By SHELBY STEELE
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578363243019000.html
Whether or not the Republicans win big next week, it is already clear that the "transformative" aspirations of the Obama presidency—the special promise of this first black president to "change" us into a better society—are much less likely to materialize. There will be enough Republican gains to make the "no" in the "party of no" even more formidable, if not definitive.
But apart from this politics of numbers, there is also now a deepening disenchantment with Barack Obama himself. (He has a meager 37% approval rating by the latest Harris poll.) His embarrassed supporters console themselves that their intentions were good; their vote helped make history. But for Mr. Obama himself there is no road back to the charisma and political capital he enjoyed on his inauguration day.
How is it that Barack Obama could step into the presidency with an air of inevitability and then, in less than two years, find himself unwelcome at the campaign rallies of many of his fellow Democrats?
The first answer is well-known: His policymaking has been grandiose, thoughtless and bullying. His health-care bill was ambitious to the point of destructiveness and, finally, so chaotic that today no citizen knows where they stand in relation to it. His financial-reform bill seems little more than a short-sighted scapegoating of Wall Street. In foreign policy he has failed to articulate a role for America in the world. We don't know why we do what we do in foreign affairs. George W. Bush at least made a valiant stab at an American rationale—democratization—but with Mr. Obama there is nothing.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
What Who Why fights terror
MikeNZ (3,076) Says:
October 29th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
To stand up for something, you must believe in its worth. To stand up to something, you must believe that it is less worthy. If you don’t believe that, then it is easier to sit down, to give in and let them do whatever they want
A long article but this sentence highlights a problem or vacuum we have in Western society today.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/10/national-survival-for-america-and_4531.html
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Research to Explain a Problem = $$
ben (1,324) Says:
October 28th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Conspiracy has nothing to do with it. The co-ordinating mechanism across science is not an agreement between corrupt scientists, but money that is expressly conditional on finding a problem. No government and almost no companies are interested in funding research that demonstrates there is no problem. Demonstrably so. And any that do are pilloried.
That means all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that finds or explains a problem get money, and $billions of it, and all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that don’t get very little. At no stage do you have conspiracy, you have selection bias among (and largely out of sight of) the well-meaning.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Whoops
Red – do you think there is there ANY chance you might be wrong? That it’s not a giant conspiracy?
Conspiracy has nothing to do with it. The co-ordinating mechanism across science is not an agreement between corrupt scientists, but money that is expressly conditional on finding a problem. No government and almost no companies are interested in funding research that demonstrates there is no problem. Demonstrably so. And any that do are pilloried.
That means all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that finds or explains a problem get money, and $billions of it, and all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that don’t get very little. At no stage do you have conspiracy, you have selection bias among (and largely out of sight of) the well-meaning.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Eastern Europe Versus the Open Society
About the Author
Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/10/25/eastern-europe-versus-the-open-society/
Eastern Europe Versus the Open Societyby Srdja Trifkovic
October 25th, 2010 • Related • Filed Under
No Related Post
Filed Under: Featured • News & Views • Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Excerpts from a speech to the H.L. Mencken Club, Baltimore, October 23, 2010
Two weeks ago the first “gay pride parade” was staged in Belgrade. Serbia’s “pro-European” government had been promoting the event as yet another proof that Serbia is fit to join the European Union, that is has overcome the legacy of its dark, intolerant past. Thousands of policemen in full riot gear had to divide their time between protecting a few hundred “LBGT” activists (about half of them imported from Western Europe for the occasion) and battling ten times as many young protesters in the side streets.
The parade, it should be noted, was prominently attended by the U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade Mary Warlick, by the head of the European Commission Office, Vincent Degert of France, and by the head of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission in Serbia, Dimitris Kipreos. Needless to say, none of them had attended the enthronment of the new Serbian Patriarch a week earlier. Two days later, Hillary Clinton came to Belgrade and praised the Tadic regime for staging the parade.
