Critique by BevD

Unfortunately for your analogy, Ramses II didn't win battle after battle, subjugating people after people, in fact the first battle he ever led, (and the last) the battle for Kadesh, he had his ass handed to him and escaped by the skin of his teeth. His great battles with the Hittites consisted of intermittent skirmishes, which always ended as standstills and then the first international peace treaty between the Egyptians and the Hittites. After the death of Ramses and his son Merneptah assumed the throne, there was one great battle by Egyptians in beating back the immigration of the Sea Peoples and then began the times of anarchy and the great decline. By the time Menerptah's heir assumed the throne a few years later the kingdom had once again split in two and this pharaoh and the rest of them were continually engaged in internal power struggles. It seems that your belief in Ramses II as the last great Pharaoh is the result of Ramses's spin doctors, the scribes. Some things never change, do they?

So unless your analogy is that decline is inevitable, I don't think your analogy of Clinton as the last pharaoh followed by the "new people" really works, and while it's nice to pat yourself on the back for being the "new people" marked by the ability to raise vast sums of money through the internet, or flooding blogs with e-mails filled with umbrage, I'm not certain that's a major accomplishment. While claiming to be "wired in" it seems you're just as susceptible to spin doctors, propaganda and self interests as everyone else, as your comments demonstrate, in fact, you're exposed to more of it and as your blog entry indicates you're more likely to believe the self-aggrandizing flattery you heap on yourselves.

Everyone thinks he is the one who is loyal only to principles and reason and not to the fallible individual, but principles and reason are the affairs of humans and will always be what the individual says they are and will always be one of the individual's self interest compromised with society's interest. That great army you see, those "new people" are as far ranging in beliefs, in principles, in reason and in self-interest as they've always been and I hope, will continue to be, because the alternative is unbearable - who will decide those principles and reason that will rule the "new people"? You? A politician? A mob? The majority? What will happen to those individuals who step outside of your vision of reason and principles? Reason and principles are as fallible as the individual who makes them.

Your concept of the millions with the money and the networks to enforce their will upon society is as tyrannical as the millions with money and networks are now, and the only hope we have is that there is a fallible individual to recognize tyranny in all its forms, even that of the "new people".