I don't understand the reaction. These results are innocuous. The U.S. is the richest nation in the world by several orders of magnitude. Why should anyone be surprised that we are, well, rich? Why should anyone be surprised that our poor, defined as such by our own standards, are better off than the poor of other nations? This is a yawn as far as I'm concerned. Only those with a drum to beat, who want to demonize the U.S. would be disappointed and doubtful. They want the richness to turn to poverty. They want to believe that the U.S. is the worst nation in the world, that it is the most unfair, the hardest in which to live, and to work, etc etc. There have been polls asking various people throughout the world, where do you want to live, and of those who wanted to emigrate, the vast majority wanted to live in the U.S.-even Middle-Easterners Why would that be true if all those Leftist demonizing stories are also true? Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carol Kirschenbaum Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:36 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] [lit-id] The Poverty of Heritage Skewing observable facts to support one's own argument is hardly limited to Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. But dear me, this report cites the fact that The Poor have color televisions as testament to their relatively opulent lifestyle in America. Find a b&w TV these days. Really. Color TV sounds opulent, all right, but the truth is, color TVs are industry norm. (I paid $50 for mine, last year.) Along the same lines, the report tells us that a majority of The Poor have air conditioning--up from 36%, I think it was--30 years ago. Again, look at the context--demographic shifts, in the past 30 years, to the American Southwest, thanks to AC. (Would people move back up north if there were no AC in areas that reach 100-plus degrees? With the price of fuel now, we may soon find out.) Ditto for cars. Three-quarters of The Poor have cars, the report says. Let's suppose this is true, and let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that The Poor who were interviewed for this report represents people in shelters and such. What's the proportion of The Poor, a la Heritage, who live in congested cities like NY, Chicago, DC, where The Middle Rich don't usually have cars? So they're talking about the suburban/rural poor, then. Not the elderly or disabled, who can't drive. The other third, without cars, are working age but don't work--the Idle Class, as this report implies. It seems the Heritage folks are talking about welfare, specifically, women with dependent kids. The focus is on absent fathers and mothers who don't work "enough." Presumably, the report claims, more hours of work would lift this family out of poverty. More hours at minimum-wage jobs? Who takes care of those dependent children? Mom, if only Dad would come to his senses and be a responsible family guy. But why doesn't it work this way? Sounds reasonable enough, right? That's the problem with this Heritage Foundation report, in a nutshell: They had the solution before they wrote, they thought, and they filled in the blanks with stats (many out of context) that supported their conclusions. Lawrence, I hope your reading on Muslims has more power to it than this. Carol ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html