home

American Feudalism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 08:53:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Dan Riehl (and to a lesser extent James Joyner), miss the point Glenn Greenwald was making in his post American Royalty. Indeed, I have used a different title, American Feudalism to describe the phenomenon, because I think it is more descriptive of what Glenn is talking about.

My reading of Glenn is not that he thinks conservative nepotism is the problem, but rather the absurd view espoused by conservatives that America is some pure meritocracy. And it is not limited to celebrity journalists and political pundits. It extends to everyone. Who your parents are, what they provide you, where you come from, all has a huge effect on the opportunities life provides you. It is true for me and it is true for you. And of course it is true for Luke Russert and Jonah Goldberg and Jesse Jackson, Jr.

On a more general basis, it is true for white men versus African Americans, women, Latinos and other minorities. It is the denial of this obvious truth that Glenn is driving at. He uses celebrity examples to drive this point home. Riehl and Joyner get bogged down in the relative merits of particular examples of nepotism. Hell, they left out the most obvious liberal ones - FDR and Teddy Kennedy. The difference is I doubt very much FDR and Teddy Kennedy would have denied the advantages they were given. Conservative beneficiaries of American Feudalism deny it every day.

Speaking for me only

< Bill Bradley's "Grand Compromise" | Monday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    American Feudalism | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I find Feudalism a better descriptive too (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:17:52 AM EST
    Sadly there is a lot of it in the military as well.  Just because your father was exceptional does not mean that his children are but they will be given the opportunity to prove if they are at least marginally competent at higher positions before some no name, and then they will reap the rewards of that.  In my view of healthcare for all, that leads us more to the world that priviledged in political office tell themselves exists for the serfs.  In your childhood, if you  have ill parents right now, you are not focusing on your life goals...you are just trying to survive.  I spend a lot of time participating in Joshua's school activities and we have spoken about it as a family as well...his sister also has lunch with him once a week until the new baby comes....and we do this because he is different looking and an easy target for teasing except that people care about him and it is obvious to everyone he shares his world with.

    There was a comment (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:25:02 AM EST
    at Salon that illustrated your point where a conservative lecturer chronicled the career of a conservative he was familiar with and every new job or promotion was gained with a word to the right person from a family member or friend.  At the end, the lecturer was asked about his opinion on affirmative action and he said he wasn't in favor because he preferred the meritocracy.  His own words portrayed something closer to an aristocracy, where the well connected jump to the head of the line.

    Aristocracy! (none / 0) (#128)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:32:09 PM EST
    That's the right word.

    Royalty carries an implication of governance and feudalism carries an implication of servitude that is at best tangential to the point which seems to me to be the inheritance of privilege.

    Parent

    And when that MTP panel is convened (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by the other rasmussen on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:26:52 AM EST
    perhaps they can start with a pre-panel Special Edition of Morning Joe,with those two incompetent journalists, who got their jobs solely through the meritocracy, Mika Brezhinsky and Willie (ain't I funny) Geist.

    I dont even think (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    his father is funny.  more like a wanna be Andy Rooney

    Parent
    His father, at least (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    isn't obnoxious.

    Parent
    or (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    AS obnoxious


    Parent
    Absolutely true (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:43:20 AM EST
    FDR and the Kennedys--class traitors. (Bill Clinton, of course, was considered a race traitor, but that's a different discussion).

    Thanks for the chuckle (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:44:24 AM EST
    I needed it today

    Parent
    I also wanted to comment (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:53:35 AM EST
    on Riehl's heinous last comment about Greenwald being an angry gay liberal who will have no chance of a namesake picking his torch up after he's gone.  Dan needs to catch the hell up.  If Glenn Greenwald wants a namesake he probably has roomfuls of clamoring liberal women looking to be the surrogate mother of Glenn Greenwald's child.

    Glenn's just jealous (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:03:04 AM EST
    that he had to earn his spot at Salon by pounding out post after relevant and substantial post on little ole Blogspot instead of being handed a position as political media lap dog on a major television show.

    On second though, maybe not! ;)

    Parent

    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    what a horribly bigoted comment.  Jack@ss.

    Parent
    I do believe one of the reasons (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:17:42 AM EST
    I was so enthusiastic about Bill Clinton is that he did "earn" his place.   Bill made it "in spite of" instead of "because of".  
    In spite of an alcoholic, abusive step father....in spite of coming from one of the poorest states...in spite of his personal flaws (i.e. need to please all the people all the time)....in spite of being just another good old white boy from the south.

    I think it really ticked off the Broders of the world who seriously look their noses down at those without those aristocratic roots...

    I have been shaking my head at the media and political nepotism for a long time.  Of course I remember as a little girl growing up as a poor "ethnic" type  and knowing that there was a meritocracy for those who were rich and wasp (I think that is why the Kennedy thing did not bother me so much then...I saw what I perceived as a barrier (catholicism) being broken).

     I felt it when I went to college.  I saw it.  Everyone was supposed to know their place.  But then the sixties came and I believed (obviously naively) things were changing.  

    So did Barack Obama (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:19:20 AM EST


    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:40:16 AM EST
     So did John Edwards.  So I was truly torn on the primary choices.  I admired that in John and Barack. I also admired Hillary despite the fact that she was Bill's wife, a fact that I think hurt as much as helped.  But her rise in her youth, like Obama's in his youth, despite her gender and his race ( impressed me even more).

    Parent
    The child of two Ph.D.'s (4.50 / 6) (#22)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    is a bit different from a Bill Clinton.  It was Obama's parents who overcame barriers of race, class, and -- in the case of his mother -- gender.  (And in the case of his father, geography.)

    (Btw, I hadn't read that Obama's stepfather was abusive, etc.)

    Parent

    So is being a black man (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    Excuse me, you are so wrong on this point, imo, I really do not even enjoy discussing it with you.

    Think of Richard Nixon, hell Andrew Jackson,  and maybe you will understand my point.

    Parent

    That is not a "so is" with Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:46:29 AM EST
    which was your comment.  It is a different point -- and a valid one, of course.  

    But I also do not enjoy a slippery discussion, and especially one that then does not help a clear-eyed understanding of what does and does not work in this country to counter barriers of race, class, gender, etc.

    Education matters, and it is important to understand that -- and to defend funding for it, ever more so in these economic times.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:49:39 AM EST
    I just find your rejection of the idea that Obama is an example of someone who overcame historic barriers hard to swallow.

    I am sure you have a valid point somewhere in your statements, but I find it hard to reach, and find the journey to try quite unproductive, even painful.

    I enjoy your thoughts on most things and enjoy exchanging ideas with you on most everything, but not this.

    Parent

    I agree with that point (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    as I said.  

    If you dealt every day with students who do not understand the value of the education that they are being given -- yes, given by generations of taxpayers, and more generous taxpayers than too many today -- you would understand the importance of imparting a clear-eyed understanding to those students as well as to taxpayers of what works.

    Obama's story is an extraordinarily useful example, like that of the Kennedys, of what works in terms of the compounding impact of generations and generations of striving and struggle to work hard for what works -- and to give back to society for what it gave him and his family.  He knows that, and we need to ensure that today's students and taxpayers do.  He is exceptional, of course, but he also is the exception that proves the rule.

    However, an even better example is Michelle Obama, who came -- like Bill Clinton -- from the working class (and additionally has had to counter gender barriers).  Interesting that her example did not come to mind here?

    Parent

    She is not POTUS (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:16:26 AM EST
    so really she had no place in the discussion of person who became President. Or even ran for President.

    In 1932, Al Smith felt that FDR should stand aside for him because he felt his loss in 1928 was due to anti-Catholic bigotry. that certainly played a part, but I think it was not the ultimate story of the 1928 election.

    By the same token, Al Smith would almost certainly have won the 1932 Presidential election. In my view, that would have been a disaster for the country as Al Smith proved later in his life that he had no real commitment to what we now think of as Democratic values.

    Why am I telling you this story? Because Al Smith pulled himself up by the bootstraps of Tammany (itself an organization that did much good, despite its corruption), but ultimately faced American Feudalism in his time.  

    Parent

    I really think (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:02:03 AM EST
    the issue of "race" is as much about "rich versus poor" as it is about black versus white.

    So I agree with you.

    You're right, 2 PhD's do a lot for your status and that of your children, no matter what your race.  An actual black child of relative poverty and possible educational deficit would be more comparable to Bill Clinton.

    Some people just can't quite understand that, especially if they don't know what poverty is and how it impacts the behaviors of people around you. We all take our points of view from our own personal journey.  I came from extraordinary poverty, and in my case, I was much further down the social caste line than the child of 2 PhD's, no matter what the race.

    Parent

    This is simply wrong (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    And one of the reasons why I am troubled by this discussion always.

    This attitude was one en saw at daily kos and it led to many a flame war.

    I will merely say that this is imo, just completely wrong.

    Parent

    Sometimes this gets so complicated, (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    and I wish it weren't that way.  

    I think it is truer than not that for people of color and for women, all the education in the world would never be enough to convince those who hold the power that they are "as good as" a white man with the same educational pedigree.  

    Poverty, which absolutely does present a barrier to advancement in life, is at least not visible on the surface in the way one's race and gender are, and so it could be argued that if a white man - Bill Clinton - can clear that hurdle, he will be accepted, will advance, will be somebody - even if he isn't at the tippy-top of the mountain, he at least will be assumed to be deserving of his achievements, where the person of color and the woman will always face the prejudice of somehow not having earned his or her place on merit.  