Mrs. Clinton et al are enjoying the fruits of one man’s two decades of hard work in Eastern Europe. George Soros can claim, more than any other individual, that his endeavors have helped turn the lands of “Real Socialism” in central and eastern Europe away from their ancestors, their cultural and spiritual roots. The process is far from over, but his Open Society Institute and its extensive network of subsidiaries east of the Trieste-Stettin line have successfully legitimized the notions that only two decades ago would have seemed bizarre, laughable or demonic to the denizens of the eastern half of Europe.
The package was first tested here in America. Through his Open Society Institute and its vast network of affiliates Soros has provided extensive financial and lobbying support here for
Legalization of hard drugs: We should accept that “substance abuse is endemic in most societies,” he says. Thanks to his intervention the terms “medicalization” and “non-violent drug offender” have entered public discourse, and pro-drug legalization laws were passed in California and Arizona in the 90s.
Euthanasia: In 1994 Soros—a self-professed atheist—launched his Project Death in America (PDIA) and provided $15 million in its initial funding. (It is noteworthy that his mother, a member of the pro-suicide Hemlock Society, killed herself, and that Soros mentions unsympathetically his dying father’s clinging on to life for too long.) PDIA supports physician-assisted suicide and works “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals” and, in a turn of phrase chillingly worthy of Orwell, lead to “the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.”
Population replacement: Soros is an enthusiastic promoter of open immigration and amnesty & special rights for immigrants. He has supported the National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Forum, and dozens of others. He also promotes expansion of public welfare, and in late 1996 he created the Emma Lazarus Fund that has given millions in grants to nonprofit legal services groups that undermine provisions of the welfare legislation ending immigrant entitlements.
Soros supports programs and organizations that further abortion rights and increased access to birth control devices; advocate ever more stringent gun control; and demand abolition of the death penalty. He supports radical feminists and “gay” activists, same-sex “marriage” naturally included. OSI states innocently enough that its objectives include “the strengthening of civil society; economic reform; education at all levels; human rights; legal reform and public administration; public health; and arts and culture,” but the way it goes about these tasks is not “philanthropy” but political activism in pursuit of all the familiar causes of the radical left—and some additional, distinctly creepy ones such as “Death in America.”
Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/10/25/eastern-europe-versus-the-open-society/
Eastern Europe Versus the Open Societyby Srdja Trifkovic
October 25th, 2010 • Related • Filed Under
No Related Post
Filed Under: Featured • News & Views • Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Excerpts from a speech to the H.L. Mencken Club, Baltimore, October 23, 2010
Two weeks ago the first “gay pride parade” was staged in Belgrade. Serbia’s “pro-European” government had been promoting the event as yet another proof that Serbia is fit to join the European Union, that is has overcome the legacy of its dark, intolerant past. Thousands of policemen in full riot gear had to divide their time between protecting a few hundred “LBGT” activists (about half of them imported from Western Europe for the occasion) and battling ten times as many young protesters in the side streets.
The parade, it should be noted, was prominently attended by the U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade Mary Warlick, by the head of the European Commission Office, Vincent Degert of France, and by the head of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission in Serbia, Dimitris Kipreos. Needless to say, none of them had attended the enthronment of the new Serbian Patriarch a week earlier. Two days later, Hillary Clinton came to Belgrade and praised the Tadic regime for staging the parade.
Mrs. Clinton et al are enjoying the fruits of one man’s two decades of hard work in Eastern Europe. George Soros can claim, more than any other individual, that his endeavors have helped turn the lands of “Real Socialism” in central and eastern Europe away from their ancestors, their cultural and spiritual roots. The process is far from over, but his Open Society Institute and its extensive network of subsidiaries east of the Trieste-Stettin line have successfully legitimized the notions that only two decades ago would have seemed bizarre, laughable or demonic to the denizens of the eastern half of Europe.
The package was first tested here in America. Through his Open Society Institute and its vast network of affiliates Soros has provided extensive financial and lobbying support here for
Legalization of hard drugs: We should accept that “substance abuse is endemic in most societies,” he says. Thanks to his intervention the terms “medicalization” and “non-violent drug offender” have entered public discourse, and pro-drug legalization laws were passed in California and Arizona in the 90s.
