SOCIAL JUSTICE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND PUBLIC POLICY

I have just been reading a book with the title given above. It is written by a Scotsman named Hugh V. McLachlan, at Glasgow Caledonian University. He looks at the usual Leftist claims about social justice and human rights and applies relentless logic to them. And he covers what could be fairly abstruse philosophical questions in a remarkably clear and simple way. It would be a very good book for people who want to get their thinking clear on many of the usual Left/Right issues.

He starts out trying to makes sense of postmodernism but rightly concludes that it is self-refuting. To simplify a little, postmodernists claim that no statement is true but if that is so then all statements made by postmodernists are also untrue. So why should we heed them? Fun! Applying logic like that to postmodernists does not bother them at all of course. They only aim to sound clever, not to clarify or explain anything. They would only be bothered if everybody laughed at them and since lots of people seem to take them seriously, they are happy with their "ideas".

McLachlan devotes a fair bit of space to the concept of "rights", "fairness" and "justice" but he also applies his conclusions to things like health care, inequality, education, unemployment, affirmative action, poverty and taxation. His approach is as a philosopher rather than as an economist so his views are "moderate" rather than being outright conservative. He does for instance think that Britain's nationalized health service is justifiable in some form. But that perspective probably helps if one is going to take any of his arguments into discussions with Leftists.

There is more about the book here. Prof. McLachlan can be contacted on h.mclachlan@gcal.ac.uk

******************************

ELSEWHERE

Quite right too: "The US Congress has passed legislation that creates thousands of working visas for Australians and their spouses in what is seen in Washington as a sign of the special relationship with Australia. "I don't think any other country at the moment would have been able to get this sort of visa concession in the current climate," an official said. Some 10,500 E3 visas will be issued annually to Australians with tertiary qualifications who have job offers from American employers, including universities, government departments and businesses. There is no age limit. Until now, Australians have had to compete for one of the 65,000 work visas issued worldwide by the US each year. Last year, 986 Australians received an HIB visa, which does not allow spouses of visa holders to work and has a time limit of six years. Once President George Bush signs the legislation, Australia will become the only country whose nationals are issued special work visas."

I must say that the constant talk about "Blair's bloody nose", Blair being a "lame duck" and the like is yet another proof of how divorced a lot of media commentators are from reality. Tony Blair has just won an unprecedented (for Labour) third term in office with a substantial majority of 66 and that is supposed to be some sort of defeat??? If he had OPPOSED the Iraq war and got a majority of only one, the selfsame whiners would have been describing it as an "historic achievement" or the like. The Soviet Union may have fallen but the Western media seem determined to keep the old lying Soviet press and its distortions alive and well and more pervasive than ever. If they were criticizing Blair for getting only 36% of the vote I would understand that but only the opposition parties seem to be bothered by that. What the mainly Leftist commentators are gloating about is that Blair lost 50 seats -- but coming off the huge majority he had before, his present 66 seat majority is just a return to normal.

England getting restive: "The gap between the amount of public money spent per head in Scotland compared with that spent in England has grown despite devolution. The situation will particularly anger Tories, who won about 60,000 more votes in England than Labour. They secured 92 fewer seats although the South voted overwhelmingly Tory.... According to this year's Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses published by the Treasury last month, 5,593 pounds will be spent on each person in the South East while 7,786 pounds will be spent per head in Scotland. In Wales, the figure is 7,312 pounds and in Northern Ireland 8,566 pounds ..... However, the outcome of the election will renew calls for England to be given its own parliament to campaign for a more equal share of public money or for excluding Scottish MPs at Westminster from English business."

Good to see Taranto skewering one of Australia's puffed-up Leftist public broadcasters. In their best supercilious manner, they tried to diss Brisbane's own Chrenkoff but got their facts wrong. And it was in a TV program where they purport to correct errors of fact. What a laugh! Chrenkoff is certainly laughing about the whole thing. By the way, I love this post by Chrenkoff. No wonder he has such a big readership (2 million hits in one year!).

Another instance of where we have the internet to thank for corrections that we otherwise would not hear is the Oreskes fraud. A sociologist named Naomi Oreskes did a "study" which arrived at the hilarious claim that there was total consensus among scientists about global warming. Despite the falsity of that claim being widely known, the "study" was published in a serious scientific journal. When an article from a science professor (Peiser) giving the actual facts was submitted to the same journal, however, they refused to print it -- giving grounds for their refusal which were also falsehoods. This should have been a major scandal of the sort that the media love reporting but we have heard not a whisper of it from them so far that I can tell. You can read Peiser's unpublished corrective article plus the whole of Peiser's correspondence with the journal here. There is a also a big discussion of the matter here. I reported the matter on GREENIE WATCH on December 9, 2004 and on May 2, 2005

Mike Adams is a genius. His latest hilarious shot at feminist bigotry is here. The feminist sourpusses won't be laughing, of course.

Carnival of the Vanities is up again with much good reading

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here. And on Social Security see Dick McDonald

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************