British Royal/Celebrity Wedding

[Guest American Woman]

If you can afford to get an education that is great, but how much debt is one willing to take on to get that job/career they want?

That's up to the individual, isn't it? It's all about choice, not bloodlines. Furthermore, there are also such things as scholarships and grants. How hard is one willing to work to earn them? That's another question to ask.

[Moonlight Graham]

...and Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. The American Dream is about opportunity, not bloodlines.

But bloodlines sure as hell is one huge advantage.

John Adams, John Quincy Adams (aka Jr)

JFK, RFK, Ted Kennedy, Joseph P. Kennedy, Patrick J. Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, yada yada

George Bush Sr, George Bush Jr., Jeb Bush

Bill Clinton, Hillary

...and Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau.

[bush_cheney2004]

But bloodlines sure as hell is one huge advantage.

John Adams, John Quincy Adams (aka Jr)

JFK, RFK, Ted Kennedy, Joseph P. Kennedy, Patrick J. Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, yada yada

George Bush Sr, George Bush Jr., Jeb Bush

Bill Clinton, Hillary

JFK & RFK were shot dead....one huge advantage!

[Guest American Woman]

But bloodlines sure as hell is one huge advantage.

John Adams, John Quincy Adams (aka Jr)

JFK, RFK, Ted Kennedy, Joseph P. Kennedy, Patrick J. Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, yada yada

George Bush Sr, George Bush Jr., Jeb Bush

Bill Clinton, Hillary

...and Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau.

So you think Bill Clinton's bloodline got him where he is? Seriously? As for JFK, he got where he was in spite of his bloodline. I'm curious, also, as to how Bush Sr's bloodline got him where he was. Same as Trudeau. Were they somehow born to become POTUS/Prime Minister? Were they guaranteed it by their bloodline, or did the people have the say in it?

Again, there is a huge difference between bloodlines sometimes being an advantage and bloodlines, and bloodlines alone, being the only factor; the determining factor. No matter how much you try to argue otherwise, nothing changes that fact.

Edited May 3, 2011 by American Woman

[jbg]

As for "commoner" - well, I believe it was an American who uttered the phrase "only the little people pay taxes...." But, maybe that was her "Jewish" roots or some such thing....

I haven't attributed to Judaism.

But some people do.

Stop being so naive.

Do you care to rephrase then? I am not one who often screams "anti-Judaism" since the Jews are largely a successful, happy, busy people. But your post was sickening. And I am not naive.

[msj]

Do you care to rephrase then? I am not one who often screams "anti-Judaism" since the Jews are largely a successful, happy, busy people. But your post was sickening. And I am not naive.

What do you fail to understand about

You do understand that that is meant to be sarcasm, right?

And, no, I was not suggesting AW is/was anti-semitic.

My suggestion was/is that some people did and do see it that way.

Once again, stop being so naive.

And, yes, you do scream "anti-Judaism" quite shrilly.

[jbg]

What do you fail to understand about

You do understand that that is meant to be sarcasm, right?

And, no, I was not suggesting AW is/was anti-semitic.

My suggestion was/is that some people did and do see it that way.

Once again, stop being so naive.

And, yes, you do scream "anti-Judaism" quite shrilly.

Honestly I didn't get the emoticon's meaning and I speak through words in the Canadian and/or English language, rarely through adolescent acronyms or emoticons.

[Guest American Woman]

Do you care to rephrase then? I am not one who often screams "anti-Judaism" since the Jews are largely a successful, happy, busy people. But your post was sickening. And I am not naive.

The comment was directed at me, and I understand what msj was saying (though the comparison he was trying to make was not a relevant comparison), and you are taking it wrong. It was sarcasm, hence the rolling eyes emoticon. Again, misdirected sarcasm, but there was nothing "sickening" about the comment as I took it, and I'm sure I took it as it was intended.

Edited May 4, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

The comment was directed at me, and I understand what msj was saying (though the comparison he was trying to make was not a relevant comparison), and you are taking it wrong. It was sarcasm, hence the rolling eyes emoticon. Again, misdirected sarcasm, but there was nothing "sickening" about the comment as I took it, and I'm sure I took it as it was intended.

