Dan gets the small humor value of titling a post this way.
I am thinking right now that:
1. I'm no longer able to stand on what I say; now it's what others say I'm saying. I'm going to bet every dollar in my pocket against every dollar in their pocket that not one of the Mike Youngs (+3 he says) who allegedly forwarded the thread did so without their own color or comment or context. They could never just forward the thread and say, "Look at this, tell me what you think." They MUST of course add their own opinion..."This guy is an asshole, right?" "Do you know this guys works for you" or somethign similar. They make their own argument by characterizing their own reason for even performing the act. and I doubt any of the alleged "forwarders" sent TEP's interview first, if at all, as they and all of us had it. I tried to, and admit failure to do so, staying on the proprotionate things I thought needed answer in TEP's Part I.
1a. This is especially born out by PMucci posting and highlighting one sentence in a 60-70 page document of words written in and for exposing the world that the Caddie sees. Did you stop reading there Patrick Mucci? It's classic blockheadedness (just like modern news media) to pick the one or seven things out of hundreds, because that thing alone validates your take on it. Like #1 itself, I'll wager the forwarders just grafted something smaller, without any context, and said "this is the bolshevik."
2. Can't stress enough that my relationship with the people I work for has been 99.9% about Golf and the human good that comes from it (as many, many posters have validated) and thus, has been fruitful and rewarding for both parties -- that's why I'm working as long and as well and as profitably as I have in this trade.
2a. Yes, indeed, the inter-mingling of the parties is a very important part of the world of Golf both within playing relationships and staff-member relationships. It's what I argue is absent in the larger American world; many are shielded, ignorant, be-dazzled and entertained so that they never see or contemplate the sufferings of the other class, their fellow man and thus the further they are removed from havign to see it, the less sympathetic and cogent their political opinions become.
3. This perhaps is the most literal reason for my original post, at least the Part I prism that TEP exhibited. It's easier to kill a person you don't see and as many cultural commentators acknowledge - we understand the death of one, better than the death of thousands. Welfare recipients are no longer people in need, they are entirely charcterized by the individual story of the woman who won the lottery and still filed for her checks. this is a Hannity tactic of the first degree. TEP, in Part I tried to give his own biography as reflecting on all gentleman of the bearing he describes - when that story specifically talked of idle fucking off in the Ivy leagues or how leaving the board , but not the club, as a matter of conscientious behavior, I specifically sanctioned that.
And Dan C, a great post but if you just make a graph and pick any reasonable income level term (I used for this "Affluence in America" - Wikipedia)that defines middle and lower classes and then on the same graph plot that which defines the wealthiest .05, you would see that there is hardly any static distinction between the middle and lower classes already---not just heading there,...already exists. And then just a tiny bit further up the charts, but diffused over a $1,000,000 income range is the .95%; are they closer to us or to the wealthiest? The dissaperaring middle and the poor..Beggars begging from beggars; the poorest do not want a dime from the middle class and most of the .95; we want it from the King...we are perfectly willign to work in the fields, support small and corporate business with our consumption and carry the golf bags, may we please have fuel for our hovels and gas enough to get to the venue?The king can have his castle and top flight everything, 2% more of the King's treasure will not impede these pursuits -- for just as in the last 5 years, not one less lobster dinner has been consumed, not one less new Mercedes has made the lot, caddie fees have risen and course renovation has not abated (at least where I've been, which is everywhere around here) so too will the sun rise after that 2 or 3 or 5% additional levy.
In terms of American's recent wars and who they are fought for, it's very much like Henry V, Shakespeare's play, drawn from Holinshed's and Halle's various histories of the Tudor formation. When young Hal gauges the mood of his troops before Agincourt in disguise, a soldier (not knowing he is addressing the king) says "If the king's cause be not just, then all are damned." This prompts Henry into a private soliloquoy, ruminating about the treachery of his father (Henry IV "Bollinbroke") who stole the crown from Richard II. He thinks about kingship and the sins of the father when he says, "What art thou orb and scepter; cermony...mere ceremony." The next day he delivers the St. Crispin's Day speech which divorces, for the first time in English literature or English political thought, divine right from the demonstrated merit of the men who will wage it. The honor is loaded onto and shared with the people equally as it is given to the king. If you think it's just Shakespearean fiction, consider that 47 years later, when a Catholic monarchy was put into place by the Lords and property-owners, the King's head was lopped off, and Parliament ruled.
cheers
vk