alternate universe on income inequality

[Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since David is a lawyer, perhaps he would understand Jim D. and Michael if
they framed it in terms of presumptions and burdens of proof, rather than "a
priori". Jim D. presumes that the H foundation is wrong, and puts the burden
of proof on the H foundation to rebut the presumption.


Charles

^^^^^^

*       From: "Devine, James"

________________________________

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
>