Thank you AW.

I don't think the comparison is completely irrelevant.

Social class, racism, sexism, etc... exist although I would be hard pressed to come up with any real solutions to further mitigate their effects as I think it is better now than it has been at most other times in history (at least in the US/Canada/Britain).

I have stayed out of this topic on social class etc not only because of the end of tax season, but because I have taken a broader scope on the subject than what has been discussed here and I don't think typing away about it like y'all have being doing is a good use of time.

I do appreciate that you have interpreted the comment the way it was intended and thank you for defending me on this point and it is nice to agree to disagree and to be somewhat friendly about it.

[msj]

Honestly I didn't get the emoticon's meaning and I speak through words in the Canadian and/or English language, rarely through adolescent acronyms or emoticons.

Emoticons are a good way for readers to understand the "tone" of a post.

Of course, when I write words they are in English but when I want someone to get my tone I use emoticons.

It's just one more way to communicate with people.

Now, you can continue your ad hominem attacks on me all you like jbg.

I suppose I would rather be an "adolescent" using emoticons than an anti-semite.

[WIP]

The father of Michelle Obama was a postman and she went to Princeton. Obama himself went to Columbia and Harvard Law. So did Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama were raised by single mothers with no claim to social status or much money. These are a just few examples.

Richard Nixon liked to say that he believed in the American Dream because it came true in his own life.

Maybe you're not familiar with this particular rule of logic, but: the exception does not prove a rule! The facts don't support libertarian dogma:

The Upward Mobility Gap

Opportunity in America isn’t what it used to be either. Among children born into low-income households, more than two-thirds grow up to earn a below-average income, and only 6 percent make it all the way up the ladder into the affluent top one-fifth of income earners, according to a study by economists at Washington’s Brookings Institution…. Children born into poverty in Canada, Britain, Germany or France have a statistically better chance of reaching the top than poor kids do in the United States….

[in addition to the decline of public schools,] Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam argues that thanks partly to the rise of two-income households, intermarriage between rich and poor has declined, choking off another historical upward path for the underprivileged….”We’re becoming two societies, two Americas,” Putnam told me recently. “There’s a deepening class divide that shows up in many places. It’s not just a matter of income. Education is becoming the key discriminant in American life. Family structure is part of it too.”…

“Success in life increasingly depends on how smart you were in choosing your parents,” Putnam said. “And that flies in the face of the fundamental American bargain — that every kid ought to have access to the same opportunities.”…Most Americans accept inequality in the economy as long as the ladder of opportunity is accessible to anyone who wants to work hard. The best way for America to reclaim its self-image as a land of opportunity is to ensure that every kid has access to a decent education — now more than ever the first step onto the ladder. That’s why bipartisan education reform isn’t just about fixing schools; it’s about repairing the fabric of American society.

Read “The Upward Mobility Gap” (Doyle McManus, L.A. Times, 1/2/11)

[dre]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/royalwedding/story/2011/04/29/royal-wedding-day.html

Who is watching this? Why?

----

IMHO, I can understand the fascination of other people watching two people make a deal. We have all stood aside and watched a friend spend alot of money to buy something.

But why this current fascination for such a deal?

I think many people want to believe in co-operation. They want to believe that two people trust one another in a long term commitment.

----

And yet, this marriage has no more likelihood of success than any other celebrity marriage - because that's what it is: a celebrity marriage. I give this marriage a maximum of 10 years.

In the Western world, circus not commitment now fascinates us.

People watch this kind of crap for the same reason they fawn after hollywood celebrities, or watch TV shows about Paris Hilton, or Donald trump.

[g_bambino]

People watch this kind of crap for the same reason they fawn after hollywood celebrities, or watch TV shows about Paris Hilton, or Donald trump.

I've not heard anyone ask for Paris Hilton to be tsarina, though.

