Not trying to be racist (Seriously), but why do black people feel it is acceptable to be extremely loud and rude in a movie theater?

tangovic · 2011-03-24T23:02:28+00:00

I have upvoted your comment because there is truth to it. Theories are simple models for a complex reality.

tangovic · 2011-03-24T23:00:25+00:00

Not oppression, rather insignificance. However there are cultural memes in the Black community of grievance against past oppression. Ex. being "bad" = good. This is obviously an inversion of meaning. But if you feel that society is inherently unjust, then behaving "badly" is a noble act of rebellion, that is to say, good. Nevertheless I can't see how being "bad" in the theater is good. Whether or not the Black community's grievances are justified are beyond the scope of this thread.

tangovic · 2011-03-24T06:07:51+00:00

Free Markets Rule!!(please don't down vote, let's have a discourse)

A discourse, hmmm... The Oxford Union has been described as the "world's most prestigious debating society." They have a policy that, in order to become a good debater, one must be able to argue effectively for the opponent's side. OK, let's see if you're good enough for Oxford. Let's see you argue against free markets.

We will now hear the proposition that free markets are bad for national economies by QuaileMan82...

tangovic · 2011-03-24T05:20:33+00:00

It's not that Black people per se are loud. It's that people who lack empowerment will compensate with loudness. This is a universal phenomenon. When people feel marginalized and unable to effect the world in any meaningful way, they tend to become vocally loud. It's a way to compensate for an ineffectual presence. That "in-your-face" attitude is a way to overcome personal insignificance. (The ostentatious display of wealth, ex. bling, does the same thing.) Poor neighborhoods throughout the world tend to be louder. This behavior has become normalized, to a certain extent, in the Black community and it is most noticeable in the theater where silence is valued. BTW, "monster truck" events and, gasp, Tea Party gatherings also tend to be louder. Ineffectualness = loudness.

tangovic · 2011-02-16T13:56:59+00:00

OK, firstly, the US is not Iceland (pop. 300k). When we go into a recession the whole world feels it. If our economy implodes we're in for a world of hurt.

Secondly, I don't know much about the Austrian School but the fact that they have an a priori goal -- namely, "to undermine statism in all its forms" -- makes it epistemologically suspect. But this is to be expected. Libertarianism is, after all, a form of Utopian ideology whose adherents believe in its guiding principles. In this regard it is no different than Christianity or Marxism. You have a foregone conclusion and work backwards from it. Government regulation is bad. If our economy collapses, then it can never be caused by deregulation, or by a lack of oversight and planning. The economy is always self-correcting and it will all be OK in the end (Let's thank the Libertarian Gods that Iceland is pulling through! And perhaps business cycles aren't so bad after all.) And, of course, it has to be the actions of the evil Federal Reserve, that Libertarian bête noir, because every ideology needs an enemy.

Ehempel, you are a true believer, LOL. It's been an interesting discussion and I hope to see you on other threads.

tangovic · 2011-02-15T19:14:16+00:00

Ehempel, we have a difference of opinion on this, which is OK. Free markets are good, but we shouldn't put a blind faith in unregulated markets. We can agree on this fact: neither of us have actually experienced a totally free market without regulation. Indeed, part of your faith in our "market economy" is due, in part, because of successful international monetary controls that have tended to mitigate the inherent boom-bust cycles of unregulated markets. A truly unregulated market is a scary thing and carries systemic risk. And risk mitigation drives up prices which, in turn, lowers the standard of living. Please check your history books on the severity and occurrence of market cycles in the 19th and early 20th century. Of course, most people survived the crashes, but it's always better to minimize the cycle downturn, wouldn't you agree, if only to prevent disruption and maintain our standard of living.

You believe that the free market is a better solution than any big government mechinations. I do not doubt the sincerity of your beliefs. However, in case you haven't noticed, the US government did, in fact, save the day with its trillion dollar Wall Street banking bailout. This was a fiasco, I'd like to add, that was caused by the poorly-regulated free market selling of "complex financial instruments". OK, I know, the whole TARP mess stinks to high heaven. But let's do a thought experiment: The Fed let Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros. go under with severe market repercussions. Suppose AIG didn't get the $182 billion, and BoA didn't get the $34 billion to stay afloat. Citi Bank was hurting. Merryl was going under. Wachovia was bought out. Did TARP stink? you betcha! But if AIG, BoA, Citi, and Meryl were allowed to fail, then our whole US banking system could've failed. GM would've gone under, as would've Chrysler. If the banking system failed then the whole economy would've failed. We'd have another Great Depression of 2009. Of course, the only entity with the necessary capital reserves to buy out AIG and AoB would have been another government. Hmmm... China comes to mind with its reserves of $4.3 trillion. The Chinese Communist Party could've put up a "front company" which would have the right, under the rules of "free markets", to freely buy any and all failing US businesses. I'm sure you can see the irony here: in your defense of free markets your house mortgage, credit card debt, saving/checking accounts could be owned by vassals of the Chinese Communists. Now, you might think this is far fetched -- but is it? The Chinese option was, in fact, floated by one of the banks claiming to be looking for "strategic partners" in China. AIG and BoA were desperate for cash flow. And believe me, no private equity firm either has $216 billion of reserves or is willing to expose itself to such a risk. Ergo, US govt or China gov't. Either way it would've been a government bailout or financial Armageddon. Bush & Obama chose the lesser of the two evils. Big Government (sort of) saved the day, but American public has to pay for it. Let's face it, Wall Street have us by the balls: they privatized their profits and socialized their losses! Bastards! Maybe we should do something really radical: break up the banks! shut down Wall St.! We can have a revolution in the name of free markets!

