Re: alternate universe on income inequality

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

on the question of the income distribution being increasingly unequal, I'd assume that the H foundation was _a priori_ wrong. Maybe on some other subject, they're like a stopped clock, right twice a day. I can't think of what subject that is. 

The problem with that foundation is their values -- which bias their research -- and the money which pays them to bias that research. It's like expecting reasonable research out of the Tobacco Institute. 

Don't get me wrong. Some of my best friends are ultra-right-wing reactionary scum... 

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David B.
> Shemano
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 2:14 PM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] alternate universe on income inequality
> 
> 
> Michael Perelman writes:
> 
> >> I first saw the Kling article on the Heritage Fdn. site.  
> Nuff said.
> 
> Why "Nuff said?"  Is the Heritage Foundation a priori always 
> wrong?  I bet if they published something you agreed with, 
> you would go around emphasizing how even the Heritage 
> Foundation agrees with you, so you must be right.
> 
> David Shemano
>