Euthanasia: In 1994 Soros—a self-professed atheist—launched his Project Death in America (PDIA) and provided $15 million in its initial funding. (It is noteworthy that his mother, a member of the pro-suicide Hemlock Society, killed herself, and that Soros mentions unsympathetically his dying father’s clinging on to life for too long.) PDIA supports physician-assisted suicide and works “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals” and, in a turn of phrase chillingly worthy of Orwell, lead to “the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.”
Population replacement: Soros is an enthusiastic promoter of open immigration and amnesty & special rights for immigrants. He has supported the National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Forum, and dozens of others. He also promotes expansion of public welfare, and in late 1996 he created the Emma Lazarus Fund that has given millions in grants to nonprofit legal services groups that undermine provisions of the welfare legislation ending immigrant entitlements.
Soros supports programs and organizations that further abortion rights and increased access to birth control devices; advocate ever more stringent gun control; and demand abolition of the death penalty. He supports radical feminists and “gay” activists, same-sex “marriage” naturally included. OSI states innocently enough that its objectives include “the strengthening of civil society; economic reform; education at all levels; human rights; legal reform and public administration; public health; and arts and culture,” but the way it goes about these tasks is not “philanthropy” but political activism in pursuit of all the familiar causes of the radical left—and some additional, distinctly creepy ones such as “Death in America.”
Monday, October 25, 2010
Dissident Academic Feels the Warmth of “Social Justice”
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2010/10/dissident-academic-feels-the-warmth-of-social-justice-.html
Dissident Academic Feels the Warmth of “Social Justice”
Longtime readers of this blog will be familiar with KC Johnson, a Brooklyn College history professor who’s written at length about leftist groupthink in academia, its various pathologies and its imperviousness to correction. Johnson is the co-author of Until Proven Innocent, which documents the infamous Duke “rape” case and its participants’ extraordinary improprieties and political prejudice.
In May 2005, writing for Inside Higher Ed, Johnson drew attention to the emergence of “dispositions theory” and attempts to impose overt political filtering in dozens of teacher-training programmes:
Looking through various teacher-training outlines, the familiar leftist buzzwords appear repeatedly. “Diversity” and identity politics feature prominently and teachers-to-be are referred to as “critical thinking change agents.” These “agents” will use the classroom “to transcend the negative effects of the dominant culture” and will “speak on behalf of identified constituent groups,” becoming “advocates for those on the margins of society.” (Evidently, “critical thinking” should be taken to mean leftist thinking – critical of capitalism, individualism and bourgeois values - not thinking that might also be critical of the left, its methods and its assorted conceits. And one wonders how many liberties will be taken while speaking on behalf of “groups” deemed marginal and oppressed.)
Some programmes encourage teachers to regard themselves as “enlightened leaders” who “must understand the political nature of education,” that “education is a political act,” and thereby “act as change agents,” while “developing emerging theories to support change agentry principles and processes.” The prospective teacher is expected to “serve as an advocate for groups that have been traditionally discriminated against” and to “provide evidence” of their own “commitment to social justice.” This commitment may be fostered by “fully developing candidates, not only academically but also in moral and political senses.”
All of which prompted Johnson to ask the obvious question: Who gets to define this mysterious “social justice”? Who gets to say what a “more just society” might entail and how one might achieve it?
Dissident Academic Feels the Warmth of “Social Justice”
Longtime readers of this blog will be familiar with KC Johnson, a Brooklyn College history professor who’s written at length about leftist groupthink in academia, its various pathologies and its imperviousness to correction. Johnson is the co-author of Until Proven Innocent, which documents the infamous Duke “rape” case and its participants’ extraordinary improprieties and political prejudice.
In May 2005, writing for Inside Higher Ed, Johnson drew attention to the emergence of “dispositions theory” and attempts to impose overt political filtering in dozens of teacher-training programmes:
The faculty’s ideological imbalance has allowed three factors - a new accreditation policy, changes in how students are evaluated and curricular orientation around a theme of “social justice” - to impose a de facto political litmus test on the next cohort of public school teachers.
