Is Obama planning to bar gun owners from holding office in his administration, and what does that mean for gun rights nationwide?
Any time you apply for a job you can expect to fill out an application and answer some questions, yet few of us have ever experienced the level of scrutiny as those seeking jobs with the new administration with a nine-page questionnaire delving into every aspect of the applicant's life with 63 detailed questions. They want to know just about everything you've ever done or thought; every article, every speech, every financial transaction, every association and every relationship. They even want to see your MySpace page, your emails, and your comments and posts on the Internet.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Clavos
So, would you (if you were able to) prohibit the publication of such articles, handy?
77 - zingzing
oh, clavos, can it.
you know what he means.
78 - Clavos
I do indeed, zing.
It's why I asked the question.
79 - zingzing
i'm sure you can figure out the answer.
80 - Clavos
Yup.
81 - Dave Nalle
Clavos and Handy have shown us the way. We ought to be discussing the democratic plans to shut down free speech.
dave
82 - zingzing
now you're just being silly.
83 - Glenn Contrarian
Um, Dave -
The 'fairness doctrine' was mentioned by a few Democratic pundits...but it is NOT being taken seriously by most Democrats and I've seen nothing by Obama et al about bringing it back.
The conservatives, OTOH, have been howling to the rooftops that the Democrats are a-gonna end free speech, just like they're absolutely sure that we're a-gonna take away all your guns and we're a-gonna force your children to BE GLBT.
If you would just for once objectively see what the Democrats really want - NOT the far-left of the wing, but the REAL Democrats - you'd see that most of us don't want the 'Fairness Doctrine' (because it could never be enforced), we don't want a total gun ban, and when it comes to GLBT's, all we want are equal rights for them.
84 - Baritone
According to Dave, this is EXACTLY why he wants to keep is beloved guns and wants everybody else to pack heat:
"Basically, those who believe that owning guns and other deadly weapons is necessary for personal security and/or to thwart a rogue government are in fact high on the nutball conspiracy theorist list, and live their lives in fear and loathing of their fellow human beings."
He goes on to say:
"The issue is indeed a litmus test - as the article suggests. It separates those who are rational from those who are utterly deranged and whose mental processes are bizarrely twisted by irrational fear and hatred"
With respect to the second quote, he is correct. I can only hope that Dave and other gunsters have the wherewithall to get help.
As to the first, Dave apparently admits to his being a "nutball conspiracy theorist" and that he lives "in fear and loathing of [his] fellow human beings." Just the kind of sober and clear thinking we need to lead us through the coming years.
But such self awarness on Dave's part does give one hope that he will in fact take that vital next step on the road to recovery.
B
85 - zingzing
baritone, i don't think that dave wrote that first bit. in fact... didn't you? am i in bizarro world, or did i miss the point? or is there some strange sarcasm going on here...?
86 - Dave Nalle
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that first quote isn't mine. I may have diverse opinions, but I'm not usually in direct contradiction like that.
Dave
87 - Dave Nalle
The 'fairness doctrine' was mentioned by a few Democratic pundits...but it is NOT being taken seriously by most Democrats and I've seen nothing by Obama et al about bringing it back.
It's been introduced as legislation as recently as 2005 and Pelosi, Durban and a number of other Democrats have spoken publicly in support of it in the last couple of months - they're Congressmen, not pundits.
The conservatives, OTOH, have been howling to the rooftops that the Democrats are a-gonna end free speech,
Not just conservatives. A lot of others who are confused about 1st amendment issues are bothered by it.
just like they're absolutely sure that we're a-gonna take away all your guns and we're a-gonna force your children to BE GLBT.
I can't speak for conservatives, but I don't believe any of that silly stuff. Unlike most Obama supporters I'm in favor of gay marriage.
If you would just for once objectively see what the Democrats really want - NOT the far-left of the wing, but the REAL Democrats - you'd see that most of us don't want the 'Fairness Doctrine' (because it could never be enforced), we don't want a total gun ban, and when it comes to GLBT's, all we want are equal rights for them.
