George Will keynotes at the Milton Friedman prize dinner in his usual witty manner as he clearly defines the differences between welfare statists and Madisonian constitutionalists.

For more information on the film, please visit The Cartel Movie homepage.

The recently elected New Jersey Gov. Christie has been under fire from the local media for using a "confrontational tone" whilst he proceeds to take them to task.

Annie Leonard, an environmental and political activist who rose to prominence through her film titled The Story of Stuff gave a speech at the 2009 Bioneers conference in which she mentioned a controversy between her and Fox News personality Glenn Beck, “Do you know what Glenn Beck’s biggest complaint is about The Story of Stuff? He said that The Story of Stuff promotes social justice. And do you know what I say? Damn right Mr. Beck. Damn right. And I am going to keep promoting social justice with all of you, because that is the best way to honor and protect and defend this country.” After viewing this speech, the first thought that came to mind was, what exactly does she mean by social justice? The term connotes in me a certain religious obligation to do right, but I wondered if that was the same sort of meaning Leonard intended in her usage of it. For a concept so commonly thrown around, the definition seemed to be more than slightly ambiguous. Before any judgments are to be made, it is important to get to the bottom of what exactly social justice entails.

The term social justice has its roots as far back as the 18th century, but it was not fully developed until the late 19th and early 20th century by a Roman Catholic priest and political activist John A. Ryan. He took aim at the American understanding of rights and felt they were inadequate in achieving the moral superlative that is the object of the Christian. “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10 King James Version). Perhaps his most significant legacy was his support for the implementation of a minimum wage or what he called A Living Wage in his doctoral dissertation. Ryan’s theological justifications for socialist programs made him a natural ally of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, even earning the nickname of Monsignor New Deal. And so the origins surrounding social justice involve a marriage between socialist philosophy and Christian doctrine. It is fairly easy to see how a Christian would make the seemingly logical connection between the two. Most are familiar with the teachings of Christ and his proclamations. “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matthew 25:40). As innocent as it may be, those who fall into this category are causing great harm and sorely missing the point as I will explain later on.

In the modern era however, those who carry on the banner of social justice are not so well defined. It would seem its religious undertones are no longer a necessary piece of the puzzle. The overwhelmingly secular progressive or socialist movement in America has divorced the term from its religious implications in order to promote pure economic redistribution of wealth. Consequently, the more accurate term for social justice today is instead redistributive or economic “justice”. That seems to have been Leonard’s meaning when she evoked the term during her speech stating, “We’re also trashing people on the equity front.” Evidence from her films would show that it is not merely a call for personal action, but for State intervention into these areas. The foundations for social justice are derived from the teachings of natural law as laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica. Therefore the first contention of the progressive use of the term is the divorcing of the meaning from the original obligations and adherence to natural law and ultimately a creator. It would almost seem to be an underhanded takeover of the term by a secular movement to attract those misguided or ill informed in religious circles. As with all politics, control of the language is vitally important in the battle of ideas.

Before social justice is explored any further however, there is a very important issue I must take up with Leonard’s presentation. Her central theme was, “We are trashing the planet, we are trashing each other, and we’re not even having fun.” Throughout it all the usage of the word “we” permeated every accusatory statement. The glaring problem with that is she certainly cannot mean humanity, because when she says “we’re so stuff saturated” those in less developed countries must be exempt. Secondly she does not include herself or any of her compatriots as members of the guilty party, because they are environmental activists and can therefore only be a part of the solution and not the problem. And so its usage is dishonest in that it does not really mean some shared guilt within the developed world but instead refers to those who have not given their allegiance over to the Green movement. The Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis explained this common error with great insight. “By a dangerous figure of speech, he calls the Government not ‘they’ but ‘we’. And since, as penitents, we are not encouraged to be charitable to our own sins, nor to give ourselves the benefit of any doubt, a Government which is called ‘we’ is ipso facto placed beyond the sphere of charity or even of justice. You can say anything you please about it. You can indulge in the popular vice of detraction without restraint, and yet feel all the time that you are practicing contrition.” I have little doubt that whenever someone goes on and on about how we are guilty of something, specifically something that person has no accountability for or control over, you can be sure they don’t really mean themselves.

