Comments (1)

By Rebecca, April 29, 2012 9:10 pm

I just sent this to my senators and rep. Feel free to use it to talk to yours.

Senator Durbin,

I have lived in Illinois my entire life. I am almost always in agreement with your legislative viewpoints, and appreciate how accesible and responsive you are to your constituents. And so I ask you: Please raise my taxes.

I’m a freelancer. I make less than $20,000 a year. I work in the arts, with children, with colleges and universities, and receive most of my income as 1099. That means I feel the weight of my taxes directly – they aren’t split between myself and my employer. I have bills, rent, medical expenses. And yet, I want you to raise my taxes.

With all the talk of budget deficits, the worries about angering voters by even mentioning raising taxes, and obstinant insistance by the GOP to refuse to raise taxes, I want to make my voice heard, too. As an American, taxes are part of the responsibility I bear to pay for the government services I enjoy. When I fly to visit family in California, I want to know my planes are inspected by government officials, and airports protected by others. When I drink water, I want to know the tap water I enjoy in Chicago is held to the same basic standard as in Portland or New York. While I disagree with much of our current military policy, I am ready to help pay for the defense of the United States. Everyday I am aware of the countless ways in which government helps make my life easier and safer. And I want to help pay for it.

I’m ready to pay more, for a sane government hand in healthcare. I’m ready to pay more, for a substantial government hand in education. I’m ready to pay more for a government hand in highways, bridges, science research, space exploration, national security, and on and on and on.

Please, raise my taxes.
-Rebecca

Comments (0)

By Rebecca, March 20, 2012 12:32 am

This piece was originally posted at In Our Words, and is reposted with permission.

The last few weeks have seen a rush of stories about Obama’s childhood nanny, a transgender woman named Evie. Evie was Obama’s nanny for two years, although she was presenting as male at the time. Beginning with the AP story on March 5, “Obama’s transgender ex-nanny outcast,” the story quickly made the rounds–from American news outlets to the UK, New Zealand, Turkey, and beyond. Here’s the start of the original AP story:

Comments (0)

By Rebecca, January 13, 2012 12:52 pm

Exclusions. Covered expenses of the Plan shall not include … procedures, treatments, equipment, transplants, or implants, any of which are … for, or resulting from, a gender transformation operation. – 215 Illinois Compiled Statutes 105 – Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan Act

It’s unclear whether the State of Illinois has defined – through statute or the courts – what specifically “gender transformation operation” means. But it seems pretty safe to assume that the surgery I’m currently considering would fall under its purview. Surgery in which the “spongiform erectile tissue of the penis is removed, and the skin, with its nerves and vascular system (blood supply) still attached, is used to create a vestibule area and labia minora, which then are inverted into the neovaginal cavity created in the pelvic tissue.” That seems pretty gender transformative to me.

What’s interesting about the Illinois Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan Act (or the ICHIP Act) is what other injuries, procedures, and categories of coverage are excluded.  Gender transformation operations (item 14.iv on the list of exclusions) is lumped in with cosmetic surgery (item 1), anything which exceeds “reasonable or customary” cost (item 4), injury due to war (item 9) , services that are “not provided in accord with generally accepted standards of current medical practice” (item 14), contraceptives (item 19), weight loss programs (item 21), acupuncture (22). Interestingly enough, the act itself does not, as best as I could find, mention abortion or early termination of a pregnancy, but the ICHIP website stil says such services are excluded.

Continue reading 'Some exclusions may apply'»

Comments (3)

By Rebecca, March 21, 2011 8:29 pm

Fun fact: President Obama lives at the top of the dome

Lobbying. One week ago tomorrow, I was traipsing around Capitol Hill, speaking with the staff of Senators and Representatives. As the Degrees of Separation go, I’m now a mere one or two links to President Obama. Lobbying was an incredibly empowering experience, and also somewhat anticlimactic.

All the folks who were going to go lobbying met in the cafeteria of one of the House of Representatives office buildings. These buildings (two or three for House members, on one side of the Capitol, and two or three more on the other side) were basically unnavigable. (Though they had good signs, for the most part.) Capitol Hill, much to my surprise, isn’t so much a metaphor as an actual, physical, hill. So it’s possible to enter a building on the ground floor, go to the opposite end of a hallway, and find yourself underground (or above ground level.) “Helpful” signs, indicating which exit was at which corner of the building, were less helpful if you had no idea which street you wanted to end up near. And you’re surrounded by people in fancy suits, all of whom clearly know where they’re going. But I was with other folks for most of the morning, so felt pretty good and was able to get to appointments on time.