Well, it's encouraging that you say these things, but you're hardly the only voice we hear out there expressing ideas about policy for the Obama regime.
Dave
88 - zingzing
"Unlike most Obama supporters I'm in favor of gay marriage."
that's some rhetorical gamesmanship right there.
it also says that you're a obama supporter, if you read it the right way.
"I don't believe any of that silly stuff."
any of that? you don't believe that we're gonna take away all yer guns? wonderful! then what have you been babbling about for the last two or three days?
89 - Dave Nalle
Zing, I was referring more to the GLBT conversion thing. Clearly some folks like Baritone would like to take away our gunrights just for a start.
As for why we're still babbling about this, I blame the dearth of new articles on BC. Off to see if I can do something about that.
Dave
90 - Baritone
Perhaps I should have included this from Dave's #72 in my comment above.
"Baritone's #69 expresses exactly why I support gun rights and would do so if I didn't own a gun, and in fact did before I ever bought a gun."
Yes, it was sarcasm. But since Dave considers me to be "not emotionally or intellectually capable of thinking clearly and dispassionately about issues." I thought it apt. Dave tends to feel that true of anybody who disagrees with him about anything. He virtually never fails to dismiss any of his naysayers as some kind of unhinged, vacuous nutballs.
Gun butts somehow think that they are standing on the high ground. They have no clue, or are at best in total denial of their childishness. It would be silly and humorous if it wasn't such a potentially deadly issue. I played with toy guns when I was eight or ten, but never developed any interest in the real things as I looked upon them as unnecessary and inappropriate to a modern, civilized society. But a number of people fail to go beyond their youthful enthusiasm for things that go 'bang.'
Personally, I don't believe Clav furthered the cause of gun lovers by stating in #70 above:
"I like to hunt animals..." Hunting is a pastime involving guns or other weaponry that is more or less useless. It is occasionally used for population control of some animals when their numbers become too great for their habitat to sustain, or their presence in populated areas create a danger to both humans and the animals in question. Otherwise, I'm hard pressed to come up with a meaningful reason for hunting. Very few people in our society need to hunt for sustenance or for hides, pelts, etc.
People toting their guns wandering through the woods, or sitting up in one of those camouflaged chairs mounted against a tree with their bow and arrow poised, ready to pierce the heart of an unsuspecting deer or moose (god luv em, Sarah)or whatever, makes no more sense than bull fighting.
However, hunting is at most secondary to many gunsters. Many if not most guns are purchased in the belief that they are crucial to one's day to day survival. It's a jungle out there, right?
Hey. I'm 62 years old. I have lived in urban environments including New York City back in the evil 1970s when crime was supposedly rampant.
I have never owned a gun. It is more than likely that I never will. I have never felt the need.
I'm aware that shit happens, but, I could arm myself to the teeth; set up a security perimeter around my yard with high tech surveillance cameras, heat and movement censors, etc; erect a parapet and set it up with one or more mounted machine guns, bring my sons back home and man it 24/7; read all things gun, take extensive lessons in the proper use of such weapons, and on and on, and still wind up killing myself climbing up that damn parapet.
BTW Dave. You are full of it, and you are no less hysterical about your guns than many of the most avid conspiracy nuts certain that JFK was actually sprinkled to death by Tinker Bell's evil fairy dust, or those that believe the government has 200 pounds of alien kosher ham hidden at area 51.
B
91 - Clavos
You picked up on my enjoyment of hunting, B-tone, but totally ignored my mention of target shooting on a range, which is, by the way, an Olympic event.
I'd much rather spend an afternoon tearing up a paper target than some of the silly things others do for entertainment, but hey, to each his own.
Oh, and being, as I am, also a Mexican, I'm a very enthusiastic aficionado del toreo as well. As a kid, I spent many an exciting Sunday afternoon with my parents at the Plaza de Toros in Mexico City, my birthplace and still my favorite city in the world.
Otherwise, I'm hard pressed to come up with a meaningful reason for hunting.
Perhaps there is none, just as there isn't for football, or NASCAR racing, or even baseball; they are all simply enjoyable to their fans, and need no other justification.
