X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 	autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.2
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <reeves-kalkman-errors &AElig umich.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l844cCux023433 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:38:12 -0400
Received: from tadpole.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.133]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l844bXKW023015 	for <dreeves &AElig eecs.umich.edu>; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:37:41 -0400
Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	BY tadpole.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46DCE10F.BDB2F.25492 ;  	 4 Sep 2007 00:37:35 -0400
Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l844b5k2022941 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); 	Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:37:06 -0400
Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l844bRux023422 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); 	Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:37:27 -0400
Received: from localhost (dreeves &AElig localhost) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id l844bRm0023419; 	Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:37:27 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs
X-X-Sender: dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708312152240.14854 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709032355520.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708311319410.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>   <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708311738480.8357 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>   <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708311840370.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708312152240.14854 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on 	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
To: James W Mickens <jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
cc: Dave Morris <thecat &AElig umich.edu>, improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu,         reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu, reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: mind the gap

> If Graham includes social injustice in his exceptions list, then I suppose 
> that he and I are in agreement.

He concedes at least one such social injustice (differing access to 
educational opportunities) in footnote 16.

> But if Graham believes in the entrenched, pervasive nature of social 
> injustice, why does he spend so much time waxing poetic about the 
> inherent fairness of economic inequality?

Sounds like our only disagreement now is how entrenched and pervasive the 
injustices are.

> The fact that Graham spends most of his time talking about this 
> idealized world suggests that either a) he is a hopeless utopian, or b) 
> he does not, in fact, believe that social injustice is entrenched and 
> pervasive ;-).

Probably a bit of both!

But at least we're all (except probably Trixie) agreed that the very fact 
of having a lot of wealth is not harming any poor people, except perhaps 
in some very indirect way along the lines Michelle proposed.  And even 
then I don't think the studies Michelle cited point to an income gap as a 
*cause* of poorer health, just a correlation.  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it."
                 -- Donald Knuth