One thing many people underestimate are the resources behind the motivation of the people in power. To be clear I am not referring to any of the elected or quasi-elected figureheads/ corporate puppets.
Simply put, they have a better PR machine directed at a population fairly incapable of critical thinking.

If I feel stupid and am in the top 5% intelligence, then what chance is there that the rest of the country is going to grok there is no connection between saddam Hussein and WTC or that the one vocal opponent to an Iraq incursion because there were no WMDs, thereby negating billions of dollars in profit to be chyle, Halliburton, et al, also happens conveniently to be found out to be into kiddie porn? Therefore, ad hominem, everything he says is a lie. Let's not wonder how someone achieves that level of security clearance and is into kiddie porn.

Did any of that make sense, or did I sound like I was channelling tw?

In conclusion, the corporate PR machine has successfully conflated
"Support our troops" with "don't criticize the government.

This is the local hand basket, express is on the other side of the platform.

Makes sense to me.

I put the book on my library list.

Lil' Pete read it in sophomore Engrish and Lil' Griff read it on her recommendation. They both say it is the best book evah. Imma read it soon.

Ah, OK, not having seen it I didn't know if the writer's handing of the "Book Thief & compatriots" were as victims, like I would assume, or as some sort of antidisestablishmentarian trouble makers.

I used to wonder (not because I'm in the 5%) why people couldn't see what was going on. Did they not understand? What I'm finding more and more, is they don't fucking care. As long as walmart is open, and facebook is up, they don't give a shit what happens to them A-Rabs, Af-Ri-Cans, Wet-Backs, or even anyone not in my hood... be it ghetto or gated community.

It's so bad, I'm afraid if 9-11 happened today, the majority response of outrage, grief, and it's duration, would be dictated by hashtags.
The majority of the men and women in the military are doing a thankless, often dangerous job, for not much money, and doing it the very best they can.
However, as much as I respect them, I don't always agree with the way they are being used, and abused, by the politicians and Pentagon. But like you say, if I object to the mission, I'm attacked as anti-military and un-American.

Here again, it's because people don't care. They only want to disrupt their videogame or ski-trip long enough to wave a made in China flag and repeat carefully crafted slogans like you mentioned.

But, but, thinking is hhhaaarrrddd.

Is it maybe a healthy dissonance? The government does not appear to be changeable at the ballot box so wouldn't it be reasonable to look the other way and try to succeed under the system as organized?

I don't like Kipling. For many reasons.
Although there's no doubt I could cherry-pick some of his lines and adore his poetry. For the language.

But here is a Cherry pick just on the subject of the public's view of the armed forces.
I know you are arguing more complex political issues, but in many ways I believe plus ça change and all that.

That line chokes me up.

My take-away is that Kipling was playing the social enforcer on this one, making sure everybody lined up with the Empire using the soldiers as cover, like you said, plus ça change. He was particularly talented, but it stills looks pretty manipulative from the outside, an ascetically pleasing Rush Limbaugh.

Partly, maybe. But I think it is also largely a call against the way soldiers were treated in Britain. Even though the notion of stalwart soldiery was a little more apparent in the late 19th century than in the 18th, there was still an expectation that they would lay their lives on the line for very little in the way of pay and provisions. Their families were not looked after to anywhere near the extent they should have been, and they were afforded precious little respect for their profession - the legacy of a culture who feared and disdained the notion of a standing army at the call of the monarch.

Like I say things had changed somewhat. But there was a still a tendency for popular culture to be very loudly supportive of them whilst they were having bits blown off them, but slander them as untrustworthy rogues to a man, the rest of the time.

Pffft. As if any of you have ever Kippled.

I have always read Kipling to be on the side of the soldiers and the proles and critical of government and bureaucracy, cf The Last of the Light Brigade or Study of an Elevation in Indian Ink.

I have always detected immense irony and sarcasm in his work, and continue to be flummoxed by those who read works like "The Betrothed" and think Kipling is a misogynist rather than calling out the shallowness of the couple.

I'll wager he was rather cranky IRL. When I lived in Brattleboro there was an awful lot about him in the local history books and lore, and they painted him a rather decent chap despite his pain in the ass brother in law, whom he suffered graciously.

Very much on the side of the soldiers.

But also a very shrewd user of the music hall format, and the conventions of that format to tap into popular patriotism.

You might find this interesting Foots:

http://historyspot.org.uk/podcasts/v...e-history-fund

I read an article last night claiming the Brits are so disgusted with their government they're staying away from the polls in droves. :(

Happy Christmas, Merry New Year. I am the Christmas Troll.

What brings you out from under your bridge? :)