Is social justice really a serious problem in the country?

November 28, 2023

Social justice is an old concept that has become a hot topic lately.

The Britannica website offers this description: “Social justice, in contemporary politics, social science, and political philosophy, the fair treatment and equitable status of all individuals and social groups within a state or society. The term also is used to refer to social, political, and economic institutions, laws, or policies that collectively afford such fairness and equity and is commonly applied to movements that seek fairness, equity, inclusion, self-determination, or other goals for currently or historically oppressed, exploited, or marginalized populations.”

Human Rights Careers online offers the following: “The connection between social justice and human rights has strengthened over the years to the point where many use ‘social justice’ and ‘human rights’ interchangeably.”

And, from Wikipedia: “Social justice is justice in relation to a fair balance in the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society where individuals' rights are recognized and protected.”

While the idea of social justice in America has involved everyone having an equal opportunity to make their own choices about their future, there is a faction that believes that certain groups have been discriminated against, and therefore deserve what the Wikipedia description says: equal distribution of things, not equal opportunity to pursue things.

Yes, discrimination does exist. But is it really a major problem?

A new book analyzes the “social injustice” that many people claim to be rampant in America. Titled “Social Justice Fallacies,” the author is Dr. Thomas Sowell, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and a brilliant thinker. 

Comments on the cover of the book say that “The quest for social justice is a powerful crusade of our time, with an appeal to many different people, for many different reasons.”

“’Social Justice Fallacies’ reveals how many things that are thought to be true simply cannot stand up to documented facts, which are often the opposite of what is widely believed.”

“History shows that the social justice agenda has often led in the opposite direction, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.”

Those errors were the result of human fallibility, due to the fervor of the crusader mindset, which often is so strong in its followers that they make serious mistakes in their efforts to correct a problem, including ignoring contrary evidence.

In the book Sowell details the problems with this error-ridden theory.

Addressing the idea that everyone should get the same opportunities, or the same amounts of all things, he notes that people with different backgrounds do not necessarily even have a desire for the same things, and certainly do not want to do whatever may be necessary to achieve them. This may perhaps be the case even if those things are given to them.

An example he cites is that some social justice warriors blame sexual discrimination for the fact that women are statistically under-represented among Silicon Valley employees. But a step further into the data shows that the work done in these companies requires engineering skills, and women receive less than 30 percent of the needed engineering degrees. Why? Because they do not choose to study engineering. 

People are not all the same. There are natural and lifestyle differences that play a part in a person’s capabilities and desires. Geographic areas encourage different lifestyles and behavior. Living in Florida is not like living in Alaska, or Iowa, or West Virginia. Growing up in farm country is different than growing up in a big city.

A person’s family and the family’s experiences most often play a major part in how children develop, and how they pursue life.

Sowell wrote that “children raised where there is only one parent present have been found in a number of studies to have a higher incidence of many social problems.” Boys without fathers have a higher incidence of things like truancy and murder. Girls raised by one parent have a higher incidence of teenage pregnancy. 

So, the question of why Billy made the football team and Joe didn’t; why Mary was the valedictorian and Freda wasn’t; or why Jane got the promotion to sales manager over Frank, probably was not the result of discrimination. There are many factors that may be involved in most outcomes other than race, ethnicity or gender.

In seeking persons to fill advanced medical research positions, Sowell posits, do we want equal numbers from all population groups, and hope for the best? Or will we make sure that we get those from whatever backgrounds who have demonstrated a mastery of medical science?

He wrote, “But neither society nor government comprehends or controls all the many and highly varied circumstances — including a large element of luck — that can influence the fate of individual classes or nations.”

And, “Circumstances beyond our control are major factors in economic and other inequalities. Trying to understand causalities is not necessarily the same as looking for someone to blame.”

Is the alleged “white supremacy” real and the result of racial discrimination? Is it because white people make up 59 percent of the population? Or, is it a false flag promoted for some political purpose?

Sowell shows us that social justice is another politically correct concept that causes more problems than it solves.

A Tale of 2 Nations: Ancient Rome and the United States of America

November 21, 2023

Rome is generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization and Christian culture. It was a republic — as is the United States of America —from about 509 BCE (Before the Common Era) until 27 BCE.

It was responsible for many things that we now see as normal and important aspects of our country, including state institutions, law, cultural values, religious beliefs, technological advances, and engineering. Rome was unique, espousing the principle of moderation in politics, unheard of at that time.

It became the most powerful state in the world in a fairly short time through a combination of military power, political flexibility, and economic expansion. And it survived for nearly 500 years. 

The Roman republic may have been the model for, or at least an influence in the formation of the United States of America. It had a separation of powers, with the Romans and their magistrates, Senate, and assemblies and tribunes. In America we have a president, Congress, and a federal court system.

A republic with as long a life as Rome experienced has become somewhat of a target for America: Can America last as long as Rome did? Perhaps we can learn from Rome’s demise, and behave accordingly.

The primary reasons cited as responsible for Rome’s downfall are: 
* government corruption and political instability; 
* economic and social problems, such as the loss of traditional values; 
* the weakening of its military; 
* the weakening of its border, resulting in an invasion by Germanic tribes.

About America’s point of evolution, William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote the following in The Fourth Turning, An American Prophecy. “Though we live in an era of relative peace and comfort, we have settled into a mood of pessimism about the long-term future, fearful that our superpower nation is somehow rotting from within.” 

“Not long ago, America was more than the sum of its parts. Now, it is less,” they continued. “Around World War II we were proud as a people but modest as individuals. Fewer than two people in ten said ‘yes’ when asked, ‘Are you a very important person?’ Today, more than six in ten say ‘yes.’ Where we once thought ourselves collectively strong, we now regard ourselves as individually entitled.”

This assessment seems pretty much on the mark. And it was written in 1997. Did we turn the corner and change our ways, refocusing on the positive aspects of our country’s design? Or, are we still heading down the same road to demise as ancient Rome?

Unfortunately, things have only gotten worse. 

We see our government growing in size and imposing more and more restrictions on “we, the people.” Parents who express their displeasure with the schools that their taxes support are sometimes labeled “domestic terrorists.”  Inflation resulting from poor policies has hurt everyone in the country.

Our government has adopted the practice of cancelling some good things that were done in the past. Like reversing our recently re-achieved position of energy independence, and being a net exporter of oil and natural gas. Canceling construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, that cost 11,000 jobs, 8,000 of which were union jobs. 

The government also temporarily stopped granting permits for oil and gas operations on federal lands, which reduced U.S. oil production so that we have to make up the difference by purchasing from other countries. These actions also forced other countries who were buying fuels from us to now also purchase them elsewhere. 

The disaster at the southern border allows tens of thousands of people to illegally enter the country every month. We have little or no idea who these people are, and what their reasons are for coming here. 

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from fentanyl coming in illegally. Other drugs also come in illegally. Children and women are being trafficked, and an unknown number of potential terrorists have entered from other countries. Some are on the terror watch list.

The military has leaned toward wokeness, which weakens its critical abilities. Three of the four major services are having trouble recruiting new members. 

These problems come not from the men and women in the military ranks, but the leaders. They seem to think emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex, and basing promotions on quota requirements rather than merit are good.

The government has been quietly watching as China’s highly disciplined military is growing. The influence of Iran in the attack on Israel is not being met with a sensible response, and attacks on nearby US bases are not being actively or effectively countered with actions.

Our long-standing traditions have not been passed on to younger generations. We have allowed the two-parent family to virtually disappear. Our education system and news media are suffering from significant corruption. The attitude of so many younger people to support Hamas terrorism and condemn Israel’s justified response is mind boggling.

There is still time to correct these grave problems, but not very much. If we don’t soon restore the original and unique American spirit and its sensible values, we will follow in the tracks of the Roman Empire, and be nothing more than a sad story of stupidity in future history books.

Where does the hate for Jewish people on college campuses come from?

November 14, 2023

NOTE: Updated version of column that should have run last week.

What is happening on a lot of the country’s college and university campuses these days is quite troubling. Back in the “good old days” young people went to college to study a subject with which they could get a job that would provide them with enough income to live a decent life. They went there to get educated, and the school faculty and administration were heavily focused on that mission.

In far too many schools these days, there are majors that do not prepare students to get a decent paying job, if they can even get a job in their major.

Many colleges are more focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion; everyone being identified by their chosen pronouns; making sure students are not offended in their classes, or elsewhere; presenting history lessons that are politically oriented; and being instructed on what to think, rather than how to think.

A new problem has taken over the news since the October 7 evil massacre of 1,400 innocent Israel and American civilians by Hamas terrorists from Palestine. 

Somehow, an existing anti-Israel sentiment on many campuses has resulted in the advocates of this mindset blaming Israel for retaliating for the Hamas savagery, instead of condemning the barbarians for murdering civilian men, women and children. Some of the children were babies and some of the men and women were elderly. 

The subsequent protests of hundreds or thousands of misguided students on several campuses has produced dangerous threats of violence against Jewish students, whether they are from Israel, or even America. 

College administrations have inexplicably been less than responsive to these threats and vile protests. Yes, allowing expressions of thoughts and feelings is permissible, even encouraged, particularly on college campuses where students are learning about adult life and their chosen major. Such speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. 

But sometimes violent expressions of hatred toward a particular group of persons is not permissible, and supporting terrorism is unacceptable. Those activities should have been stopped immediately.

How did such a huge and violent hatred of Israel come to exist on so many campuses? A hatred so strong that the haters do not condemn savage terrorism, but condemn Israel for responding to it, as every nation has the right and duty to do.

Perhaps the following examples will help explain how this hatred came about.

A Cornell professor publicly expressed his opinion of Hamas terrorists committing these savage acts against civilians. It was “exhilarating” and “energizing,” he said. Unfortunately, some of his fellow faculty members then went public with condemnation of Israel for things it didn’t do. Truth plays second fiddle to political and ideological positions among many college faculty members.

People at other institutions, like Harvard, Brown, Duke, Yale, Georgetown, and Columbia, also jumped on the propaganda band wagon, blaming Israel for bombing a Palestinian hospital. Investigations found that the hospital was not bombed by Israel, but was hit by an off-course rocket fired by the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist partner of Hamas, both funded by Iran. 

At a rally at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, an adjunct professor accused Israel of carrying out 75 years of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” against Palestinians. Later, New York City Councilman Charles Barron, a graduate of the school, claimed that Israelis had no claim over the land they have lived in since 1,000 BC.

Many people do not know what happened, or do not care, and continue to blame Israel, not Hamas.

Do these radical professors keep their political and ideological preferences out of their classroom activities, even though they are happy to publicly express them in ways students may have access to them? Are they part of the indoctrination of college students that has proliferated over recent years?

Deliberate efforts to influence students’ thinking processes by pushing their personal ideas onto students is not only a breach of professional integrity and a showing of low character, but is subversive when it includes un-American and anti-American ideas.

While college administrations have refused to respond, other people in positions of responsibility are critical of what is going on.

Last month, a bipartisan group of six U.S. Senators sponsored a resolution calling on higher education leaders to engage with Jewish students and to condemn speech that incites or celebrates violence against any people based on their religious beliefs, national origin or ancestry. 

Later, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued this statement on Fox News Channel: “While we always want to protect our constitutional rights, I absolutely condemn what’s being chanted at these rallies, and I think we need leadership from our college campuses.” 

This ignorance of what happened on October 7, and the strong anti-Semitism are clear evidence that America’s values and traditions are under attack on many campuses.

Now, some colleges have finally begun to act. Columbia University has suspended two pro-Palestinian student groups from campus for repeatedly breaking rules on holding campus events.

Meanwhile, the tone-deaf Biden administration has been promoting a project to counter Islamophobia which, if it is a problem, it is a tiny one when compared to the huge problem of anti-Semitism. Last week, the White House finally added anti-Semitism to the program.