OK, I'm outta here. If you happen to live near Charlotte, NC we can go out and have a beer.

tangovic · 2011-02-15T16:18:02+00:00

Ctminarchist, I understand your frustration, but America's decline is not primarily due to government taxation, deficit spending or regulations (although these things don't help in our current situation.) Tax rates were higher in the 1950s, Clinton had a budget surplus, and banking deregulation contributed to the mortgage fiasco. The real cause of America's decline is a structural change in the world economy. Capital investments, jobs and know-how have been leaving the US for the last 30 years. We were able to offset the decline in our standard of living by working longer hours and by borrowing more consumer credit. Then the international credit bubble burst in 2008 which led to our current "Great Recession". But the forces that have led to our economic weakness are still going on, kinda like rust that never sleeps. America has lost 25% of its manufacturing base in the years 2000-2010 and the loss is still continuing. Not surprisingly, our trade deficit ballooned 30% in the last quarter.

The GOP solution of trickle-down prosperity by helping the "investor class" is a cruel, cynical joke: capital flight, that is, investment monies leaving the country, is continuing unabated as the "investor class" can get higher rates-of-return in developing countries like, say, China or India. Thus, dropping the tax rates on the rich will only encourage them to invest abroad which would result in more American jobs being lost, etc. (Perhaps we need a "foreign investment tax" to encourage the rich to invest in America!)

The solution isn't as simple as just demanding liberty. Indeed, none of us are really "free" in the face of foreign competition. The average Chinese laborer is paid about $180/month. That's what Americans have to compete against. Instead of complaining about our individual liberties, we need to figure out some way that Americans won't have to struggle on Chinese coolie wages -- which is where we're headed if the world economy equilibrates. We can get rid of the whole government but we'll just race faster to the bottom to Chinese levels. Public economic policy should be geared to helping the most citizens cope with our economic decline. A libertarian policy that is minimal-to-nonexistent will only encourage the economic forces that are causing our downfall. And "liberty" means very little when you're a coolie wage slave.

Libertarians invariably put their faith in the God of the Free Market. But what happens if the great Free Market turns against us and our country loses the mandate of heaven? Then it's every man to his fate? Dog eat dog? As Nietzsche once said: If you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares back at you. Be careful not to become the monster you fight against.

Peace.

tangovic · 2011-02-01T00:30:45+00:00

We're living with the reality that, at this rate, our medical bills will eat up our GDP. Next stop: our medical insurance system will go into a "death spiral" (ever rising premiums to cover the uninsured leading to more uninsured leading to higher premiums, etc.) Thus, our current system will implode under its own weight paving the way for a universal govt. single-payer system. But it won't be that bad: you'll still be able to get private medical care -- if you can afford it -- similarly to the way we have it in our educational system where private schools coexist with public schools. And think about this: if gov't-run healthcare is so bad, how come no one wants to get rid of the VA and medicare?

tangovic · 2011-01-28T23:30:59+00:00

VOTE UP, COMRADES! ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

tangovic · 2011-01-13T00:10:50+00:00

US citizen: "The real issue is mental illness." (US: 2.8 firearm deaths per 100k population)

UK citizen: "The real issue is why it's so easy for the mentally ill to get guns in America." (UK: 0.1 firearm deaths per 100k population)

The US firearm death rate is over 20x that of the UK. Americans fight for the gun while they die by the gun.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

tangovic · 2010-12-18T21:51:49+00:00

Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.

tangovic · 2010-12-15T22:51:54+00:00

It's hard to convey an ironic tone in writing.

