Those in Egypt are asking for social justice. Now where have we heard that before? Obama program goi

CNN (international) interviewing some protestors. They are for "social justice". That term caused me to pause. Where had I heard that before? I googled "social justice in Egypt and I found this.

Goal to provide access to full healthcare benefits for all Egyptians by 2011; schools to receive new funding for teacher training, student programs; farmers to compete in the global economy

CAIRO, Egypt -- Egypt's healthcare, agricultural and education programs will be major issues on the agenda at the National Democratic Party (NDP) convention, November 3-6, in Cairo. The NDP is looking at ways to accelerate development of a healthcare program that will provide all citizens with full health insurance coverage by 2011. The nation's education system will undergo critical upgrades to programs for teacher training, community involvement, and technical and vocational instruction. Expanding markets for Egyptian farmers is also a major goal that will be addressed.

findarticles.com...

Just want to point out this. . .

The Social Justice Party is a democratic and progressive political party in Egypt. It calls for equal rights and duties for all citizens, boosting principles of loyalty to homeland and achieving justice for all citizens.
The party fielded three candidates to run for the 2000 legislative polls.

en.wikipedia.org...


Okay. Then I googled Obama and social justice. I got this.

Most commentators on the Obama-Ayers relationship concentrate on the "unrepentant terrorist" meme. But Steve Diamond, Stanley Kurtz, and Sol Stern put the focus where it belongs: on the decades-long collaboration between the two to transform education into indoctrination; specifically, neo-Stalinist, anti-American indoctrination, using the feelgood rubric "social justice." Catherine and I encountered this phenomenon before we could put a name to it, when we saw the work of artists and literary people who embodied it. Later we ran it down to its sources. (See the new sidebar on "The Social Justice Dispositions.")

From Kurtz's October 4th piece rebutting Scott Shane's NYT article:

. . . Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ "small schools" project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it.

Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publicly endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country.

From Steve Diamond's latest post about the Shane article, published today, October 6th:

Ayers is what political scientists call a "neo-stalinist." Neo-stalinism is an authoritarian form of politics which attempts to control and build social institutions to impose state control of the economy, politics and culture on the general population. It has similarities to the original Stalinism found in the former Soviet Union but it arose in other countries and used slightly different forms and in some instances created regimes that were at odds for various reasons with the Russian regime.

Classic examples of neo-stalinist regimes --regimes that Ayers and people in his political camp respect and support-- are the Chavez regime in Venezuela, the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the Castro regime in Cuba, and the maoist regime in China.

How could such a world view have anything to do with Obama? Well, the route that Ayers and his camp have followed to promote his form of authoritarian politics is a critical policy area: education.

Ayers advocates what he calls a "social justice" approach to education. What that means is the promotion of his authoritarian politics through our public school system.

www.thetearsofthings.net...


Okay, are you still with me?

There should no longer be any dispute that Barack Obama’s aim is to socialize the American economy — as he vaporously puts it, to bring about “redistributive change.” The real question is how he’ll go about it. Very likely, the answer lies in a potentially cataclysmic treaty that has gotten virtually no attention during the campaign: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

To rewind, Obama expressly endorsed “redistributive change” in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview. Lamenting that the Warren Court (the tribunal that spawned a revolution in criminals’ rights) “wasn’t that radical” after all, Obama sought to prove his point by citing the justices’ failure to take on “the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”

www.nationalreview.com...

Forgive, this is somewhat convoluted, but the meme is social justice. I could define it as imperialism, but the same thing is happening in the states.

Create a crisis.
Provide a solution for crisis.
Become heroes with new government programs.

I really don't think that the same thing that is happening in Egypt would happen in the US. But, I see the same manipulation.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts is that I don't see your point or any connection whatsoever.

How about you trying to explain your thoughts a bit before asking someone else's?

reply to post by SkurkNilsen


S'okay.
Social justice. A theme that the obama admin is using, now all of a sudden, another country is pursuing the same theme. I see a connection towards what they define as "social justice". It (my opninion) is socialism. And when it appears in others countries, it is clearly more evident than the blurred political-speak atmosphere, here at home.

Maybe I'm rambling a bit, but I see threads/connections/possibilities and being highly OCD, ADHD (though, I call it multi-tasking) I see connections.

Are they there? Not sure, that's why I post. To learn.

reply to post by beezzer


the whole "we create the problem so that we become the heroes with the solution ( which really 'the solution' is our own agenda that wouldn't be allowed under other circumstances )" ... this card has been played so many times in human history. so many times.

sorry, didn't mean to get off topic but i like your train of thought, thanks for the thread post

reply to post by beezzer


Many countries pursue social justice, acctually the most successfull and happy countries in the world. Is it so strange that the Egyptians want the same? The US should pursue this aswell imo.

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by beezzer

 

Many countries pursue social justice, acctually the most successfull and happy countries in the world. Is it so strange that the Egyptians want the same? The US should pursue this aswell imo.

What would you define as social justice?
Seriously. Just asking.

reply to post by beezzer


Very curious similarites you find, I do believe you are seeing a part of a bigger picture.

Its interesting to note, in addition to the great info you presented, that the current administrations
contact with Egypt has some suspicious details.

"Day of Rage" Terrorist Ayers
www.npr.org...

"Day of Rage" Muslim Brotherhood
www.vancouversun.com...

Many will dismiss Code Pink out of hand as a fringe liberal group that has little to no influential power.
Yet, that dismissal is easily challenged in learning the facts, the depth of Code Pinks tentacles.

Jodi Evans, a founder of the radical anti-war group Code Pink and "bundler" for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wednesday.

townhall.com...

Code Pink contact with Muslim Brotherhood
biggovernment.com...