Returning to the core issue of social justice, the first obstacle that has to be tackled is the tragic mistake of the Christian who adopts the means of the socialist. The most effective bait for the religious-minded is more often than not, programs labeled as being beneficial to the poor. What they utterly fail to grasp is that a program cannot be judged by its intentions but rather by its results. A simple example of this can be seen with the minimum wage law, a law fervently defended by the social justice advocate John A. Ryan as previously mentioned. What minimum wage does is, in effect; incentivize employers to discriminate against low-skilled workers. Milton Friedman, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics wrote, “The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws.” It is these types of well-intentioned, but ultimately short-sighted programs that not only make no headway into solving poverty but do the reverse and perpetuate it.

The second error of the Christian as it relates to the economic areas of social justice is, that even if such programs were to work as intended they would still be in the wrong. But isn’t it the duty of the Christian to provide for the poor? One may ask. What did Christ mean exactly when he said, “…If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me” (Matthew 25:40)? He was making a direct challenge to the individual. If you are a Christian it is your duty to give charity, not ‘steal from Peter to give to Paul’. There is no virtue in giving away the possessions of others, because theft is at the root of such an act. Upon investigation, the Christian faith in no way endorses the tenets of socialism and any attempts to make it so only seem to marginalize its virtues and turn it into a cult of the envious.

Now that the naïve Christian support of redistributive “justice” has been unmasked, the real heart of the matter lies ahead. The crusade for social justice has two additional problems. Social justice is itself unjust and can never be achieved in this world.

In order for the social justice advocate to redress perceived injustices of inequality, they must also get rid of a vital pillar of our American republic; rule of law. The economist Thomas Sowell noted that, “The rule of law, on which a free society depends, is inherently incompatible with cosmic justice. Laws exist in all kinds of societies, from the freest to the most totalitarian… You cannot redress the myriad inequalities which pervade human life by applying the same rules to all or by applying any rules other than the arbitrary dispensations of those in power.” If it were possible to achieve a method of calculating some middle ground upon which to aim all citizens into a sameness of total equality, whatever else the results of egalitarianism, it would mean an end to the concept of the rule of law and not of men that has been the basis for every civilized society since antiquity. Each individual would be governed under a different set of rules depending on the need of each or lack thereof. Even so, true Justice does not condone the taking from the productive to give to the less productive.

Lastly people are not born with equal talent, potential or ability. That is not to say that each individual life is not of equal value, only that whatever gifts are granted they are not of equal proportion. For the egalitarian who is not merely interested in the presence of the most equality of opportunity possible but also equality of outcomes, this reality of nature is a real obstacle. Additionally, their list of grievances goes far beyond the fault of any government or group of people and can only be addressed by the creator himself. There will never be a true redress of all inequalities in every area of society; not only because of the facts of nature but of the corrupting influences of men. All that granting redistributive power to the State does is ensure that those who benefit the most are those with the most political influence. This utopian dream of the social justice advocate will never be achieved because they misunderstand man’s basic flawed nature; Plato’s famed philosopher king is a fiction. Total and true justice of the sort the rabid dog of the social justice movement does not understand, will not and cannot ever be achieved in this life.

Annie Leonard's 2009 Bioneers Conference Speech Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

I am not sure which is funnier, the fact that the socialistworker.org protesters spell whose as "who'se", or that the very thing they are advocating for is responsible for the increase in tuition prices. The more government subsidies, the less incentive there is for Universities to lower their prices!

There was another story put out this week by theblogprof covering emails by the Detroit school board president Otis Mathis; apparently he is virtually illiterate. It's no wonder the high school graduation rate in the Detroit school district is only 1 in 4. A situation like this also begs the question, how did Mathis get into his position without the ability to write at a 2nd grade level?

Seriously though, "our we mixing DPS and None DPS row's, and who is the watch dog?"

For anyone who attended the UAA Cabin Fever debates tonight looking for a quality performance, they were certainly not disappointed. Both sides put forth clear and concise arguments in favor and opposed to the motion that “Anchorage should bid to host the 2022 Olympics.”

Now although all four teams were obviously of a high standard having advanced from the first round, by no means were they so near each other in skill as to make it a close call. It was very obvious by the time the closing statements were made that there were two teams who clearly established themselves as the superior debaters.

The opening proposition members Jonathan Stinson and Matthew Stinson of team Your Friends, the cosmonauts were an obvious choice as well as Jason Cline and Ryan Mckee of Dick Cheney is my hero. If only one team could advance then the decision may have been somewhat difficult, but as for the top two, the result was apparent to nearly everyone in the audience. These two teams had made fewer mistakes by far, laid out superior arguments, won the majority of verbal jousts, and were simply better in nearly every way than the two remaining teams throughout the debate.

