pirana

I'd chop aunclearable lineover just because of the potential for canopy damage. Not explicitly because of the canopy damage, but because it might damage it before I got to a safe landing. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I had a similar incident with a hook knife. Guy had it mounted on his chest strap. Taking grips for exit, I grabbed his chest strap and most unfortunately my finger went perfectly thru one of the finger holes of his knife handle, past the 2nd knuckle. Exit went well until I could not get my finger out; and he kept pulling harder and harder to peel my hand away. It finally came out (maybe 10 seconds) leaving me with a badly bruised and swollen finger. After reading the thread on the weaknesses of the plastic handled knives, I went and got a metal one - and I got it with the single opening instead of finger holes. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well, I'd change "promote its values" to "promote its interests", then I'm not ashamed to admit I do subscribe to the views in that definition. Of course, we can't go throwing our weight around too much or else we start to do more harm than good to our interests. As of now, we're on top...and we should do what we need to to stay that way. Since our world is and has always been governed by the use of force, the use of force is not unthinkable when it comes to protecting our standing. I do not necessarily disagree, and there is much evidence what you say is true; but I find it a bit depressing to concede that we may forever be falling back on war as a way of spreading our values where they are not readily accepted. Define " . . . protect our standing." It appears you may think force is an acceptable way of protecting our standing. What exactly does that mean? I hope it does not mean that if we start to slip from our role of world's dominant economic power that such a slide alone would be sufficient to declare a few wars. You know, . . . to protect our standing. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Apparently, my approach to foreign policy falls in the PAGE NOT FOUND category. But based on their descriptions, I'm a long ways from neo-con. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Clearly you are middle class, then. Lowers: I like chocolate. It's good with caramel. Uppers: I like chocolate; it's good with caramel. I can't believe everyone missed the surest sign of all that we are all rubes: Inappropriate grammar. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Very good point. Your first definition was the one I was working on; and the fact that by watching for a pattern of little details like what time you eat dinner, which way your garage faces, preferences for certain words, etc; I could pretty accurately deduce your social class. Your second definition, more related to social graces, knows no class boundaries. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I love the smell of cash in the morning. It smells like . . . . . Victory. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

An admiral a hooker, and a skydiver walk into a bar; . . . " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'll give you redneck and white trash as derogatory. The others are perfectly acceptable descriptive terms, with prole simply being shorthand for proletarian. I do not group together low-income thugs and low income saints. Aren't you reading this stuff? Income is just money; class is far more determined by behaviors. Granted, the resources a person has, or doesn't have, certainly create limitations related to some of the factors trhat determine social class; but it is SOCIAL CLASS I'm talking about, not INCOME RANGE. Yeah, if I were just talking income range, then the sinners and saints could go in the same bucket regardless of behavior. All the stuff I've mentioned has been objectively and extensively studied. (Primarily because it is a gold mine of information for marketeers). The proportion of people who come home to dinner on the table (whether it be Archie Bunker or Ward Cleaver style) immediately after work versus those that eat later in the evening is objectively collected and analyzed. When enough of these seemingly trivial bits of information about behaviors are clooected and analyzed, consistent patterns emerge. I do not think from your posts that you deny any of that; so I'm just guessing you don't like the category headings. What would you use? BTW, Marx and his teachings are barely applicable to the modern world, and have been shown not to be in touch with modern financial realities at all. One of his basic tenets was that capitalism was only a step on the way to communism. The implosion of communist economies indicates he missed by just a tad on that one. His whole idea of class war is archaic and irrelevant. If the idea that we all fit into little boxes bothers you, forget about it. Every human has their behavioral anomalies, and the variation within the boxes is tremendous. The categories are no more limiting than any other form of grouping. Of course Sam Walton fits into a category - but you didn't say which one. Which do you think? Better yet, what class do you think Bill Gates fits in? If you think he is Upper, go back several spaces to Sociology 101. What else you got? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

because the thread will come to a crashing halt - half the posters WANT to classify themselves and others based 'snotty evaluations' - where they eat, take vacations, and who they can claim they hang with..... the self image is so important to them - [I know, because the other day, I was invited to a big dinner party and while talking to 3 admirals and 2 CEOs, the topic came up and THEY said......] Admirals don't get paid much, so why are you and the CEOs hanging with them if money is the answer to class? Everybody in the room was probably wondering who the palookas hanging with rehmwa were. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Appreciate the acknowledgement of the humorous side of the discussion. I think it is a topic that is very interesting, and at times good fun. And I don't mind eating at the OCB once in a while. It's palatable and the kids don't have that agonizing wait for FOOD. But I also know that it is best to spend the next 4 hour window not more than 10 minutes from the can, any can. I suppose I could upset everybody and classify on income based criteria and non-income based criteria. It might actually double the fun. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

