Question on happiness

[Justin Schwartz]

Robert Samuelson is one scribbler I really hate; I cannot read a column by 
him without it raising my blood pressure. He is a liar and the truth is not 
in him. He is the worst kind of vulgar apologist for the worst aspects of 
capitalism. He specializes in telling other people they have to take their 
medicine. Whenever I see his work, I am put in mind of Lincoln's outburst, 
when he encountered a defendwer of slavery, that Lincoln would like to have 
it tried out on the defender personally. What a sack of shit. Samuelson is.

--jks


>
>>Jacob Segal wrote:
>>
>>>Forwarded article from Robert Samuelson in this week's Newsweek. ...
>>
>>>  No one wants a society starkly split into "haves" and
>>>"have-nots." The obsession with "rising inequality" plays to these fears
>>>without addressing them. It is mostly a moral self-indulgence: a way of
>>>demonstrating superior "caring."
>>
>>I hope there's a special circle of hell for people who make arguments
>>this spurious.
>>
>>>  It implies that the rich are somehow
>>>responsible for the plight of the poor
>>
>>Heavens! Not that!!
>>
>>Doug
>
>I can't figure out where disingenuousness leaves off and moral obtuseness
>begins in arguments like Samuelson makes.  It seems to me so clear that
>gross inequality of wealth means gross inequality in the distribution of
>social power and security of every kind, material and spiritual -- and that
>this in itself coarsens the sensibilities of all and helps cultivate
>cultural decay -- that I am at a loss as to how to make those points still
>more self-evident.  As trite and even priggish as it may sound, demands of
>basic justice and simple decency can't be written off as mere "moral
>self-indulgence."
>
>Carl
>
>Carl
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com