The judges apparently decided to ignore reality however; they not only need to see an optometrist (as Cline quipped during the debate in reference to the short-sided fiscal policy of supporting the motion), but an otologist as well. Rather than giving the nod to team Dick Cheney is my hero, they decided to turn the expected result on its head and give the green light to Clayton Dale and Adriene Slaymaker of Team Slaymaker.

With one declaration of the victors, the judges revealed themselves to be lacking in any credibility. The decision was an utter sham; analogous to the 1988 Olympic boxing match decision between Roy Jones Jr. and Park Si-Hun. It could be argued that Dale did respectably, but not nearly well enough to pick up the slack for his less than impressive partner. Slaymaker left several questions by the proposition unanswered, had somewhat flimsy arguments in the area of homelessness and literally froze for a considerable portion of her speech, even going over the time limit due to long pauses and lack of any fluidity. Despite the numerous problems displayed by Slaymaker, the judges still for whatever reason decided to pass her team onto the finals.

With the less qualified team advancing, we all lose. And now we are left with serious questions about the integrity of the result that need to be answered. Many of us will press the panel until they at least attempt to justify their very evidently flawed decision.

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

Cabin Fever blog with videos

 

The second round of the UAA Cabin Fever debates has concluded. As expected our very own Jason Cline and Ryan McKee came out on top, despite having to take a position contrary to their own convictions. The proposition they had to argue against was, “Federal funding should not be used for abortions except in cases of incest, rape, and risk to the health of the mother.” Jason did very well as we all assumed he would, but the real story was how humorously Ryan assessed the financial benefits of abortions, even going as far as to call it “a bargain” for society! The cold and calculating angle won over the judges by a 3-2 margin and we all congratulate them on their wonderful performance worthy of an academy award (in my humble opinion).

As for the assessment of the losers I can only say this. Coming out right away and claiming there was no place for a discussion of morality and ethics was their biggest mistake. They even had the advantage of it being February i.e. Black History Month! There was no discussion of disobeying unjust laws, no discussion of moral law (Hello? Why would there be a statue of Moses in the Supreme Court?). Slavery and Jim Crow were perfectly legal at one time in the United States. Don’t get me wrong I am glad my friends won this debate, it just saddens me how the appeal to something higher than the law of the United States, something we claim to derive our rights from in the Declaration of Independence has so easily been lost. It is apparent their morally bankrupt tendencies are what lost them the contest of substance.

Again congrats to Ryan and Jason! Also good luck to our upcoming duo of Zlata Sushchik and Valeria Mashkova on Tuesday Feb. 16th. We all need to get behind them.

Was this Audi Super Bowl commercial supposed to be funny? It looks more like a glimpse into the wet dream of your modern greeny. Pretty disturbing stuff.

To everyone who helped in putting on the Anchorage premier of Not Evil Just Wrong, I have to say well done. It was a massively successful night considering the relatively short time and lack of any real University support.

The film itself was quite good at achieving the reception it was looking for. Rather than rehash many of the well known arguments put forth by skeptics of AGW, it went for the angle of warning against extreme environmental policies that could severely hinder economic growth both in developed and underdeveloped regions. It argued not solely from a scientific perspective but from an ethical one.

The highlight of the night however was not the movie but the Q & A session. The first questioner took issue with Ann and Phelim's portrayal of environmentalists as anti-human. The producers simply pointed out that the results of their policies were just that despite what they may attest to. 

Another questioner hinted that the US government involvement in the Middle East was due to its addiction to oil. Phelim quipped that the reason the government is there, at least in the case of Afghanistan was due to “19 little shits murdering 3,000 people”. The crowd burst into cheer and the point was well taken.

Not to be outdone by her husband, Ann took on a few anti-industrial assertions about massive loss of bio-diversity (without any evidence of course) and passionately defended their positions. She went through a few examples of Leftist hypocrisy citing groups who flew to Copenhagen to protest air travel, or students claiming to not be in favor of mining while benefiting from its exploits by way of computers and iPods.

All in all everything went far better than anyone expected. The audience left the Wendy Williamson Auditorium with a more balanced perspective and some new information on the complicated issue of climate change. As successful as the night was for the CRs, we hope this is just the beginning and can’t thank Phelim Mcaleer and Ann McElhinney enough for their support and generosity. Whichever side is right on this issue one thing is for sure; Phelim and Ann have respectable motives for what they do, unlike the hypocritical demagogue that is Al Gore.