Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Income inequality’

White Student Born in Drug and Alcohol Abuse Home Asks School Board How She Can Have ‘White Privilege’


Reported by Michael Austin | June 29, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/white-student-born-drug-alcohol-abuse-home-asks-school-board-can-white-privilege/

One brave girl from Fishers, Indiana, had some important questions for members of her local school board last week. Fighting back tears, the girl explained to the board members how they have “failed [her] as a student.” Her comments can be seen starting around the 41:57 mark in a video on the Hamilton Southeastern Schools website.

“I have been in counseling as long as I can remember because I was adopted from foster care at age 4,” she said at the school board meeting on Wednesday.

“The things I’ve learned along the way are being challenged now when my science or math teacher is trying to teach me how to be emotionally — and why are they teaching me about sexuality and how to identity?” the girl said.

“I don’t want to hear about sexuality during class in front of other students because that should be a private thing. This should be left in the homes and between students and counselors or one-on-one conversations.‘

“This has been a very traumatic part of my past, and the more that the school focuses on sexuality, the more it affects me and my anxiety.”

Following that, she revealed that she had been accused of having “white privilege” by school staff members.

“I was told I have white privilege. How can a child born in an abusive, drug and alcohol abuse home who lost her entire biological family, that has experienced all forms of abuse and neglect, be privileged?” the girl asked.

“If you found a child at 15 months in a home with holes in the floor eating cat poop, would you consider them privileged? Just asking, because when I was told that, I was upset and cried myself to sleep.”

A quick look at the website of the girl’s school district confirms that far-left “equity and inclusion” propaganda is being disseminated to students. Just as she said, this propaganda focuses on sexuality and anti-racism (which teaches about the supposed prevalence of “white privilege”).

An “Equity and Inclusion” web page on the district’s website offers various “Anti-Racism/Bias Resources,” presumably for teachers, students and parents to use for educational purposes.One resource recommended by the district encourages educators to read a book by Ibram X. Kendi, a controversial scholar known for pushing the philosophy of “anti-racism.” According to Kendi, you are either an anti-racist — a progressive political activist who agrees with Kendi’s vague redefinition of racism — or a racist. In his view, there is no in-between.

“What’s the problem with being ‘not racist?’” Kendi wrote. “It is a claim that signifies neutrality: ‘I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism.’ … One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist.”

In other words, vote for Democrats and radical socialist policies such as welfare redistribution — the very same policies that have impoverished the African-American community for decades — or you are a racist. These are the sorts of ideas that Hamilton Southeastern officials push on their students.

Another resource offered by the district links to a video defending the political goal of equity, also known as equality of outcomes.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nCS7Rus4_-Y%3Ffeature%3Doembed

In its argumentation for the necessity of equity policies, the video uses a popular meme that supposedly shows how equality, or treating people as equals, is not good enough to address supposed systemic inequity. Instead, the proponents of equity argue, in order to reach true equality of outcomes, minorities must be afforded special privileges in order to address the unique disadvantages they face.

Not only is such thinking illogical, but it is also deeply racist due to the fact that it treats minorities as helpless children in need of government aid. Moreover, as conservative commentator Ben Shapiro explained in a Feb. 2 Op-Ed, such reasoning is faulty because it fails to take into account group differences.

“This philosophy is both idiotic and perverse. It’s idiotic because all human groupings — literally all of them — will result in differential outcomes. Draw a line down the middle of any room in random fashion and the result will be unequal income distribution, criminal records, educational histories,” Shapiro wrote.

“When culture takes a hand, disparities can be more deeply rooted than random chance. Discrimination would still not be the cause of such disparity. As a basic logical matter, discrimination is not the cause of all disparity.’

“This philosophy is perverse because it attributes malice to those who have none; it fosters policy that actively discriminates, supposedly in order to alleviate unproven discrimination.”

Indeed, when it comes to the Hamilton Southeastern Schools, this philosophy certainly attributed “malice” to someone who has none.

A girl who has suffered abuse and neglect was called “privileged” just for being white.

Michael Austin

Michael Austin joined The Western Journal as a staff reporter in 2020. Since then, he has authored hundreds of stories, including several original reports. He also co-hosts the outlet’s video podcast, “WJ Live.”@mikeswriting

Category:

Education, Political

Tagged with:

Watch for this Phrase in Tonights State of the Union Address: “Income Inequality”


Income Inequality claims: Wrong-Headed Liberalism

Written on Monday, January 27, 2014 by

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/income-inequality-claims-wrong-headed-liberalism/#k1uORuFeMOBzxdfh.99

Hurting from the implosion of Obamacare and the revelation that its namesake lied to the American people about his misnamed Affordable Care Act, liberals running for office have been forced to find another song to sing.  Not surprisingly, they have found one: income inequality.  Income inequality has become mantra for progressive politicians who are concerned about the effect Obamacare will have on their re-elections.  Ask a progressive politician about President Obama’s you-can-keep-your-doctor promise, and you will get an earful about income inequality.  Show a progressive politician your cancelled health insurance policy, and you will hear a lecture on income inequality.  Give a progressive politician a copy of the notice of increased premiums you just received from your insurance company, and you will be treated to a dissertation on income inequality.  Liberals have decided to confront their Obamacare problem by changing the subject.  The new subject they plan to focus on is income inequality.

