On Learning That You've Irked Matt Yglesias Enough To Have Him Quote You...

Well howdy, Matt. And I still think you're as shitty as Krauthammer. Maybe I need therapy for failing to find something good about the murder brigades in Offgonneeston, right?

So, heh:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/our-heated-discourse/

Anyway, I was reading what the clownboy wrote about getting ourselves a monarchy, when I stumbled across it.

Mayhap, I'll give a shit at greater length in the future.

Back to the clownboy and his musing on monarchy:

"...In some ways I would say the whole thing highlights a problem with republican government that wasn’t appreciated or foreseeable in the late 18th century. Since that time, many democracies—from Canada to Spain to Sweden and beyond—have hit upon the idea of denying the monarchical glow to their head of government by keeping the monarch around but denuding him/her of governing authority. Some countries, such as Germany, India, and Israel, try to have a powerless “president” fill this role but I think it doesn’t really work. Such people have too much democratic legitimacy and too little pomp and circumstance to adequately fill the king role.
 
So does America need a king and queen with the President demoted to a more drab functional role? I say: Perhaps. At a minimum, America’s Next First Couple could be the world’s greatest reality TV show...."

Could Yggles have given a poor leftist Overton window pushing anarchist jacques a better treat?

I think not. TeeVee, pomp, circumstance and keeping the proles in awe of ceremonial power magic, while the actually powerful quietly carve up their lives and livelihood behind the smokescreen of Spectacle. All in a single, juicy nugget. Mighty swell service, Yggles. Mighty swell...

UPDATE 9AM:

Tee hee. Now this really warms the cockles of my heart, and it somehow seems fitting to use it as a counterpoint to the Ygglian hankering for monarchy:

 

From:

http://riselikelions.info/