92 - STM
When I get over there, we're going target shooting!
Do they make allowances for blokes who can't see properly??
93 - Dave Nalle
Baritone, you're missing the big point in your obsession with all aspects of culture you don't share in being somehow inferior or undesirable.
I haven't been hunting in more than 20 years (shooting varmints in the back yard not counting). And I'm not particularly concerned about burglaries at my house. There's no crime in Austin and less out here in the burbs, plus I've got a security gate and dogs.
But I do like to shoot competitively and I'm not too bad at it, so long as there's no speed component involved. It's fun, it's legal and it's a safe passtime.
So the question I ask is why my harmless little hobby should be the target of so many people who want to take it away from me? And why do they respond with such childish accusations and negative colorations of those who enjoy shooting guns, for whatever reason? Why do they want to take the guns away AND make the gun owners out to be inferior, uneducated, violent, reckless or crazy?
It just doesn't make sense.
I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want to do so long as it doesn't harm others. Merely owning a gun cannot harm anyone. Any dangerous use of the gun requires a human being to act and to have intent to do harm. So why is the focus on the gun and the law-abiding gun owner? And why does it always come with the kind of denigration which Baritone practices so freely?
Dave
94 - STM
My dislike of the proliferation of guns in the community is well known, but I do agree with Dave here.
(Regulation, licensing and control designed to keep firearms out of the hands of nutcases being something very different to a total ban).
There is nothing wrong with the type of target shooting Dave describes.
That's a sport, and it's actually fun.
I'm all for leaving the guns securely locked up in safe cabinets at the range though.
95 - Jet
Stan, if they make allowances for Chenney shooting people in the face, they'll make allowances for you.
Hurry over, the welcome mat is out...
96 - zingzing
baritone: "People toting their guns wandering through the woods, or sitting up in one of those camouflaged chairs mounted against a tree with their bow and arrow poised, ready to pierce the heart of an unsuspecting deer or moose (god luv em, Sarah)or whatever, makes no more sense than bull fighting."
see, i actually like bull fighting. there's some skill there and the matador is at least in somewhat of a dangerous situation. if i went down there to face a bull, i'd get mauled. there's a beauty and a tradition to it. but even i could sit in a parapet and keep quiet long enough that, with some luck (or some doe pheromones,) i could blow a damn deer's eyeball out. bull fighting is sport. hunting is... just cruel. there's too much technology and the prey doesn't stand a chance, except blind luck. pathetic.
dave: "So why is the focus [of gun control efforts] on the gun and the law-abiding gun owner?"
that's the thing. it's not. nobody would want to take the guns away if they weren't used to commit so much crime. the focus is on the guns in criminals hands. we already take away those guns. but they get more. and where do they get them from? either criminals that haven't been caught or from formerly law-abiding citizens.
a market for illegal handguns is a lucrative market. lots of people want to get in on it. you can bet the crime rate will go up if the economy tanks, and a lot of those guns creating that crime will be formerly legal guns. criminals will steal them, people will sell them. that's how it works. if you can't see that, you're blinded by the steel.
97 - STM
My guess is that Washington under Obama will somehow override the states on this issue and implement some form of cohesive national gun control that doesn't involve an actual ban.
It might be that unfettered ownership of certain types of weapons - say, semi-automatic weapons (or assault-style weapons) - is banned, though, and there'll be some serious licensing-style restrictions are placed on hand-gun ownership.
Betcha that's where it will go.
But I'll also bet that most legal gun owners in the US don't lose their firearms.
Thanks Jet, BTW. I was hoping to get there this year, but it didn't work out. I'm glad in a way, though, as it would have been last month.
I was mid-trip in Asia instead, right in the middle of the global turmoil, when the Aussie dollar started its spectacular slide.
If I'd been in the US, I would have lost about a quarter of my holiday money on the exchange rate. That wasn't good news at all as the global crisis sent our currency tumbling and it was bad enough being somewhere else where it wasn't too bad.