    Would be nice to live long enough to see that change, but I'm not sure I want to live to be 156.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CST on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    There is always the question of having "earned" it when you are not a white male.  That is still the status quo for the powerful and if you break that trend you have to be exceptional.  I am reminded of a Chris Rock bit where he talks about how in order to be successful as a minority you have to be a stand-out.  Most people are not stand-outs.  As a white man, a C average will still get you places, and in certain cases, the presidency.  That doesn't happen for the rest of us.  We have to be exceptional.

    Parent
    Except than in the political (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    world, his class was used against him.  The Broders of the world will never believe Bill has a right to be in the WH regardless of accomplishments, education, IQ and yet he welcomed with open arms George W.  
    Clinton, a Rhodes scholar with probably 30 points in IQ over W, was treated as an interloper.

    Parent
    What is not so complicated (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    is to get away -- at times -- from such group comparisons and get it down to the individual.  For all the importance of addressing these factors, it can be counter-productive for some students, who get the message that they may as well give up owing to their race, ethnicity, gender, class, etc.

    But they can see how they can get ahead as individuals not compared to other groups but compared to where they headed if they do not strive, for example, to complete their educations.

    For example, it can be counter-productive to tell young women that even with a college degree, they typically will earn the pay of a man with a high school degree -- for the cumulative total of a million dollars lost over the course of their careers.  However, it can be motivating to them to point out that if they only earn a high school degree, they will earn even less.  And that to earn a college degree still is easier by far than getting a sex change operation.

    Each of us starts where we are in society, but each of us can do what we can to get as far as we can go, with what society can give to us, if we seize it . . . and do not let society discourage us, much as it may try to do so.  It's about all that works, working from where we are and with a clear-eyed understanding of what can stop us -- and what we can try to stop from stopping us.

    Parent

    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    I don't recall Bill Clinton being as poor as you are making him out to be.  Nor do I see how a father who is completely absent but has a Ph.D. is a big status boost.

    As a black man, Obama has had to live his life navigating through the deeply held fears and perceptions that people about race.  That wasn't exactly Bill's burden.

    Parent

    No question, race (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:00:43 PM EST
    (and for the very highest positions, religion) matters more in most areas than does class.

    The latter can be overcome in some cases with education, observation and determination.  Race cannot.  

    Bill had it tough coming along in that family, but his white, lower-middle class upbringing was the norm in lowly AR.  Had he been black, much less chance of making a political breakthrough in that long-racially troubled state.

    Parent

    Agree to an extent. Maybe (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    not always a status boost to come from educated parents, but it's so evident when students come from a parent or parents or others who raise them -- i.e., Obama's grandparents -- by according status to education.  It also can be (not always, as it can stymie some kids) important to and so evident in a child's self-expectations and self-confidence in ability to excel.

    As for absent fathers, or mothers, both of their stories also argue for a sole parent being sufficient in terms of imparting aims to a child -- although, at the same time, both of their stories as told by themselves also show how hard it can be.  (But I will not veer into that psychobabble.:-)

    As for race, no question about it -- Obama's story, especially, but even both of their stories show how horribly it can complicate understanding and progress for this country.  

    Obama's story actually, additionally, shows that it is inarguably about skin color (i.e., not just about the legacy of slavery that so many still try to argue is "over.")  There is far to go.

    Parent

    Of course. Class matters (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:17:55 AM EST
    but we don't know as well how to talk about it in this country that actually believes, because it is taught so by stupid history books, that it is not feudal.

    We may gain a better understanding of this by looking at class within a community of color, such as the "black elite."  It makes Obama's life story even more interesting and extraordinary, then, that he did not come from that class.  And also interesting as it is a group that imparts a sense of responsibility to its children, and he came by that sense of responsibility by other means (as, again, did Michelle Obama).

    All these understandings to be achieved, clear-eyed analysis, is the way ahead for us.  Btw, we also must avoid psychobabble history and hope for the good analyses and books to come about -- and perhaps by -- Obama, who has spoken well on this in ways that the community of color hears, even if others here do not -- that really will move us forward to figuring out what works.  

    Parent

    Well Booman thinks that just because (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    he went to Princeton that that somehow made him smarter :)  Silly wishful classism exists even in the "liberal" blogosphere :)

    Parent
    If Obama had an advantage (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Spamlet on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    growing up, it was that his mother and his grandparents were not just educated but also white and could give him access to some of their white-skin privilege at the level of the family, and through white-dominated institutions like his prep school in Hawaii, which laid the groundwork for his eventual migration into the Ivy League via Columbia and Harvard Law.

    Obama's "mixed race" status also helped him in the primaries and the general election, imo. Some white people in some parts of the country could feel more comfortable voting for Obama because his mother was white. I think we're still some years awaw from electing an African American male president whose heritage includes slavery, with or without (urban) poverty.

    Parent

    Another thing (none / 0) (#127)
    by Spamlet on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 07:16:38 PM EST
    I wonder if Obama's entry into Harvard Law may have been facilitated by his father's having been at Harvard before him, making Obama Jr. a legacy admission (no comment on his personal qualifications is implied or intended here). Anybody know if that's the case?

