+1 regarding the beautiful opening post by Obiwan

"Basically, staff wages are an overhead - part of your running costs as a business. You take account of your overheads *before* declaring your profits. So a tax on profits does *not* take away money that would have been used to pay the wages of your staff. So you can increase taxes on business profits, and that doesn't stop them from hiring, contrary to what you suggested. Clear now?"

No, not clear. First, more hiring means more overhead; they need more profits to pay for more hiring. What this is saying is that, unless the corporation is actually operating at a loss and out of reserves to pay people, they don't have to *reduce* the existing amount of workers. However, that says nothing of *adding* more workers. They need more money to pay on more workers.

Second, and more important, corporations just pass on the tax hits to the end products. They don't eat the lost profit... they just make the consumer eat the tax cost.

@ President Eden:

"First, more hiring means more overhead; they need more profits to pay for more hiring."

No. Wrong. They don't need more profits to pay for more hiring. They need more *revenue*.

Oh shit...

If Fasces likes my post, I might have to reconsider my position...

@Jamiet99uk: regarding your latest post

You're half-right. More revenue is generally what they need, but specifically, they need the increase in revenue to outpace the increase in cost, otherwise they won't hire. Firms have 3 costs - Direct Labor, Direct Materials, and Overhead. Hiring a person increases the direct labor cost. But to see if the person is worth hiring, you have to look away from accounting and into marginal revenue vs marginal costs.

You idiot. if this protest goes through you'll be wealthier! they are fighting so america would tax the top 2% and not normal people like us. They have 50% of the wealth of america. the other 98% have the other 50%,

@daner, the arguement has been made that this 2% know what to do with command of such wealth (unlike a centrally managed economy) and will make investments where the return is a maximum. Thus the public good will be served because the people at large will have greater access to services (in which the wealthy have invested)

never mind the concept that more growth means more jobs (or higher paying jobs if there are a lot of jobs...)

That instead of being wealthier Obi is better off by having access to these services. (where things like health care, education, food supply, and entertainment) are all provided for by corporations.

You idiot, This will no longer be America if we punish the people who do something great with their lives.

@ Obi - You said: "Someone once told me they thought a good way to approach politics was to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I agree with that sentiment, and I suppose that's my stance here:

Fiscally I'm being conservative and scorn these guys...

Socially, yes, I'd like to see reforms for LGBT folks and a better immigration system so we can both cut down on illegals AND keep folks coming in legally, since immigrants literally built this country, and better education, and so on and so forth."

I've blasted you about this before and I'll do it again. That is the laziest stand on liberalism and politics I've ever heard. It lets you claim liberal values because you defend LGBT rights and feminism, up to a point, and such, without actually saying anything that actually challenges the widely held preconceptions you cherish, defending your privileged position as a white, university educated, middle class, suburban male.

Honestly, I think this whole thread is just another example of your obsession with trying to appear smart without ever being able to be challenged as "wrong". That's why your favourite writer is Shakespeare, your favourite composer is Beethoven, your favourite thinkers are Plato and Nietzsche. They're all safe choices, all great men, who can't be challenged as excellent choices. And now it's clear your politics reflect that too. Try to seem as reasonable and bipartisan as you can, without ever supporting anyone who steps out of line, or becomes unpopular, or challenges the status quo in any way. So in an attempt to never be wrong you've turned yourself into a god damned weather vane, and it wasn't worth it. Because after all that, you're still wrong.

"You idiot. if this protest goes through you'll be wealthier!"

Right...

And if I demand and absolutely *insist* I'm going to be the next William Shakespeare loud and long and hard enough, it's going to happen because, hey, simply standing around and shouting is, as every 3-year old knows, EXACTLY the right way to get what you want!

As far as the "We're the 99%" trope...

I don't buy it--Americans and the distribution of wealth and ESPECIALLY its application is far too broad to distill into one group...they may have less money than the 1%, but to say tjis is unfair is essentially saying that if you reach that peak of being the 1% you're automatically wronging the other 99% by virtue of your excellence. What's more, again, the middle class of America is VERY VARIED--you have everyone from business owners to wage slaves to writers and scientists to telephone operators and burger flippers in there...you have Left-leaning university staff and Right-leaning military staff...the "99%" is a statistical hoax--it's like claiming all the other animals on the Earth are the "oppressed 99.9%," but those other animals are as diverse as...well...lions and sheep, sharks and guppies, cats and dogs, and so on and so forth. Same with the "99%"--it's really many smaller groups with divergent and even warring desires, and it does not exist except in the fever dreams of the wanna-be intelligentia such as these fools.

@Mafi:

"I've blasted you about this before and I'll do it again. That is the laziest stand on liberalism and politics I've ever heard. It lets you claim liberal values because you defend LGBT rights and feminism, up to a point, and such, without actually saying anything that actually challenges the widely held preconceptions you cherish, defending your privileged position as a white, university educated, middle class, suburban male."

1. Trust me...I'M SORRY I'm a white, suburban, middle class male...

I might get some sort of break if I didn't, but as I AM, as I've learned in African American Lit. and Women and Ethicities in Theatre this semester...

I--the white middle classer in the suburbs--am hated by EVERYONE...even though I've done NOTHING to anyone.

I haven't hosed any blacks or set dogs on them...
I haven't denied any women the right to vote...
I haven't beaten up any minorities...

And yet, I'm Public Minority Enemy #1 (well, to be fair, I probably would be anyway, given my mouth--you see how I post, you can imagine how I am in a live conversation--but still...)

I CAN'T CHANGE THAT.

Sorry.

I refuse to apologize for being dealt a good genetic hand fiscally and geographically (now, biologically, my hand sucks, as I have Chron's, scoliosis, and have ha a strike and seizures...for starters...but I'll take them in exchange for the good education and standing I ahve in the world...why should I be made to apologize for that?)

As for my stance being "lazy"...why?

I VOTE for those issues.

It's not as if I'm just giving lip service to the minorities and then going back to sip my congnac and enjoy the high-life that is, of course, what ALL we white suburbanites enjoy...

I actually *do* vote and stand for these issues.

So how is this a cop out?

That I refuse to commit fully to one wing or another?



I wouldn't call that a cop out--I'd call that being smart and not indoctrinated or slanted to one dogma or another, but evaluating issues as they come based on their merits...wht's that called again...

Thinking for yourself...?

And as far as defending my priveledged position...

Ummmmm......

Why WOULDN'T I?!?!

Really, I'm all for giving others a boost up...but why should that mean *I* should have to take a step down?

I'm consistent on this poit at least--

I BELIEVE HUMAN BEINGS ARE GOVERNED BY SELF INTEREST.

It's in MY self interest to stay at this level or else elevate, it is not in my interest to lower myself from my social standing...

So why should I?

Why should I need to hurt myself to help others?
Or feel guilt at having the good start in the first place?
Why wouln't I defend the goods I enjoy?

Do you think Rome just gave up one day and said "Yeah, we've been #1 for long enough now...let's give the Goths a chance--come on in, boys!"

Or the English went "You know, we have such a large empire...we're the greatest naval force the world has ever seen...we practically own the seas--we're too powerful and rich, damnit, it's time we gave all this land and dominance back, we don't deserve it!"

I really don't get the point here...

Why would I NOT want to protect my status as being reasonably priviledged?

I can't see how that's immoral, simply wanting to keep my status, unless being in good standing is automatically a sin, and if it is...

Well, it'd just be AWFUL of me to pass that sin onto those less fortunate...so why would I want to do so?

I WANT others to elevate to my level!
If I don't ever become a writer like I'd like to be, I'd like to devote my whole life to education and making sure kids get a GOOD ONE!
I WANT to help others!



I Just don't want to hurt myself for the sake of hurting myself because I got a good break in the process--why is that wrong?

First of all I deplore how much people keep abbreviating my forum name. Keep dropping letters one by one until I'm address as just "Ma" or better yet "M".

Anyway. "1. Trust me...I'M SORRY I'm a white, suburban, middle class male...:" - Which is why you're sorta, but not really "commited" to ideals like LGBT equality, centrist immigration reform and abortion rights.

And yeah, I'm white, from a suburban background, male, university educated and middle class too. You can't change your race, your sex, or the geographic locale in which you were born, but what you can change is your outlook. You can stop going around assuming that the middle class, white, heterosexual, suburban outlook is the one true lens from which to view the world and try on someone else's glasses now and then. And if you did that you would understand why, even though you "haven't done anything", why minorities don't like you.

And I'm sorry, do you want a cookie because you've voted in like, what 2 elections? 3 at the outside? Fine, have a fucking cookie. But don't go around pretending that voting makes you some kind of action taking Nietzschian Superman.