At least when you know how bad it is, you can plan for it. The US is cheaper than Australia for just about everything, including food, so you make it up in one way I guess, but part of the fun of going on holiday in the US is to spend all your cash buying up cheap goodies like Haines Ts and Levi's and looking for stuff at places like Old Navy, Wal Mart, Macy's, Target.
Everyone likes designer jeans brands in Oz but I like quality American stuff. Last time I was there I stocked up on Levi's, which are much cheaper (including some great second-hand pairs) than they are in Oz, and I like Wrangler jeans so I always try to get some of them too.
It's fun getting that stuff in America but usually when we're travelling I just steer clear of the shops and let my wife go for it. I do one shopping trip with her to rack up some bloke credit and then I'm off the hook :)
One holiday shopping trip = a carton of holiday smokes and three pizza nights.
98 - Jet
Yes Stan, but the airfare offsets any savings you might find? I guess half the fun if the hunt!
99 - zingzing
"part of the fun of going on holiday in the US is to spend all your cash buying up cheap goodies like Haines Ts and Levi's and looking for stuff at places like Old Navy, Wal Mart, Macy's, Target."
oh my god, you come over here to slum.
100 - STM
True what you say about the airfare jet, but I really love going to the states just for a holiday anyway. It's great fun. Buying stuff isn't the primary reason.
I know I poke fun at you guys, but I really like Americans even though you're all madder than cut snakes and I always have a ball when I'm over there because people (mostly) make you feel at home.
I like the UK too for the same reason, but geez it's bloody expensive. You have to get way out of London or your money just vanishes.
The fact that I almost speak English is pretty handy too.
101 - Jet
Point taken
102 - STM
"oh my god, you come over here to slum."
Mate, I love Levi's especially the boot cut ... 503s and 507s here but the same price as 501s, and about double or more what you pay in the states. I love Haines Ts too and they're really hard to get here at a reasonable price.
Who wants to pay $100 for an imported T-shirt?
I'm slumming anyway just being in the states zing :), so whay not make the most of it while I'm there???
I like Wal Mart for blokey stuff. If you look around you can find all kinds of handy gadgets, although they're pretty much like K-mart and Target are in Oz. Still, can't have too many cheap-shit gadgets, right?
103 - Jet
Buy up a bunch of Levis over hear Stan and then sell them in Moscow!
104 - STM
I reckon I could sell them here for pretty close to what I'd get in Moscow, AND save on airfares - plus not have to fly on any former Eastern bloc airlines.
I've never understood why they are so expensive in Australia, since the ones we get here aren't made in the US.
The answer to that is because they can charge what they like, I suppose, and they know people are still going to pay it.
Wages are a bit higher generally here but it all gets chewed up in an outrageously high cost of living, especially in this city where you get stung at every turn.
On that score, you are better off in the states.
105 - Jet
"I reckon I could sell them here..." But where's the adventure and intrigue in that?
106 - Dave Nalle
that's the thing. it's not. nobody would want to take the guns away if they weren't used to commit so much crime. the focus is on the guns in criminals hands. we already take away those guns. but they get more. and where do they get them from? either criminals that haven't been caught or from formerly law-abiding citizens.
And my point is that the focus should be on the criminals. Stealing a gun is a felony. Using a stolen gun in a crime is a felony. We should be cracking down on gun crimes. 97% of those criminals are REPEAT offenders. Why are they free to commit a second gun crime? That's the problem, not the guns.
Dave
107 - zingzing
dave: " Why are they free to commit a second gun crime? That's the problem, not the guns."
they're free to commit a second crime because using a gun in a crime doesn't automatically get you a life sentence. which is, in some ways unfortunately, as it should be. the problem is that guns are still readily available to them when they get out.
in some states, using a gun in a crime will get you sentences up to twice as long as committing the same crime without a gun. which is also as it should be. but the fact is that if you hold up a liquor store with a gun and take $400, that shouldn't mean you should be put to death, or that you should really spend a large chunk of your life behind bars. besides, if we did that, our jails would be overflowing (more than they are now) with criminals who used guns.
in some ways it's NOT the guns' fault. but that's like saying it's not the nuclear bomb's fault that terrorists blew up your country. we can't get rid of people, and there will always be bad people. but we can do something about guns.