Some two billion people across the world may have been watching the Royal Wedding on Friday between Prince William and Kate Middleton.

And it seem some Russians were watching their televisions, green with envy - because now a leading former diplomat believes that Prince Harry - the third in line to the British monarch - should be offered the vacant throne...

It would, in his eyes, "delight [Russians] like never before" to have the monarchy restored, following a groundswell of Russian enthusiasm over the Royal Marriage in London, when Harry played a starring role as best man.

The prince could perform a symbolic role as head of state - allowing the increasingly fractious Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, currently premier and president respectively, to concentrate on politics and running the country, said Mr Baunov.

He said: "We have no Royal Weddings, and I don't see anything good about this.

"All our court life revolves around overweight MPs, untalented singers and graduates from TV reality shows.

"Looking at the wedding and its preparations in England, I think that it would be good to restore the monarchy here."

Tsar Harry! Russians who want British prince to take vacant throne (just don't mention the Romanovs)

[Moonlight Graham]

So you think Bill Clinton's bloodline got him where he is? Seriously? As for JFK, he got where he was in spite of his bloodline. I'm curious, also, as to how Bush Sr's bloodline got him where he was. Same as Trudeau. Were they somehow born to become POTUS/Prime Minister? Were they guaranteed it by their bloodline, or did the people have the say in it?

My list shows the first name in each family row which represented the original politician who got there not by bloodline, and the names after that show politicians who got power, or at least a very good chance of power, in large part due to their bloodline to the first name in the row. Ie: Bill was prez, and Hilary got public notoriety from it which gave her a far, far better shot at being Senator/Sec of state/ Prez candidate compared to if nobody had known who she was prior.

Nobody gives a shit about Justin Trudeau except for the fact that his daddy was "the great leader", and they have some illogical fantasy that Pierre magic has rubbed off on him.

As i've shown, this is far from being just an American phenomenon.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest American Woman]

My list shows the first name in each family row which represented the original politician who got there not by bloodline, and the names after that show politicians who got power, or at least a very good chance of power, in large part due to their bloodline to the first name in the row. Ie: Bill was prez, and Hilary got public notoriety from it which gave her a far, far better shot at being Senator/Sec of state/ Prez candidate compared to if nobody had known who she was prior.

Being married to Bill doesn't give her the same bloodline as Bill. They don't share bloodlines, which is what I've been talking about. Furthermore, how many president's wives gone on to become Senator/Sec of State/presidential candidate? The answer would be none.

Nobody gives a shit about Justin Trudeau except for the fact that his daddy was "the great leader", and they have some illogical fantasy that Pierre magic has rubbed off on him.

Exactly. No one does. He isn't guaranteed being Prime Minister because of his bloodline. Thank you for proving my point.

As i've shown, this is far from being just an American phenomenon.

You lost me here. What did I say was just an American phenomenon??

[jbg]

I suppose I would rather be an "adolescent" using emoticons than an anti-semite.

I wasn't meaning there to refer to you.

Some 44 year old attorney, in an e-mail relating to a discovery dispute in a lawsuit, responded to one of my very reasonable requests with an e-mail that simply said "ROTFLMAO". That was a lovely "Exhibit '2'" in my motion papers to compel a good-faith response to the discovery demand and another attorney in my office referred to the e-mail as the "kiddy acronym" letter.

The problem with emoticons is more subtle; not everyone knows all or most of them.

[bud]

I wasn't meaning there to refer to you.

Some 44 year old attorney, in an e-mail relating to a discovery dispute in a lawsuit, responded to one of my very reasonable requests with an e-mail that simply said "ROTFLMAO". That was a lovely "Exhibit '2'" in my motion papers to compel a good-faith response to the discovery demand and another attorney in my office referred to the e-mail as the "kiddy acronym" letter.

The problem with emoticons is more subtle; not everyone knows all or most of them.

have you gone back to being a 'radical leftist lawyer'?

ps - you deserve a ROTFLMAO

[Moonlight Graham]

Exactly. No one does. He isn't guaranteed being Prime Minister because of his bloodline. Thank you for proving my point.

