Carl Remick wrote:
> >In terms of income, of course $100K puts you way up
> >there in percentiles, but . . .
>
> But indeed. The following nifty jeremiad is from Nicholas Von Hoffman's
> column in the current NY Observer (full text is at
> http://www.observer.com/pages/observer.htm):
>
> [SNIP],
> "The problem with Mr. Chambers is that he and those like him have become too
> numerous, too too rich and too too too conspicuous. Our political system was
> built on the assumption that the United States, being a rural society of
> smallish farmers, would have an electorate with more or less the same
> material stake in the nation’s well-being. Now we’re trying a new
> experiment. Now we’re trying to run a democracy in which a tiny percentage
> of the population owns most of the wealth and has a chattel mortgage on most
> of the population.
This kind of comparison between the "good old days" and the "bad new days" reminds me of a joke circulated in the '50s, re what were at that time called "Adult Westerns."
What's the difference between an adult western and an oldstyle western?
In the oldstyle western the cowboy loved his horse. In the adult western, the cowboy loves his horse -- but worries about it.
Carrol