We Are So Screwed

My God. If someone actually had the balls to write this, we're doomed. Just doomed. Via Brad Delong, an excerpt from the New York Times:

The divide between rich and poor is unfortunately an old story, but income-class warfare among the top 20 percent of the scale is a newer phenomenon.... [M]any families making between $100,000 and $200,000 are not exactly on easy street. They don't face choices anywhere near as stark as those encountered further down the income ladder, but they face serious tradeoffs not experienced by the uppermost crust, particularly when hit with the triple whammy of college for the children, care for aging parents, and preparing for their own retirement.

You know what? My rage isn't mollified by the ass-covering that comes immediately after - "They don't face choices anywhere near as stark"??? No, asshole, if you have to make choices when you make more than $100,000, it's between the 15 or 40 gig iPod. The choice when you're making $15,000 is whether lil' Katie gets pencils to do her homework, or whether the rent gets paid.

God. "Not exactly on easy street." Pay attention, people, because this is the real example of "media bias". Forget liberal/conservative (though there's plenty of both) the real bias is pro-rich, in every way. It didn't use to be this way - journalism used to be a working-class profession, but ironically that ended in North America about the time of it's greatest triumphs, the mid 1970s. These days, you've got morons working for the Times, complaining about not being able to make ends meet when they're pulling down six figures. Somewhere, Joseph Pulitzer is spinning in his grave. (Pulitzer wasn't known for great journalism, but he was certainly a friend of the working class.)

Anyway, no wonder the Times couldn't be bothered to report about Bush's lies when it came to taxes for the rich - the Times wasn't about to stop the gravy train, was it?