| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| What Would Kipling Say? |
| 2010-07-26 |
| H/T Jerry Pournelle Oh I read the paper this morning, and I've seen it again and again, As the oil spreads to the beaches, where the sea-walls fail to retain. And the sons of Mary still dither, while Martha's sons still toil, And ignore the bureaucrat mandates, and strive to recover the oil. And hist'ry repeats before us, as we struggle with the past in vain, The lesson still stands before us, and Kipling he saw it plain. The Treasury's printing out paper, our gold and silver replaced But it cannot appease the builders, nor the Gods of the Marketplace And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, have told us down through time, That you first have to slaughter the meat-beast, before you intend to dine. And hist'ry repeats before us, as we struggle with the past in vain, The lesson still stands before us, and Kipling he saw it plain. Our troops are set forth to conquer, in Iraq and Afghanistan While our leaders refuse them their honor, or even a vic'try plan And invaders trouble our borders, seeking our wealth to pay, A rich lazy nation's yielding, and that danger will not go away. And hist'ry repeats before us, as we struggle with the past in vain, The lesson still stands before us, and Kipling he saw it plain. The chattering classes bicker, and struggle for the power's reigns The recession widens and deepens, while more succumb to the strain. And the Old Issue stands before us, dwarfing our hearts and brains, Hear the reeds of Runnymede weeping, as we bow down to take up our chains. And hist'ry repeats before us, as we struggle again and again, The lesson still stands before us; Kipling he saw it plain. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #6 Whahahahaha |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-07-26 21:13 |
| #5 NOT an oligarchy, but a kakistocracy. |
| Posted by: Ulomble and Tenille6272 2010-07-26 16:28 |
| #4 :-) |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-07-26 08:34 |
| #3 Thank you, g(r)omgoru. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-07-26 07:26 |
| #2 from Anguper Hupomosing9418's link: When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily, the Democrats come in second,... and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while mostof the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate -- most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2010-07-26 01:34 |
| #1 And this past month has appeared in prose a related essay I call "The Oligarchy vs. the People of the United States", but which the author has called America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution RTWT. An excerpt: Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment's parts. If, for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor of law, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can "write" your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was "inadvertent," and you can count on the Law School's dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that "closes" the incident. Incidentally, Kagan ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up rewarded. By contrast, for example, learned papers and distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not enough for their questions about "global warming" to be taken seriously. For our ruling class, identity always trumps. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-07-26 00:42 |