Critics of the article like Colette appear to me to be levelers--they want to enact laws to take money from "bad" people and give it to "good" people, so that everyone earns the same thing. They then appoint themselves responsible for deciding who is bad and who is good, and become rich taking a percentage for performing this noblest of acts. Like the John-Edwards type of personal injury lawyer. He gets to keep his immense fortune because he is "helping people." After all, he wants to raise our awareness of American poverty, and in so doing becomes entitled--entitled! I say--to his own lucre, however ill-gotten. By contrast, CEOs of companies (all of them) are "bad" people from whom Colette can steal with impunity to reward her followers. There is no end to the good that she, HillBilly and B.O. can do with their money. They just have to shove their version of morality down our throats and then start arranging the wire transfers. As this article indicates, in a free market economy the money goes to the innovators, the talented, and the just plain lucky. In Colette's economy, it goes to the shrillest guilt mongers, the most conniving purveyors of covetousness, and the self-declared prophets of "decency." But their grammar is impeccable.