Apostles of Privilege

It is fitting that Jackleg Thinktank examine the careers, thoughts, and activities of those who are the leaders in the movement to hijack this alleged democracy. If we want to look at the political scene as a war between classes, as our business and political leaders seem to do, then surely we can identify the leadership of the Privilege movement. Our brother diarist, gid, has graciously agreed to coordinate nominations to an elite group of twelve Apostles of Privilege. It probably isn't necessary to state that the figurehead, the Messiah,the Prince of Privilege is George W. Bush. As we review the criteria for membership in that elite club, the Apostles of Privilege, it should become obvious why there is no need to debate George W. Bush as the Messiah, the Prince of Privilege.

The criteria for inclusion as an Apostle of Privilege are subject to discussion, but should include as a skeletal framework:
1. The individual must be RICH, preferably born rich. The only exceptions that can be made would be for individuals who are not yet rich, but want only rich friends and have spent a lifetime currying the favor of the rich.
2. The individual must never have WORKED for an hourly wage to support his family nor have been a member of a LABOR union. Exceptions can be made for those who were laborers for fewer than, say, five years and then betrayed their former peers when their fortunes changed. Using the pronoun "his" was neither unthinkingly nor intentionally politically incorrect, because it is not likely that many females will qualify for consideration in this group.
3. The individual should have not been the recipient of a public education at the elementary, secondary, or college level. Being exposed to the democratizing influence of the poor, the African American, the nonconformist, the liberal would be a corruption above which a potential Apostle of Privilege might never rise. Exceptions to this criterion are possible, but not likely.
4. A nominee should not served as a member of the armed services, certainly in the enlisted ranks. People who aspire to be leaders, much Apostles, in the Privilege do not have time to serve in the military. Exceptions can be made for those who served in the Reserve or National Guard, especially in the time when it was just about impossible for the children of working Americans to join. Former officers in any service are potential candidates because they obviously thrived in a system based on artificial distinctions between persons based on criteria other than merit. Strangely, there are few such persons who are obvious candidates for the Apostle level among Privileged classes.
5. Being a member of an elite during one's formative years may be a criterion but is most likely just a part of the experience set.
6. Any serious candidate for Apostle of Privilege has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to lie, engage in character assassination, obfuscate, and avoid honorable and honest discourse with those who disagree with the agenda of Privilege.
7. A legitimate candidate to be named an Apostle of Privilege will likely have a history of opposing greater empowerment or participation for some classes of citizens. Examples include women, minorities, and gays.

Other members of the Thinktank or readers of this log may wish to submit criteria for nomination. A speculative and sketchy list for inclusion as candidates would include Grover Norquist (who will, in fact, be nominated today by gid), Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Reverend Moon, Senator Rick Santorum, Senator George Allen, and Lee Atwater. Your contributions will help identify the leadership of the Church of the Fat of the Land, or whatever better name for these fatcats we can devise.

What if . . .

Representative Ron Paul(R-TX) made the news recently when he joined with other Congress members to call for a timeline for bringing our troops home from Iraq. I would doubt that Bush and the neo-cons will tolerate him much longer. Representative Paul is a maverick, a modern day Smedley Butler. This article by Rep. Paul on the National Endowment for Democracy is very provocative. George W. Bush has successfully marketed himself as a "man of the people." I submit that the majority of people do not want our government meddling in the affairs of other countries. I further assert that meddling in the affairs of other nations is an elitist notion. If you glance at the titles of Rep. Paul's other articles, you will probably find that he has some ideas with which you agree and some with which you disagree. I suspect him of being more a libertarian than a liberal or conservative. I also suspect that he and General Smedley Butler have one other thing in common--mistrust of government, especially government controlled by large multinational corporations. I propose the following questions for discussion:
1. Is there any intervention in the affairs of another country that has turned out positively for their citizens and for the United States?
2. Is there a moral component to removing jobs from the United States, leaving people unemployed, and moving the jobs to another country, thus avoiding US taxes, paying much lower wages, having no prohibition against child labor, no standards for working conditions or safety, as well as avoiding many other protections and benefits we take for granted?
3. Can there be true democracy when money buys access to the election process, control of the news media, and unlimited access to the elected by lobbyists?

I am pleased to announce the opening of Jackleg Thinktank. I have always dreamed of working for a think tank, so after hearing Jack Grosh describe his role with American International Center, I decided to start my own. Mr Grosh used the Lakota word wasichu, which means "he who steals the fat," to describe the "whole thing." While their thinktank was represented as a "premiere international think tank," mine will be the opposite as described in the Yahoo definition of jackleg:

jack·leg KEY Chiefly Southern and South Midland U.S.

ADJECTIVE:

1. Lacking skill or training; incompetent. Used especially of lawyers or preachers.
2. Unscrupulous or dishonest.
3. Makeshift; temporary.
NOUN:

1. An unskilled or unscrupulous itinerant worker.
2. A strikebreaker.

Actually, I repudiate the second noun meaning. I am very much in favor of collective bargaining and hold the history of strikebreaking to be dishonorable and disreputable, sometimes crass and murderous. Actually, I plan to strive to avoid the second adjective meaning-unscrupulous or dishonest. However, since I plan to think for Republicans/conservatives, who are the ones with the money and without the ideas, that may be very difficult.

As the founder of Jackleg Thinktank and being neither a lawyer or preacher, I hereby appropriate the title Admiral Jackleg. I would like to invite anyone who wants to join my thinktank to submit applications. There is no application form; you just apply by posting to the comments section of this blog. If you can't apply without a form, forget about us and join the ACLU.

Although I do not anticipate making much money, I will share it with you so long as you think and post to the deliberations of the thinktank. Spouting the talking points of Republicans, Democrats, the Heritage Foundation, MoveOn.org, the National Public Policy Institute, or the American International Center does not qualify as thinking. If you think Bill O'Reilly is looking out for you, it is doubtful that you are capable of thought. If you think Tucker Carlson is cute, there are obvious questions about your intelligence or sexuality. If you think Tom Cruise's intelligence exceeds his egotism, go away and don't come back. If you think Bono's ideas are worth more than three minutes attention, you may have adult onset ADD.

The discourse at Jackleg Thinktank does not have to be especially erudite, but should be mildly cogent and not extremely profane. We don't care about jargon as much as we do spelling and grammar. Actually, the next member of the Jackleg Thinktank should be the Grammarian, who will be empowered to critique without mercy spelling, grammar, syntax, and composition. He or she will also be authorized to declare any passage boring if he or she so deems it. Man, I coulda' been a lawyer! Whether or not you would like to join this fly-by-night organization, you may want to suggest to your business friends, especially if they are Republican, to advertise on this site. Not only will it encourage us to think, it willl generate money for golf junkets to Scotland, Armani suits, and ostentatious sports cars.

Looking forward to sharing an original thought or two!
Admiral Jackleg