Two references to Napoleon today, both from major political commentators. As pleased as I am to have the great 19th century examined more closely, I have to wonder why I am not given more recognition. I thought I had the monopoly on modern politics from the 1800's perspecive. Apparently, I need to read up more on your anti-trust laws. In this first piece, Charles Krauthammer mentions Waterloo in the opening sentence. Why not Pemberley instead? Do you think Napoleon's army would have rather tasted the famous Darcy Shepherd's Pie or blood-splattering defeat? Point Darcy. In the second article, Jonah Goldberg compares Napoleon's "When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna," with Sir Barack Obama's humiliating bowling performance. Credit must be given to Napoleon for accomplishing that feat, but I have fulfilled many of my promises too. I set out to make sure Jane Bennet loved Mr. Bingley, and I succeeded (albeit with destroying their lives for a year...but what's one year in a life?) Even. Napoleon tried to conquer the world and failed. I tried to conquer a woman's heart and succeeded. Darcy wins! So why more Napoleon? I suppose your era prefers losers to winners; hence, more Obama coverage.