108 - bliffle
What BC readers have failed to realize is that all the hubbub Dave Nalle has raised over Gun Laws recently is to cover up his intense embarrassment at the utter failure of the economic principles he holds so dear, and which are now in disarray in this failing Bush Economy.
Frankly, I don't care much about gun laws one way or the other, and I suspect that is true for most people. While gun laws are of little interest, they are an inflammatory subject so it's easy to get people riled up and that serves the purpose of dragging a red herring across the trail to distract folks from the most pressing issue of the last 70 years: the collapse of the world economy.
It should be evident to the meanest intelligence that the collapse is due to the extraordinary privileges and money that have been given to business interests over people interests. All of this on behalf of some kind of 'privatization' ideology.
George W. Bush represents the climax of that kind of thinking and so it came to pass that the collapse occurred toward the end of his malign reign.
It is becoming apparent that throwing more bailout money onto these failing businesses is like throwing gasoline on the fire.
Inspired by promises of bailout heaven, businesses are hurrying into failure. Last week Citicorp was assuring their people that Citicorp was in good shape. This week they're pleading, nay, demanding, $300billion in bailouts from the US treasury.
And demand they should. After all it would be unfair to deny them their share of the spoils on the Treasury raid. It would give their competitors an unfair advantage. It's only fair that Citicorp get a share of the spoils.
So, this bailout policy is resulting in a downward spiral for the US economy.
Attempting to save bad businesses with generous bailouts is like putting a rotten apple in the barrel hoping that the influence of the good apples will cure it if you just give it another chance.
Meanwhile, millions of people will suffer the loss of their fortunes and their homes to prop up this potemkin capitalism. They will be neglected by this malevolent distortion of Market economics, which resembles nothing so much as feudalism.
109 - Clavos
a market for illegal handguns is a lucrative market
And will become even more so if "legal" guns are outlawed altogether.
And don't kid yourself, outlawing guns will NOT get rid of them, any more than outlawing recreational drugs has gotten rid of THEM.
When guns are made illegal, people who want them (for whatever reason) will still have them.
110 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
It is impossible, repeat impossible, that we can get rid of all guns. It would be easier to get rid of all the cars. Getting rid of the guns...simply ain't gonna happen.
All we can do is:
1) Register ALL guns
2) Require safety training for each class of firearm
3) Destroy all guns used in a crime or otherwise unregistered
4) Have greatly increased prison sentences for gun crime and repeat offenders who use a gun
5) Ensure that background checks for ALL buyers, including at gun shows
That's all that can be logically and rightfully be done. Pandora is out of the box and she ain't goin' back in...you will never, ever, ever get rid of all the guns so long as humanity exists.
111 - bliffle
Talking about the Obama Litmus Test, I think it's more important that a candidate have good academic credentials than that they have hands-on practical experience, for the reason that it's the hands-on guys who have led us into this mess with their short-term view of the economy.
112 - zingzing
glenn--i know it's impossible to get rid of guns. i'm not calling for that. i'd just like to see registration and severe limits on the types of guns allowed on the street.
clavos--yeah, well, at least they'll be more expensive.
113 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave:
And you know what makes it MUCH easier to determine that a gun has been stolen? REGISTRATION!
But check the 'Panic' topic - there's something there that you should know about your "26% less crime" rate....
114 - Clavos
1) Register ALL guns
Good luck with that.
4) Have greatly increased prison sentences for gun crime and repeat offenders who use a gun
This is the single most effective proposal you make; the rest (except for Destroying all guns used in a crime or otherwise unregistered) will have little or no effect on crime committed with guns, and will only create a typical government bureaucratic hassle (and probable new revenue source for the government) for legal gun owners, while generating a huge and thriving black market.
115 - Baritone
I have seen a few bullfights in Ciudad Acuna, Mexico, the border town south of Del Rio, TX. I presume that it amounted to the equivelant of "B" or "C" level minor league baseball - not major league stuff.