And I'm supposed to believe that you sitting around saying "get a job you lazy protesters!" is motivated by independent thinking, that just happens to coincide with the larger societal status quo? Bullshit.

"I BELIEVE HUMAN BEINGS ARE GOVERNED BY SELF INTEREST."

You keep repeating that mantra, and ignore that greed is, taking MORE than needed for the self.

Why wouldn't you defend your privileged position? I dunno, because you recognize that your own privileged position has consequences for other people? Because you don't want a part in a system that is coercive, discriminatory and oppressive? Because of integrity or empathy? Because you have the courage to maintain the strength of your convictions? Wow...just...fucking...wow.

obi-in the lion's den posted.... (now, biologically, my hand sucks, as I have Chron's, scoliosis, and have ha a strike and seizures...)

You're also a jew and, as such, are incapable of admitting any wrong or fault. You display this regularly.

also, voting is the minimum level of participation necessary for democracy to begin functioning, it is not the maximum.

"Honestly, I think this whole thread is just another example of your obsession with trying to appear smart without ever being able to be challenged as "wrong". That's why your favourite writer is Shakespeare, your favourite composer is Beethoven, your favourite thinkers are Plato and Nietzsche. They're all safe choices, all great men, who can't be challenged as excellent choices. And now it's clear your politics reflect that too. Try to seem as reasonable and bipartisan as you can, without ever supporting anyone who steps out of line, or becomes unpopular, or challenges the status quo in any way. So in an attempt to never be wrong you've turned yourself into a god damned weather vane, and it wasn't worth it. Because after all that, you're still wrong."

Now, HERE you ahve so many mistaken assumptions about me I'm going to have to break it down bit by bit.

1. First, Tchaikovsky and Mozart are my favorites, NOT Beethoven (he's actually rather far down my list, he's good, but often too mechanical for me, I like the flourish and passion Tchaikovsky and Mozart show...they sort of trade off who's #1, Tchaikovsky when I'm in one state of mind, Mozart more when I'm at peace...but it's not Beethoven, so if you're going to attack my icons, or me for holding them, at least get them right!) ;)

2. That's NOT why I like those men, and I'll now give a breakdown of WHY I like them:

-Shakespeare's my favorite writer for a great number of reasons, but reason #1 is because...well, I loved EPICS long before I ever got into reading individual books, I read Homer and the Iliad and Odyssey by middle school, and King Arthur and various bits of Robin Hood ballads and The Fall and The Death of Robert Fiztooth (Robin Hood) by Anthony Munday--a Shakespeare contemporary--long before I ever read a single line by the Bard. I also read Poe and poets like Tennyson and Browning early as well. I ALSO read a lot of history and social commentaries back then, too...not philosophy, but heading there. I like Shakespeare because he combines all three--and more. His plays, especially the Tragedies--and some Histories and Problem Plays--give everything I LOVE in literature and, really, in life: BIG character with BIG problems and BIG scenarios and EPIC struggles and DEEP conflicts and DEEP language that's multi-layered...and so on and so forth. Shakespeare gives you love scenes and action scenes, moments of internal relfection and slapstick comedy--and often in the same play! To men, he's Homer and Sophocles Tennyson and Mallory and other such writers yet to come, all in one.

Another reason Iove Shakespeare is because he wrote my favorite thing ever, "Hamlet," which I love for the reasons Iove Shakespeare--it has something of everything in there. I also love it because, aside from Sherlock Holmes, there is absolutely no character in all literature I identify with more as a person than Hamlet himself...I WAS the kind of kid who spend time with people...and then go off by himself and ask questions to himself forever, and then ask someone else, and they'd say it was weird--and it is. It takes a weird person to do that, to contstantly be asking questions and over-analyzing everything and being "that guy" who just doesn't quite fit in, even when he does. I've had a good number of friends...but even in the groups I've been with, I'm always a little apart...I'm just odd. Probably negative, but whatever, I'm not saying it's a good thing--I'm just saying it's who I am, and I don't care if folks like it or not.

Holmes and Hamlet feel like sides of me I know...

When ANYONE ELSE is on TV or on stage, I see a character, most of the time.

When its Hamlet, it's like seeing someone I feel like I could have a real conversation with--and we'd end up finishing each other's sentences.

Shakespeare gave me that, and more, and all I've mentioned, and THAT is reason 1/1000 why he's my favorite author.

-I like Mozart and Tchaikosky for the reasons I've already said--their music just feels so passionate and stirring in a way few others, to me, consistently are...I can listen to just about anything they wrote, and it'll make me smile or get me fired up or make me think.

-I like Nietzsche for two reasons--first, he's the first philosohper I ever read, and so he's sort of special that way, and it's a bias, I know, but it is what it is. Besides that, I like Nietzsche because a lot of the philosophic, ethical, and metaphysical statements he makes are things I thought about for years in those Hamlet-soliloquoy sessions off by myself in a field--I always liked walking off by myself into a field or area with a lot of plants and no human beings, just pure quite, for some reason, when I thought these things--and so, like Hamlet, I feel like the sentences he starts are ones I can finish, and maybe build upon. His POLITICS are crap, in my opinion, but then I don't care for everything Shakespeare wrote, either--"The Comedy of Errors" is OK for what it is, but it's really not great and if it wasn't Shakespeare it'd be gone forever, and "Romeo and Juliet" is FAR from the best love story ever, it's pretty trite, was in Shakespeare's day, and the only thing that saves it is the great poetry that's in it and Mercutio, who's a fun cahracter--as soon as he dies in Act III, you can just stop watching and say "And everyone else dies" and you're good, you're not missing much.

Nietzsche and Shakespeare aren't saints or idols of worship--they're just guys I like and agree with a lot and hold as heroes...sorry.

-Plato (and Aristotle ans Socrates, the whole trio, I just like Plato the most) I like for essentially starting up Western Philosophy in proper, and even when they were 100% batshit insane and wrong about something, at least they tried to answer the questions put to them and, again, like Homer, they NEVER have a problem with people taking pride and standing up and being proud of accomplishment. I got pissed A LOT as a kid on those group projects...where it's five people on the project, and maybe two do all the work, but ALL get the credit...or, more annoying, when you were playing sports outside, and teachers wouldn't let you ntouch the ball because you "scored too many times already--give the other kids a chance!" I HATED that...and Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Shakespeare, and Nietzsche have NO PRONLEM letting those who are are good at what they do go out and do it!



I'm by no means the Achilles or Odysseus or Hamlet-pinnacle-of-anything...

But when I DO accomplish something...I like it to be recognized, and not become a hinderance later on because I ahve to "let someone else have a chance."

I'm all for that other person having a chance!
Let them play!
And if they're a better quarterback than me--what I played at recess--then go ahead!
Bench me and put them in!
And if they want help with that, or writing or reading, I'm happy to help!
And when I need help with math, I'll ask for that, too, because I'M NOT PERFECT!

But there's no sanity and no fairness in punishing those who do well just because they did "too well," and likewise, I take exception to my not being allowed to have the heroes I like because they're "too popular" or "safe."

First--Nietzsche and Plato are NOT safe...*you* come to my overly-Christian town and say you like them and think the Bible's full of it, and see how safe *that* is.

And in any event...maybe there's a reason they're still read...true, part of its what culture's been on top for the last few centuries, but still, there have been a LOT of writers in that span...

I'm not going to hold it against them that they're popualr and have stood the test of time...

If anything, THOSE are the people I'm going to maybe consider doing a rare thing for:

Shut my mouth and open my mind and let THEM teach ME...because, hey, Palto's been blathering on to folks for 2500 years, and he's still repeated...

And Shakespeare's still the most quoted author in the English language...

And Mozart's still practically tied with Beethoven for most-performed-artist in the last few centuries...

They propbably have something to teach me that's worthwhile, wouldn't you think?

(Thus concludes Part 1 of this dissection, as this has a LOT more for me to write and respond to, such is the ammount of utter fail in your assumptions...)

"First of all I deplore how much people keep abbreviating my forum name. Keep dropping letters one by one until I'm address as just "Ma" or better yet "M"."

...

People call me Obi or obiwan...and *I* don't have a problem with that...

Will you really be hurt if, nafter all our discussions, I don't call you Mafialligator all the time?

After all--what's in a name?

(One of the few good moments in that play...even THAT part is trite, but still, a good moment...)

Ugh. My point stands even though I misremembered your favourites. Mozart is hardly a more controversial choice than Beethoven. And I don't doubt that you can defend your choices from an artistic or intellectual standpoint. But that's kinda my point.
You never actually want to risk being called wrong. I'm not going to say "Mozart is a bad composer", because he's not, and you know that.

I'm not holding their popularity against them, I like Shakespeare, I like him a lot. I like Beethoven, and Mozart, (not so much Tchaikovsky though). I'm just saying, the only convictions you've ever shown any commitment too are just so broad, and so popular that they may as well not be convictions at all. So before you post another 6 page response that completely misses the point, read this, and try and grasp what I'm saying to you.

Oh my god, you never read anything do you? Mafia is fine, I'm just not really into this whole, cutting off a name halfway through a sound. Saying Mafi is like me calling you "obiw".

"You can stop going around assuming that the middle class, white, heterosexual, suburban outlook is the one true lens from which to view the world and try on someone else's glasses now and then."

Now THIS argument I love, because I hear it so often, given my predilection for daring to cite Shakespeare and Plato and Milton, ie, all the white, Western, elitist types that attract this sort of criticism...

So I have two short responses:

1. If I cited Chinua Achebe instead of Shakespeare, or Hoyt Fuller instead of T.S. Eliot...even though in both cases I DESPISE both of their works...

Would that be better?

I HATE "Things Fall Apart"--just very dull and clunky to me, and the characters didn't have eitehr the realistic feel of a D.H. Lawrence or Virginia Woolf character or the grandiose epic-ness of a Shakespearean or Grecian hero--and I completely diagree with Fuller's assertion that black art can enver be understood by white people, black art must be "ANTAGOINISTIC" towards white people--and I'm quoting him there, HE said antagonistic towareds whites, not me--and think, therefor, that his whole literary interpretation system he builds around that foundation fails utterly and is crap...

But hey--they're from another race and another perspective...if I give their view lip service just because they're black and I'm white and it's a different viewpoint and NOT because I think their ideas are good (as if a white author wrote what they did I'd ahve the same criticisms, or potentially even more)...that's good?

I think not.

2. I can respect and see a view and NOT agree with it.

Case in point:

I see where Fuller is coming from in his essay "Towards a Black Aesthetic"...
I just think he couldn't have been more wrong if he tried.
And I see where Achebe gets his ideas for "Things Full Apart"...
I just think the story's dull and crap.

That being said, it's not because of their race, but because of the merits of their work, or, in this case, the lack of them:

I have the SAME criticisms of Achebe that I have for Hawthorne and Edith Wharton, and probably more for them than Achebe, actually...

I can see through a lens--and stil choose to put it back and take up my old specs.

"You never actually want to risk being called wrong. I'm not going to say "Mozart is a bad composer", because he's not, and you know that.

I'm not holding their popularity against them, I like Shakespeare, I like him a lot. I like Beethoven, and Mozart, (not so much Tchaikovsky though). I'm just saying, the only convictions you've ever shown any commitment too are just so broad, and so popular that they may as well not be convictions at all. So before you post another 6 page response that completely misses the point, read this, and try and grasp what I'm saying to you."

Do my favorite authors NEED to be controversial or on the edge?

I really don't see what your arguing for...

That my convictions are so generally-held there's no reason to voice them?

If so--why is there opposition to them?

And should I just shelve Shakes and Neetch and the rest for the time being and bring in the more obscure, "controversial" authors?

If I bang on about how "House of Leaves" is crap instead of criticising "The Scarlet Letter," is that any better?

Again--

Folks still oppose my points that I make with the authors I cite, so its not as if I'm reciting "2+2=4" and everyone already agrees...especially with Plato and Nietzsche, as CLEARLY folks such as Putin and others in this thread dislike them intensely...

So why not use them?

I don't like Post-Modernism, I think its shit, and that's the latest movement...or one of them, anyway...

So I can't cite authors there I like, so that brings me to T.S. Eliot and D.H. Lawrence and Modernism...

So now what?

Fine, whatever obi.
You're completely an independent thinker and your upbringing and background have absolutely nothing to do with your views on ANYTHING. I'm done with this stupid fucking argument. Enjoy your place in the Mafialligator mute bin alongside Tettleton's Chew, and no one else.

@orathic:

"You keep repeating that mantra, and ignore that greed is, taking MORE than needed for the self."

If we take that as true...

Well, we now have the tricky task of deciding what's "more than is needed."

After all--a nice laptop like the one I'm using right now isn't NEEDED...but it sure is nice...

My leatherbound, gold-paged editions of Shakespeare and Dickens aren't needed, and neither is my iPod...but I sure like THOSE...

So is luxury now equivalent to greed?

