And while I’m on it, here is another idiot who keeps popping up in my blogroll:
According to a new World Bank report [ht: sm], on inequality in South Asia, among the United States, Bangladesh, India, and Vietnam, the probability of moving out of poverty within a generation (from 2005 to 2010) was highest in Vietnam.
Just to put a point on it: upward mobility from poverty was the same in the United States and Bangladesh.
The freak forgets to mention, however, that the US poverty is a tad different from poverty in Bangladesh.
There is nothing that annoys me more than the way some pseudo-progressives brandish about the word “Bangladesh” whenever they need to feel sorry for themselves. I have no idea why, but it’s always Bangladesh they evoke when they want to make some excruciatingly stupid point about how hugely miserable they are. Not Myanmar, not Laos, not Vietnam, but always Bangladesh. Since the folks who keep prattling about Bangladesh know nothing about any of these countries, I’m guessing they choose the one whose name has the greatest number of syllables. A longer word makes them feel smarter and gives some weight to their idiotic statements. “See? Ban-gla-desh! It’s a long word I have mastered, so I must definitely know what I’m talking about!”
Obviously, the people who keep using Bangladesh to stand for “the most horrible place on Earth where everything is horrible and now let’s all feel sorry for me because of how horrible Bangladesh is” have never been to Bangladesh and will not be able to find it on a map on the first try. They haven’t read a single book by a Bangladeshi author and have no Bangladeshi friends. Yet they love to make use of the word “Bangladesh” to make points and win arguments. Curiously, the same people love to denounce colonialism with a passion and quote Edward Said like he’s their Jesus. They all agree that Orientalism is bad, yet see no problem with using “Bangladesh” as a rhetorical device.