Anti-Semitism is disturbingly high on many college campuse

 

November 7, 2023

NOTE: Due to an error at the Daily Telegraph this column did not run. Instead, the BDT ran last week's column two weeks in a row. This column was updated and ran on 11-14-23

What is happening on a lot of the country’s college and university campuses these days is quite troubling. Back in the “good old days” young people went to college to study a subject with which they could get a job that would provide them with enough income to live a decent life. They went there to get educated, and the school faculty and administration were heavily focused on that mission.

In far too many schools these days, there are majors that do not prepare students to get a decent paying job, if they can even get a job in their major.

Many colleges are more focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion; everyone being identified by their chosen pronouns; making sure students are not offended in their classes; being presented with history lessons that stray from real history; and being instructed on what to think, rather than how to think.

A new problem has taken over the news since the October 7 evil massacre of 1,400 innocent Israel civilians by Hamas terrorists from Palestine. 

Somehow, an existing anti-Israel sentiment on many campuses has resulted in the advocates of this mindset blaming Israel for retaliating for the Hamas savagery, instead of condemning the barbarians for murdering civilian men, women and children. Some of the children were babies and some of the men and women were elderly. 

The subsequent protests of hundreds or thousands of misguided students on several campuses has produced dangerous threats of violence against Jewish students, whether they are from Israel or even America. 

College administrations have inexplicably been less than responsive to these threats and the vile protests. Yes, allowing expressions of thoughts and feelings is permissible, even encouraged, particularly on college campuses where students are learning about adult life and their chosen major. Such speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. 

But expressions of hatred toward a particular person or group of persons is not permissible, and supporting terrorism is unacceptable. Those activities should have been stopped immediately.

How did such a huge and violent hatred of Israel come to exist on college and university campuses? A hatred so strong that the haters do not condemn savage terrorism, but condemn Israel for responding to it, as any nation has the right and duty to do.

Perhaps the following examples will help explain how this hatred came about.

A Cornell professor publicly expressed his opinion of watching Hamas terrorists commit these savage acts against Israeli civilians. It was “exhilarating” and “energizing,” he said. Unfortunately, some of his fellow faculty members then went public with condemnation of Israel for things it didn’t do. Truth plays second fiddle to political and ideological preferences among many college faculty members.

People at other institutions, like Harvard, Brown, Duke, Yale, Georgetown, and Columbia, also jumped on the propaganda band wagon, blaming Israel for bombing a Palestinian hospital. Investigations found that the hospital was not bombed by Israel, but was hit by an off-course rocket fired by the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist partner of Hamas, both funded by Iran. 

At a rally at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, an adjunct professor accused Israel of carrying out 75 years of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” against Palestinians. Later, New York City Councilman Charles Barron, a graduate of the school, claimed that Israelis, being “European converts to Judaism,” had no claim over their land.

Many people do not know what happened, or do not care, and continue to blame Israel.

Do these radical professors keep their political and ideological preferences out of their classroom activities, even though they are happy to publicly express them in ways their students and other students may have access to them? Are they part of the indoctrination of college students that has proliferated over recent years?

Deliberate efforts to influence students’ thinking processes by pushing their personal ideals onto students is not only a breach of professional integrity and a showing of low character, but is subversive when it includes un-American and anti-American ideas.

While college administrations have been reluctant to respond, criticism of what is going on exists from other people in positions of responsibility.

Last month, U.S. Senators sponsored a resolution calling on higher education leaders to engage with Jewish students and to condemn speech that incites or celebrates violence against any people based on their religious beliefs, national origin or ancestry. The group consisted of both Republicans and Democrats: Marsha Blackburn, R-TN; Jack Rosen, D-NV; James Lankford, R-OK; and Chris Van Hollen, D-MD. 

A few days later, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued this statement in an interview on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News Channel: “While we always want to protect our constitutional rights, I absolutely condemn what’s being chanted at these rallies, and I think we need leadership from our college campuses.” Citing the increasingly common idea of what is occurring on college campuses, he said, “The bottom line is, I question what’s being taught on these college campuses if we have students that don’t fully understand the brutality of a terrorist group.”