Continue reading 'Speaking to Power'»

Comments (3)

By Rebecca, February 16, 2011 12:23 pm

The Constitution says this. No, it says that. No, this other thing. Being born in the US obviously means you’re a citizen. Um, no, it doesn’t. The Second Amendment is an individual right. Well, maybe it’s a collective right. Abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution. Think again! Obama’s healthcare law is constitutional. Or is it? And what the hell is up with privacy? Is it in or not?

At the heart of all of these arguments is an attempt to interpret what the Founding Fathers meant. What the Constitution “really” means today. Except that discussion – while academically interesting - is side-stepping the actual issue which should be under discussion: What do we want the Constitution to mean?

Don’t take that question to mean I’m in favor of so-called judicial activism. Rather, I think if certain things are so clearly ambiguous in the Constitution, we should change the friggin’ document!

Continue reading 'Disingenuous Arguments about the Constitution'»

Comments (5)

By Rebecca, January 28, 2011 11:01 am

jMarch 13-15, 2011, is the National Center for Transgender Equality Lobby Day:

Each year, transgender people, our families, friends and allies join us in Washington, DC, as we go to our members of Congress to share vital information with them about transgender people and our families. We will also have great opportunities to talk with policy makers in the Administration whose work directly impacts our lives. Please join us as we make strides to bring transgender equality to our nation’s capital.

Three things:

1. If you can, GO!
2. Anyone in the DC area willing to put me up if I’m able to go?
3. Anyone have some money or frequent flyer miles to help me get there?

I looked into Amtrak which is (shockingly!) the cheapest option – about $170 round trip versus $240 for plane tickets, and $270(!!) for a bus.

So…who is in?

Comments (0)

By Rebecca, December 18, 2010 4:23 pm

The Washington Post has responses from Obama and others about the vote, but the long and short of it is that the Senate passed a DADT repeal, 63 to 33. I’m very pleased to say both Senators from Illinois – Dick Durbin (who I like a lot) and Mark Kirk (who I don’t particularly like) voted in favor of the repeal. I just called both of ‘em to leave them “Thank you!” messages, and hope you’ll all do the same – call your Senators, whether or not you agreed with their vote, especially if you disagreed – and tell them so!

Comments (0)

By Rebecca, October 11, 2010 6:59 pm

Krystal Ball

Krystal Ball is a 28 year old Democrat running for Congress in Virginia. (Here is her campaign website.) She has a silly name and, recently, pictures of her at a party six or seven years ago joking around, sucking on a dildo.

She then released the best statement, ever:

I don’t believe these pictures were posted with a desire to just embarrass me; they wanted me to feel like a whore. They wanted me to collapse in a ball of embarrassment and to hang my head in shame. After all, when you are a woman named Krystal Ball, 28 years old, running for Congress, well, you get the picture. Stripper. Porn star. I’ve heard them all.

The full statement is here, and details Ball’s rise to politics, jokes about her name, talks about her desire to see more women in the political arena, and her refusal to let these pictures get the best of her.

I just donated $10, and hope she kicks her opponent’s ass.

Comments (1)

By Rebecca, January 16, 2009 4:04 pm

Something I just posted on a Slashdot discussion on Prop 8…

I’d imagine you’re aware of the usual response to that, but I think it’s important enough that it bears repeating.

Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage. Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior.

In general, the argument for marriage only being valid for a man and a woman revolves around child-rearing. If that’s the case, it’s odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn’t be allowed to get (re)married?

So please don’t act like qualifying homosexuality as a preference and talking about the rights of gay men and women to marry people of the opposite sex as if it takes the wind out of the sails of gay marriage proponents. It doesn’t.

-R

PS – As a side note, part of a well-functioning government’s role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority [wikipedia.org]. So while you’re right, a minority population can’t count on the state’s protection, it’s not unreasonable to expect such protection in the (theoretical) ‘ideal’ state.

Comments (0)

By Rebecca, January 7, 2009 7:11 pm

I’m a ‘bad Jew,’ in that I’m not a Zionist. (Also, I don’t believe in that  ‘God’ fellow.) So seeing a prominent Jew not leaping to defend Israel is pretty great:

Yeeaaaup….
-R