Looking through various teacher-training outlines, the familiar leftist buzzwords appear repeatedly. “Diversity” and identity politics feature prominently and teachers-to-be are referred to as “critical thinking change agents.” These “agents” will use the classroom “to transcend the negative effects of the dominant culture” and will “speak on behalf of identified constituent groups,” becoming “advocates for those on the margins of society.” (Evidently, “critical thinking” should be taken to mean leftist thinking – critical of capitalism, individualism and bourgeois values - not thinking that might also be critical of the left, its methods and its assorted conceits. And one wonders how many liberties will be taken while speaking on behalf of “groups” deemed marginal and oppressed.)
Some programmes encourage teachers to regard themselves as “enlightened leaders” who “must understand the political nature of education,” that “education is a political act,” and thereby “act as change agents,” while “developing emerging theories to support change agentry principles and processes.” The prospective teacher is expected to “serve as an advocate for groups that have been traditionally discriminated against” and to “provide evidence” of their own “commitment to social justice.” This commitment may be fostered by “fully developing candidates, not only academically but also in moral and political senses.”
All of which prompted Johnson to ask the obvious question: Who gets to define this mysterious “social justice”? Who gets to say what a “more just society” might entail and how one might achieve it?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Gentle Socialism to --->
Leftists, Progressives and Socialists
Opinion Editorial by Walter E. Williams - Oct 20, 2010 23 ratings from readers
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101020-williams-leftists-progressives.php
Despite historical warnings, some refuse to believe that government meddling causes nothing but misery. For those who are hesitant to read Rand, this article is a great introduction to free market morality.
One of the greatest sources of confusion and deception is the difference between leftists, progressives, socialists, communists and fascists. I thought about this as I caught a glimpse of the Oct. 2 "One Nation" march on Washington.
The participants proudly marched with banners, signs and placards reading "Socialists," "Ohio U Democratic Socialists," "International Socialists Organization," "Socialist Party USA," "Build A Socialist Alternative" and other signs expressing support for socialism and communism. They had stands where they sold booklets under the titles of "Marxism and the State," "Communist Manifesto," "Four Marxist Classics," "The Road to Socialism" and similar titles.
The gathering had the support of the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, stalwarts of the Democratic Party such as Al Sharpton and organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club, and the Children's Defense Fund.
What goes unappreciated is that socialists and communists have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.
Opinion Editorial by Walter E. Williams - Oct 20, 2010 23 ratings from readers
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101020-williams-leftists-progressives.php
Despite historical warnings, some refuse to believe that government meddling causes nothing but misery. For those who are hesitant to read Rand, this article is a great introduction to free market morality.
One of the greatest sources of confusion and deception is the difference between leftists, progressives, socialists, communists and fascists. I thought about this as I caught a glimpse of the Oct. 2 "One Nation" march on Washington.
The participants proudly marched with banners, signs and placards reading "Socialists," "Ohio U Democratic Socialists," "International Socialists Organization," "Socialist Party USA," "Build A Socialist Alternative" and other signs expressing support for socialism and communism. They had stands where they sold booklets under the titles of "Marxism and the State," "Communist Manifesto," "Four Marxist Classics," "The Road to Socialism" and similar titles.
The gathering had the support of the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, stalwarts of the Democratic Party such as Al Sharpton and organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club, and the Children's Defense Fund.
What goes unappreciated is that socialists and communists have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.
Sharing?: Blackmail: Reciprocity?
Fascinating. "Israel's Conflict as Game Theory," by Yisrael Aumann, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2005 for his work on analyzing conflicts using game theory. This piece was posted at Israel Defender on October 23:
http://israeldefender.com/?p=1492
Plus comments and thoughts from other blogs
Two men--let us call them Rick and Steve-- are put in a small room containing a suitcase filled with bills totaling $100,000. The owner of the suitcase announces the following:
"I will give you the money in the suitcase under one condition...you have to negotiate an agreement on how to divide it. That is the only way I will agree to give you the money."
Rick is a rational person and realizes the golden opportunity that has fallen his way. He turns to Steve with the obvious suggestion: "You take half and I'll take half, that way each of us will have $50,000."