S&F

reply to post by burntheships


Thank you.
I can't explain/describe the intricate connections. Yet. But when I see . . . . . causalities that defy coincidence, it gives me pause.

reply to post by beezzer


You did in your op, you made the connections.
When a person is searching for the truth without bias, they will find it as you did.

The trouble usually takes place when said realizes the conclusions, and the conclusions
are too undesireable. So they put head back in sand.

Kudos to you for your connecting the dots.

reply to post by beezzer


Scandinavia

Look at the health care-system and wellfare-system.

That's social justice, something everyone deserves wether poor or rich.

And as you no doubt is aware Mubarak has recieved many million $ from the U.S, thus supporting a dictator that feeds like a parasite of the Egyptian people.

How do you see social justice for the people of Egypt as a bad thing?

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by beezzer

 

Scandinavia

Look at the health care-system and wellfare-system.

That's social justice, something everyone deserves wether poor or rich.

And as you no doubt is aware Mubarak has recieved many million $ from the U.S, thus supporting a dictator that feeds like a parasite of the Egyptian people.

How do you see social justice for the people of Egypt as a bad thing?

I wish we were in a position that would accept Scandinavia-style health care. Really. But we aren't. We are a market-based economy that relies on goods and sevices without government intervention.
Our society assures an equal oppourtunity. Not an equal outcome.

As for Mubarak receiving millions? I am ashamed of some of the things that my country has supported.

But have we created a situation worse that Mubarak?

reply to post by beezzer


There is no guarantee for an equal outcome in scandinavia eiteher, just a guarantee that you won't be suffering. If you rely on wellfare you are pretty much on the bottom of the ladder, but you won't suffer. Healthcare is a human right and if the U.S can't take care of it's citizens then it might be time to change the system quite dramatically.

What would you consider worse than Mubarak? I mean do you suspect some kind of worse dictator?

reply to post by beezzer


Oh, and I forgot...

Equal opportunity?!? You are kidding right?

The son/daughter of a inner city poor family in LA is guaranteed the same oportunity as the son/daughter of Dick Cheney?

ORLY!

Equal oportunity is what you find in Scandinavia because of free education, healthcare and wellfare, there is however never any guarantee for equal outcome.

PS: Just so as there is no misunderstandings, I love the people of the U.S, I just think you all deserve much better

reply to post by SkurkNilsen


I guess we just grew up in different environments. It's never a risk if you always have a safety net. Such as europe does. Brother, I grew up in europe. Lived most of my life away from a country that I was born into. I have that neat ability to see from the outside as well as the inside.

Social justice is demanding that the government take care of people.

As an American, I don't want a damned thing from the government.

I just wish they wouldn't want a damned thing from me.

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen Healthcare is a human right and if the U.S can't take care of it's citizens then it might be time to change the system quite dramatically.

I am curious where the idea that I must provide a portion of my earnings, be that in cash, services or goods to another person for their use without my consent as a human right? Where did my rights end and the other person's become a priority?

Where does this human right come from; in the case of an absent government (the natural state of being a human) I think you would be hard pressed to demand anything from anyone as a human right. Go to a country without a government and say it's your human right to have anything see how far you get.

Taking something from someone by force; be that force the point of a gun or the force of law and giving it to another is theft with a fancy name...

This is a silly argument; healthcare is no more a human right than the right to food shelter or clothing.

If you need something you must either be able to provide it for yourself or have something of value to trade for it.

If we don't have enough Doctors can the government order certain individuals to become doctors so that people can have this human right....

In any instance absent force of law or another from one has no right to anything he/she does not produce/earn or trade for their labor or assets.

Again; please show me where or justify why I am required to relinquish the fruits of my labor for the benefit of another is a human right?

reply to post by Golf66

Where does this human right come from; in the case of an absent government (the natural state of being a human) I think you would be hard pressed to demand anything from anyone as a human right. Go to a country without a government and say it's your human right to have anything see how far you get.

The answer to this is quite simple and dates back to when people started living in groups of more than one.
When a society develops it is natural that everyone works together for the common good, part of that is taking care of all individuals in the group.
If you want to, you can go to societies with no government, and there I think YOU will be hard pressed to work for and share everything with the tribe, in case you don't you won't be a part of that group for long.

I do not know of any country that has no government, even a tribe will have some form of government, but that's the closest I can come to an example. Wich leads me to my next point, how is it natural for humans to have no government? Every group of more than two will naturally have a leader, in other words a government. Just look at a family, that's a dictatorship

Let's say you go hunting for yourself and your family, no luck means no food. Your neighbour does the same, great luck means to much food. What is the obvious solution?

So in short you are just plain wrong but then again I'm not a cynic and will never be. Being a cynic just means you have lost all hope.

However this is derailing the thread for the OP, (Sorry).

reply to post by beezzer


Ok, different ways of looking at the matter I suppose. No worries.

Now, on topic.

I ask again, what would you consider worse than the Dictator Mubarak? An even worse dictator?

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen

Now, on topic.

I ask again, what would you consider worse than the Dictator Mubarak? An even worse dictator?

I don't know.
How's that for an answer. Better? Worse?
God help us , but I'm not smart enough to determine that.

reply to post by beezzer


Hmmm, OK. Just thought you'd might want to elaborate a bit on this:

But have we created a situation worse that Mubarak?

Or at least had some sort of opinion on the matter since you brought it up, but maybe not.

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by beezzer

 

Hmmm, OK. Just thought you'd might want to elaborate a bit on this:

But have we created a situation worse that Mubarak?

Or at least had some sort of opinion on the matter since you brought it up, but maybe not.

Honest opinion? Did we trade one monster for another?