politics today looks pretty tame compared to the antics of the movers and shakers throughout the 19th century and beyond.

Name calling, finger pointing and out right lies are nothing new.  A classic study of just how dirty politics could get would be the presidential campaigns of Andrew Jackson of 1824 (he lost),1828 and 1832.  The personal attacks on his wife in the first two campaigns were to such a degree that it is commonly accepted that the stress had to be a contributing cause to her death shortly after the 1828 election.  In all three campaigns, the tactics on both sides were all most surreal.

So if you perceive politics in Fairhaven as a "dirty" game,  it could be a lot worse.  That is not to say it couldn't be better, or shouldn't be better.  Just remember, if you want a clean fight, you can't be the fighter throwing low blows (An important thing to remember when making accusations. I bring this up because I have seen were an issue has been raised about an official's affiliation with a certain private group.  It seems that this was raised to show some unfair advantage or privilege was somehow afforded to the group.  At least that was my take of the meaning of it.  The caveat for this: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones).  

Too often what people consider to be unfair is more centered on the fact things didn't go their way, rather than how the decision was reached. Truthfully, how many times does the prevailing side complain about things being unfair?

Until later.