This is an illustration of my dislike for the non income based classifications. The sort of person who categorizes others as "Proles" is not someone I would associate with. The elitism there is just too distasteful. It's only a step away from "Korean store owner" and other racial stereotyping. It's short for Proletarian. Do you deny that such a thing exists? If so, then do you deny the existence of social classes altogether? If no to both of those, then what is it that causes you to brand someone not afraid to talk about it as elitist? Do you agree that social classes exist, but feel it is not polite or bad to talk about them? That's OK, a lot of people are uncomfortable with the topic. Some of what I have posted is just fun and facetious, but a good amount of it is true and quite well documented. Where do you think marketing firms get their data, and why do you think they use it? Do you think that kind of research is racist or makes people guilty of sterotyping? If I compile demographics and exit survey results on the visitors to Disney in an effort analyze the average attendees likelihood to buy certain consumables, and in the process discover that 87% of them fall into some very narrow categories of behavior, and call that out in my reports - what am I guilty of? Elitism? Racism? The race comment really threw me. If I have a friend who owns a store and is Korean, I do not feel racist in acknowledging him as a Korean store owner. Anyway, sorry if you would choose not to associate with me because of my penchant for analyzing human behaior. We could probably create an -ism label for that and whine about it's adherents too. If it is the term Prole that upsets you, what would you prefer? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well, if you were really cool, or really rich, or really famous; they might invite you in to play - but understand it would be purely for their entertainment purposes. Think Britney Spears or Mike Tyson. As soon as you failed to amuse them, you'd be about as welcome as a narc at a biker rally. Money does play a bigger part of class in the US than in Europe only because of the much shorter history we have in which to establish the classes. They have thousands of years of socially interacting at a level that dictates social distinctions take place. We have only 350 years, and the Pilgrims were hardly the social elite. Transplants of anything but Proles and Lower Middles from Europe did not take place until well into the 1700's, so we really only have about a dozen generations of activity for classes to form up. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