Because that's something Plato DID argue in "The Republic," and is one of the few non "Eugenics-is-good" parts I dislike (since, really, if ANYONE likes the Eugenics part...they need to take that white blankie off their head...watch Fasces like it one day, though...) ;)

Plato argued that luxury AT ALL was wrong because it was, precisely, "more than was needed" for an efficient state, and that it would breed jealousy, and so would be divisive.

Well.

Is that what is meant--just exactly what you need to survive, and no more, no luxuries?
If not--where do you draw the line between what is a "fair" amount of excess and what is just horrible greed?

If we use Locke's Apple Tree Example here, we get part of an answer, ie, if money's sitting in your account and you have so much it'll never be touched, THAT'S waste...except:

1. You did techically earn that money, so forcing you to give it up, even merely via societal pressure, seems a bit iffy ethically...

2. That's a nice principle--but what's the practical, numerical breakdown of when this occurs?

"Fine, whatever obi.
You're completely an independent thinker and your upbringing and background have absolutely nothing to do with your views on ANYTHING. I'm done with this stupid fucking argument. Enjoy your place in the Mafialligator mute bin alongside Tettleton's Chew, and no one else."

...

I think I stated MULTIPLE times there that I didn't consider myself perfect or original...

And my whole POINT was that my upbringing DID affect what I like and dislike...

But OK...if you've muted me, I guess I can't do anything about it, can I? :/

NO. Ugh. Just stop trying to prove to everyone that you're some kind of wunderkind all the fucking time. Just stop trying to impress us all with your "good taste" in everything. Just stop acting like the fact that you read Shakespeare, listen to Mozart, read Plato and Nietzsche and hate the Occupy Wall Street movement makes you better than everyone else. And make a genuine choice about something that actually reflects some part of who you are. Because, and here's the part you don't seem to have grasped: I think you are lying about these things. I think you're lying to us, and I think you're lying to yourself. I think you unconsciously force yourself to enjoy Shakespeare, Mozart, Nietzsche and Plato as much as you claim to out of a deep rooted insecurity, and some underlying fear that you might actually be wrong about everything. So you attach yourself and your identity to these so-called "great men" so that you can stand on the shoulders of giants and remain untouchable by all of us way down here. I don't doubt that you can actually defend your "love" of Mozart. I just also think that if you let go of all your unbearable pretensions you'd be able to enjoy the common stuff just all of the unwashed plebs way down here too.

"Is that what is meant--just exactly what you need to survive, and no more, no luxuries?"

That's a really good question, it's a pity the protesters didn't put forward an answer before you even started the thread... maybe you can ask them.

"If not--where do you draw the line between what is a "fair" amount of excess and what is just horrible greed?"

where you draw the line is a question that may take some time to answer, but the position that you must draw a line somewhere is one which most societies have agreed upon.

"If we use Locke's Apple Tree Example here, we get part of an answer, ie, if money's sitting in your account and you have so much it'll never be touched, THAT'S waste...except:

1. You did techically earn that money, so forcing you to give it up, even merely via societal pressure, seems a bit iffy ethically..."

No, being part of a community involves give and take, a mutual understanding that both will thrive through co-operation. If you exist as part of a society then it is not stealing to write laws taxing the rich it is a social contract.

You don't have to live in such a society... but, oh wait, nations demand sovereignty in almost all of the land available on the earth. I guess you do HAVE to live in such a country.

However, We are by nature social creatures, and having all the money in the world will mean very little is you are not part of a society. We are not the Ubermensch which Nietzsche describes, we are all interconnected, interdependent creatures which exist in our natural state interacting with each other.

The idealized concept of the individual is just that an idealization. And taking any point of view to it's extreme will inevitably lead to logical conclusions which are at odds with reality. Which is where i believe you have found yourself.

"2. That's a nice principle--but what's the practical, numerical breakdown of when this occurs?"

some level progressive taxation.

How about a minimum income which is untaxed and a sliding scale of increasing taxes for those with higher incomes.

Also you say something along the lines of branding this generation as whingers, would the same apply to the civil rights movement?

"NO. Ugh. Just stop trying to prove to everyone that you're some kind of wunderkind all the fucking time. Just stop trying to impress us all with your "good taste" in everything. Just stop acting like the fact that you read Shakespeare, listen to Mozart, read Plato and Nietzsche and hate the Occupy Wall Street movement makes you better than everyone else."

