And now an editorial by Niccolo Machiavelli on President-Elect Obama's Cabinet Appointments...

[SidneyCarton]

After several seances, three failed attempts with a oujia board and one sacrificed chicken, we managed to get the following response from Mr. Machiavelli, from his estate in the third ring of the infernal pit:

"But to enable a President to form an opinion of his Secretary there is one test which never falls; when you see the Secretary thinking more of his own interests than of yours, and seeking inwardly his own profit in everything, such an appointee will never make a good servant, nor will you ever be able to trust him; because he who has the state of another in his hands ought never to think of himself, but always of the Administration, and never pay any attention to matters in which the nation is not concerned...And if there are some who think that a President who conveys an impression of his wisdom is not so through his own ability, but through the good advisers that he has around him, beyond doubt they are deceived, because this is an axiom which never fails: that a President who is not wise himself will never take good advice."

Expounding on this position, Mr. Machiavelli had the following to say about current President Bush:

"a President who is not wise himself will never take good advice, unless by chance he has yielded his affairs entirely to one person who happens to be a very prudent man. In this case indeed he may be well governed, but it would not be for long, because such a governor would in a short time take away his state from him."

Finally, when asked about former Presidential advisor Karl Rove, he exploded into a tirade punctuated by numerous expletives in Italian, vanishing into a puff of sulphurous smoke.

(Ok, I actually copied and pasted from "The Prince" but if the shoe fits...)

[BlooInBloo]

1. Why people keep citing Machiavelli is beyond me...

and it's beyond stupid. Has anyone actually READ the damn thing? :rofl:

Another snippet from not-smart-people's-new-flavor-of-the-month-to-pretend-they're-smart:

"DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS ADOPTED BY
THE DUKE VALENTINO WHEN MURDERING
VITELLOZZO VITELLI, OLIVEROTTO DA FERMO, THE SIGNOR
PAGOLO, AND THE DUKE DI GRAVINA ORSINI

...

So the whole party entered Sinigalia, dismounted at the duke's
quarters, and went with him into a secret chamber, where the duke made
them prisoners; he then mounted on horseback, and issued orders that
the men of Oliverotto and the Orsini should be stripped of their arms.
Those of Oliverotto, being at hand, were quickly settled, but those of
the Orsini and Vitelli, being at a distance, and having a presentiment
of the destruction of their masters, had time to prepare themselves,
and bearing in mind the valour and discipline of the Orsinian and
Vitellian houses, they stood together against the hostile forces of
the country and saved themselves.

But the duke's soldiers, not being content with having pillaged the
men of Oliverotto, began to sack Sinigalia, and if the duke had not
repressed this outrage by killing some of them they would have
completely sacked it. Night having come and the tumult being silenced,
the duke prepared to kill Vitellozzo and Oliverotto; he led them into
a room and caused them to be strangled. Neither of them used words in
keeping with their past lives: Vitellozzo prayed that he might ask of
the pope full pardon for his sins; Oliverotto cringed and laid the
blame for all injuries against the duke on Vitellozzo. Pagolo and the
Duke di Gravina Orsini were kept alive until the duke heard from Rome
that the pope had taken the Cardinal Orsino, the Archbishop of
Florence, and Messer Jacopo da Santa Croce. After which news, on 18th
January 1502, in the castle of Pieve, they also were strangled in the
same way."

[SidneyCarton]

2. Hey, I have to write a paper on the guy for Grad School, so I have an excuse for reading his stuff

As to whether or not I endorse what he had to say about any number of issues, that is another story. Machiavelli was a theorist and a dillitante, who had a huge number of ideas that he could neither apply, nor make work. I actually prefer the ideas of his contemporary Francesco Guiccardini, who has a far more realistic understanding of things. Frankly, Machiavelli would have done better to keep writing plays, he was good at that.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Yah... write about someone else - someone who had something intellectually interesting to say.

[SidneyCarton]

7. Don't really have a choice on the subject...

It was him, Plutarch or Leonardo da Vinci. While I find Leonardo fascinating, I don't have the background in art to write a 20 page paper, I do have the background in political history. As for Plutarch... hell even if I did have the background in literature, I wouldn't want to write it.

[Occam Bandage]

4. Flavor of the month? That's one very long month.

[BlooInBloo]

5. :) It's a phrase. Be glad I didn't say 'fotm'.

[anigbrowl]

6. Why not? He was a smart guy

Yes, I have read 'The Prince'. In fact, I own a copy, though I don't recall quoting from it any time recently.