Since when?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Printable View
Since when?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Since truth was replaced with:Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
truthiness: a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively from the gut without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
I'm just saying that there are some things that are true, but no one has set out to document them. There also is much documentation that is biased and false. I wish I had the resources to document and "prove", but I don't have those resources. Therefore, sometimes it is the one with the most money who gets to "document" their version of truth...which is no truth at all.
[QUOTE=Propter W.;951994]In my right hand I'm holding a bag with 50 coins. You know nothing about the bag in my left hand. Which bag holds the most coins?
It's of no consequence.
Once again, step by step:
Newspeak is a language used in a work of fiction. This language was devised in order to control thought. The assumption is that if the vocabulary is restricted, thoughts not in line with IngSoc would be literally unthinkable.
If that were true, then the other means of suppression that Orwell mentions in 1984 would not be necessary
This concept, that language shapes or defines thought, is called linguistic determinism. Newspeak is an example of strong linguistic determinism. Psycholinguists have been testing this hypothesis for decades now. The general consensus is that a strong form of linguistic determinism is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
I don't think that countries would have spent money setting up costly propaganda units if they believed that language doesn't shape thought,or that Newspapers would bother to print editorials or that companies would pay large sums of money to try shape our thinking on whether we should buy their product as opposed somebody elses.
The claim that Newspeak would work and limit or restrict thought is at best unsubstantiated. I think you won't find any linguists who'd argue that the concept of Newspeak, like Orwell described it, is a realistic one.
In which case, you should refer them to the above
Of course it's applicable:
If a certain term that exists in Oldspeak does not exist in Newspeak, speakers of Newspeak would be incapable of perceiving that which the term describes.
It does exist in Newspeak but in a convoluted form
And this is based again on what? How can you know what interests many white people? I bet I can find lots of white people in this very thread who are interested in these "black issues".
Again, you retort with unsubstantiated claims.
I don't know if you have ever lived in England but I do. I have known very many people over a very long time and black issues seldom ,if ever, come into everyday conversation. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that they are not interested; otherwise they would have mentioned them.
I'm sure that you could find people on this thread who are interested but they are hardly a representative sample.[QUOTE] .....
Then how can you go about judging them to be true, unless you have other forms of evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Please point out the biases in my evidence/links. I'm starting to fear that nobody's even bothered to look at them.Quote:
There also is much documentation that is biased and false.
Yeah I'm just rolling around in money here. And how did you come to that conclusion that evidence I provided is just my version of truth when you haven't even put in the effort to logically prove it to be invalid!Quote:
I wish I had the resources to document and "prove", but I don't have those resources. Therefore, sometimes it is the one with the most money who gets to "document" their version of truth...which is no truth at all.
But then again. .. truthiness trumps all.
What papayead said, in spades.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
That's why we look at multiple pieces of evidence, not just one, or worse, looking at personal anecdotal evidence only.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
So, according to that premise, the one with the most money in the media, must be non-white men and women.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Funny, last time I looked, pretty nearly every media company was owned by a white bloke.
Brian's Auty Beeb is a rare exception - a public service with some presence, but as their own [white male] chairman pointed out last month, it is in danger of being squashed by BSkyB, which is Murdoch or one of the other white blokes' company.
Despite the BBC's excellence, let's check out Brian's contention that it's being used as a tool for the dilution of the power of white men, who have controlled the world for the past twenty centuries:
You keep mentioning "the BBC", although I see you got as far as BBC4 as the main problem.
BBC4 claims a "reach" of 10 million listeners at an average of 12.3 hours per week.
Note that is the BBC's own figures.
I can't find any age demographics for it easily, but I'll guess that it shares with the almost-identical RNZ National program, an older age group listener as its main audience.
Also, the "reach" figure is entirely misleading, because that is everyone who is within listening distance of a BBC4 radio program during the week. How many people actually listen, and care about what is being said on radio in 2010?
Regardless of whether there is a bias on BBC4, I suggest that basing your argument on what happens on talk radio is little better than if I base my argument on talkback radio, in which case I would present white men as xenophobic racists who are frightened by anyone non-white.