    Parent
    one of the reasons I find (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    it a little easier to support him even though I often disagree with him.

    Parent
    Things DID change in the 60s... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:57:37 AM EST
    and the 70s...you weren't naive in observing that.  Perhaps the scope of change didn't go as far as one wished as fast as one wished but Affirmative Action changed opportunity in a very big way...especially for white women.  Compare the gender balances in grad schools now to then...

    And Title 9.  Still not perfect, but opportunity expanded bigtime.

    Social barriers broke down, too, outside of DC's village.

    But BTD is right...it's still a class war and few break through the barriers: too few Bill Clintons and Wes Clarks whose talents are lost to the society in general while we must cope with and recover from the likes of George W's minions.

    Parent

    Of course you are right (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:11:21 AM EST
    And intellectually I know that there have been advances thanks to education, legislation and parents who valued and took advantage of those things.
    I just sometimes allow an emotional frustration to take over when I see the likes of Jenna Bush getting appointed to a news job that probably some other deserving kid might have had.

    I see it in the celebrity world also.  Sometimes I have to ask myself..."when do some of these people have enough?"  Enough money, enough celebrity, enough ego stroking?   I know people, hardworking teachers, who have tried to get a children's book published.  And it is hard...and often they are simply ignored.  Some celebrity "writes" a child's book and it's an automatic deal.
    Same thing with clothes and jewelry lines.....these bzillionaires suddenly need to make even more money with their lines of clothing, jewelry etc?  Some poor designers who have gone to school, worked their arses off, can't even get in the door.  


    Parent

    Don't worry (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Spamlet on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:18:00 AM EST
    I just sometimes allow an emotional frustration to take over when I see the likes of Jenna Bush getting appointed to a news job that probably some other deserving kid might have had.

    Jenna's job is a "news" job, not a news job. No deserving kids are going to get any jobs for a while in this economy. Jenna's new job was created just for her.

    Parent

    Oprah started it :) (none / 0) (#123)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:44:09 PM EST
    I remember years and years ago hearing myself scream, "can't that woman let anyone else have a shot at something?" She produces a movie, and takes the lead role. She gets courted into Serius radio and hands every timeslot to her loyal friends. She has a magazine, the same friend who gets a radio show also is editor of the magazine, and no one gets the cover except Oprah (okay, she shared it once with MO).

    Her inability to share has lifted herself and her closest friends to unbelievable monetary gain, while others far more qualified and worthy can't catch a break.

    Parent

    Oprah (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by CST on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    is self made.  Huge difference.

    Parent
    Sorry, I just gotta call BS on that one. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 07:04:04 PM EST
    We all, if we can, surround ourselves with people we like and trust. iow, nepotism.

    Oprah's no different from essentially everybody else in human history in that respect.

    Parent

    Keep in mind that not all (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    of the celebrities who 'write' books or 'design' fashions initiate those activities.  They are also courted by the corporations for the use of their names...and that's what sells (and makes profit) to the shoppers of our celebrity-struck population.

    Pathetic, I agree.

    Watching Project Runway might give you a look at how the meritocracy is working for designers these days.  Instructive and quite entertaining, as reality shows go!

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    You are right.

    I would love to hear about the celebrities who turn that stuff down, who in their hearts know that capitulating to the celebrity worship and the corporate greed keeps this cycle of insanity going.

    Parent

    Contrarily, Newman's Own! (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    I know where the money goes and it's really good stuff!

    Parent
    good (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:56:27 AM EST
    black bean salsa

    Parent
    Railing against nepotism... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:21:38 AM EST
    and favoritism is pretty pointless, like railing against the sun for shining.  I get the frustration but what can you do?

    We on the bottom do it too...I got this gig because of a good word from a friend, thats how most people get jobs...from big-bucks CEO down to the janitor.  People are always gonna do favors for their family and friends...thats what family and friends are for.  It ain't fair but life ain't fair...all we can do is try to limit it in the public sector, nothing you can do in the private sector.

    Parent

    I understand (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    a friend helping a friend. In teaching it's called writing recommendations.  I will do that if that friend is good, is competent.  Not for just anyone.
    But even if I did, my word has no real clout behind it.  

    There 's a huge difference between me recommending someone for a job and W's friends getting him or his kids a gig.

    Parent

    I really don't see a difference... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    except in the starting salary and prestige of the gig...the nepotism is the same, the unfairness is the same.

    A true meritocracy is probably unattainable human beings being human beings...we can only try to get close.  

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:37:16 AM EST
    But the first step is understanding and accepting we do not actually live in a meritocracy.

    Parent
    Anybody who doesn't understand that (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    doesn't want to and prefers to live in fantasy.

    Parent
    Because I don't have that much clout (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    at all.
    There's the difference.

    The Bush family calls up whomever for you and you got a job.  I can tell my principal this person has potential but the school board hired....and she can only suggest.  So yea, huge difference.

    Parent

    I have to agree (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:28:01 AM EST
    nepotism is as american as apple pie

    Parent
    "Mike Wallace's boy" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:24:22 AM EST
    as distasteful as I find agreeing with Sully I have to agree that he sounded like: "sounded like a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers."

    its been a long time since I wanted to bash my tv as much as last sunday morning.  it was some great tv moments for sure.  

    Fox News (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27:49 AM EST
    I dunno, railing about Fox News is like railing at the clouds. It is what it is.

    I really do not even pay attention to it anymore.

    The only mystery to me is why any Democrat official goes on Fox News. There simply is no reason to do so. Better to marginalize it.

    Parent

    the only reason I tuned in (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:29:25 AM EST
    was that I was drinking coffee and waking up and could not stand one more minute of wallowing in Kennedy "grief" and that was MTP.

    once it started it was like a train wreck.  I couldnt turn away.


    Parent

    I stopped watching Sunday moprning altogether (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    I watch soccer instead.

    Parent
    My spouse still watches it from time to (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    time.  He says that it is better to know your enemy.  I hate it.  Egads, my spouse shares an office with a military intelligence officer with as much senior rank as my husband.  He watches Fox News daily, and then some argument at work broke out where the M.I. officer told spouse that it is illegal for "the News" to lie.  Spouse calls me at home and makes me look up the lawsuit that Fox won stating they can lie all they want.  Then spouse showed it to M.I. officer at work.  Can you imagine it though?  A senior M.I. officer who really thinks that someone gets in trouble when "the news" lies.  Propaganda is for the enemy to ingest, not him sitting on the soil of his motherland :)  The guy wouldn't even look at me or talk to me at my spouse's going away party :)  He's very sore about it like I'm the one that made Fox News tell lies and then win a court case giving them permission to lie and lie and lie every single day :)

    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    you made FOX lie.  that IS unforgivable.  and sadly I do not find this surprising at all.  for me the frightening thing is not the 24/7 lies and crap that FOX spews but that so many take it as absolute gospel.

    Parent
    Maybe that is why (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    MSNBC's choice of guests sometimes stuns me.

    I don't get MSNBC's so called "liberals" giving some real neocon extremists so much face time to voice their idiocy.

    I did not get why Matthews gave Coulter, Ingrahm so much time back.
    I do not get why Schultz insists on giving airtime to drones from the right.
    This morning Carlos Watson gives Grover Nordquist a soap box.

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:57:49 AM EST
    Matthews is no more a liberal than Coulter or Ingrahm.

    he loves the Kennedys but only because they are village royalty.  he secretly loves the Bushes just as much.


    Parent

    Where ever the spotlight is (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:00:19 AM EST
    he is running toward it trying to dance in even the edge of it :)  He's pretty pathetic

    Parent
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    his big fat face is like the moon.  only reflecting their glow.


    Parent
    This is true (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:14:40 AM EST
    so I am not even sure why I used Matthews as an example....
    or Schultz.  I heard he is a former neocon.

    And I get that Maddow seems, like Obama, to play this reaching out game, to show how fair liberals and progressives are.  But I wonder.  As the song goes, "When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?"

    Parent

    Maddow will (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    have a wingnut on but grill them pretty hard.  I dont think she would turn her show over to one.  honestly she has won me over.  if there is a head on tv who will tell the truth I am finding more and more I think its her.

    Parent
    I prefer (none / 0) (#64)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    listening the Common Folk say the same things.  NPR was covering the Tea Party Express this morning.  Funny thing was that they sounded a lot like some of the Left, no one seems to represent them in Wash, D.C and no one seems interested in their problems.

    Parent
    I was reading this morning (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    that in Japan they had rather an upset election.
    the Democratic party won taking party away from the Liberal Democratic party.

    I thought, thats the ticket.  the democratic party and the liberal democratic party.

    Parent

    I haven't looked (none / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    more closely at that yet.  I'm sure there's a story there and lessons to be learned.

    Parent
    also (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    to be honest I was curious what Dick would say.
    what he COULD say.  I naively thought he might be challenged on some of his more lunatic claims.
    needless to say he was allowed to say democrats are soft on defense and making the country more dangerous without the slightest followup.


    Parent
    Quite naive of you (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    No offense intended.

    Parent
    I mean jeez (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:43:47 AM EST
    he didnt even ask him about the Minotaur Maze

    Parent
    Hysterical. Thanks for the link! n/t (none / 0) (#60)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:06:04 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm not (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    sure that not appearing is the answer either. Then they start screaming that Dems are "afraid" to go on their network etc. The problem is not that Dems go on Fox IMO, it's that they don't call them down. I think that Dems should go on Fox and just announce to the viewers that they (Fox) do little more than constantly apologize for the GOP. Shake things up a little and make them look like idiots. Of course, though since we are now dealing with Latte Progressive Wimps and torch bearers for the party maybe it is better simply not to appear since they wouldnt know how to stand up if their lives depended on it.