To his surprise, Steve frowns at him and says, in a tone that leaves no room for doubt: "Look here, I don't know what your plans are for the money, but I don't intend to leave this room with less than $90,000. If you accept that, fine. If not, we can both go home without any of the money."
http://israeldefender.com/?p=1492
Plus comments and thoughts from other blogs
Two men--let us call them Rick and Steve-- are put in a small room containing a suitcase filled with bills totaling $100,000. The owner of the suitcase announces the following:
"I will give you the money in the suitcase under one condition...you have to negotiate an agreement on how to divide it. That is the only way I will agree to give you the money."
Rick is a rational person and realizes the golden opportunity that has fallen his way. He turns to Steve with the obvious suggestion: "You take half and I'll take half, that way each of us will have $50,000."
To his surprise, Steve frowns at him and says, in a tone that leaves no room for doubt: "Look here, I don't know what your plans are for the money, but I don't intend to leave this room with less than $90,000. If you accept that, fine. If not, we can both go home without any of the money."
Saturday, October 23, 2010
How far do we stretch our beliefs ? ? to the dragon?
“As children tremble and fear everything in the blind darkness, so we in the light sometimes fear what is no more to be feared than the things children in the dark hold in terror”.
Lucretius, On the nature of things (ca. 60 BC)
Famous psychologist Richard Franklin (cited Sagan, 1997, p. 171) while following a group therapy approach, narrated a very interesting fictitious conversation which is as below.
Suppose I seriously make an assertion to you, “A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”.
“Show me”, you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle but no dragon.
“Where is the dragon?” you ask.
“Oh, that horrible creature is right here”. I reply, waving vaguely and horror in my eyes, “I forgot to mention that it’s an invisible dragon and its fire is also invisible”.
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.
“Good idea”, I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”
“Then we can use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire”. You proposed.
“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.” I replied.
“Then why not spray-paint the dragon and make it visible”? You ask.
“Good idea, except this creature is an ghostly dragon and the paint would not stick”. I again replied back.
“Well, in that case, let me enter the garage and see if it bites me and if I feel the pain, I will know that something is there”. You decided.
“Good idea, but I forgot to tell you, its bite is also painless and even if it eats you, you will not realize that you are eaten and obviously you will look same as before.” Another ready explanation comes from me.
Utterly confused!!!
The above conversation has no end because it can be extended forever. No matter how scientifically and logically you try to approach, always I have a ‘special’ explanation of why it would not work. But by no means I will come out of the idea that the dragon does exist. If you cannot detect, it is your fault, but at any cost the dragon exists.
Where, What is the truth? What has happened to truth? Who controls what truth?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’? + some good comments
What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?by Rose Marie Berger 03-24-2010
Today I was interviewed by a sociology student who wanted to know more about “social justice.” I was happy to talk to her. My Catholic tradition considers social justice as a central element of faith, public witness, and as integral to Catholic Social Teaching. In our conversation I drew on an article I’d written a few years back: “What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?” (Sojourners, February 2007).
A starting question when talking about social justice is: What’s the difference between justice and charity?
Justice is the moral code that guides a fair and equitable society. When an individual acts on behalf of justice, he or she stands up for what is right. Charity is a basic sense of generosity and goodwill toward others, especially the suffering. Individual charity is when one responds to the more immediate needs of others — volunteering in a women’s shelter, for example. [See also An Active Faith by Yonce Shelton for more on charity and justice.]
The goal of social charity and social justice is furthering the common good. Social charity addresses the effects of social sin, while social justice addresses the causes of such sins. Brazilian Catholic Archbishop Hélder Câmara famously said, “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.” His phrase indicates the societal pressure to separate charity and justice. The two cannot be separated. It would be like taking the heart out of a body — neither would live for long.
Social charity is sometimes called compassionate solidarity. A church’s decision to buy only fair trade coffee might be considered an act of social charity. It is a communal economic act that addresses the immediate needs of those who are oppressed by an unjust economic system. However, it doesn’t fundamentally change or challenge the unjust structure.
So just what is the definition of social justice?
