Too bad the word "class" has been put out of use for anything other than grouping people according to their economic status.
People who are the type who want power (and feel entitled to it) are of a different "class" than others (when using class in it's more useful, broader sense). And they know it, even if most of the rest of us do not, or do not consider the fact of it.
We know who they are, because most of them started showing it all the way back in high school.
Those people who want power or prestige go after positions of power and influence. Other people mostly don't. Other people mostly want work they can feel good about, and freedom from fear of lack (of food, health care, and other necessities of life).
People after power sort themselves out. They maneuver among themselves for positions in the social and economic heierarchy. And the higher you go, the better the players. The better the player, the more divorced from the consciousness, the lives, of ordinary people. By the time you get to the top, they are-- almost to a person-- freaks.
Well, we're all freaks, I suppose. The point is they are a particular kind of freaky. Every move is strategic. Every word serves a purpose. They're thinking three moves ahead. If they look at you, they're probably wondering if they can use you, and how.
They can comfortably speak in front of large groups. A lot of them actually like it. Freaky.
They are goal oriented. They compare their budgets and their number of underlings to those of others, and their goal is always to grow their own, or move to new positions with bigger budgets, more employees, more decision making power. Freaky.
Many are altogether contemptuous of ordinary people, despite outward appearances. Freaky.
These are not ordinary traits-- except among this class.
In elections we choose between members of this class. Some are worse than others in various ways, important ways sometimes. But in this they are the same.
As an aside, it's also worth considering that some people are brought up wealthy, in an environment with servants that they are allowed to boss around-- little kids who can tell an adult what to do, who are comfortable, even as a child, with power over others. This warps a person. Put that together with lust for power and a sense of entitlement and you can create truly horrible people (who have a good chance of success!).
To vote based on who would be the more fun to have a beer with is really dumb. They wouldn't have a beer with us. They'd only let us serve one to them.
So Bob Dylan gets a Nobel. For what? He's a song and dance man, he said it himself.
Well, they gave one to Obama for Peace, too. Having done nothing much at the time, whatever you might think of what he did subsequently. (Cough. Drones. Cough.)
Yeah, and they gave Best New Artist to the Starland Vocal Band in 1977.
I love Bob, as a (sometimes controversial) song and dance man. And as a sometimes philosopher: "He who is not busy being born is busy dying." As prodigious, inventive, peculiarly talented. I am a big fan of his... music. And lyrics. But he doesn't deserve a Nobel in Literature any more than the Beatles.
I read the comments of the Swedish Academy's permanent secretary and find them not only unconvincing, but near meaningless.
What we have here is some old Europeans trying to be (or seem to be) hip. Sad!
Bob really shouldn't indulge them. It isn't seemly.
Or are they just making fun of us?