Monday, January 14, 2008
Equality, ignorance and the receipt of happiness
Ugh
“If we were all rich, that would be very nice,” Albright said. “If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same. What the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge. And, it creates a whole new host of problems in terms of disquiet and anger.”
Yes, it would be such consolation to be ignorant, and the same. Or if we could just keep the rich secret.
Please do not let this person near policy formation again.
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jan 14, 11:32:00 AM:
Madeline Halfbright. What a repulsive old witch. Ugh.
By 
amr, at
Mon Jan 14, 03:03:00 PM:
Yep, things were so much better when the poor folks didn’t know they were poor and just knew their place. And then along came TV and they could see in the ads and programming that the portrayed average people had it pretty good. Now stupid me thought that everyone would react like I did and see what they could have if one improved oneself and sought out a better life through education, both civilian and military, and long hours and hard work. Many did, but somewhere along the way we were told we were owed the rewards without much hard work and waited for them to appear. But they didn’t and THAT caused “problems in terms of disquiet and anger.” So educated, but yet so ignorant are some.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Jan 14, 06:18:00 PM:
The rich/poor gap is a problem that has been with us since Biblical times (For ye have the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can do them good” Mark 14:7) The conservative approach should (I hope) always be “Yes I see that person is poor, let us band together to assist him, help him to get an education and a good paying job, so that he may raise his children to exceed his lot in life. Let us be charitable to his needs so that he will not become trapped in poverty, but always have a path up and out of the situation, and without becoming dependant on the government for assistance. And as he progresses, he can help us help even more people.” Think of it as the Carnegie approach.
Compare and contrast this with the liberal/socialist/Marxist approach. “You poor thing. We’ll take all the money from those rich guys and give some of it to you. There, isn’t that better?” Much as Marx/Lenin/Stalin, these people believe in the power of the State to control our lives much better than if we were to make our own decisions. And when they get in power, we end up with messes like the USSR or Zimbabwe.
By jj mollo, at
Mon Jan 14, 09:55:00 PM:
In fairness, this statement is probably descriptive rather than prescriptive. IMO, it is an indirect way of suggesting that Islamofascist violence is a result of poor people in the Middle East finding out that poor people in America are much better off than they are. The cure, in her mind, is not to eliminate the flow of information or trade, but rather to find a way to promote the economic welfare of the World's poor people. This is wishful thinking based on an invalid premise, but I don't think that the opinion, per se, merits a reaction of disgust.
By , at
Mon Jan 14, 11:26:00 PM:
Unless of course you're disgusted by naivete.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed Jan 16, 07:46:00 PM:
Substitute "smart" and "stupid" or "beautiful" and "ugly" into Albright's statement and its vacuity is even more clear.