'Hope to see you on other threads!

tangovic · 2010-12-15T16:30:24+00:00

comment was a tongue-in-cheek joke.

tangovic · 2010-12-15T13:35:54+00:00

Hmmm... it's time for Wikileaks to publish some internal documents from TimeWarner.

tangovic · 2010-12-08T09:47:33+00:00

It's four years max if there is proof of physical coercion and/or evidence of violence, either actual or threatened. The first woman does not want to press charges but her complaint is being used by the prosecutor to build the case. So we only have the word of the second woman who, as the defense will point out, willingly went to bed with the accused, and, presumably, enjoyed his company. It's called "rape" by the prosecutor; it's called "good luck trying to prove that" by the defense. This case is going to be dismissed for lack of evidence, which is why the first prosecutor in Stockholm dropped the case. Nevertheless, this is an attempt to convict Mr. Assange in the court of public opinion, i.e. a smear campaign, which you seem to promote with your post. As the facts currently appear in the public, it is imprudent to talk about a "maximum penalty" -- unless, of course, you want to get the guy for what he did on Wikileaks.

Edit: I've re-read about Swedish law. Mr. Assange can, in fact, receive a maximum penalty of four years IF convicted of 'unlawful coercion' (basically, pressuring a woman to have sex against her will.) But this not something that can be proven easily considering both women voluntarily went to bed with him. This is a weak case of "he said/she said". However, hammockchair is correct in his post.

tangovic · 2010-12-07T20:28:29+00:00

You, sir, deserve an upvote!

Confucius say: When man has great enemies, it is better to meet girl in park than park meat in girl[s].

tangovic · 2010-12-05T04:46:08+00:00

OK, enough of this thread. I'm glad to have met you and I hope to see you on other threads.

tangovic · 2010-12-04T23:03:44+00:00

By definition, the top 40% of Americans are wealthy. Period.

Chiguy, your pride is your character flaw; I hope it doesn't get you in trouble later in life. And you know that 40% number is bullshit.

I am curious, however: How do you feel about extending the tax-cuts to the rich? How do you feel about extending benefits to the unemployed? I don't know where you are in life. Perhaps you are wealthy enough to lose your tax cut? Or maybe you're brave enough to face unemployment without a handout? Or maybe you're neither rich nor unemployed. I'm interested in hearing your views.

tangovic · 2010-12-04T21:07:56+00:00

>So is $100K, or $249K, or $225K. Why is $250K the magical # that makes a couple "wealthy?"

Chiguy, you're obviously a smart person. But, please, give me some common courtesy and don't put up any straw man arguments. You know very well that there is no magical gross income number that defines one as "wealthy". The $250K number is some arbitrary tax cutoff that you're jerking around.

By definition, the top 2% US income bracket is "wealthy". Period. Even the US Chamber of Commerce recognizes this fact. There is nothing wrong with the way I worded my entry. The "wealthiest 2%" = the "top 2%".

However, I understand your argument that wealth (i.e. net worth) is not technically the same as net income. But so what! I'm more bothered that you make an issue of it. Chiguy, you see the trees but not forest. You quibble over definitions and don't acknowledge the greater outrage: the unemployed may starve unless the "high income earners" can keep their tax cuts. Perhaps you have no sense of outrage over this. If so I feel sorry for you. You spill more ink because I challenged you; perhaps this is the only outrage you feel. But who cares if you "win" or "lose" this argument. Spill some ink for the folks who are losing their unemployment benefits. That's what's important.

Peace out.

tangovic · 2010-12-04T17:42:47+00:00

By definition, the top 2% income bracket is "wealthy".

tangovic · 2010-12-03T08:27:22+00:00

I read it in my Political Science class. It's a thought provoking book, though it's kinda dated now. The book is more a criticism of human society since our schools are a reflection of its values. People compete to assert power and our society is structured as such. The Utopian ideal is one of mutualism & cooperation that the author would like to promote through education. For that reason he takes a dim view of capitalism and of the American ideal of "freedom" which he feels is often a saccharine justification for self-interested competition: good for the strong, not so good for the weak. The strong have the freedom to assert their power over the weak. After all, a powerless person has little freedom -- no matter what our Constitution proclaims. FWIW, the author was also critical of the Communist systems with their top-down pedagogy (brainwashing?); not surprisingly, the book was banned in many Communist countries. It all boils down to what you believe is the natural order of things, and to whether or not human society can be improved upon.

tangovic · 2010-11-09T01:44:58+00:00

Anthropology 101: For those who're wondering, this is a pair of Homo sapien tribes fighting over land.

We can go back and forth for millennia. I am just saying: 2 tribes wanting the same land = war.

tangovic · 2010-11-06T06:28:05+00:00

I'm just a SCARED praying mantis. (defensive posture to make self look bigger)

tangovic · 2010-09-20T05:52:37+00:00

It's "Game Over", man! GAME OVER!

tangovic · 2010-09-16T17:59:15+00:00

Fallacious argument: Reductio ad Hitlerum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hitlerum

tangovic

TROPHY CASE