You misread what i said. Of course he isn't guaranteed anything, but bloodlines/family/associations give him a huge leg up. My point is who you know, and what your last name is etc. makes a difference in modern politics.

[Guest American Woman]

You misread what i said. Of course he isn't guaranteed anything, but bloodlines/family/associations give him a huge leg up. My point is who you know, and what your last name is etc. makes a difference in modern politics.

Which has nothing to do with being born into the situation, guaranteed of your position based on bloodline, and being a "commoner" in comparison. It's all based on bloodlines, right from the get-go, and only bloodlines. Same with being a commoner. And nothing will ever change that. It's not about "getting a huge leg up," but that advantage begs the question: how did the first person in that family make it? Not based on bloodlines, but on their own merits.

There is no similar situation in the U.S. because there is no monarchy. There is no family that is born into any state positions and there is no class of commoners who will always be commoners because it's based on bloodlines. There is no merit/lack of merit to the class they are born into; it's all based on bloodlines. I repeat. There is no similar class system in the United States, for which I am glad. As originally stated. Just as I agreed with August that I would not like being a "subject" of anyone.

[Black Dog]

There is no similar situation in the U.S. because there is no monarchy. There is no family that is born into any state positions and there is no class of commoners who will always be commoners because it's based on bloodlines. There is no merit/lack of merit to the class they are born into; it's all based on bloodlines. I repeat. There is no similar class system in the United States, for which I am glad. As originally stated. Just as I agreed with August that I would not like being a "subject" of anyone.

No you have your own, unique class system.

There we go.

[Guest American Woman]

No you have your own, unique class system.

There we go.

Good to see that you're finally starting to get it. Our system is different from Britain's, which doesn't necessarily make it unique, but I don't feel like getting into yet another irrelevant issue, so think what you will about that.

But yes, unlike Britain, we have a system that no one is locked into by virtue of their bloodline. A system that allows for mobility/change within. A system based on people's achievement and merits, not their bloodline. A system that doesn't guarantee anyone a position as head of state by virtue of their bloodline while preventing others from ever obtaining that position by virtue of theirs.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Good to see that you're finally starting to get it. Our system is different from Britain's, which doesn't necessarily make it unique, but I don't feel like getting into yet another irrelevant issue, so think what you will about that.

But yes, unlike Britain, we have a system that no one is locked into by virtue of their bloodline. A system that allows for mobility/change within. A system based on people's achievement and merits, not their bloodline. A system that doesn't guarantee anyone a position as head of state by virtue of their bloodline while preventing others from ever obtaining that position by virtue of theirs.

Rather ironic considering the broohaha over Obama's birth certificate

[Guest American Woman]

Rather ironic considering the broohaha over Obama's birth certificate

Good Lord. Been there, covered that. Bloodlines have nothing to do with where one was born. Obama's bloodline would be the same if he had been born in Africa rather than the U.S. You do realize that, right?

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Good Lord. Been there, covered that. Bloodlines have nothing to do with where one was born. Obama's bloodline would be the same if he had been born in Africa rather than the U.S. You do realize that, right?

Still, an accident of birth, having no relevance to fitness for high office.

[g_bambino]

Rather ironic considering the broohaha over Obama's birth certificate

Exactly. There are measures in place that prevent certain people from becoming the US head of state. There may be none linked to bloodline, but there is one based on a person's birth. None relate to merit. Other unwritten factors involve bloodline, or, at least, family.

What's the point? Republics and monarchies all have their class structures, with their own barriers against and gates permitting upward mobility. No doubt there are those who'd blather on about how in republics the upper levels are attainable to everyone and anyone and in monarchies the higher levels, and especially the top itself, are totally locked out to those not born in the right places. It's a childishly naive viewpoint, though, that ignores all the details of both systems. Regardless, I imagine those who hold it are pleased enough and don't want to know the details, lest it diminish their self-created sense of superiority.

[c/e]

Edited May 6, 2011 by g_bambino