I've found it's more psychologists than linguists that are contra-Orwell on linguistic determinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Propter W.
I remain unconvinced. Certainly, I agree that removal of the language will not restrict the thought, but if the individual is only capable of feeling and not communicating, the result would be the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Of course the chairman would say that, the BBC has been in trouble in recent years through it's attempt to influence government policy. Its current precept is guaraunteed only until 2016; a decision taken by the last Labour government.
You would be wrong to imagine that the BBC relies solely on Radio4 for its audience, the BBC runs a number of other channels and also broadcasts on its World Service, so its reach is much greater than the 10 million stated.
I don't listen to the World Service but if, as on Radio 4 which is also primarily a news and current affairs outlet, there isn't a liberal bias to it's reporting, I would be surprised to say the least.
There's not a lot of choice between Rupert Murdoch's Sky and the BBC but if I had to choose between dumbing down and indoctrination I think I'd prefer former. After all, Murdoch's main interest is increasing his wealth whereas the BBC are trying to convince its listeners that all men are brothers whether its audience believe it or not.
Bienvenue used the word Orwellian to describe the changes to the BBC's charter. It is a charter that only a naif would take at face value and it is a fitting description given that Orwell worked on propaganda for the BBC and saw the danger of it's extension into post-war Britain.
As for white men controlling the world for the past twenty centuries, they might have continued to do so had they not fouled their own nest. It won't be black men that will control the world, however, it will be the Chinese; I'll settle for that.
I wasn't limiting the Beeb to 4 at all, but given your own comments regarding 4, its status as a talk station and the only non-commercial arm, it is the one that matters by far the most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
The reach is a grossly overstated way of looking at actual listeners.
[QUOTE=Brian Bean;952196]
the BBC are trying to convince its listeners that all men are brothers whether its audience believe it or not. [QUOTE]
Call me a nutty liberal optimist, but I like to believe in that sometimes.
Ummm, maybe it's because the white race has discovered, with the rest of the developed world, that no race should "control" the world and that we should all own ourselves. It weren't so happy times when the white man ruled the world for everybody else.Quote:
As for white men controlling the world for the past twenty centuries, they might have continued to do so had they not fouled their own nest. It won't be black men that will control the world, however, it will be the Chinese; I'll settle for that.
[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;952243][QUOTE=Brian Bean;952196]
the BBC are trying to convince its listeners that all men are brothers whether its audience believe it or not.Glad to oblige: You're a nutty liberal optimist. :DQuote:
Call me a nutty liberal optimist, but I like to believe in that sometimes.
Ummm, maybe it's because the white race has discovered, with the rest of the developed world, that no race should "control" the world and that we should all own ourselves. It weren't so happy times when the white man ruled the world for everybody else.
Brian, I am beginning to think that one of us is living in an alternate reality as the version of the BBC that you experience and the version I experience appear to bear little relationship to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Firstly, we have already established that you do not watch TV and through examination of a single night's scheduling of the BBC television channels there is no apparent evidence of a bias towards 'black issues'. So I think it is fair to say, unless you can show evidence to the contrary, that there is no apparent bias towards 'black issues' in the BBC television schedule. And perhaps it is, in some way, now a 'socialist' activity to bake, or learn about the coastline, and perhaps it is rampant liberalism that brings us Dragon's Den but if that's the case, I'm not seeing it.
As regards Radio 4, well I don't listen to it and I'm not about to start, but, again, having looked at the scheduling information I'm a little mystified as to where the 'black bias' lies in The Archers or Women's Hour or Yesterday in Parliament or Gardeners Question Time all of which are regular features. Neither can I see that there is a significant bias towards black presenters - however perhaps you can enlighten me on that front?
Perhaps it might be helpful if you could articulate what it is that you perceive to be the 'black issues' which are being given excessive attention by the BBC? It may be that we have a basic difference in interpretation on this point. It would also be helpful if you could be a little clearer on whether the issue is around 'black' bias, 'liberal' bias or 'socialist' bias as through your various posts you have swung from one to the other depending on who you are answering and I'm not entirely convinced that you're clear on that point either, other than that it's a conspiracy and it's nothing to do with conservatism. Clearly someone is to blame, and it's not the people you agree with.
I have to say that I find most of your commentary on the BBC charter to be somewhat disingenuous. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, owned by the public and accountable to the public which is why the government of the time is involved in the renewal of the Royal Charter. The changes to the charter which you highlighted in your post 122 are both innocuous and open to interpretation by the BBC. I note that you, quite significantly, omitted to mention the following part of the charter:
BBC CharterQuote:
23.General dutiesIn exercising all its functions, the Trust must act in the public interest and, in particular,
it must—
(a)represent the interests of licence fee payers;
(b)secure that the independence of the BBC is maintained;
(c)carefully and appropriately assess the views of licence fee payers;
(d)exercise rigorous stewardship of public money;
(e)have regard to the competitive impact of the BBC’s activities on the wider market;
and(f)ensure that the BBC observes high standards of openness and transparency.
and you also omitted to mention that the major controversy over the last change to the Charter was around the dissolution of the BBC Board of Directors and its replacement with the BBC Trust. It is right that this change should be debated, I am not sure of the purpose for this myself, but it is not the underlying requirement of the BBC to be accountable to the public and provide public service broadcasting that is or was at at issue.
Contrary to your statement in the post I quoted above, the BBC Charter does not expire in 2016 because "Its current precept is guaraunteed only until 2016; a decision taken by the last Labour government". In fact the charter always lasts for 10 years and is reviewed every 10 years regardless of whether it is a Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Monster Raving Loony Party government. It was last renewed in 2006, which is when the Labour government made the changes, and prior to that it was renewed in 1996, and 1986 and so on back to 1946 when BBC television services were resumed following the end of WWII.
Neither is it contraversial that the government in power at the time of review makes changes to the Charter. If changes had not been made to the Charter we would still, in UK, only have the BBC. It was a change to the Charter which permitted competition in television broadcasting, and a further change in the Charter which permitted competition in radio broadcasting, albeit that this came much later. In addition, whenever the Charter comes up for renewal there is also a process of public consulation, which enables the owners (us) to have a say in what we want from the BBC. In fact, that facility is always there. Here are some examples:
Editorial guidelines
BBc Radio 3, BBC Radio 4, BBC Radio 7
I don't disagree that there has been some slippage in the objectivity of the BBC in recent years. I have seen more evidence of partisan reporting in the news and a creeping tendancy towards sensationalisation. It is right that this should be debated and, where found to be occurring, should be stopped. Such debates work only if based on fact and evidence, not interpretation. I've seen nothing in your argument beyond interpretation. You have provided no substantive evidence of bias in any shape or form. On that basis it is very hard to take your argument seriously, which is a shame as you may have a point but the way you articulate it doesn't encourage me to give it any credence.
And, yes, the programming is frequently poor, or perhaps it is just that those programmes don't interest me? Who knows. But does this translate into an organised and deliberate policy to undermine the white man? I don't think so.
[QUOTE=TheFifthElement;952481]Brian, I am beginning to think that one of us is living in an alternate reality as the version of the BBC that you experience and the version I experience appear to bear little relationship to each other.
So it would seem.
Firstly, we have already established that you do not watch TV and through examination of a single night's scheduling of the BBC television channels there is no apparent evidence of a bias towards 'black issues'. So I think it is fair to say, unless you can show evidence to the contrary, that there is no apparent bias towards 'black issues' in the BBC television schedule. And perhaps it is, in some way, now a 'socialist' activity to bake, or learn about the coastline, and perhaps it is rampant liberalism that brings us Dragon's Den but if that's the case, I'm not seeing it.
Well, as I have said, I am speaking here of BBC radio.
As regards Radio 4, well I don't listen to it and I'm not about to start, but, again, having looked at the scheduling information I'm a little mystified as to where the 'black bias' lies in The Archers or Women's Hour or Yesterday in Parliament or Gardeners Question Time all of which are regular features. Neither can I see that there is a significant bias towards black presenters - however perhaps you can enlighten me on that front?
I don't listen to Woman's Hour although I believe that some men do. I did however catch part of a programme on which the presenter and another woman were talking about actors who played James Bond. The presenter said she would like to see a black man playing the part.
Nevertheless, apart from those programmes you have selected, I switched on today to a programme called Journey of a Lifetime, in which a reporter went to Dubai. It wasn't about Dubai, however, but it concerned immigrant workers from the sub-continent who have lost their jobs in Dubai's recession. There was a constant comparison of glittering buildings, well-tended lawns etc. with the hovels that the workers lived and interviews with them about the poverty they are suffering. This is familiar fare from the BBC, as in From Our Own Correspondent which, apart from occasional comments on non-social aspects of a location, gives the BBC a chance to revel in the poorest parts of the world's population with similar intent. A good example of liberal/left bias was the programme that was ostensibly about the closure of a US air base in England, in which the reporter, apropos of nothing that had been said before, pointed out that a former black US serviceman who had served at the base was now awaiting execution for a murder committed in the US and how wrong it was that such a sentence could be passed. Needless to say, I stopped listening to that particular programme some time ago. Apart from anything else, I like to make my own mind up as to whether murderers should be executed.
As for non-white presenters, their names tell one whether they are likely to be white even if their diction doesn't .There is, however, one particular West Indian man whose attempt to speak BBC English is hilarious.
Perhaps it might be helpful if you could articulate what it is that you perceive to be the 'black issues' which are being given excessive attention by the BBC? It may be that we have a basic difference in interpretation on this point. It would also be helpful if you could be a little clearer on whether the issue is around 'black' bias, 'liberal' bias or 'socialist' bias as through your various posts you have swung from one to the other depending on who you are answering and I'm not entirely convinced that you're clear on that point either, other than that it's a conspiracy and it's nothing to do with conservatism. Clearly someone is to blame, and it's not the people you agree with.
Yes, it's difficult to maintain continuity in multiple posts but,collectively,the issues are all three and can best be summarized under the title of liberalism.
I have to say that I find most of your commentary on the BBC charter to be somewhat disingenuous. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, owned by the public and accountable to the public which is why the government of the time is involved in the renewal of the Royal Charter. The changes to the charter which you highlighted in your post 122 are both innocuous and open to interpretation by the BBC. I note that you, quite significantly, omitted to mention the following part of the charter:
You have just made my point. They are indeed open to interpretation by the BBC and especially by the programme 'controllers'.
BBC Charter
and you also omitted to mention that the major controversy over the last change to the Charter was around the dissolution of the BBC Board of Directors and its replacement with the BBC Trust. It is right that this change should be debated, I am not sure of the purpose for this myself, but it is not the underlying requirement of the BBC to be accountable to the public and provide public service broadcasting that is or was at at issue.
I did so deliberately because the circumstances surrounding the dissolution of the Board and its replacement with the Trust were political and had already been edited by the moderator in a previous post on this thread.
Contrary to your statement in the post I quoted above, the BBC Charter does not expire in 2016 because "Its current precept is guaranteed only until 2016; a decision taken by the last Labour government". In fact the charter always lasts for 10 years and is reviewed every 10 years regardless of whether it is a Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Monster Raving Loony Party government. It was last renewed in 2006, which is when the Labour government made the changes, and prior to that it was renewed in 1996, and 1986 and so on back to 1946 when BBC television services were resumed following the end of WWII.
I agree, but it was renewed with a warning that it might not be financed by the license fee beyond that time, which would call into question its continuance as a public service broadcaster.
Neither is it controversial that the government in power at the time of review makes changes to the Charter. If changes had not been made to the Charter we would still, in UK, only have the BBC. It was a change to the Charter which permitted competition in television broadcasting, and a further change in the Charter which permitted competition in radio broadcasting, albeit that this came much later. In addition, whenever the Charter comes up for renewal there is also a process of public consultation, which enables the owners (us) to have a say in what we want from the BBC. In fact, that facility is always there. Here are some examples:
Editorial guidelines
BBc Radio 3, BBC Radio 4, BBC Radio 7
Of course, but the changes you mention are of a technical nature that would have had to be made in any event. Public consultation cannot stop liberal bias once the charter has been given Royal assent. Strangely, I cannot find a copy of the BBC's original charter which I was able to access easily some years ago as part of my research for Pro Bono Publico, but I can assure you that its strictures were very different to those of the most recent version.