And that is all it is; categorization based on certain subjective criteria - mostly behaviors. There is an easy method for knowing where you fit. The default is who you socialize with. Social classes rarely intermingle very far up and down the ladder of class distinctions. Who you hang with is pretty much what you are. The leap to making judgements on that is what tends to wrankle. If you dig eating at Old Country Buffett and think Disney or the cattle call cruises are the cat's meow for vacation, then you are High Prole to Low Middle. Thing is there is nothing wrong with that. There is no right class to be in. What makes people uptight (especially so many of the Middles) is that they want to ascend, or think they are ascending thru their hard work and the few more dollars it might get them. If you just take it for what it is, the identification of social circles of interaction of like-minded and like-behaving people, it is no big deal. BTW, nobody moves from lower to upper based on their job or income alone. Rarely does anyone move that far for any reason. It is a real challenge to move more than 2 rungs per generation (on the previously posted 9 rung ladder). And being a hooker is way too much work to be considered upper class. Actual physical labor for pay (even just having sex) is outside their behavior set, unless it takes the form of being an artist, writer, etc. Uppers do not work for money, they use brain power to let money work for them. There seems to be a desire by some to just plot the income dots and draw some lines and call it class. That's not class, that's just income statistics. Using income for class, Mike Tyson would have gone from Bottom Out Of Sight to Upper to Bottom Of Sight to Upper and so on and so forth. Class is a social distinction that doesn't change much in a lifetime without serious change to mindset and behaviors. Income is just income, and it can change dramatically without confering any change in class at all. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It's just not that simple. Even a broad brush definition has to come with all kinds of caveats, assumptions, and disclaimers. If you are pressing for dollar ranges - that is far from the most important criteria for defining class. While I'm mostly being facetious in my treatment of the topic, my posts do contain hints of what does matter most - and money is not it. Even a cursury attempt to define your middle class will require a small book. I'll get right on it. I think the Bottom Out Of Sight will devour it, because they are hungry and do not read. But the Upper Middles will love it because they love anything that pokes fun at the wannabees just below them on the social ladder. Off to the Batcave " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Most likely you are correct. The small number of proles that wouldn't think it was cute would probably beat the child in public. High Prole would be a swat on the ass. Low Prole would be a backhand across the chops. All of which further proves that they do not give a shit what other people think. We could fine tune if we knew the setting and type of food. Buffett would indicate no higher than Middle, probably Lower Middle tops. If the buffett vegetables were obviously canned, then you are down to Mid Prole at best. If they actually came to the table and took orders and delivered freshly cooked food, then it is solidly Middle. If none of the food could possibly offend a typical midwestern palate, then Lower Middle would be the tops. An exception would be if you were in an establishment serving authentic ethnic foods. Unless the establishment uses the word cuisine in it's name (Upper Prole) or anywhere else on the premises (Low to Mid Prole). No need to discuss Uppers. They do not haul toddlers along when they dine out - not even on Easter or Mother's Day. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Prole. What time do you usually eat dinner? Does it vary depending on whether it is a weekday or weekend? Do you sleep naked, in your underwear, or in actual PJ's; and what are your sheets made of? Where do you vacation, how do you get there, and do you always take your child(ren)? What is your driveway made of, how long is it, and is it straight or curved? What is the total number of TVs in your house, and the ratio of rooms to TVs? Do you decorate for Christmas? If yes, describe? (Feel free to answer for whatever Winter Solstice holiday your religion or lack of it dictates). What do you read? (If you don't read at all, just stop right now. Forget it. Please redirect to the thread on mental illness and the likelihood the world will be better off without you in it). Lastly, tell me about your childhood, and queue the trumpets. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Another question: How many people know what Portofino Green is? More notably, can any man describe the difference between that and say, . . . . green? Remember when all cars came in colors like green, yellow, blue, black, etc. Even if a manufacturer had a green that was different from some other manufacturer's green; it was OK to label them both as green. And you simply called them green. There could be 20 different greens on 20 different models, they were just called green. I think the metallic colors screwed everything up. It gave cause to name the colors something special, and the next thing you know we got colors named similarly to the paint display at the hardware store. Our van is a perfect example. It is silver. But the manufacturer named it Heather. If I asked 100 different people to describe Heather, how many would get it right? More important, is their a right description? My guess is no; that Heather as a color is totally subjective, and mostly meaningless unless you are actually buying a can of touch-up paint. It is green. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Ah, good one; and a fellow student of TDH's I see. What amazes me most in the study of class in America, is that the further you get from the middle, in either direction, the more comfortable people are with who they are. Pretensions, concerns about image/reputation, and keeping up appearances (material belongings) is rampant in the middle classes and virtually non-existent at the extremes. Also, the bulk of those that deny class divisions even exist come from the middle. I think discussion of class division upsets them in a two-fold, and dichotomous way: 1 - One the one hand, they reject the established fact that class mobility is extremely limited. They want to believe that if they just work a little harder and/or make a little more money they will be accepted in the upper circles. Ain't gonna happen. You can make all the cash you want, you won't be hanging with the Mellons, Vanderbilts, or Kennedys anytime soon. Unless you have celebrity status, then they might invite you along (Spears for example). Hanging with newly rich athletes, rock stars, actors & actresses, dotcommers, etc is their version of slumming. 2 - It rubs them the wrong way because they quite literally believe in the all men created equal credo. They have a very difficult time accepting that you are either born to the manor - or not. It pisses them off that in the land of supposed equal opportunity for all, and all that mushy crap, there are people born to great privilege, who do not have to earn it at all. Come to think of it, those are just variations on a point. Never mind. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Why the leeriness of those that do not watch TV? And who are you least leery of? And why the avatar of just lips-to-collarbones? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Britney - definitely a Mid Prole at best. She's just trash that got a brief fling with fame. Paris has staying power, and actually exudes a good amount of class. She is actually an Upper Out Of Sight that has taken to slumming (mostly in friends but also in some behaviors). The young very well to do's often do this, but usually in the end find the comfy confines of their blue blooded past reeling them back in. One of the more reliable indicators of class is language/vocabulary. I know it might qualify as torture, but listen to each of them speak. There is a huge difference. A good example - the word or words used for car. Proles simply call it a car, because that is the limit of their vocabulary. Upper proles to middle use car and auto. More sylables equal more sophisticated in their mind. Upper middles use vehicle or automobile. Uppers use car, because they appreciate brevity whenever using it does not sacrifice accuracy. Then you have the hired car. The lowest use limo, further up you find limousine (more sylables and a neat faux foriegn sound), and at the very top it is still car; as in: James, we'll be needing the car around 11:00. Pregnant is a good one to listen for too. Proles like cute little euphemisms like bun in the oven or the stories with the stork. Middles retain some cuteness with prego, but usually prefer nice safe terms like expecting. (Expecting what? Is it such a dirty word you can't just say it?) They are also keen on really safe sounding euphemisms like in a family way. (That phrase alone might capture all you need to know about how uptight the Middles really are). Uppers simply call it what it is - pregnant. If you were limited to only one indicator of class, language would be the best bet. It would not be perfect because there are so many factors to consider, but listening to someone speak for even just a few minutes, you would not miss by much or very often. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Just what I've seen on the news. Aside: I was reading something a while back on Vietnam and came across the full story of that monk that cooked himself in a busy intersection in Siagon (the event that was made famous by making some magazine cover). I think it is called emolation. Anyway, that guy lit himself up, then burned to a crisp without ever flinching. It took about 10 minutes of burning before his charred body fell over from his sitting position. And Liddy thought he was tough for cigarette burning his hand without crying. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So you hang out in bars, where the entertainment is shrinks on TV. You need help. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Agreed. One of my favorite retorts: Everybody has their nuerosis. No exceptions. If someone appears perfectly adjusted, you just do not know them well enough. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

She's a ding-a-ling who probably watches too much court TV and felt the need to exert her "expertise." He's an asshole for forgetting his job is to serve and protect (even ding-a-lings) even when moronic Judge Judy wannabees push his buttons. Two great examples of Those Darn Humans (TDH's). TDH's; you never know when they are going to unplug their brain next. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley