That is common English, or perhaps you did not take classes in composition.

the 1%

Yeah, it is..... even Bill O'Reilly hasn't used it as a "word of the day" up to this point!

And you meant "Pheasant", right?

Swiffer didn't say it was an "unusual" word; though it certainly isn't often heard, used or seen in print. No denying that. I see the Wet Jet's point. Although, learning new words can come in useful, there won't be much use for this one. ;)

Here's my two cents... oligarch is not used in everyday conversation.

Here's how Merriam-Webster online defines "oligarch"-
ol·i·garch noun \ˈä-lə-ˌgärk, ˈō-\
: a member or supporter of an oligarchy
Then I looked up oligarchy and this is what came up-
ol·i·gar·chy noun \ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-\
plural ol·i·gar·chies

Here's how Merriam-Webster online defines "oligarchy"-
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control
See oligarchy defined for English-language learners »
See oligarchy defined for kids »

Sunde, you are correct. Oligarch is not used in everyday conversation. The reason is that oligarch(y) means nothing. All governments are oligarchies. The few rule over the many regardless of the governing philosophy even in a democracy or a democratic republic.

The questions you must answer are 1) who is ruled?; 2)who rules?; and who is the beneficiary of the rule?

The more correct term for those who rule in the United States is plutocrat which derives from plutocracy (rule by the wealthy). The system we have in this country is a plutocracy with a democratic veneer or, to paraphrase Lincoln: government of the people, by the politicians, for the wealthy.

The term oligarchy has a connotation of corruption, while Mr Gould in using plutocracy does not have the suggestion corruption rather the limiter is physical wealth. It is at best reprehensible that the rich language of the Bard has been denigrated into the tattoo of a pile driver.

Our government requires the participation of each and every person in order for our government to continue to be successful. Should we systemically exclude certain classes of individuals from freely participation, our experiment in self government will fail.

Ben Franklin, on leaving the Constitutional Convention, was asked - what kind of government had been delegated created. He answered: A Republic, IF you can keep it. That question haunts us to this day. Our form of self government is unique, are we smart enough to keep it?

Ms Craig, you have done an excellent job of reciting the basics of American Mythology. I prefer to deal with reality, and the reality is that we are now, and have been since the founding of the "Republic," a plutocracy with the veneer of a democracy. Our "experiment in self government," as you call it, consists of, every 2, 4, or 6 years, casting a ballot for one of two candidates selected by the two major parties which are owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the wealthy ruling elite. These two candidates, regardless of the pablum they feed us during the biennial political silly seasons, are dedicated to maintaining this system.

You use the word "corruption," implying that the system as it is in reality is an aberration from the system described in your mythology. Unfortunately, you are wrong. The word "corruption" is meaningless in discussing the reality of our system and therefore like the word "oligarch(y)" is not useful.

But re-rooted is.......

If your assumption (BHO out MR in) is valid, one could determine the answer to your question by counting the days between today and Inauguration Day on January 20, 2013 (125 days). Keep in mind though that your assumption could be invalidated by BHO defeating MR on November 6, 2012 or by the Mayans being right about December 21, 2012, which would change the answer to "when pigs fly."

The cost of Medicare/Medicaid should be geared to assets held by the individual in each respective program, NOT just by virtue of their senior status in age. The fact that someone is an "asset millionaire" but is able to essentially hide or defer 'said assets' to be able to "qualify" for Medicaid, is just plain wrong. It's basically saying , "I'm a millionaire, (who happens to be a senior) and can fully afford my own long term care, but have this inherent right to legally be NOT able to not pay for my care because my assets should all go to my heirs while everyone else foots the bill while I'm alive." Get all that? That is exactly what's going on in households across America. Medicare & Medicaid should be NEED based (financially), not just taken for granted because someone turns a certain age.

Rose Way, this is silly rhetoric. Instead think of what is important to America's Freedom : On Nov 6 you are voting to keep Christianity and God or to Change to Islam and Socialism. Those are then only facts here and the only things that matter. The rest is nothing but silly rhetoric.

Liz,
How are we voting to keep God and Christianity. And changing to Islam and Socialism. The very crux of that agrument makes no sense. There are many Socialist who are Christians. Also our society and government are not set up to make the change to socialism and no President with only an 8 eight term could make such a drastic change. Our government is based due to our Founding Fathers on the seperation of Church and State. So how are we going to be forced to be either Christian or Islamic. Currently 76% of the American population is Christian, on January 20, 2013 that is magically going to change if Obama is elected.
That is labels and propaganda speaking. It's just as bad as the statements that Romney will remove the Middle class if he is president. Or the 1% will take power (they already have). It is just propaganda build to divide our nation from seeing that the government stopped working for the people years ago.

To Masked Blogger: Do you understand the current requirements for Medicaid? Do you have any idea who qualifies and the steps in qualifying, how much they (or their for profit health providers!) are covered for or how the broader economy (including millions of jobs) is helped by Medicare and Medicaid? Medicaid is NEED based. Medicare is a program paid into by those whose benefits are determined by the amount money they paid. Masked Blogger, I have lost patience with ignorant people who eagerly defend all the tax avoidance loopholes/social deductions given to special interests (churches?) but deny earned benefits such as unemployment insurance and Medicare to people who use those benefits. And guess who lobbied for the legal (as legal as the tax shelters Gov. Romney uses) ways to shelter income or assents in order to qualify for Medicaid? The for-profit entities who make their money on those who receive Medicaid and the adult children who need to work, raise their own children and save for their own retirements. Masked Blogger, you are like your candidate, devoid of empathy and common sense about what makes the economy and communities function. Get all that? It is very nasty of me to wish you old age, illness or poverty, but all will come to you and you will change your mind very quickly about these programs.

Hey Lynda...are you just the resident wackjob? Reread my post, you totally have dyslexia or are eating too much catnip these days.

The other 53% of us don't care what you think, Rick :)

Heike, we try to answer the question but sometimes we get distracted...what is your favorite color?

LOOK!

A bunny!!!!!

:::singing Harry Chapin::::: "The cat's in the kettle at the Silver Moon, the little lunch place I go every day at noon......"

Never saw a stray dog in Thailand. So wonder if O-Ba-Ma is a dish in some areas. I never asked what I was eating after I asked about a soup, and realized after being told that I didn't want to know.

So's Obama. So would you be all for redistribution of wealth? This article is buried in the business section on Huff Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/obama-loyola-speech-leaked-redistribution_n_1894625.html?1348003636&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D207416

Jason, i would like to see both, but also the other candidates that are not part of either of the two major parties. All views should be expressed for the education of the voters not to come from the national media sources that already have monetary interests in the race.

Jason, I'd like to see Obama and Romney in a cage match to the death but I doubt it would ever come off. Obama probably wouldn't show and, given his previous history with anything that might be dangerous, we'd have to send somebody to Paris to snatch Romney back.

would pay to see it George, not as much as I would pay to see Eddie Vedder though.

Not worth the hassles. They have paid shills in the audience.
only time when I worked at HCC and I could walk over to hear Obama speak . No wait no hassle. I met Rosalyn Carter on a WHite House tour once. Those days are gone.