I don't disagree that there has been some slippage in the objectivity of the BBC in recent years. I have seen more evidence of partisan reporting in the news and a creeping tendancy towards sensationalisation. It is right that this should be debated and, where found to be occurring, should be stopped. Such debates work only if based on fact and evidence, not interpretation. I've seen nothing in your argument beyond interpretation. You have provided no substantive evidence of bias in any shape or form. On that basis it is very hard to take your argument seriously, which is a shame as you may have a point but the way you articulate it doesn't encourage me to give it any credence.
Perhaps this will help you to take my argument seriously:
BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’ Richard Brooks and Dipesh Gadher
THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.
It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.
You can read the rest of the report by googling Bias in the BBC, where you will find masses of articles on the subject. As I have mentioned elsewhere on this thread, the culpability of the BBC in this regard is a standing joke in the UK.
And, yes, the programming is frequently poor, or perhaps it is just that those programmes don't interest me? Who knows. But does this translate into an organised and deliberate policy to undermine the white man? I don't think so
The answer to your final question is no it doesn't but it is certainly a deliberate policy to promote internationalism. Leon Trotsky has been dead for 70 years but his spirit still haunts the BBC. [QUOTE]
:smilielol5:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Wins the thread!
Brian: News is news. If some pastor in Florida wants to burn the Qu'ran on 9/11, whether of not the stations agree with him, they will report it because it will capture the public's attention and promote higher ratings.
Just because a news station may be reporting say. . . a skinhead riot, does that make them an advocate of skinheads, or having a skinhead-bias?
If a famous celebrity is speaking at a communist rally, the news will cover it, not to promote communist sympathies, but just because it is a famous celebrity and is controversial. It's how news works.
Do you mean there isn't ? It's only a matter of time though.:nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Indeed, before you know it, they'll start having Lil' Wayne play the opening theme to Days of our Lives.
I'm sure the 6 elderly ladies who still watch Days of our Lives will be mortified.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Shocking. That's almost as mad as having a white man play Gandhi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Come on Brian, surely you can do better than a radio programme about Dubai (black, much?), and a three year old article from the Times referring to a 'damning report' which was so damning that no one else even wrote about it? Fundamentally I don't disagree that there are issues with objectivity in the BBC. It swings both ways, depending on the issue. They tend to come a cropper as much with religious and foreign affairs issues as anything else. It begs the question whether there is, or ever can be, unbiased reporting of human affairs. Probably not. But that's not really what this thread is about. This thread is about whether there is a deliberate attack on white men. You have said that the BBC is an example of this attack because the BBC increasingly promotes and reports 'pro-black' issues, and that this means:
From what you've posted you haven't established this. What you've established is that these 'black issues' are of interest to both 'black' people, probably 'brown' people and white liberals and/or socialists and probably 'internationlists's and whatever 'ist' you think of next to throw into the mix. By your own definition this means that it would be an issue that 'many white people would be interested in' (given than in UK the majority vote shows a liberal/socialist majority). It fails your own test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Perhaps that 'standing joke' hasn't quite reached the North yet. Perhaps we've been distracted by the constant stream of liberal, pro-black, socialist propaganda propogated by Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing and Top Gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Yes, I've noticed that you have difficulties maintaining a consistent argument. I've also noticed that you use the term 'liberalism' quite liberally, and it generally seems to mean whatever you don't agree with. But socialism, liberalism, internationalist and pro-blackism are all very different things, you can't lump them under the one title however much you might like to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Well, Trotsky may have risen from the dead and be running the BBC but you can content yourself with this: at least he was white ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
[QUOTE=TheFifthElement;953138]Shocking. That's almost as mad as having a white man play Gandhi.
Yes I thought that too, but then we all know where Richard Attenborough is coming from don't we? Or do we?