This ignorance of what happened on October 7, and the strong anti-Semitism are clear evidence that America’s values and traditions are under attack on many campuses.

The less frequently published side of the climate change debate

October 31, 2023

One of the hottest issues occurring these days is the debate over whether we are harming the planet and threatening human life by burning fossil fuels and adding dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

There are many people on each side of this debate, including scientists. The more frequently expressed point of view in the media is the climate catastrophe side. But to add a strong opinion to the other side of that argument, the following information from Patrick Moore is offered.

Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace, a Canadian environmentalist who previously served as president of Greenpeace Canada and director of Greenpeace International.

In a video produced by Prager University, he presented his position. “All life is carbon based. And the carbon for all that life originates from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

“All of the carbon in the fossil fuels we are burning for energy today was once in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide before it was consumed by plankton in the sea and plants on the land. Coal, oil and natural gas are the remains of those planktons and plants transformed by heat and pressure deep in the Earth’s crust. 

“In other words, fossil fuels are 100 percent organic, and were produced with solar energy. Sounds positively green. 

“If there were no carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, the Earth would be a dead planet. Period. Talk about catastrophic climate change. Take away CO2 and you’d have it. 

“And yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed this essential ingredient for life a pollutant. But how can something that makes life possible be bad?” 

He went on to say that “carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas which is an indispensable food for all living things. Can you have too much of it? In theory, yes. That’s what climate alarmists say is happening now: CO2 levels are getting too high.

“Are they right? Well, if we look at the big picture, we find something surprising. For most of the history of life on Earth, carbon dioxide has been present in the atmosphere at much higher levels than it is today.”

Continuing, Moore said that “From a big picture perspective, we’re actually living in a low carbon dioxide era. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth, for example, is four to five times what is currently found in our atmosphere. That’s why greenhouse growers worldwide actually inject additional CO2 into their greenhouses.”

That certainly is not a common perspective on CO2 and the environment.

Ian Plimer is a geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. He spoke at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Challenge, a conference for climate change deniers. According to The Australian newspaper, in closing his speech, Plimer stated that "They’ve got us outnumbered, but we’ve got them outgunned, and that’s with the truth." 

An online video produced after the conference shows Plimer saying, “No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Never been shown. 

“And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97 percent of emissions which are natural do not drive global warming. Game over.

“We are dealing with a fraud. That’s a scientific fraud from day one. We hear the propaganda that increases of the gas of life, a trace gas in the atmosphere, will bring a disaster. And that we will have runaway global warming. 

“Sorry, folks. We’ve known for 200 years from chemistry that it’s the exact inverse. When we drill into ice we have chemical fingerprints that tell us what the temperature was, and we have little bits of trapped air [to examine]. And we can show that when we had natural warming, some 650 to 6,000 years later we had an increase in carbon dioxide. 

“It’s not carbon dioxide that drives temperature, it’s the exact inverse. Another fraud.”

Godfrey William Bloom is a former British politician who served as a Member of the European Parliament. His position on the argument is one that often arises when governments attempt to do something that many disagree with.

“Isn’t this really just about the state being able to get its hands in ordinary people’s trouser pockets to still get more tax from them,” he asked. “Isn’t this all about political control? Isn’t all of this about politics and big business?

“The whole thing’s a sham, this bogus hypothesis, this ridiculous nonsense that manmade CO2 is causing global warming.  Enough, please, before we damage irrevocably the global economy.”

It is crucial to recognize the need for carbon dioxide to sustain life, and also that it is possible to have too much of many things. But, if it is possible to have too much carbon dioxide, how much is actually too much? And, are we really there, yet?

This argument is not going to be resolved anytime soon. Both sides of the issue have strongly held positions. And neither side seems ready to give in to the other.

But it is important to have as many different ideas about important topics as possible so that after considering all relevant points, good decisions can be made.