It was all a pretty sloppy affair. Nothing particularly dramatic took place. No gorings. But, neither were there any masterful kills by a dashing matador. Some of them were unable to finish the task at hand with the supposed fatal lunge between the shoulder blades. They repeatedly stabbed into bone. I remember at least one sword breaking in the effort. In the end several of the hapless bulls were shot.
It quickly became clear to me that pretty much no matter what, the bull didn't have a snow ball's chance in - well - in Mexico. Once he found himself in that dust laden ring, his time was about up. And his end would be far from glorious.
I was also surprised to see how the bulls were softened up to a great degree by the toreadors and picadors. By the time the "brave" matadors made their appearance, the bulls had been "gored" themselves with a substantial blood flow brought on by repeated stabs and gougings.
I suppose this reveals my lack of knowledge regarding the machinations of bullfighting, but, to a novice viewer in the stands, it all seemed a cruel and senseless affair. On this, I part ways with the venerable Mr. Hemingway.
BTW Clav. Certainly baseball, NASCAR and other sports may not have much "meaningful" reason for their existence beyond the enjoyment of their respective fans (and, of course, the lining of various pockets,) but for the most part nothing nor no one winds up dead at the end of the game or race, or whatever with the obvious exception of bullfighting (and dog fighting, and cock fighting, etc.)
B
116 - Clavos
You're right, B-tone, bullfighting (or anything) in Ciudad Acuña bears no resemblance to a corrida in Spain, or one of the big league plazas in Latin America.
I was also surprised to see how the bulls were softened up to a great degree by the toreadors and picadors. By the time the "brave" matadors made their appearance, the bulls had been "gored" themselves with a substantial blood flow brought on by repeated stabs and gougings.
Actually, B-tone, the work of the picadores is intended to make the bull angrier, not to "soften him up." The points on the banderillas
are relatively small, and to the bull, are an irritant, not a debilitant.
There is a ritual, there are rules, and there are definitely artistry, grace and athleticism in a good bullfight. And occasionally, a particularly brave bull is spared.
The bulls, like thoroughbred race horses, are specifically bred at dedicated ranches. They are bred for their fighting spirit, and some ranches are noted for their stock more than others; bulls from these ranches are reserved for the top venues. The bulls you saw in Cd. Acuña were likely rejects.
But it is a cultural difference, particularly in Mexico, where death (of all animals, including humans) is not feared, but celebrated. If you're interested, read The Labyrinth of Solitude, by Octavio Paz, Mexico's Nobel Laureate, which has a very interesting chapter on the Mexican attitude toward death. An attitude, IMO, far healthier than the American viewpoint.
BTW Clav. Certainly baseball, NASCAR and other sports may not have much "meaningful" reason for their existence beyond the enjoyment of their respective fans (and, of course, the lining of various pockets,) but for the most part nothing nor no one winds up dead at the end of the game or race...
Not usually, true, but it happens. Ask Mark Buoniconti.
Spectator sports, of whatever ilk, serve mostly to distract the peasantry, their function since Roman days.
117 - Baritone
I'd hardly say that the average sports fan sitting in the stands are a part of the "peasantry" considering what it costs. The cheapest seats for a Colts game is $34. in the rafters. (They do, I am told, have people moving amongst the crowd dispensing cotton swabs with which to wipe the blood out of your ears.) The top price is $270. Those are the prices charged by the Colt organization. Ticket brokers and scalpers tend to get a good deal more (legal in Indiana.)
Indy 500 tickets start at $40. and range upwards to $150. There are actually much MORE expensive seats, but they are not generally advertized nor included at the Indy 500 web site. Note also that the $40 is for the seat. There is an additional charge of around $15 per head just to enter the grounds plus $25 or more for parking. Again, brokers and scalpers can double, triple or even guadruple those prices.
I haven't been to an Indy 500 race since 1964. I have attended only 1 Colts' game and a handful of Pacers' games.
Such prices render the "peasantry" to watching most sports on the tube.
My wife and I went to see The Lion King here in Indy Saturday afternoon - a gift for my wife's b'day from our younger son. We sat in the balcony. Our tickets were $67.50 each. Up front orchestra seats are going for around $95 to $100 each. Imagine what they cost in NYC.
By comparison, $9 to $10 for a movie ticket is a bargain for a night's entertainment.
I know, this is off topic, but frankly, I'm tired of arguing.
B
118 - Jordan Richardson
Indy 500 tickets start at $40. and range upwards to $150.
Wow. Vancouver Canucks tickets practically start at $150 up here. I think a beer at a hockey game is around $40 these days. I'm too much of a peasant, so I can't afford to go.
119 - Baritone
Jordan,
Keep in mind that the Indy 500 has around 250000 fans in the stands and scattered around the infield for a one day event. Even taking just the $40, that would be a $10 million dollar gate. I'm sure it's a good deal more than that. Tony George and company never release attendance records nor any info regarding how much they take in each May. Of course, now they also have the NASCAR race in August and earlier this fall, they held one of those motorcycle races. They had an F1 race for 3 or 4 years, but couldn't please that asshole, Bernie Ecclestone who runs that circuit.
Big bucks flow through the gates at the IMS.
B
120 - Clavos
I'd hardly say that the average sports fan sitting in the stands are a part of the "peasantry" considering what it costs.
Being a peasant has nothing to do with net worth.
With few exceptions, everybody (me included) in America is of peasant stock. My own ancestors on my mother's side were Irish hardscrabble dirt farmer immigrants fleeing the potato famine. If you doubt what I'm saying, log onto the Ellis Island site and look at the pictures; you don't see finely dressed, sophisticated-looking people in those pictures. It wasn't the aristocracy of all those European countries coming over here (or even the burgers), the aristocracy has no reason to leave the country in which they are the top of the pyramid.
In fact, many of the earliest colonists were the very dregs of British society (prisoners, as the first settlers of Australia were), Oglethorpe founded Georgia mostly with convicts.
America is a country of peasants, many of whom (especially NASCAR and pro football fans) act like peasants or worse, the price of their tickets notwithstanding.
121 - zingzing
"Imagine what they cost in NYC."
actually, most theater tickets are fairly decent here. i saw an off-broadway (as opposed to broadway, off-off-broadway, or "local") play recently for $25. it was one of the most heavily-touted plays to open in some time, sold out for its entire run, etc. (it was also the most fucked up thing i've seen in a while... "blasted" by sarah kane, look it up. it's no lion king. but lion king is no white lion. nor no hamlet. which it is.)
i've seen a 4 or 5 broadway shows, and they're generally in the $50-80 range... not for the best seats, of course, but the theaters aren't huge, so it's alright. the most i've seen is for young frankenstein, which supposedly sucked, which had ticket prices hovering between $150-200. that's absurd, but i think they knew the play sucked and that it would end rather quickly.
122 - Baritone
Oh, I think that is bogus. All of the so called "aristocracy" also came from similar "peasant stock." There was and is nothing genetically special about them - except possibly some of the unfortunate in-breeding that often took place amongst them. That's hardly a positive. That a few generations managed to live high on the hog owing to their usurpation of power by various means didn't change who they really were.
The first generation of a particular ruling family may have had the luxury of claiming superiority if they had attained power via victory on the battlefield. But later generations were in their position simply by the accident of their birth.
So, effectively and genetically, we are all peasants, or maybe we are all aristocrats. Um, well, no. I won't go there. But, still...
B
123 - Zedd
Clavos,
Your assesment of the aristocracy never leaving their shores is wrong. Do some research.
However, the entire matter is silly. Ditto to Baritones #122.
124 - Clavos
However, the entire matter is silly.
Only to the peasants.
If it's so silly, why'd you bring it up again?
125 - Zedd
Clav,
dije:However, the entire matter is silly.
usted dijo: Only to the peasants.
Since you declared yourself a peasant, you then must agree with my conclusion.
Maybe next time hijo....