Especially as it relates to America. The issue is — and you proved it with your question for him — these folks fail to understand the history as it happened and have whitewashed it under the idealism that “easily explains” all of it.

Whoopi Goldberg was on FOX news the other night and that channel generally serves as entertainment for me..anyway, she made a point that’s really been the crux of my arguments with (fellow?) conservatives for a long time…and my main bone of contention.

You can’t paint everyone with a broad brush and then say “well, the folks who aren’t doing with the rest of us are doing are clearly out of the mainstream and thus are the real problem.” Because its not quite that simply and it never IS that simple.

And having spent all but one of my college years in rural areas, all I’ve seen is this white underclass that these folks are clearly ignoring and its far worse than anything I saw rolling through the hood to go to church on Sunday or to visit random family members.

The worst part is, those folks think they’re better than the folks in city because of their “values” or something like that. The reality is, they’re just as messed up — if not worse — and they’ll just brush all the problems (drug use, domestic violence, youth suicide, etc.) under the table to keep that myth going.

I realize this post was all over the place, but needless to say…I appreciated the segue into economics.

Great piece by Bo and by Scoop.

I remember my mom giving me the news about his death and it just floored me. The memory of him taking my beloved Tarheels out behind the woodshed — in Chapel Hill, no less — was my foremost memory of him at that time. His death changed that.

In the years since, I’ve looked at the NBA and I’ve wondered how his presence would have changed the dynamics of the league. But I also wonder what would’ve happened if he had survived that night and we’d never known he’d snorted coke.

Would Bias, as many have suggested, have been the next “Great One” or would he have been the next Michael Ray? Would he have had epic battles with Sir Charles and Clyde and MJ or would he be a bigger bust than fellow draftmate Chris Washburn? I can’t honestly say I know for sure. People say it was his first encounter with the drug, but you have to wonder if the money and ever-present youthful arrogance would’ve led to an addiction to Chyna White.

In any event, I think the death of Len Bias brought more attention than Nancy “Just Say No!” Reagan EVER could’ve.

I guess I’ll start with the issue of wealth inequality. While I agree that everyone cant be on top, and that rich doesn’t equal greedy, the ability to reach that upper echelon of wealth should at least be somewhat attainable by the average person, even if it is a hard path.

As far as Len Bias goes, if you weren’t around or interested in basketball at that time, its hard to describe how good of a player he really was and why it is such a tragedy that he is gone. For those that never saw him play, this will give you sort of an idea what he was like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsE0Th50SII&search=len%20bias

Libertarians are no different than any other ideological group, some are intelligent; most are not. They are not really “Republicans in disguise.” And just how conservative they are depends on your definition of the word. If one defines “conservative” in terms of championing the market and limiting government intervention, then they are explicitly, unabashedly conservative. If, however, one defines it more in terms of social issues, then a great deal of them are not conservative in the way that it’s come to mean here. Many of them are socially progressive, and those who aren’t typically don’t want the government to legislate “morality.”

I have a few libertarian acquaintances and we always have fun, interesting discussions (I kid them that they should find it odd that a good deal of libertarians come from privilege in one way or another). Even though I have serious issues with their vision of human beings and society, I am occasionally willing to entertain their harebrained schemes, simply because they couldn’t possibly be any worse than some current policies.

Also, few people seem to understand that some degree of income inequality is a necessary condition for any society, regardless of economic structure, to sustain itself. Someone has to be “rich”, and someone has to be “poor”. If everyone is about the same, the incentives that typically motivate people more or less disappear.

Clearly, your buddy at Cato wasn’t prepared, and doesn’t know half of what he thinks he does about the question. No surprise there, but people on the other side of the coin are usually just as far off the mark, but in a different direction.