The problem with all of this talk about income inequality—aside from the fact that it’s a smokescreen thrown up to divert attention from the failings of Obamacare—is that it’s founded on invalid assumptions.  With income inequality, we are not talking primarily about inherited wealth.  Rather, we are talking about the amount of the world’s wealth that is controlled by the top one percent of wealthy people.  The invalid assumptions that progressives base their income-inequality diatribes on are these: 1) That all work is equally valuable in the marketplace,  2) That those who earn less are somehow being discriminated against, which is why they earn less, and 3) That it is unfair for one individual to earn a lot of money while another earns comparatively little.  All of these assumptions are demonstrably false, and liberals know it.  Of course since stoking the fires of class envy is their goal, it matters not a whit that their assumptions are false, at least not to liberals.

In a free society with a market economy, the people who have the most money will always be those who are able to provide a product or service people want and are willing to pay for.  Consequently, the level of income one earns and the amount of wealth one generates is based primarily on supply and demand.  If an individual enters a profession for which demand is strong and supply is limited, he will earn more than someone who enters a field for which demand is weak and supply is plentiful.  Hence, individuals who work as high-level computer engineers—the kind of professionals employed by Microsoft for example—earn more than individuals who work the counter at a fast-food restaurant.  Is this wrong?  Hardly.  Why is it not wrong?  Because people want computers and the associated devices and software that go with them and they are willing to pay to get them.  Further, to become a computer engineer one must have the innate mental capacity to do the work, the perseverance to complete a rigorous course of college study, and the persistence to keep one skills constantly updated and on the cutting edge of computer technology. These things are not true of people who work the counter at fast-food restaurants.

To work the counter at a fast food restaurant requires little more than the mental capacity, education, and persistence associated with a sixth grader, if that.  Because of the supply-and-demand equation, it is difficult for employers such as Microsoft to find and keep qualified computer engineers.  Hence the market demands that they pay a competitive salary that is enhanced by good benefits and attractive perquisites.  On the other hand, almost any person can quickly learn everything necessary to work at a fast-food restaurant.  Consequently, there is seldom a shortage of individuals seeking employment at fast food restaurants.  In this case, the supply is typically high and demand is typically low.  Consequently, the pay is correspondingly low.  This is not unfair, as progressives try to portray it.  In fact, it is inherently fair.  The market usually is.  What is unfair is when progressive politicians with a hidden agenda try to manipulate public opinion by encouraging class envy.  And, of course, this is precisely what the left is doing with its new campaign for income equality.

While it is true that the hand of God is certainly a factor in determining who is born with the innate ability to become a computer engineer as opposed to a fast-food worker, it is also true that success in the workplace is based on much more than innate ability.  It would be hard to count the number of people with innate ability whose earning potential is limited by such factors as laziness, bad educational choices, sloppy career planning, and a poor work ethic.  Perhaps one might argue that it is inherently unfair that one individual would have the innate ability to become a computer programmer, but that is a conservation to have with God not your local Congressman.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Heed these words, part 1: NYC Comptroller follows de Blasio’s Marxist lead


http://allenbwest.com/2014/01/heed-words-part-1-nyc-comptroller-follows-de-blasios-marxist-lead/#fDHs8LcVAqA6TPGf.99

Written by Allen West on January 3, 2014

545px-NLN_Scott_StringerI love the music from the 80s. The other day I heard one of my favorite songs from that era by Missing Persons — “Words” —  and the refrain truly struck a chord: “What are words for, when no one listens anymore?” Unfortunately, with our sound bite mentality, we are no longer paying attention to words — to our detriment.

The progressive agenda being laid out by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is truly frightening as we reported yesterday. He clearly articulated his plans to attack free market success in the nation’s largest city. Was anyone paying attention?

Scott Stringer, the new Comptroller of New York City, is unfortunately on the same page. Here’s some of what he had to say in his inaugural address:

There will be those who say that we as a city cannot afford to tackle poverty and inequality. As Comptroller, I say we can’t afford not to. I believe that pursing a progressive agenda and being fiscally responsible is not mutually exclusive. We can and we must do both… And just as America has historically looked to New York for inspiration, so the country once again turns its eyes toward us today, to this city, to our people, for a blueprint of a thriving hopeful future, to a city that puts people above politics, and shared prosperity above individual success.

I hate to break it to the NYC Comptroller, but it is impossible to pursue a progressive agenda and be fiscally responsible. A progressive agenda is rooted in a Marxist/socialist governing philosophy, which means a government-centric economy aimed at wealth redistribution to combat “inequality.” The result is and always has been that government grows in size and scope to provide more services under the guise of fairness.

It eventually leads to higher government spending and that means taking more resources from the hard working and/or more borrowing, an increase in debt, and of course larger deficits.

Stringer unabashedly articulates his bottom line for a progressive agenda: shared prosperity above individual success. Those words should send a chill down the backs of every New Yorker and every American. The Comptroller of the nation’s largest city does not believe in the fundamental premise upon which America was created — individual rights and determination.

This is the essence of the “collective vision” of a progressive agenda.  Yes, it’s a communist manifesto, the reduction of the individual and the elevation of the group, the collective. What are words for when no one listens anymore?

Perhaps some are listening because apparently Florida just surpassed New York in terms of population. Of course the weather is better down here, but I’m quite certain taxes have a little to do with the decision to move as well.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud