Social justice

The term "social justice" is easily the most confusing and misunderstood phrase used by many today.  What exactly does it mean,  how did it come into such common use?  Peter West, a Catholic father, talks about it in this article, and there are excellent comments following the article that shed real light on this highly misleading phrase.  Von Mises spends some time discussing the term in his book, "Human Action" and berates himself for not completely discrediting it over the years.  What one has in this term is the joining of two words that cannot be joined since they are mutually exclusive.  First social, a word that has several meanings but in essence is a word relating to  a group or collective assemblage. Justice is mostly a word with legal connotations meaning giving or getting what is one's due. So what does it mean to join these two words?  Not much.   As the term is used in public discourse these days, those who argue in the comments that what you get is a call for reparations, make a good point.

Chickens coming home to roost

The bastion of liberalism is finally forced by circumstances to come to grips with the consequences of the cost of big government that it holds so dear. So there really are consequences to all these government programs, sweetheart pension plans, et. al, that the Times endorsed and  promoted year after year, what a surprise!  This story must have been difficult to write considering their complicity in the creation of all these problems they failed to identify and report on for all those years.  Maybe  we should bring back scarlet letters for those who as overseers of public servants in positions of public trust misbehave or are derelict in the performance of their duties? A big purple "DM" emblem (Derelict Media) stitched onto their wearing apparel, much like the Star Of David patch Nazis required Jews to wear in Germany. At least we would then we will know who they are and can publicly shun them.

"Reflections on Cambodia"

This article in "National Review Online" by a professor from Peking University in Shezhen, China, will strike a responsive chord from those of us who have actually visited Cambodia.  What transpired there in the 1970s under the Khmer Rouge regime was so horrible and unthinkable that one almost has to go to the killing fields, as we did, to be able to even imagine that such could actually happen in our lifetimes.  However, as the professor points out, similar horrors have been perpetrated on others: Chinese under Mao, Jews under Hitler, Armenians by Turks, Bosnians by Serbs, Russians under Stalin, all in our lifetimes except perhaps the Armenian massacre by the Turks.  The professor makes the argument that the slaughter of Cambodians was not genocide but rather the madness that drives communist inspired leaders to create a society in which everyone is equal.  After a firsthand visit to this benighted country this observation makes sense. (Click on the underlined word above to link to the NRO article)