The principle of social justice, according to Catholic social teaching, requires the individual Christian to act in an organized manner with others to hold social institutions accountable — whether government or private — to the common good. The “common good comprises the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily,” according to Pope Paul VI. However, social justice can become hollow if it is not constantly in touch with real people’s experiences.
How does one “do” social justice?
Social justice issues are determined by “discerning the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3 "and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."
After the comments then the following article "Social Justice and the New Morality"
By Berit Kjos - May 23, 2010.... are to get your teeth into.
Also another post and comments by AmericanMercenary.
Today I was interviewed by a sociology student who wanted to know more about “social justice.” I was happy to talk to her. My Catholic tradition considers social justice as a central element of faith, public witness, and as integral to Catholic Social Teaching. In our conversation I drew on an article I’d written a few years back: “What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?” (Sojourners, February 2007).
A starting question when talking about social justice is: What’s the difference between justice and charity?
Justice is the moral code that guides a fair and equitable society. When an individual acts on behalf of justice, he or she stands up for what is right. Charity is a basic sense of generosity and goodwill toward others, especially the suffering. Individual charity is when one responds to the more immediate needs of others — volunteering in a women’s shelter, for example. [See also An Active Faith by Yonce Shelton for more on charity and justice.]
The goal of social charity and social justice is furthering the common good. Social charity addresses the effects of social sin, while social justice addresses the causes of such sins. Brazilian Catholic Archbishop Hélder Câmara famously said, “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.” His phrase indicates the societal pressure to separate charity and justice. The two cannot be separated. It would be like taking the heart out of a body — neither would live for long.
Social charity is sometimes called compassionate solidarity. A church’s decision to buy only fair trade coffee might be considered an act of social charity. It is a communal economic act that addresses the immediate needs of those who are oppressed by an unjust economic system. However, it doesn’t fundamentally change or challenge the unjust structure.
So just what is the definition of social justice?
The principle of social justice, according to Catholic social teaching, requires the individual Christian to act in an organized manner with others to hold social institutions accountable — whether government or private — to the common good. The “common good comprises the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily,” according to Pope Paul VI. However, social justice can become hollow if it is not constantly in touch with real people’s experiences.
How does one “do” social justice?
Social justice issues are determined by “discerning the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3 "and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."
After the comments then the following article "Social Justice and the New Morality"
By Berit Kjos - May 23, 2010.... are to get your teeth into.
Also another post and comments by AmericanMercenary.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
? Mission Statements ?
Mission statements: a thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type
Journal of Higher Education, May-June, 2006 by Christopher C. Morphew, Matthew Hartley
..They're Everywhere! They're Everywhere!
I have been roped into a council that now says it needs us to have a mission statement
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb172/is_3_77/ai_n29264175/
Gazette readers write
Mission statements are ubiquitous in higher education. Accreditation agencies demand them, strategic planning is predicated on their formulation, and virtually every college and university has one available for review. Moreover, higher education institutions are constantly revisiting and revising their mission statements: as recently as the mid-1990s, the Association of American Colleges (1994), found that fully 80% of all colleges and universities were making major revisions in their mission statements, goals, curricula, and general education courses. It would seem that not having a mission statement begs the very legitimacy of a college or university. Of course, the crafting (and re-crafting) of such documents consumes considerable institutional resources, particularly that most precious resource: time. So, why bother? Some would argue that articulating a shared purpose is a requisite first step on the road to organizational success. Others are far less sanguine about such efforts and view them as rhetorical pyrotechnics--pretty to look at perhaps, but of little structural consequence. The purpose of this study is to begin an exploration of these hypotheses by first attempting to understand what institutions actually say in their missions and by exploring the relationship between these rhetorical elements and institutional type.
Mission Statements: Half-Full or Half-Empty?
