And so now, let us discuss. I promise to be ludic. I promise to stay true to "hasta vista la gangsta." I promise that's real talk, that's no lie, that's true story, no polygraph.
"What is it that we are fussing about today if not the inequality amongst men. Financiers steady monopolizes the wealth while the poor ever so consistently monopolize the poverty. The inequalities of life lead those fortunate to possibly become more fortunate while the unfortunate definitely become less fortunate. Free competitive choices are not equal and concentration of capital yielding some economic power remains in the hands of the few who are fortunate. The cavity is widening in a depressing economy and it is hard to tell if the government is keen on doing something about it, hell its hard to tell if they want to do anything about it in the first place. " Miseducation
Paul Krugman is a bombastic Keynesian with a consistently embattled approach, but his New York Times blog is barbed. And for
me some, that's enough. As his foe du jour, wunderkind Jeffrey Sachs opines, it's his public "bully-pulpit."
Hard-core economic beefing aside, Krugman posted from his charge yesterday, "Blaming the Victims of Inequality," which examines Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart: The State of White America. Murray entertains that thing where he touts the etic and slights the emic. That peculiar thing where sociological elements are dismissed, rendering empirical analysis obsolete, questionable at best. That Ann Coulter thing. That thing.
To understand what Murray does in Coming Apart, imagine this analogy:
A social scientist visits a Gulf Coast town. He notices that the houses near the water have all been smashed and shattered. The former occupants now live in tents and FEMA trailers. The social scientist writes a report:
The evidence strongly shows that living in houses is better for children and families than living in tents and trailers. The people on the waterfront are irresponsibly subjecting their children to unacceptable conditions.
When he publishes his report, somebody points out: “You know, there was a hurricane here last week.” The social scientist shrugs off the criticism with the reply, “I’m writing about housing, not weather.”"And to the extent that social decay is a reality among, say, the bottom third of the income distribution among whites, doesn’t this say that Wilson was right, that lack of economic opportunity is what breeds social disruption?" says Krugman.
OFW posits "We are not equal and no amount of imagining can make men equal to one another."
Posing that no man's faculties are congruent to his brother's, but each man's existence is equally purposeful. If true, why does privilege escape penury? Why are sociological dynamics ignored; relegated as empathetic entreaties of the Left despite its exigent relevance?
For the same reason Brigham Young University's student population knows a many great no deals about Black History, though some of their impressions are spot on. Just like my Uncle, just like 'im.
It's not their experience.
Regrettably for the proletariat's lower swell, the well-to-do choose to forget that at some point they were granted access and they knew stability.
From the poor black kid who made it because an under-compensated teacher chose to be a mentor, to the wealthy scion of Northeast pedigree whose mother lunches on Madison. Their access was their guiding figure, albeit a teacher who exceeded expectation, or a familial unit that expected excellence.
We gush over Portlandia and I Just Want My Pants Back, discuss Schoolboy Q and A$AP Rocky, philosophize the dichotomous works of Ayn Rand and George Lakoff, observe Cameron, Merkel, and Sarkozy tap dance retrenchments about Papademos, and nap.
A youngster within America's borders exists with no access to even the minutiae your privilege affords you.
America's miseducation is its...