Come on Brian, surely you can do better than a radio programme about Dubai (black, much?), and a three year old article from the Times referring to a 'damning report' which was so damning that no one else even wrote about it? Fundamentally I don't disagree that there are issues with objectivity in the BBC. It swings both ways, depending on the issue. They tend to come a cropper as much with religious and foreign affairs issues as anything else. It begs the question whether there is, or ever can be, unbiased reporting of human affairs. Probably not. But that's not really what this thread is about. This thread is about whether there is a deliberate attack on white men. You have said that the BBC is an example of this attack because the BBC increasingly promotes and reports 'pro-black' issues, and that this means:
If the BBC was biased to that extent 3 years ago, it's likely to be even more biased now. I think that when the BBC read it they probably binned it. Would you like me to post more examples from Google?
From what you've posted you haven't established this. What you've established is that these 'black issues' are of interest to both 'black' people, probably 'brown' people and white liberals and/or socialists and probably 'internationlists's and whatever 'ist' you think of next to throw into the mix. By your own definition this means that it would be an issue that 'many white people would be interested in' (given than in UK the majority vote shows a liberal/socialist majority). It fails your own test.
May I remind you that a large proportion of that majority happen to be those you mention minus the white liberals and/or socialists.
Perhaps that 'standing joke' hasn't quite reached the North yet. Perhaps we've been distracted by the constant stream of liberal, pro-black, socialist propaganda propogated by Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing and Top Gear.
I refer you to the report mentioned previously. It is inconceivable that it is wrong in its conclusions when the BBC commissioned it themselves.
Yes, I've noticed that you have difficulties maintaining a consistent argument. I've also noticed that you use the term 'liberalism' quite liberally, and it generally seems to mean whatever you don't agree with. But socialism, liberalism, internationalist and pro-blackism are all very different things, you can't lump them under the one title however much you might like to.
One needs only a basic knowledge of politics to recognise that they are all strands of the same mindset.
Well, Trotsky may have risen from the dead and be running the BBC but you can content yourself with this: at least he was white
And to think that when I was in my early twenties he was one of my heroes, but I grew out of it as most young men do. Which makes me wonder what it is about those people who haven't. Arrested development perhaps? [QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Brian Bean;953310]Actually, no. I would think that one with a little more than a basic knowledge of politics will know of the many different versions of socialism, liberalism (hell, liberalism back in Adam Smith's day would be considered today's libertarianism), and internationalism. The U.N. is an internationalist organization, would you call it a 'socialist' one as well? Is every liberal a socialist? Just because both are on the Left does that mean they are one and the same? If they are, then I assume that every conservative is a fascist. I think just a little knowledge of early Soviet Russia will show you that everyone had a different idea of what 'socialism' was.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Yeah, there sure are a ton of outspoken Trotskyites on this thread :rolleyes:Quote:
And to think that when I was in my early twenties he was one of my heroes, but I grew out of it a most young men do. Which makes me wonder what it is about those people who haven't. Arrested development perhaps?
Very few white males would trade in their ethinicity for another ethinicity.
It is what it is.
We could get into a big long discussion defining ethnicity, but that would only detract from the above reality.
Thinking the white man is a persecuted minority analogous to blacks, gays, Muslims, or any other actual minority is a delusional, laughable proposition. Unfortunately, it seems to be gaining ground among certain political bases, and will only serve to widen the gulf in already strained race relations.
P.S. I wish people would learn how to quote correctly. It's making this thread exceedingly difficult to read.
I am a small minority in the Caribbean and can state without hesitation that my colour carries currency, everywhere and everyday.
So, either way it works beneficially for this group. Countries like Trinidad have a 1 percent white minority (give or take) and it's almost automatically landing into upper middle class- just by virtue of Network.
I rarely complain. Its' a helluva a club and the membership has no fees.
Lucky for you. Enjoy it and never feel guilty about it.
I sometimes think of my ancestors sitting on the wide verandhah in the cool of the evening gazing over the sweeping Caribbean cane fields The fields are a fading green, but they produce Gold. Succulent Gold.
Perhaps they were with other members of the Plantocracy discussing matters of merchant trade and some idle gossip. The wine is flowing, newly imported from France with tidy profits from the sweet juice that Europe and America enjoyed.
Happy Friday!
Don't fly!