QUOTE the place I say I'm better than ANYONE--besides those kids in the tents--because of those things.

And I hardly have a need to impress you...you're a person on the Internet talking to me about a bunch of kids in a tent and we're currently having a debate about...ummm...it was the kids, I tbhink, and then it delved into my past, and now I dunno...

" And make a genuine choice about something that actually reflects some part of who you are."

I did.
I posted agaisnt this movement.
I voted for Democrats and argued in my neighborhood agaisnt Prop 8.
No one is without inspiration, I merely cite mine, as that's my writing style--and if it sucks, it sucks, but it's MINE, and who I am, for better or worse.

"I think you're lying to us, and I think you're lying to yourself."

No...

"I think you unconsciously force yourself to enjoy Shakespeare, Mozart, Nietzsche and Plato as much as you claim to out of a deep rooted insecurity, and some underlying fear that you might actually be wrong about everything. So you attach yourself and your identity to these so-called "great men" so that you can stand on the shoulders of giants and remain untouchable by all of us way down here."

I DO genuinely love Shakespeare, I actually just bought more DVDs of his plays (Richard III with Ian McKellan, 1995, and The Merchant of Venice, Al Pacino, 2004) and I'm directing a mdoernized version of Merchant of Venice at my college...

I own most of Plato's works, and a good deal of Nietzshe, and do genuinely like them...

My favorite non-action/epic film is "Amadeus" and I have all classical music and lectures on my iPod--and old Mets baseball games, just to up the nerd level--becuase I genuinely love all those...it's not like verything else sucks and those are the ONLY things I like, just what I like BEST.

Ditto Shakes--I think I've mentioned about five or ten other authors I like in the course of this discussion, but if I'm going to argue a point and cite a literary figure...

Well, the Patriots don't ever worry about "over-using" Tom Brady as their first-stringer, do they?

Why would I not go with Shakespeare if the opportunity to use him was there? The only reason I can see is either relevance or variety; in the case of the former...well, I don't think I mentioned a Shakespeare play or sonnet here until we started this dissection of my likes and dislikes...in the case of the latter, in a paper, yeah, using Shakespeare for 24 pages is boring, I sue otehr folks, but I'm not WRITING 24 PAGES HERE--yet, lol--so I'll go with whoever strieks me at the moment and often that's those in my Top Bracket.

And, again--I didn't reference the Bard's plays un til you brought them into this.

"So you attach yourself and your identity to these so-called "great men" so that you can stand on the shoulders of giants and remain untouchable by all of us way down here."

Yes, I stand on Shakespeare's shoulders.
And he stood on Marlowe's.
And both stood on Kyd's.
And he stood on whoever wrote the Urr-Hamlet.
And all of them stood on Sophocles shoudlers.
And Sophocles stood on Hoemr's shoulders.
And Homer stood on the shoulders of some Greek caveman with a cool story idea.

That's how it works.

Do I seek to remain untouchable?

HELL NO!
I LOVE to be challenged, so I get to respond and have a discussion!
And if I'm right, it's good practice!
And if I'm wrong, I learn something new!

And I DON'T MUTE ANYONE! (Unlike OTHER members here...)

So I don't attempt to mute those who disagree...as you can see, I've been banging on with you for over an hour! (That sounds wrong...) LOL ;)

" I don't doubt that you can actually defend your "love" of Mozart. I just also think that if you let go of all your unbearable pretensions you'd be able to enjoy the common stuff just all of the unwashed plebs way down here too."

Why can't I love BOTH?!

Who started tha bougouis NFL Pick 'Em thread?
And who bangs on about Star Trek a lot?
And who's team won in a shootout against the Rangers in Sweden this morning? :)

I can like both...and I do.

If I come off as pretentious...you know, that's just how I come off, I guess...if I try and change that, I'm not being genuine with anyone, including myself.

I'm perfectly cool with who I am.

Not everyone likes it...but some do, and others know me for it, and I think you are who you make yourself out to be to the rest of the world, and what they feed back to you...

And if I play the part of a stuck up, arrogant schmuck who's one to sip tea and listen to Bach and also not above shouting at the TV because of a holding call against the 49ers...

It's who I am.

And I like who I am, and I'm confortable with it, knowing others won't like it.



So I guess the best I can say is:

I'm not all patrician, and not all plebian...

But if you want to view me as one or the other, I'm happy to play the part with my tongue firmly in cheek. ;)