“The idea of social justice is that the state should treat different people unequally in order to make them equal.”
From the Foundation For Economic Education.
Yale Classmate Seattle Sam writes:
I created a course that I think will be in next yearâ€™s Yale course catalog.
Math for the Social Justice Major
Mathematics was devised by old white men who sought to oppress the uneducated masses. In this course we will explore a more empathetic approach to the subject.
The course will explore questions such as:
How does the number 6 make you feel?
If John has 6 marbles and Sue has 2, isnâ€™t that unfair?
How can there be any â€œincorrectâ€ answers?
Isnâ€™t identifying a number as â€œpositiveâ€ or negativeâ€ stereotyping?
If you identify with 5 more than 4, why shouldnâ€™t that be a solution to 2+2=?
What did Euclid know and when did he know it?
Isnâ€™t a null set non-inclusive?
What should you do if the solution to an equation make you feel unsafe?
Shouldnâ€™t we just deem the Parallel Postulate proved?
Whatâ€™s the point of carrying pi out to more than two decimals?
Arenâ€™t < and > judgmental symbols?
Who are you to determine that a fraction is improper?
Why do you think prime numbers have only a token even member?
Why shouldnâ€™t an inverse tangent have the same value as a cosine?
Arenâ€™t right angles reactionary?
Are there really any absolute values?
Why should binomials and polynomials be considered deviants?
Isnâ€™t a Real Number just your perception?
Just because a number canâ€™t be expressed as a ratio of integers, why should it be called irrational?
The Onion quotes a devastating report identifying yet another form of startling inequality resulting in large-scale social injustice in America.
According to the sobering report, the disproportionate distribution of soda-can wealth is greater than ever before, and has become one of the worst instances of economic inequality in the nation’s history. Data showed that over-salvaging of cans by a small and elite group of can-horders has created a steadily growing and possibly unbridgeable gap between the rich and the mega-poor.
“Although our nation’s upper middle class actually consumes the most beverages, a staggering percentage of these cans wind up in the hands of a very few,” said economist Cynthia Pierce, who worked as a consultant on the three-year, $14 million government study. “It’s a troubling trend. And as a tiny fraction of the population continues to maintain its stranglehold on redeemable can wealth, it’s a trend that shows no sign of slowing.”
According to Pierce, the study points to a distinct economic advantage for the most can-affluentâ€”those who possess the resources necessary to collect, transport, separate, and accumulate more and more cans than the rest of the population.
“Members of this exclusive group come from exceedingly poor backgrounds and have access to outrageously low levels of education, which makes them much better prepared to reap the benefits of digging around in garbage,” Pierce added. …
One canned individual cited in the study is can tycoon Will Dorsey, a 33-year-old Detroit resident who spent his childhood living off the funds collected from his family’s vast can holdings. At the age of 16, Dorsey inherited five carts and dozens of garbage bags overflowing with recyclables when his father passed away unexpectedly one cold December morning.
According to economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, people like Dorsey, who maintain an ultra-poor lifestyle that is vastly different from the rest of the population, are egregiously out of touch with the everyday economic realities of mainstream America.
“Dorsey is one of those select few who come from old can money,” Krugman said. “They’re just hoarding their assets so nobody else can benefit. And then they parade down the street with their carts full of recycling.”
Read the whole thing.
Hat tip to Lynn Chu.
Daniel Greenfield has an excellent, must-read editorial on the real meaning of the raising-the-debt-ceiling debate and “social justice” as a form of addiction.
The debt ceiling debate is less about spending than it is about the purpose of government. Under the impact of an economic recession, the train of the Great Society is approaching the edge of the New Frontier. Both sides are still trying to work out a New Deal, but another cuts and spending formula is not the solution. What we need is a serious and earnest discussion about why we are compulsively spending money.
A cocaine addict who runs out of money doesn’t have a spending problem, he has a drug problem. Telling him to cut back on how much money he spends on cocaine, or to shop around for cheaper cocaine isn’t the solution. It’s not about how much he’s spending, but about why. The problem isn’t in the math, it’s in the mindset.
Our cocaine is social justice. Like most junkies who are willing to sell anything and everything to keep the supply coming, Obama’s position in the budget debate is take everything– especially the military, but leave the social justice and the big government that administers it on the table. And also like most junkies, he has an endless supply of self-righteous speeches denouncing the people who just want him to stop.
In the rush of words, he postures, conflates compromise with confrontation, threatens and urges everyone to work together. There is no consistent message, only egotistical aggression and defensive need. Strip away the verbiage and you come away with a chorus of, “Mine, My Way, Mine”.
With all addictions, it is important to look for the root cause. The psychological weakness that allows the chemical rush to take over and become the defining principle of life. In this case it is a basic split over the purpose of government.
Be sure to read the whole thing.
Hat tip to the Barrister.
Bird Dog, over at Maggie’s Farm, asks a question which has often occurred to me.
At what point do American Liberals become Conservatives? I mean, at what point would government and government control and redistribution be sufficient to satisfy them so that they would cease seeking more, and just stop and try to freeze it in a Conservative fashion, as happened in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, and China?
One of the things that converted me to Conservatism years ago was that none of my Liberal and Lefty friends could or would answer that question. I liked to ask them what arguments they could make against free food, socialized legal insurance and auto insurance, free nose jobs and boob jobs and IQ injections – and free PhDs in Social Justice and Peace Studies for all.
Of course, we know the answer.
There is no end point. Once there is Social Security, there must be Medicare and Prescription Drug Benefits for the aged. Then there must be National Health Care for everyone. And once they get that, there will be something else.