A furor over mission statements swept over corporate America nearly three decades ago (Drucker, 1973; Peters and Waterman, 1982). As is the case with other management trends, such ideas inevitably--and belatedly--found their way into the academy (Birnbaum, 2000). Keller (1983), for example, in his seminal book on strategic planning, argues that mission statements are a necessary part of an institution's strategic planning process. Others point to the value of mission statements in expressing a "vision" for the institution's future (Lenning & Micek, 1976; Schwerin, 1980; Carruthers & Lott, 1981; Martin, 1985; Nanus, 1992). Much of the early research on the utility of mission statements is limited because, as Davies (1986) notes, it fails to recognize "the unexamined presuppositions upon which they are grounded" (p. 85). In short, the researchers take as gospel the notion that such statements are, to quote Martha Stewart, "a good thing" and that their assertions are clothed with threadbare anecdotal evidence.
More recent research on postsecondary mission statements has produced a more nuanced understanding of the role that ideology and purpose play in organizational life. This literature suggests that the process of articulating an institution's mission has two potential benefits. First, it is instructional. A clear mission helps organizational members distinguish between activities that conform to institutional imperatives and those that do not. Second, a shared sense of purpose has the capacity to inspire and motivate those within an institution and to communicate its characteristics, values, and history to key external constituents (Drucker, 1973; Keller, 1983; Parekh, 1977; Smith, 1979; Hartley, 2002). Researchers have also described the experiences of (typically small) institutions whose discussions about institutional priorities and future direction, codified in mission statements, have guided decision making around key issues such as program creation or termination. The mission statement therefore is rightly understood as an artifact of a broader institutional discussion about its purpose.
Of course, other practitioners and scholars see the mission statement glass as half-empty. They view mission statements as a collection of stock phrases that are either excessively vague or unrealistically aspirational or both. From this perspective, mission statements ultimately fail to follow through on or convey any noteworthy sense of an institution's current identity (Davies, 1986; Chait, 1979; Delucchi, 1997). A majority of those who have conducted what little empirical analysis exists of college and university mission statements reside squarely in this camp. They argue that mission statements, rather than providing focus to colleges and universities, offer precisely the opposite. Instead of direction and constraint, college and university mission statements provide a means to an uncertain end. More specifically, the language in mission statements is intended to evoke an all-purpose purpose. Or, as Gordon Davies (1986) puts it, mission statements tend to demonstrate "The importance of being general." In other words, rather than surfacing values that might guide everyday decision making, colleges and universities fashion mission statements that maximize institutional flexibility. They communicate that nothing is beyond the reach of the organization in question. In doing so, they ignore institutional limitations and sidestep any effort at prioritizing current activities or future initiatives.
Even so, sociologists that use institutional theory to explain organizational behavior (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer, Deal and Scott, 1981) would argue that an "all-purpose" mission statement nevertheless fulfills an important function for a college or university. From this point of view, the utility and general nature of mission statements go hand in hand. Mission statements are normative--they exist because they are expected to exist, much the same way that students expect colleges and universities to award credit in the form of hours and persons inside and outside higher education expect college campuses to include "quads," well-landscaped gardens, and football stadiums. Institutional theorists point to organizational artifacts like mission statements and knowingly describe them as ritualistic or mythological. From this point of view, mission statements are certainly important but not for the direction they provide. Rather, they serve a legitimating function. Mission statements are valuable because they--and the elements within them--show that the organization in question understands the "rules of the game." And, one of the rules of the higher education game is that you have to have a mission statement if you want to be considered a legitimate college or university by, among others, accrediting agencies and board members.
there is 10 more pages of this
more interesting commentary
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/11/parish-mission-statements/
Journal of Higher Education, May-June, 2006 by Christopher C. Morphew, Matthew Hartley
..They're Everywhere! They're Everywhere!
I have been roped into a council that now says it needs us to have a mission statement
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb172/is_3_77/ai_n29264175/
Gazette readers write
Mission statements are ubiquitous in higher education. Accreditation agencies demand them, strategic planning is predicated on their formulation, and virtually every college and university has one available for review. Moreover, higher education institutions are constantly revisiting and revising their mission statements: as recently as the mid-1990s, the Association of American Colleges (1994), found that fully 80% of all colleges and universities were making major revisions in their mission statements, goals, curricula, and general education courses. It would seem that not having a mission statement begs the very legitimacy of a college or university. Of course, the crafting (and re-crafting) of such documents consumes considerable institutional resources, particularly that most precious resource: time. So, why bother? Some would argue that articulating a shared purpose is a requisite first step on the road to organizational success. Others are far less sanguine about such efforts and view them as rhetorical pyrotechnics--pretty to look at perhaps, but of little structural consequence. The purpose of this study is to begin an exploration of these hypotheses by first attempting to understand what institutions actually say in their missions and by exploring the relationship between these rhetorical elements and institutional type.
