Jump to content

Mlle. Zabzie

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Mlle. Zabzie

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/25/1977

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

10,051 profile views
  1. This was a weird ep. BUT I want to re watch to get all the references. Fight Club was obvious. Maybe a little of Talented Mr. Ridley with the bit in the Club? Others?
  2. Actually Oona O’Neil isn’t really what I would focus on for Chaplin. There was a huge age difference, and you can feel however you feel about it, but she was of age when they married, and they did stay married for 44 years. So if that were it….HOWEVER, there is a LOT more there on Chaplin (even taking into account that he was widely reviled for his anti-fascist, pro-Communist sympathies). There was Lita Grey (15 to his 35). There was Mildred Harris (16) - think he married her. There was the Joan Barry scandal. There was Paulette Goddard (though she was 21). Anyhow, there’s some squick there for sure.
  3. Shirley Temple Black? (All I can come up with from around that era). I can highly recommend You Must Remember This - a podcast about Hollywood in the 20th Century. It’s excellent. I’m also a big fan of Unspooled, which is more movie criticism, but does a deep dive into each movie (and the stars and scandals around them - the one on The General (Buster Keaton’s magnum opus) is great).
  4. Am I allowed to have mixed feelings about this?
  5. I had my annual check up today (flu shot achieved!). I (obviously) spoke to my doctor about Covid. Here was her take: 1. Administration has been a bit of a disaster on the communications front. She thinks they are jumping the gun on the vaccine booster stuff, and not doing a good enough job on communicating the mitigation strategies you describe above. 2. She is not recommending boosters, except for 75+ and truly immunocompromised people (ie, those with organ transplants; those on chemotherapy, etc.) at this time. She says understanding changes daily. She is guessing for ordinarily healthy people 8 months minimum, and maybe you want next gen vaccine. 3. She had high praise for the NYC DOH (and slightly fainter, but still positive for NYS DOH). Her view was that communication from NYC has been clear, consistent, and effective. She is cautiously optimistic that school reopening is being done right - mask mandate plus vaccine mandate for 12+. 4. She thinks pediatric approval (5-12) for Pfizer could come as early as October (around Halloween) but probably at some point in December. 5. Go get your flu shot!
  6. I know a few people who died - all in early days in 2020. I know several people who have had Covid, including breakthrough cases. The severity of their illness seems arbitrary and capricious based on what I know of their profiles.
  7. I know. I know. But that's why, in part, why it is worthwhile to live Here rather than Elsewhere.
  8. I have to say that I'm in the "zero covid, even for an island nation, isn't a long-term strategy." The rest of the world is not going zero covid. The whole thing sort of feels like people going through stages of grief in their own ways. In one corner, you have the denialists who are denying the long term impact of covid on the social and economic fabric of a country, refusing to get vaccinating, and moving through bargaining with horse dewormer. In another corner, you have denialists who still dream of a zero covid world (that ship sailed IMO a year ago May, or thereabouts) and still advocate ferocious lockdowns to control spread, notwithstanding the fact that long term that is damaging to mental, physical and economic health in other ways. In the third corner, you have the people bargaining through vaccines - assuming that we can vaccinate our way out. I mean, we sort of can, but it's a long and fraught road, given that we will be dealing with various mutations. Think that is a 2024 or 2025 end game at the earliest. And then, I think there is the fourth way, which is to acknowledge that the virus exists, that it has changed life, and that we need to accept the available tools (vaccination, masks), work on additional therapeutics, and go on with life as safely as we can?
  9. Hear that. Honestly state tax differentials are frustrating in general. I am personally more frustrated by all the goodies in the bill for real estate. It's maddening.
  10. We shall see. They may be holding out for pork for the tri-state. I don't know. But they have the leverage.
  11. My sources suggest they are pretty resolute. Will know more tomorrow after I have a few more conversations.
  12. This is a really hard one. Reasons to fully repeal: The economies in question in part largely depend on the ability to take ~10% of the incomes of the super-wealthy. The super-wealthy absolutely do not have to be in the tri-state area (and are already leaving - the pandemic has reduced the opportunity cost, and the marginal cost of moving is relatively low - I felt differently about city stickiness 18 months ago). It would be one thing if state taxes were uniform. However, changing residence can have a huge impact. E.g., let's say you and your spouse make a combined $1 million. If you stay in New York City, you pay a combined rate of ~13.5%. If you move to Westchester, your rate is more like 9.7%. If you move to Texas, your tax burden goes down $97,000-$135,000 a year. That's a compelling number, especially when your top rate is going up to 39.6% on the federal side. If that 13.5% is effectively more like 8%, maybe you are less likely to move. BTW, if you are really super wealthy, your top federal rate is going to look more like 39.6+3.8+3. Your top NY rate is going to be 10.3 (or 10.9) plus, if you live in the city 3.865. I haven't done all the math on the bracket impacts and any phaseouts. I know many people on the board would say "and that is still too low." But the reality is that people can move to states that have made different choices, and do so freely. So there isn't a ton of parity. They can go to Texas and pay just the 39.6+3.8+3. Reasons not to: Well, it benefits really wealthy people. And it benefits really wealthy people who have chosen to live in high tax states. They can in fact move if they don't like it. Maybe there is a phaseout at some income level that would make the NY/NJ/CT people happy? Don't know.
  13. Right? I just didn’t care for it. But we are talking about it, which may be the point? I dunno. Further to her message, if the bill passes in its current form, carried interest (except for Real Estate, which NAREIT continuously reminds us is ‘special’) is essentially dead in its historic form. Only allows cap gains rates for carry for investments that are functionally losers (have been held for the longer of 5 years and 5 years AFTER the end of the fund’s investment period). So, basically, only loser investments. Separately, I’m really curious what the SALT fix looks like that will be proposed. As currently crafted, the bill is an invitation for anyone who lives in NY/NJ/CT/OR/CA/MA to leave if they make more than $400K a year. The ETR is going to be somewhere in the 60% range, and they could lower it by 10 points by moving to any number of places (some of which aren’t that bad) where, bonus, they might be able to benefit more from the federal spending.
  14. I agree that I loved the fashion and the exuberance on display. However, I have to say, I did not care for AOC's dress as a piece of art. She is lovely, and would probably look good in a paper bag (which, btw, would have been an interesting artistic choice), but I didn't care for the early 2000s wedding dress vibe of the thing.
  15. I think the dynamics are different. But whatever, let's see what actually comes out of the next few days negotiations on this before it goes to the Senate (and is summarily gutted and replaced with the Senate version, to produce a frankenstein monster in committee).
  • Create New...