NYC finally understands taxes, freaks out and quits

NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr (Democrat, hold on read that again its important. This is a story about a Democrat from one of the most liberal areas in the Nation) wants to secede from NY State. Why you ask?

This is where it gets good. See NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg testified in Albany that NYC pays $11 billion more in taxes than it gets back from the state. This ticked Mr Vallone off.

Welcome to the world of taxation and wealth redistribution Mr Vallone. Surely, as a Democrat you are passingly familiar with these concepts. But maybe not when it applies to you. Anyway, lets look at some fun quotes.

somebody please tell me what other options we have if the state is going to continue to take billions from us and give us back pennies.

Ummm, this is the exact concept of wealth redistribution. The wealthy give lots get little. Maybe its not fair, but I'm assuming as a Dem that you've voted to "redistribute" the wealth many, many times.

Next.

They take $11 billion from us and give us back a mere pittance and they make it seem like they're doing us a favor to give that pittance back. Somehow they missed the point that that is New York City's own tax money and we deserve it.

Wait, you feel that its your money and you "deserve" it? Capitalist pig! Seriously, are you new to your party? This sounds like the mad rant of a greedy capitalist, what with earning and keeping money and all. Railing at the government and feeling upset that they took a lot from you and gave you little. Mad that they want to take the money you earned and give it to...to...others. Don't they "deserve" a better life on your dime? Isn't this what your team wants? How can you sleep at night with all those billions under your mattress? Maybe you missed the point, its not your money, its your obligation.

But who are the problem according to Mr Vallone?

It would be much, much simpler to be able to govern 8.5 million people without having to ask legislators who represent villages on the Canadian border for permission before we do anything.

Oh, now I understand, the problem is the poor. Very egalitarian of you Mr Vallone.

What do other Councilmen think of this raving conservative and his idea to choke the poor? Let's go to Mr Simcha Felder a Brooklyn Democrat.

It certainly has merit. Why in the world should New York City be held hostage to the state? It just doesn't make sense...I think the people in New York City are very interested for the most part in it. The question is the people outside New York City in New York State who have been eating the fruits of our labor for all this time. They aren't going to be ready to just say forget about it." (italics mine).

What the? Am I living in some kind of Bizzarro world where Liberal Democrats are shouting Conservative Philosophy.

My only question is how did these Conservative Republicans get elected Councilmen for Queens and the Brooklyn? I mean they clearly favor letting the wealthy keep their wealth, not only that but they're so mad they want to opt out. They clearly can't stand the idea of forced wealth redistribution. They clearly disdains the poor. So much so that they feel wronged even giving them a say. By their own words they just want to be left alone with their money to do what they want. I don't see any difference between this platform and the most conservative Republican's I know (Shout out to Stalin).

What I can't accept is that Mr Vallone is some kind of hypocrite. Happy to give away other people's money, but not his own. Because a NY liberal Democrat decrying disproportionate taxation on the rich and forced wealth redistribution would just be too much.

*On a more serious note, and just to be clear, while I am definitely mocking these two Councilmen, I am not intending to mock liberal ideas in general. While I have a different, some would say "much" different, view of taxes and free markets, I firmly believe that the conflict between the "liberal" and "conservative" views on economic policy are crucial to our nation. I have never held that "liberal" views on taxation and economy are anything other than intelligent people doing what they think is best for America. What I cannot stand are hypocrites (see the above Councilmen). If one really believes that high taxes and wealth redistribution are the best policies, then those policies should also, happily, apply to oneself.

Thank you, and now we can all return to my lame attempts at comedy. sarcasm and wit (yes, yes I am aware that what I mostly achieve is tragedy, chasm, and sh...(nope, my mommy reads this here blog).

Let the "x" word sweepstakes begin

Apparently reducing adults to the level of having to say "the n-word" when referring to any discussion about "nigger" isn't quite enough. Looks like now the new way to have proper recognition as an oppressed minority is to have your own word that's so bad you can't say it. In the wake of the Don Imus scandal, Ruben Navarrette Jr. is calling for everyone to stop saying "wetback" (which, honestly I didn't think people really said that much) and replace it with "the w-word." Seems "wetback" is disrespectful (well...duh) but the much more juvenile "the w-word" is somehow more respectful. One, making adults say "w-word" is really just disrespectful to adults. Two, I don't want to burst Mr Navarrette's bubble, but "w-word" is just code for "wetback." Nothings really changed. It's like when people think saying "jeeze" when angry is OK, but "Jesus" isn't. It's all code for the same meaning, and bad is bad. Changing the code doesn't change the meanings.

But it looks like the trend will be for minorities to have their own "banned" words. The Irish can have the "d word," Native Americans the "r word" and the Chinese the "y word." But what happens when words start to overlap? I'm sure the Italians don't like "wop," but it looks like the Hispanics have dibbed the "w word." The Italians can't go with the "wo word" because it looks like they're stuttering, which is surely the "s word" for stutterers. Maybe they go with the "Italian w word" but that feels cumbersome. I guess we need to hold some sort of summit to work all this out, but if you work in an office you know that meetings surely rate the "m word." Maybe that's the fix. Everything we find offensive we just abbreviate it down to the "x word." Everyone can feel important and everyone else can feel stupid (s word?).

Look, I get that Mr Navarrette probably knows that his idea is s word, but that putting it out there gets people talking about him, and in the age of Reality TV, any talk is good talk (better to be known as a moron than not be known at all). However the problem is that some "i word" will not get this and take him seriously. Then a bad idea takes root, and it becomes all of our problem.

Put the Shock Back In My Jock

Don Imus was forced to apologize for an "insensitive" remark. Don Imus' job is to make "insensitive" remarks. Let me just say I am not a fan. He and Stern are voices for people who want nothing more than to be back in the safe and simple world if middle school where a well-timed fart joke could make you a king. That being said, his comment about the Rutgers basketball team, regardless of how much truth it contained, is exactly what he is paid for. Belittling individuals and groups will always attract a crowd and often a lucrative radio contract. I understand that we have created some protected classes in today's society who get special treatment. When group A whines they get ignored, when group B whines the offender is shipped off to the Gulag for the reprogramming of sensitivity training. If you think you're justified making a living offending sensitivities then do with it some honor...be an equal opportunity offender. When you cow tow to the sacred cows of "progressive" America, you aren't just a boorish lout anymore, you're also a sell out.

Imus, you are a wuss.

Free Speech on a roll

Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr threw out a 1998 law making it a crime to let children access objectionable material. As distasteful as it is, I agree with Judge Reed. I view this as a parental responsibility. I also like his phrasing,

Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.

Well said.

In other news, the internet may prove to be the undoing of the, I think, unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill among other First Amendment Violations. Former NC Senator and Presidential hopeful John Edwards had been dogged by an internet ad showing him primping his hair to the tune of "I Feel Pretty." And, more famously, Hillary Clinton was skewered by an ad mimicking Apple's famous "1984" Super Bowl ad, this one called "Hillary 1984" (the title also shows an awareness of how You Tube searches work, if your looking for the controversial ad, you plug "Hillary 1984" into the engine. Making that the name of the ad gets the searcher right to the spot). What makes the Hillary 1984 ad so interesting is that it was clearly pro-Obama as it had "BarakObama.com" at the end, and that it was, initially, anonymous (leading to a mini Primary Colors fad where Phil De Vellis played the part of Joe Klein) and that, by being on the internet and not TV it was unregulated. Meaning Mr De Vellis did not have to reveal himself, nor would he theoretically be restricted by the "black-out" dates before an election.

I think its interesting that the internet, with all its pipes, is touted as the hope of free people in China, Iran, Russia, etc and that it may also bring this country back to its principles.

That's soooooo gay!

California (surprise!) student Rebekah Rice got a "note to her file" (I have to say, I didn't think "files" really existed, I thought they were some kind of educational boogieman) for saying, in response to something that insulted her religion, "That's so gay." Here's how it went down,

When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, "Do you have 10 moms?" she shot back: "That's so gay."

And bammo, a trip to the man, a note to her permanent record, and a lawsuit. But here's what the article missed. Notice that the other kids were teasing her about her religious beliefs, and yet, according to the article, nothing, not one thing, happened to them. So rather than discuss the negatives of "that's so gay," which Jordan Lorence sums up nicely.

"That's so gay" carries a negative meaning and said he would not want his children to say it. But he said formal discipline is not the answer. Reasonable people should say, `Let's put a stop to this kind of search-and-destroy mission by school officials for everything that is politically incorrect.

Can't argue with that. The article also quotes Eliza Byard of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network

As odd or funny as the phrase sounds, imagine what it feels like to be in a setting where you consistently hear it used to describe something undesirable or stupid, and it also refers to you.

Agreed. But imagine sitting in a class where people say to you things like "Do you have 10 mommies?" I don't think that made Rebekah feel great and mighty. Look, I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but the article plays up the harm that "gay" causes and never mentions the harm caused by religious insults while only briefly noting that the parents figured out the double standard (I know Stalin, its MSNBC, but still) yet never develops why that's OK or not OK.

Schools have a tough job. Bullying is a real problem, but driving out free speech isn't going to help. Kids will find other words and ways to get their message across. It seems like a teacher saying, "enough you two" would have gone a lot farther than the heavy-handed approach used. Also, why not take the extra step of pulling the kids aside, letting them know that teasing someone about their religion is unacceptable, and that "that's so gay" is hurtful. In any case, this rush to punishment, which is ironically fostered and pushed by the conservatives, isn't the right approach.