Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
couldn't we try to break up the nepotism in Hollywood that would be much more entertaining -
Politicians are soo boring (besides Obama and Wild Bill)
America has suffered from the deviation from its historical meritocracy to its current hereditary aristocracy.
And like their peers throughout history, aristocrats resent being taxed -- taxes are for the "little people."
As our wiser ancestors realized, there's only one way to prevent the rise of a hereditary aristocracy in a free society: tax wealth.
There was a reason for those 90% tax rates on multi-million dollar incomes and estates until the 1960's. Those vast fortunes allowed the "malefactors of great wealth" to buy and control the government through our legalized system of bribery known as "campaign contributions." Is there any wonder why our government now invariably represents the interests of a tiny wealthy minority at the expense of the middle and working classes?
We can have representative government of, by and for the people -- or we can have unregulated, untaxed wealth -- but we can't have both.
It was me, not hawkpsd, who asked about the 'princessization' of our glorious womanhood. ;-}
I wasn't offended, just curious that you seemed to think this was an expanding phenomenon. I am 49, so perhaps this is something new. Your anecdote about the birthday party, and the ages of the participants, suggests it might be. But I wonder if the occasional desire to feel special, something I think is common among all humans, really translates into an every day conviction of 'royal privilege' on the part of mature women, which is what your earlier comment seemed to me to imply.
Disney is a corporate enterprise that benefits from children desiring their products. Similarly, the advertising push associated with Valentine's Day has become suffocating. But unless you have some information that shows that these excesses are being created solely (or even largely) by women, then one has to wonder who exactly it is that is responsible for the phenomenon you think you are witnessing.
BTW, the tiara was a gift given with a matching necklace. It would have been rude not to wear it and, since it was quite pretty, I was happy to do so. Being perceived as "royal", however, had nothing to do with it. It was decoration, nothing more.
we have to break up the nepotism of the money men - Politicians are just their slaves. Right?
Can I suggest a little reading of middle and late Roman republic history, which is where Machiavelli started. The parallels are terrifying. They had the Juliai and the Claudii, etc. We have the Kennedys and Bushes and Roosevelts and Gores.
The US is a democracy built on 18th century political thought, and has kinda time-warped into the future. For example, we tolerate extreme gerrymandering without discussion, as no other country would. As Tyrannity Watcher pointed out upthread.
A little Thucydides reading would be good too, on constitutional tampering and the endless war between the aristoi and the demos, and how destructive that can get when one gets the upper hand.
A republic has always been about the virtual disenfranchisment of the people, about relying on name brand recognition, about loyalty over interest. This isn't new, a couple of thousand years ago, it all played out pretty much the way it is now.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html
'Upward mobility' in real decline, studies charge
By David R. FrancisMany older Americans were raised on Horatio Alger novels, the stories of poor boys using their wits and pluck to rise from rags to riches.
Success stories still happen, of course. Nowadays girls also rise from poverty to prosperity.
But for most of the poor, the United States is no longer the land of opportunity. Economic research in the past decade has found that upward mobility has faded; most of the children of rich parents stay rich and the children of the poor remain poor. [...]
~
But Mona. We use to operate a Wildflowers Bed and Breakfast.
Hospitality is to open the door, and guest bring intangible gifts.
We'd hear many gossip about Clinton etc., from young DC skiers.
The Whitetail Ski Resort is across the Mason Dixon PA/MD border.
Twice the Honorable elder Birch Bayh was a very interesting guest.
We'd talk for quite awhile at breakfast about the inner DC beltway crew.
I really respected him. But, he never responds to letters that I've written.
But, that don't mean nothin'. Birch Tree bark makes a soothing health tea.
Once, a friend named Michele [spelled one 'l'] found elder Bay's money wallet.
Michele delivered the wallet to White Tail Ski Resort. She never peeked inside.
I asked:` Why didn't you (Michele) open to see if it was Honorable Birch Bayh?
She said:`I was tempted to ask for a tip? Honorable Michele had a empty gas tank.
This isn't a bad-mouthing comment. I am just saying:`I'll go buy Bumble Bee oyster? Lady P.?
don't become a politician, honey - ypu don't make enough money and everybody hates you -
and in restaurants they only give you a better table in Washington - In the real world you have to sit close to the kitchen!
This phenomenon of media elites marrying, dating, and/or socializing with politicians, lobbyists, businessesmen, etc., outside of work compromises the integrity of journalism, IMO.
And it happens so often, especially with broadcast anchors and political operatives (for example, CNN's Campbell Brown marrying neocon Dan Senor) or big business (CBS News' Laura Logan marrying some defense contractor in Iraq).
I know journalists are allowed to have lives, but I would like them to have friends and spouses who are not in any way connected to what beat the journalist is assigned to.
Don't forget Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan's daughter, Lisa Madigan, currently Illinois Attorney General, and one of the names trotted out as a potential replacement for Obama. She's ridden her father's coattails very well.
It's probably a triple-whammy that leads to the aristocratization you lamented -- (1) most Americans can't afford to participate in the political game, which leaves the field most open to those with the money to participate; (2) once a political "brand name" is established by way of a political family, it gives already well-heeled and well-connected family members considerable advantages over unrecognized names; and (3) without public financing of elections, only the very wealthiest (or boldest/most ambitious/craziest) of Americans can risk running without the advantages of incumbency and/or political connections, because the penalty for defeat is less jarring on the already-wealthy and connected.
Some of the Founders probably would be fine with this situation, thinking that only the "best" sort of Americans (e.g., richest) are fit to govern, since they, in theory, have the most to lose, given how well-entrenched they are.
But I would think that more aristocracy is the last thing this country needs, particularly when the problems our country faces requires new thinking, versus the ossified opinions of the privileged.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