    Parent
    On nepotism (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by eric on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    I am wondering - don't most major corporations have anti-nepotism rules?

    When I was struggling looking for a job after law school, my aunt was a VP of a major company and totally in a position to get me a job.  But she flat out told me that it was not possible because of anti-nepotism rules.

    I thought this was standard.

    I think it is a standard (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    One way around that of course is to have your competitor hire your family member. Think Chris Wallace being originally hired by ABC instead of CBS.

    I imagine Mike Wallace made a few calls, don't you?

    Parent

    He may have but he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    have to.  The name is the password.

    Parent
    Also Andy Rooney has (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:22:12 AM EST
    two kids in network journalism.  A daugher Emily worked at Faux and ABC producing the nightly news for Peter Jennings (soon fired though).  And a son Chris as a network reporter for ABC.  But neither ever worked for CBS.

    Small world network news.

    And certain high-profile last names are bound to get offspring key door-opening interviews.

    Parent

    Brian Rooney (none / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    not Chris, FYI.  But he and Emily are actually very good.  Chris Wallace has always been pathetically bad.

    Parent
    Right, Brian. (none / 0) (#113)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:16:24 PM EST
    And Emily is pretty good, times I've seen her.  Legit journalist and not a propagandist for the Right.

    She was on Kurtz' show Sunday, and did a good job of rebutting Howie's suggestion that the EMK coverage had gone too easy on Ted in omitting all the negatives from his story.

    Parent

    I don't much like her (none / 0) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:27:25 AM EST
    and I'm frankly prejudiced against anybody Peter Jennings found wanting, but she's a serious and talented person without question, who really did make her way without any real advantage from being her father's daughter.  He was never taken seriously, nor should he have been, by the media establishment.  Emily is no piker, for sure.

    She was pretty good on Kurtz Sunday, I agree.

    Parent

    True dat (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:09:37 AM EST


    Parent
    Yup, I think that's the way it's done (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:24:55 AM EST
    Kinda hard to tell people not to play the cards the have, though.

    Parent
    I do not tell them that (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:26:59 AM EST
    I DO demand that we stop pretending we live in some pure meritocracy where the cream naturally rises to the top.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#92)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:37:34 AM EST


    Parent
    Not standard (none / 0) (#68)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:12:29 AM EST
    but usually followed, at least to some extent.  In the hospital, they didn't like family members working in the same department, but they could work in the same building.

    Parent
    I have less trouble with the Kennedys (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    than I do with the examples mentioned in Glenn's post.  Not only did not the Kennedys never deny their advantages, they used those advantages they were born into on behalf of causes and issues in both the public and the private sector for the benefit of those who weren't so lucky, for whom doors did not just automatically open, who knew no one with connections or power or money; they've really lived "for those to whom much is given, much is asked."

    There is no way one can say the same for many of those who have been allowed entrée into media jobs and given special titles that confer (a rather dubious) expertise upon them by virtue of their surname and their exposure to the powerful people.  Sure, maybe Jenna Bush Hager does know something about education, but I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of other people out there who know more, have been in some serious trenches doing remarkable work and who aren't being asked to be Today Show special reporters.

    Chris Wallace and all the others like him could have been so much more, could have used their advantages and the people they knew - and know - to maintain a higher standard for "journalism," but they have instead been easily and seamlessly co-opted by the corporate hacks who report to Wall Street, and who need entertainment and controversy and agenda because there's more money in it; with few exceptions, being on the TV is like wearing a neon sign that says "I have no self-respect so don't expect anything of substance from me."

    I would take 1,000 Kennedys with all their fame and fortune before I would give you a penny for the collective worth of some of the media clowns with famous last names and pedigrees.

    Teddy and Bobby (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    particularly always, always emphasized their belief that they were obligated to give back to society for the privilege they were born into.

    Parent
    Anybody ever hear (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    anybody named Bush say anything like that?

    Parent
    I was wondering (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:34:23 AM EST
    what Bush was thinking, sitting in the pew at Kennedy's funeral, listening to all that talk about giving to the poor - if you give to the least of us you have given to me - and the rest of that stuff that Jesus is said to have believed.

    If the cameras had not been roaming around, I'll bet he would have been glancing at his watch every two minutes.

    Parent

    I have read that Prescott Bush (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    raised his children to believe that they should serve their country but who knows for certain?

    Parent
    Not so sure about ol' Prescott... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:43:05 AM EST
    an excerpt:

    "Among those who have investigated the links between the Bushes and the Nazis is John Loftus, a former prosecutor in the Justice Department's War Crimes Unit, who now heads the Florida Holocaust Museum in Saint Petersburg. Loftus has charged that the Bush family received $1.5 million from its interest in UBC, when the bank was finally liquidated in 1951. "That's where the Bush family fortune came from: It came from the Third Reich," Loftus said in a recent speech.

