Earlier this week, the anonymous blogger known as "Brandon Friedman" contrasted the disgruntlement voiced by Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin et al during the Democratic fundraiser otherwise known as the tax day tea parties, with the disgruntlement that Friedman's own relatives voiced during earlier tumultuous times in our Nation's history. In case you missed it.
And Beck replied, if you've got the stomach for it. I was one of the brave ones who toughed out the chalk squeakery, his ebullient characterizations of the author's subjects tweaked with an overdose of fantasy like a penny whistle playing nitrous induced laughter. Somewhere, he made a coherent sentence (actually, it's right at the 6 minute mark) and even some kossacks nodded 'hmmm, he might have a point.'
His "taxation without representation" comes from this example: Working in two states in one year. Each state withholds tax from earnings there, even if it's not the state of primary residence. But hey - he can only vote in one state! There it is! Taxation without Representation, right?
And I say to Mr. Beck, Bring. It. On.
Because I hold the opposite opinion. I believe it would be unfair to me to give you the right to vote in more than one state. We each get represented (*District of Columbia, I'm on your side) by a Congressperson who makes up 1/435th of the House, and two Senators who comprise 2% of the Senate. What makes Mr. Beck think he ought to be represented by twice that? How much work in this second state did he perform in order to earn this supplemental right to vote?
I think these are fascinating questions for Mr. Beck and I implore him to make his case before the SCOTUS. Because his glass that's half-empty with taxation without representation, I see as half-full with equal protection. If he's got a problem with that maybe he ought to be encouraged to pursue the matter.