Mission Statements: Half-Full or Half-Empty?
A furor over mission statements swept over corporate America nearly three decades ago (Drucker, 1973; Peters and Waterman, 1982). As is the case with other management trends, such ideas inevitably--and belatedly--found their way into the academy (Birnbaum, 2000). Keller (1983), for example, in his seminal book on strategic planning, argues that mission statements are a necessary part of an institution's strategic planning process. Others point to the value of mission statements in expressing a "vision" for the institution's future (Lenning & Micek, 1976; Schwerin, 1980; Carruthers & Lott, 1981; Martin, 1985; Nanus, 1992). Much of the early research on the utility of mission statements is limited because, as Davies (1986) notes, it fails to recognize "the unexamined presuppositions upon which they are grounded" (p. 85). In short, the researchers take as gospel the notion that such statements are, to quote Martha Stewart, "a good thing" and that their assertions are clothed with threadbare anecdotal evidence.
More recent research on postsecondary mission statements has produced a more nuanced understanding of the role that ideology and purpose play in organizational life. This literature suggests that the process of articulating an institution's mission has two potential benefits. First, it is instructional. A clear mission helps organizational members distinguish between activities that conform to institutional imperatives and those that do not. Second, a shared sense of purpose has the capacity to inspire and motivate those within an institution and to communicate its characteristics, values, and history to key external constituents (Drucker, 1973; Keller, 1983; Parekh, 1977; Smith, 1979; Hartley, 2002). Researchers have also described the experiences of (typically small) institutions whose discussions about institutional priorities and future direction, codified in mission statements, have guided decision making around key issues such as program creation or termination. The mission statement therefore is rightly understood as an artifact of a broader institutional discussion about its purpose.
Of course, other practitioners and scholars see the mission statement glass as half-empty. They view mission statements as a collection of stock phrases that are either excessively vague or unrealistically aspirational or both. From this perspective, mission statements ultimately fail to follow through on or convey any noteworthy sense of an institution's current identity (Davies, 1986; Chait, 1979; Delucchi, 1997). A majority of those who have conducted what little empirical analysis exists of college and university mission statements reside squarely in this camp. They argue that mission statements, rather than providing focus to colleges and universities, offer precisely the opposite. Instead of direction and constraint, college and university mission statements provide a means to an uncertain end. More specifically, the language in mission statements is intended to evoke an all-purpose purpose. Or, as Gordon Davies (1986) puts it, mission statements tend to demonstrate "The importance of being general." In other words, rather than surfacing values that might guide everyday decision making, colleges and universities fashion mission statements that maximize institutional flexibility. They communicate that nothing is beyond the reach of the organization in question. In doing so, they ignore institutional limitations and sidestep any effort at prioritizing current activities or future initiatives.
Even so, sociologists that use institutional theory to explain organizational behavior (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer, Deal and Scott, 1981) would argue that an "all-purpose" mission statement nevertheless fulfills an important function for a college or university. From this point of view, the utility and general nature of mission statements go hand in hand. Mission statements are normative--they exist because they are expected to exist, much the same way that students expect colleges and universities to award credit in the form of hours and persons inside and outside higher education expect college campuses to include "quads," well-landscaped gardens, and football stadiums. Institutional theorists point to organizational artifacts like mission statements and knowingly describe them as ritualistic or mythological. From this point of view, mission statements are certainly important but not for the direction they provide. Rather, they serve a legitimating function. Mission statements are valuable because they--and the elements within them--show that the organization in question understands the "rules of the game." And, one of the rules of the higher education game is that you have to have a mission statement if you want to be considered a legitimate college or university by, among others, accrediting agencies and board members.
there is 10 more pages of this
more interesting commentary
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/11/parish-mission-statements/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