    Loftus argues that this money--a substantial sum at that time--included direct profit from the slave labor of those who died at Auschwitz. In an interview with journalist Toby Rogers, the former prosecutor said: "It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920s, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed Allied solders. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen's coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family's complicity."

    I'm not a big fan.

    Parent

    Well, at least Teddy (none / 0) (#5)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:44:24 AM EST
    had to work to get into office, with the feisty Eddie McCormack being a major primary obstacle.  And it wasn't the case that he was angling for the position -- initially he'd thought about running for MA AttyGen.  But father Joe insisted nothing but the senate would do.

    Ditto for RFK becoming AG.  The father's doing.  Both JFK and RFK fought it.  But Joe insisted, it was the only thing he was asking for in major appointments, nothing but a cabinet position would be acceptable, and by "cabinet" he meant AG.

    Funny thing though, both EMK and RFK turned out to be outstanding public servants, RFK one of the best AGs in history, Teddy one of the best senators ever.

    He did duke it out with a no name (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    peanut farmer too and lost :)  Kennedy was willing to take risks to uphold his values.  If he would have been quieter and less of a risk taker he may have served just as long in the Senate, and few would have cried watching his funeral.  Life could have been easier on him, he could have been less of a lightening rod, but that wasn't his way.

    Parent
    What's funny (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:59:53 AM EST
    is that McCormack was no less a beneficiary of a powerful and connected family than Teddy was.  When he dropped his famous line at the debate, that Teddy wouldn't even be in the race if his name was Edward Moore, pretty much all of Massachusetts was convulsed with laughter.

    Parent
    Yeah, your uncle being (none / 0) (#108)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    a prominent, longtime MA congressman and then Speaker of the House were the reasons Eddie was standing there on the stage with Teddy that day.

    But I think he was trying to highlight Teddy brazenly going right away for the senate as his first job, instead of a lower position, as Eddie went for and won AG, and doing so at such an outrageously young age (29 at the time of the campaign).

    In any case, Speaker McCormack was none too pleased with any Kennedy trying to spoil his plans for his favorite nephew.  This situation undoubtedly led to some further straining of the JFK-McCormack relationship.

    Parent

    feu·dal·ism (none / 0) (#10)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    n.  

       1. A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.
       2. A political, economic, or social order resembling this medieval system.

    Taxes and a debt based currency would fit your term more closely.  Commoners have to rely on the issuance of money by the lords, only a medium of exchange and not a good, at interest in order to participate in the economy.

    I don't know why (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:07:58 AM EST
    you seem to think relying on the dictionary to understand a form of social organization makes you some kind of genius.

    Parent
    Haha (none / 0) (#116)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    I don't know why you think I think I'm some kind of genius.

    Parent
    Oy vey (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:14:07 AM EST
    Your lack of understanding of rhetoric is manifest.

    Parent
    Great argument. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:28:31 AM EST
    You're misusing the term.  Look at the definition.  Why would you substitute it in for nepotism?

    If you have one, it should take an equal amount of time to write it as it does to deride me with zero reasoning.

    Parent

    Because it goes beyond nepotism (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:31:58 AM EST
    It is structural.

    Racism. Sexism. Classism.

    My use of the word was intentional because feudalism froze persons into their stations in life institutionally.

    I adapt the word feudalism to reflect what I believe is a more accurate portrayal of Greenwald's point and the situation itself. Greenwald used the word royalty. According to you, his use of the word is wrong because well, you can read the dictionary.

    As I said, rhetoric is beyond you obviously.

    Parent

    As long as you admit it. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:36:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Admit what? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    That you did not understand my post? I think that is patent.

    Parent
    Are you suggesting (none / 0) (#31)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:37:48 AM EST
    Nepotism is enforced through violence directly?  

    Parent
    Um what? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    What are you talking about? I assume you are implying that feudalism was enforced purely through violence.

    Do you really believe that?

    Are you studying medieval history now? Have you finished the course yet?

    You know what is a good book that explains in many ways the complexities of societal constraints, especially in the feudal age? Barbara Tuchman's "Distant Mirror: the Calamitous 14th Century." It is quite accessible though certainly too reliant on questionable official accounts (and unofficial accounts for that matter).

    Basic political science concepts are at play here. I do not feel like writing a freshman's term paper on the subject. Which reminds me of a book we had to read when I was a freshman in college - it discussed the Mafia's control of Sicily from a political science perspective. Boring as all hell. Anyone remember that book?

    Parent

    The monetary and tax systems of this country (none / 0) (#119)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:57:58 PM EST
    more closely mirror feudalism then any of the phenomena your post describes.  It seemed you had not thought your choice of terms through before posting.  I provided the definition since your use of the term made very little sense to me.  

    Then you kind of lost your web-posure.  I'm not sure of the gap between your genuine emotions and those I gather from your replies, but it seems your inability to control your rage and maintain civility could be negatively effecting your emotional health or merely a symptom.  

    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    It is hard I know to accept one's own foolishness but please do try and move on.

    Parent
    nepotism is, by its DEFINITION... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    ...to use your argument, NOT institutional.  It is FAMILIAL.  

    Parent
    A pedantic point (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    Which is your point of course.

    Though I too can quibble pedantically on even THIS point - nepotism can be institutionalized - royalty and feudalism are indeed two examples of the institutionalization of nepotism.

    But society imposes constraints through more than institutional structures.

    Parent

    What was your more accurate term again? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:30:27 AM EST


    Parent
    He does not understand my post (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:32:22 AM EST


    Parent
    I suppose nepotism (none / 0) (#26)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:35:05 AM EST
    He seems to be correcting Glenn's use of that word without defining feudalism and explaining why "American Feudalism" is more accurate.  

    I only make the point since there are practices in this country much more closely resembling feudalism and it'd be nice to keep the term free for accurate use later on down the road.

    Parent

    It is explained (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:37:10 AM EST
    for persons who can read more than the dictionary.

    But let's be honest, you just wanted to "correct" me and not really discuss my post.

    It is a routine with you.

    I see no point in your participation here. Perhaps you can explain what you are trying to say? Probably not though.

    Parent

    Reading the dictionary is a good place to start. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:39:16 AM EST
    Give it a shot before correcting peoples' terms.

    Parent
    You didn't provide a more accurate (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    word and considering that society is always perpetually evolving....certain words will attain new meanings and old meanings die out.  Ever read the Urban Dictionary?

    Parent
    Interestingly (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    I felt confident that my readers understood that my reference to feudalism was not literal.

    Perhaps my confidence was not merited for all of my readers.

    Parent

    Just give an example of nepotism being feudalism (none / 0) (#36)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    using the actual definition of feudalism.  If the dictionary is out the window, then why even construct logical sentences?  Does jibberish qualify as rhetoric?

    Parent
    It takes more than a dictionary (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    to gain knowledge and understanding of writing.

    Look, perhaps your ignorance is not a ploy. I apologize for accusing you of it.

    Parent

    per wiki (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    Feudalism, by its very nature, gave rise to a hierarchy of rank, to a predominantly static social structure in which every man knew his place, according to whom it was that he owed service and from whom it was that he received his land. To preserve existing relationships in perpetuity, rights of succession to land were strictly controlled by various laws, or customs, of entail. The most rigid control was provided by the custom of primogeniture, by which all property of a deceased landholder must pass intact to his eldest son.

    Parent
    Uh what? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    Completely off topic to my post, but are you really arguing that nepotism is NOT an element of feudalism? Really? I mean, REALLY?

    Parent
    You replied to it... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    "I only make the point since there are practices in this country much more closely resembling feudalism and it'd be nice to keep the term free for accurate use later on down the road. "

    Parent
    Aristocracy (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:05:28 AM EST
    is my preferred term, especially versus meritocracy.  There are current examples of aristocratic privilege - "legacy" admissions to elite colleges and universities.  

    Parent
    Did you check the dictionary? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:18:28 AM EST


    Parent
    Nope. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:56:23 AM EST
    You don't need feudalism to have aristocracy.  

    Aristocrats aren't complete snobs, anyone with enough money can buy their way into the Village, or gated community, or political fundraiser.  I'm so very reminded of Obama hanging with the West Coast elites, talking about those poor serfs clinging to their guns and religion.  And those old fashioned morality plays!  Nothing like putting on a show to tell the serfs what they should think and that they shouldn't strive for more in this life, but instead accept their humble stations in life.

    Parent

    I was kidding (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    I understood your point quite well without resorting to the dictionary.

    Parent
    oops! Didn't catch that. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    What's the big deal about the dictionary? (none / 0) (#86)
    by steviez314 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    It's "just words".  :)

    Parent
    Not delivered by a burning bush even . . . (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:30:22 AM EST


    Parent
    a burning Bush (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:32:43 AM EST
    ahhhhhhh

    thanks for the mental image

    Parent

    In which one of Dante's circles will we find the (none / 0) (#89)
    by steviez314 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:35:42 AM EST
    burning Bush?  

    Hopefully next to the charred Cheney.

    Parent

    The Barrymores (none / 0) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:26:16 PM EST
    At least they had talent.  

    The Booths . . . (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:38:36 PM EST


    Parent
    But think about this (none / 0) (#132)
    by catmandu on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:51:30 AM EST
    As a group white men may have advantage, but as individuals they have to struggle as much as anyone.  The person you accuse of rising through nepotism may have had a life of sheer hell, surviving sexual abuse, physical abuse or crushing poverty.  They may have clawed their way to the top, and are very understandably angered at any accusation of not having to fight for their place in life. While unfair advantage may be slung at a group, it is perilous to accuse an individual of having unfair advantage.  You have no idea what they had to overcome to get where they are.

    Indeed. What you are describing is racism. (none / 0) (#133)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 01:01:12 PM EST


    Parent
    American Feudalism | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment