Culture, social justice, queer issues, disability rights, arts, Boston, and stuff I think is cool.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts refusing to recognize same-sex marriages and adoptions
On the state virtual gateway for getting info about our family's state health insurance, they have Spousal Unit and I listed as one another's spouse.
They also have me listed as our child's "mother" and spousal unit as child's "stepmother." "Stepparent," while often someone who provides amazing parenting to a child, is not someone who is fully a legal parent to said child.
We jointly adopted said child in Massachusetts, as a married couple. On our health insurance application, we listed ourselves as spouses and our child as our child.
Apparently the people who manage the healthcare benefits decided that the family relationships we have that are backed up by a bunch of legal paperwork aren't actually real.
Nice to see that the supposed equal rights laws haven't actually gotten us equal legal status.
EDITED 02/15/13:
They've now updated it so we are both the parents of our child. The computer had no problem allowing this. The person who entered our information did indeed change what we entered to match their homophobic assumptions.
Hey Commonwealth of Massachusetts! Your own Department of Public Health offers free trainings on providing appropriate customer service to LGBT folks. Maybe sign yourselves up for some?
They also have me listed as our child's "mother" and spousal unit as child's "stepmother." "Stepparent," while often someone who provides amazing parenting to a child, is not someone who is fully a legal parent to said child.
We jointly adopted said child in Massachusetts, as a married couple. On our health insurance application, we listed ourselves as spouses and our child as our child.
Apparently the people who manage the healthcare benefits decided that the family relationships we have that are backed up by a bunch of legal paperwork aren't actually real.
Nice to see that the supposed equal rights laws haven't actually gotten us equal legal status.
EDITED 02/15/13:
They've now updated it so we are both the parents of our child. The computer had no problem allowing this. The person who entered our information did indeed change what we entered to match their homophobic assumptions.
Hey Commonwealth of Massachusetts! Your own Department of Public Health offers free trainings on providing appropriate customer service to LGBT folks. Maybe sign yourselves up for some?
Apparently sitting is no longer allowed at the Boston Public Library
I was informed today, while sitting on the floor in a corner reading a book at the main library, that sitting on floors is not allowed, and all patrons must be in chairs. I talked to the person in charge of such things, mentioning that sitting on the floor is often more comfortable for my back because I can shift my position around, and was told that the policy is in place because, "blind people come in here and could trip over you."
I was told that if I am claiming to have a disability (which, I could go this route, since I do have a condition related to pain and lower-back and lower-body movement, though never really needed to put the two and two together since I've never been told in the 16 years I've had it that I couldn't sit on a freakin' floor somewhere), I could most likely get a reasonable accommodation, which would involve being allowed to sit on a specific place on the floor where the library people permitted me to sit during the visit and involve the staff informing all the other staff that I was allowed to be there. Uh, yeah, no thanks. I did ask for the person to e-mail me about looking into an accommodation though, because I'm really curious as to where this does or doesn't go.
The BPL website only says that blocking the aisles by sitting or lying in them is not permitted, not that no one can ever sit on any floor. It also doesn't say anything about prohibiting chairs, books, shelves, carts, potted plants, walls, toilets, backpacks, etc. that blind people could also trip over, because I assume the person who made the policy is aware that blind people are always prepared for the possibility of all different types of moving and stationary objects, just like anyone else.
I suspect that, like many things, this is an anti-people-with-persistent-mental-illness issue, aimed at behaviors common to people who tend to be tired, confused, medicated, sleep-deprived, etc. I've also heard, less recently, of BPL security guards telling people who fit this demographic that they need to have a book open in front of them or else they're "loitering."
I was told that if I am claiming to have a disability (which, I could go this route, since I do have a condition related to pain and lower-back and lower-body movement, though never really needed to put the two and two together since I've never been told in the 16 years I've had it that I couldn't sit on a freakin' floor somewhere), I could most likely get a reasonable accommodation, which would involve being allowed to sit on a specific place on the floor where the library people permitted me to sit during the visit and involve the staff informing all the other staff that I was allowed to be there. Uh, yeah, no thanks. I did ask for the person to e-mail me about looking into an accommodation though, because I'm really curious as to where this does or doesn't go.
The BPL website only says that blocking the aisles by sitting or lying in them is not permitted, not that no one can ever sit on any floor. It also doesn't say anything about prohibiting chairs, books, shelves, carts, potted plants, walls, toilets, backpacks, etc. that blind people could also trip over, because I assume the person who made the policy is aware that blind people are always prepared for the possibility of all different types of moving and stationary objects, just like anyone else.
I suspect that, like many things, this is an anti-people-with-persistent-mental-illness issue, aimed at behaviors common to people who tend to be tired, confused, medicated, sleep-deprived, etc. I've also heard, less recently, of BPL security guards telling people who fit this demographic that they need to have a book open in front of them or else they're "loitering."
Improve Boston in so many ways without spending a cent
From the City of Boston recycling page:
For every ton of bottles, cans, and plastic containers that residents recycle (rather than throw away in the trash), the City saves $80. That means that a 1% change in the City’s recycling rate would save more than $200,000 each year.
Next time you complain about something in the city being underfunded, take a second to make sure you aren't putting recyclables in the trash. Even better, make sure you're telling your neighbors to do the same. The city trash regulations say that recyclables may not go in the trash, so if you're a landlord or a member of a homeowners association, make sure you're telling your tenants or your fellow HOA members that they need to be following the city regulations. Also, reduce your trash output even further by composting (there are many options for composting on a balcony or even in your kitchen) and encourage the city to start collecting curbside compostables.
But what we really need to do is get the city to do pay-as-you-throw metered trash:
Communities have doubled and even tripled their recycling rates after implementing the WasteZero System.
The programs are fair. When the cost of trash disposal is hidden in property taxes or charged at a flat rate, households that recycle and prevent waste subsidize their neighbors' wastefulness. Under Trash Metering, households pay only for what they throw away.
Or, at the very least, we need to get them to enforce the code when people are filling trash cans and trash bags with obvious recyclables. This would get revenue for the city and get people to stop killing the planet as much. Hmm, I wonder if a massive Citizens Connect movement over the next few trash days would get anything done? We could submit hundreds of reports of recyclables in the trash.
By the way, while we're talking about the city and its recycling programs, I still think the giant plastic recycling bags are stupid for the most part. I might get some once in a while for massive file-cabinet cleanouts, but otherwise, I still don't think these bags are going to get people to recycle who can't be bothered to put out recycling in paper bags or blue bins. However, if they're going to have such a program, how about if they sell the bags in all of the neighborhoods where the program is active? There aren't any locations in Roxbury, South Boston, or Mission Hill, all of which are allowed to use the bags. As usual, we know which neighborhoods city hall cares about.
For every ton of bottles, cans, and plastic containers that residents recycle (rather than throw away in the trash), the City saves $80. That means that a 1% change in the City’s recycling rate would save more than $200,000 each year.
Next time you complain about something in the city being underfunded, take a second to make sure you aren't putting recyclables in the trash. Even better, make sure you're telling your neighbors to do the same. The city trash regulations say that recyclables may not go in the trash, so if you're a landlord or a member of a homeowners association, make sure you're telling your tenants or your fellow HOA members that they need to be following the city regulations. Also, reduce your trash output even further by composting (there are many options for composting on a balcony or even in your kitchen) and encourage the city to start collecting curbside compostables.
But what we really need to do is get the city to do pay-as-you-throw metered trash:
Communities have doubled and even tripled their recycling rates after implementing the WasteZero System.
The programs are fair. When the cost of trash disposal is hidden in property taxes or charged at a flat rate, households that recycle and prevent waste subsidize their neighbors' wastefulness. Under Trash Metering, households pay only for what they throw away.
Or, at the very least, we need to get them to enforce the code when people are filling trash cans and trash bags with obvious recyclables. This would get revenue for the city and get people to stop killing the planet as much. Hmm, I wonder if a massive Citizens Connect movement over the next few trash days would get anything done? We could submit hundreds of reports of recyclables in the trash.
By the way, while we're talking about the city and its recycling programs, I still think the giant plastic recycling bags are stupid for the most part. I might get some once in a while for massive file-cabinet cleanouts, but otherwise, I still don't think these bags are going to get people to recycle who can't be bothered to put out recycling in paper bags or blue bins. However, if they're going to have such a program, how about if they sell the bags in all of the neighborhoods where the program is active? There aren't any locations in Roxbury, South Boston, or Mission Hill, all of which are allowed to use the bags. As usual, we know which neighborhoods city hall cares about.
Let's play MBTA bingo!
Over at Universal Hub, Adam is in the process of creating an MBTA bingo game. As one might guess, most of the boxes are annoying things -- train out of service, person sprawled across two seats, and bottle rolling around. There are also some positive/funny things, like clinical studies ad, Zipcar ad, and dog.
I love people-watching as much as the next guy, and my readers should know by now that this also includes a healthy dose of snarking, but really, I think the bingo cards need more happy things to look for. The T, as with any crowded space of randomly selected people, can be quite the annoying place as it is.
Here are the ones I've submitted so far:
I love people-watching as much as the next guy, and my readers should know by now that this also includes a healthy dose of snarking, but really, I think the bingo cards need more happy things to look for. The T, as with any crowded space of randomly selected people, can be quite the annoying place as it is.
Here are the ones I've submitted so far:
- Sweet parent-child interaction
- Quietly reading a book
- Colorful shoes
- Person making something
- Classy/subtle PDA
- Litter-picker-upper
- Operator visible from first car
- Person offering seat
- Healthy snack
This bag is not a toy
A plastic bag just showed up rubber-banded to our front railing. Look, it even has the mayor's name on it, lest you forget who the mayor is while putting it in a crib or whatever it is people do with plastic bags:
According to this sheet, not only can I put my recyclables in this bag, but I can also go spend my own money to buy more similar bags, rather than using the big wheely cart that showed up for free, or a box or paper bag that are also available in many locations for free
Now, I'm a huge fan of recycling, and I support anything that encourages recycling (and I especially support things that keep people's shit contained and not blowing around in my street), but what? The way that the city is choosing to encourage recycling is to spend money giving out plastic bags?
How about if they start enforcing the city code, which says that recyclables are not permitted in trash and that trash and recycling all need to be securely contained? They could change a lot of people's behavior really quickly and get a lot of revenue for the city if they fined all the people who put out bags and cans full of obvious recyclables. These bags aren't going to change the behavior of people who don't follow regulations and don't respect their neighborhoods.
Oh, and it also came with an instruction sheet, including which neighborhoods are allowed to use it:
According to this sheet, not only can I put my recyclables in this bag, but I can also go spend my own money to buy more similar bags, rather than using the big wheely cart that showed up for free, or a box or paper bag that are also available in many locations for free
Now, I'm a huge fan of recycling, and I support anything that encourages recycling (and I especially support things that keep people's shit contained and not blowing around in my street), but what? The way that the city is choosing to encourage recycling is to spend money giving out plastic bags?
How about if they start enforcing the city code, which says that recyclables are not permitted in trash and that trash and recycling all need to be securely contained? They could change a lot of people's behavior really quickly and get a lot of revenue for the city if they fined all the people who put out bags and cans full of obvious recyclables. These bags aren't going to change the behavior of people who don't follow regulations and don't respect their neighborhoods.
Massachusetts to decide on "death with dignity" law
The Boston Globe may or may not let non-subscribers click through to the full article, depending on its mood, but here's the summary:
What I do think is important is to make the distinction that it is not ethical for someone other than the individual to make this decision, nor is it ethical to assist in suicide when the individual does not have a terminal illness. I think that if this passes, it will be really important for physicians to use an accurate definition of terminal illness so that we don't end up with an ableist practice of killing people with disabilities. If someone has a condition in which s/he can live indefinitely using, say, a ventilator, that person does not have a terminal illness. We don't allow the killing of people who are born with lung issues and who use ventilators from the beginning, so why would we allow this just because someone has the past experience of being a person without a disability?
Not Dead Yet is a great organization for resources on this issue. At least from their website, it seems that their position is a bit unclear between whether they oppose any euthanasia or whether they mostly oppose it except in cases where the individual has a terminal illness and is competent of making the decision. Either way, I think their information is useful for looking into how these laws do result in the killing of people who have severe disabilities, but not terminal illness, and people who are not competently making their own decision.
There used to be an article they linked to that I can't find since they redid their website, which gave statistics around how a high percentage of people without disabilities said that they would want to take their lives if they acquired quadriplegia, if they became dependent on a ventilator, if they became unable to eat orally, etc. And of course, nearly all people who have acquired these conditions and have adjusted to them say that their quality of life is good, and people with disabilities report about the same quality of life as people without disabilities. For this reason, we shouldn't allow assisted suicide for people who cannot consent at the moment, because this isn't something people can know in advance. I'm not allowed to sign an advance directive saying I want to be euthanized if my spouse dies or my house burns down, so why would I be able to sign one saying I want to be euthanized if I acquire a disability that similarly suddenly changes my life?
What doesn't seem to be written into the law, and which could be helpful, is some sort of training for physicians around what exactly constitutes a terminal illness versus a disability with which one can live with adaptive equipment. It's pretty well known among people with disabilities and people who work with people with disabilities that the medical community is really ableist. I do like that there's the timeframe of six months or less to live; this distinguishes, say, untreatable cancer from neurodegenerative diseases that people live with for decades.
I am really concerned though about the ability of physicians to distinguish between something that's really not treatable and something that requires adaptive equipment, but that people can and do live with. This even gets tricky with laws around the right to refuse medical treatment. We as a society and as healthcare providers generally try and stop someone who is actively trying to take his or her life, right? A young adult who gets depressed and tries to overdose on pills? We take away the access to the pills and mandate that he be in treatment. A young adult who has used a ventilator all her life with no issues and gets depressed and disconnects herself? We would similarly mandate that she receive treatment. Otherwise, we would be discriminating against her, but helping the other guy, because she has a disability, right?
So what about an adult who previously didn't use a ventilator and now suddenly needs one (and then would be fine as long as she uses a ventilator)? Can this person refuse it? Many physicians would permit this. Many such physicians also have never met a competent, normal-old adult who uses a ventilator, and would be thinking of this under the umbrella of terminal illness and major lifesaving interventions, rather than just that some people need to take medications or use adaptive equipment in order to be alive and healthy. Many physicians would say that this person has less than six months to live, since she'd live a few minutes without the ventilator (but can work, raise a family, live for decades with it).
Again, these situations are clearly really different from someone who has aggressive cancer eating his brain. I know this, and hopefully you know this, but there are a lot of people who don't know a whole lot about people with disabilities, and a lot of these people are healthcare provider or are kind, thoughtful people who someone might be turning to for advice. If this law passes, we really need to be keeping these things in mind, and we need to be raising awareness around the difference between a disability and an actual terminal illness so that we as healthcare providers (and friends and family members) aren't inadvertently suggesting that it's acceptable to kill people with disabilities.
EDIT: It's become pretty clear to me that there are a lot of holes in this law and just too much possibility of killing people because they have disabilities. I'm going to vote no.
Under the Massachusetts proposal, which is virtually identical to the laws in Oregon and Washington, terminally ill, mentally competent adults deemed to have six months or less to live would have the freedom to obtain a fatal prescription. They could qualify only after going through a process designed to ensure that they are not being coerced and that they fully understand what they’re doing. They would administer the drugs themselves. Any doctor opposed to the practice could opt out of writing the prescription.Given the parameters that a person is required to have six months or less to live and has to be mentally competent, I am in favor of this. I think this is a decision that an individual should have the freedom to make along with his or her family (legal or chosen), treatment team, and spiritual adviser if applicable.
What I do think is important is to make the distinction that it is not ethical for someone other than the individual to make this decision, nor is it ethical to assist in suicide when the individual does not have a terminal illness. I think that if this passes, it will be really important for physicians to use an accurate definition of terminal illness so that we don't end up with an ableist practice of killing people with disabilities. If someone has a condition in which s/he can live indefinitely using, say, a ventilator, that person does not have a terminal illness. We don't allow the killing of people who are born with lung issues and who use ventilators from the beginning, so why would we allow this just because someone has the past experience of being a person without a disability?
Not Dead Yet is a great organization for resources on this issue. At least from their website, it seems that their position is a bit unclear between whether they oppose any euthanasia or whether they mostly oppose it except in cases where the individual has a terminal illness and is competent of making the decision. Either way, I think their information is useful for looking into how these laws do result in the killing of people who have severe disabilities, but not terminal illness, and people who are not competently making their own decision.
There used to be an article they linked to that I can't find since they redid their website, which gave statistics around how a high percentage of people without disabilities said that they would want to take their lives if they acquired quadriplegia, if they became dependent on a ventilator, if they became unable to eat orally, etc. And of course, nearly all people who have acquired these conditions and have adjusted to them say that their quality of life is good, and people with disabilities report about the same quality of life as people without disabilities. For this reason, we shouldn't allow assisted suicide for people who cannot consent at the moment, because this isn't something people can know in advance. I'm not allowed to sign an advance directive saying I want to be euthanized if my spouse dies or my house burns down, so why would I be able to sign one saying I want to be euthanized if I acquire a disability that similarly suddenly changes my life?
What doesn't seem to be written into the law, and which could be helpful, is some sort of training for physicians around what exactly constitutes a terminal illness versus a disability with which one can live with adaptive equipment. It's pretty well known among people with disabilities and people who work with people with disabilities that the medical community is really ableist. I do like that there's the timeframe of six months or less to live; this distinguishes, say, untreatable cancer from neurodegenerative diseases that people live with for decades.
I am really concerned though about the ability of physicians to distinguish between something that's really not treatable and something that requires adaptive equipment, but that people can and do live with. This even gets tricky with laws around the right to refuse medical treatment. We as a society and as healthcare providers generally try and stop someone who is actively trying to take his or her life, right? A young adult who gets depressed and tries to overdose on pills? We take away the access to the pills and mandate that he be in treatment. A young adult who has used a ventilator all her life with no issues and gets depressed and disconnects herself? We would similarly mandate that she receive treatment. Otherwise, we would be discriminating against her, but helping the other guy, because she has a disability, right?
So what about an adult who previously didn't use a ventilator and now suddenly needs one (and then would be fine as long as she uses a ventilator)? Can this person refuse it? Many physicians would permit this. Many such physicians also have never met a competent, normal-old adult who uses a ventilator, and would be thinking of this under the umbrella of terminal illness and major lifesaving interventions, rather than just that some people need to take medications or use adaptive equipment in order to be alive and healthy. Many physicians would say that this person has less than six months to live, since she'd live a few minutes without the ventilator (but can work, raise a family, live for decades with it).
Again, these situations are clearly really different from someone who has aggressive cancer eating his brain. I know this, and hopefully you know this, but there are a lot of people who don't know a whole lot about people with disabilities, and a lot of these people are healthcare provider or are kind, thoughtful people who someone might be turning to for advice. If this law passes, we really need to be keeping these things in mind, and we need to be raising awareness around the difference between a disability and an actual terminal illness so that we as healthcare providers (and friends and family members) aren't inadvertently suggesting that it's acceptable to kill people with disabilities.
EDIT: It's become pretty clear to me that there are a lot of holes in this law and just too much possibility of killing people because they have disabilities. I'm going to vote no.
Heard on the police scanner just now
"The folks from the Blue Cross have now arrived on scene."
"...What? Do you mean the red or the blue?"
"Oh, sorry, the red."
"...What? Do you mean the red or the blue?"
"Oh, sorry, the red."
There really should be a longassgermanword for
...when you hear that some famousish person died, except you had no idea they'd been still alive any time recently.
Labels:
longassgermanwords
One more gay-tax-related post
So, on my W2, my federal income is showing up as 5000-something higher than my state income. Based on the federal income number, my family makes slightly too much money to get assistance from the Good Neighbor Energy Fund, which we desperately could use after all of the unexpected medical bills and repair bills to various household things this year. (And the $1500 gay tax I probably will end up paying unless I decide to follow through with the previously mentioned subversive plan).
I'm going to get an appointment and see whether they will go by the Massachusetts figure. I would think that they would be required to be, since they're in Massachusetts, but this could be interesting since I don't expect anyone in their office to actually understand what I'm talking about. Most of the administration at my own job doesn't know about the federal gay tax and still doesn't understand it when I show them my forms when I'm trying to complain about how stupid and unjust it is.
Also could be interesting since the Salvation Homophobic Army doesn't have to abide by state or local nondiscrimination policies since it's legally a church even though they masquerade as a community agency and get referrals from nonsectarian nonprofits that would never refer people to an actual church that wasn't the person's stated religious preference. Which, again, I wouldn't expect anyone in their office to know or understand, because why would they? The SHA operates under so many layers of deceit that several people I know who've worked for them locally in social-work-type jobs had no idea that the national corporate website of their employer states that homosexuality is a sin.
I like taking their money periodically though. And making them uncomfortable.
Barring that though, does anyone know of anywhere that does energy assistance that would be aware and accepting?
I'm going to get an appointment and see whether they will go by the Massachusetts figure. I would think that they would be required to be, since they're in Massachusetts, but this could be interesting since I don't expect anyone in their office to actually understand what I'm talking about. Most of the administration at my own job doesn't know about the federal gay tax and still doesn't understand it when I show them my forms when I'm trying to complain about how stupid and unjust it is.
Also could be interesting since the Salvation Homophobic Army doesn't have to abide by state or local nondiscrimination policies since it's legally a church even though they masquerade as a community agency and get referrals from nonsectarian nonprofits that would never refer people to an actual church that wasn't the person's stated religious preference. Which, again, I wouldn't expect anyone in their office to know or understand, because why would they? The SHA operates under so many layers of deceit that several people I know who've worked for them locally in social-work-type jobs had no idea that the national corporate website of their employer states that homosexuality is a sin.
I like taking their money periodically though. And making them uncomfortable.
Barring that though, does anyone know of anywhere that does energy assistance that would be aware and accepting?
Trying to figure out a way to get back the money from paying the gay tax
As I mentioned in earlier posts, my employer* has decided to start putting the gay tax on our W2s instead of leaving it up to the employee whether to choose to pay it. My W2 this year shows $5783 in "other income," which isn't income at all, but is part of the money they've paid toward my family's insurance premium.
This is of course stupid, because it doesn't affect my employer in any way. They have to pay for the insurance anyway by state law. If my spouse or I legally changed one of our sexes, we wouldn't have that extra "income" on our W2 and we'd still have the same insurance and I'd still be doing the same excellent work for my employer at the same pay rate. However, my excellent work would still continue to be slightly affected by being pissed off every time I'm there that they pay people in same-sex partnerships less than people in different-sex partnerships instead of grossing up to offset it like progressive companies do.
Anyway, so I'm doing my taxes, and I'm trying to find a way to avoid paying $1500 to the federal government as a penalty for being gay. Right now I'm pondering IRS Topic 515: Casualty, Disaster, and Theft Losses. According to the IRS, "A theft is the taking and removing of money or property with the intent to deprive the owner of it. The taking must be illegal under the law of the state where it occurred and it must have been done with criminal intent." That seems like it should be applicable. It's illegal in Massachusetts for someone to impose a tax on queer people but not straight people, right? And it's the government; of course they have criminal intent. In terms of my employer, wouldn't it make it criminal intent since I've pointed out to them that my money is being taken because of their policies, and have shown them the information on how to gross up to make it fair, but they've decided to continue aiding and abetting the government. Sounds like theft to me.
*In the interest of avoiding being libelous, I will not refer to my employer as homophobic, since that's up to interpretation, but I will mention that they don't have any sort of LGBT employee resource group, don't have gender identity and expression in the nondiscrimination policy as is required by City of Boston law (even though I've brought this up to them), won't march in Pride like most other healthcare providers and nonprofits do because they say it's a political event so nonprofits shouldn't march in it, don't do any trainings on providing LGBT-sensitive healthcare or on being welcoming to LGBT employees, and out of 2000ish employees have only 7 people with same-sex partners on their insurance according to the benefits person in HR.
This is of course stupid, because it doesn't affect my employer in any way. They have to pay for the insurance anyway by state law. If my spouse or I legally changed one of our sexes, we wouldn't have that extra "income" on our W2 and we'd still have the same insurance and I'd still be doing the same excellent work for my employer at the same pay rate. However, my excellent work would still continue to be slightly affected by being pissed off every time I'm there that they pay people in same-sex partnerships less than people in different-sex partnerships instead of grossing up to offset it like progressive companies do.
Anyway, so I'm doing my taxes, and I'm trying to find a way to avoid paying $1500 to the federal government as a penalty for being gay. Right now I'm pondering IRS Topic 515: Casualty, Disaster, and Theft Losses. According to the IRS, "A theft is the taking and removing of money or property with the intent to deprive the owner of it. The taking must be illegal under the law of the state where it occurred and it must have been done with criminal intent." That seems like it should be applicable. It's illegal in Massachusetts for someone to impose a tax on queer people but not straight people, right? And it's the government; of course they have criminal intent. In terms of my employer, wouldn't it make it criminal intent since I've pointed out to them that my money is being taken because of their policies, and have shown them the information on how to gross up to make it fair, but they've decided to continue aiding and abetting the government. Sounds like theft to me.
*In the interest of avoiding being libelous, I will not refer to my employer as homophobic, since that's up to interpretation, but I will mention that they don't have any sort of LGBT employee resource group, don't have gender identity and expression in the nondiscrimination policy as is required by City of Boston law (even though I've brought this up to them), won't march in Pride like most other healthcare providers and nonprofits do because they say it's a political event so nonprofits shouldn't march in it, don't do any trainings on providing LGBT-sensitive healthcare or on being welcoming to LGBT employees, and out of 2000ish employees have only 7 people with same-sex partners on their insurance according to the benefits person in HR.
I watched a First Night ice sculpture get assembleded. Squee.
Because I'm a dork -- do I even need to preface my blog posts with that, as if anyone didn't know? -- I really enjoyed seeing an ice sculpture get taken off the truck and assembled in front of Golden Temple.
At about 1:30, Molly and I went out to walk a dog we were dogsitting. We saw the Brookline Ice and Coal truck unloading the beginning of the ice sculpture. Even the dog thought it was interesting.
There's a chainsaw there (above photo), the orange thing on the ground next to the planter to the left of the dog. I'm not sure why either, but hey, chainsaw!
But after a few minutes of Molly and me watching amazedly at what frozen wonders would come out of the truck, our doggie friend was kind of like, wait, what? Because he is a dog. So we walked to Coolidge Corner and ran into someone awesome who I hadn't seen in a while. Then we took the dog to Paper Source becausehe needed some craft supplies they allow dogs and we were looking for something to do. We bought a giant M made out of paper pulp. Then we wandered around.
Also we saw this, which is funny if you're me. Or the person who did it, apparently:
When we came back at about 3:00, the ice sculpture was pretty much done and they were putting the lights up.
(Apologies to this Brookline Ice and Coal employee for the unflattering picture of his ass along with the photo of his most excellent ice artistry.)
Well we're on the subject of Golden Temple, I suggest going there some night other than tonight. We went there on Christmas tofulfill stereotypes about our people eat delicious food with some Jews friends and were most disappointed to find out that their "special" holiday menu means that they don't have any vegetable tempura or mushroom egg foo yung, except they still use the regular printed menus and you're expecting these fine dishes but you go to order them and they tell you about their "special" holiday menu. Also the drinks are weaker on holidays. But go there when it isn't a holiday, because the place is awesome. Szechuan eggplant, yo.
I like how it looks from the front. Our doggie friend thinks it looks better from the other side though with the lights shining through the ice, and I don't think he cares that the lettering is backwards that way.
At about 1:30, Molly and I went out to walk a dog we were dogsitting. We saw the Brookline Ice and Coal truck unloading the beginning of the ice sculpture. Even the dog thought it was interesting.
There's a chainsaw there (above photo), the orange thing on the ground next to the planter to the left of the dog. I'm not sure why either, but hey, chainsaw!
But after a few minutes of Molly and me watching amazedly at what frozen wonders would come out of the truck, our doggie friend was kind of like, wait, what? Because he is a dog. So we walked to Coolidge Corner and ran into someone awesome who I hadn't seen in a while. Then we took the dog to Paper Source because
Also we saw this, which is funny if you're me. Or the person who did it, apparently:
When we came back at about 3:00, the ice sculpture was pretty much done and they were putting the lights up.
(Apologies to this Brookline Ice and Coal employee for the unflattering picture of his ass along with the photo of his most excellent ice artistry.)
Well we're on the subject of Golden Temple, I suggest going there some night other than tonight. We went there on Christmas to
I like how it looks from the front. Our doggie friend thinks it looks better from the other side though with the lights shining through the ice, and I don't think he cares that the lettering is backwards that way.
Boston radio stations playing Alice's Resturant today
- WUMB apparently played it at 9:00 already, will be playing it again at noon. Sometimes they play the 30th anniversary edition. ("And I asked myself, I said, Arlo, how many things in the world are 18 minutes and 20 seconds long?")
- WZLX is once again doing it at 9, noon, and 4.
- WXRV 92.5 The River often plays it at noon, but doesn't mention it this year on their site or on their facebook.
Let me know if there are any others!
Boston Tour of Bigass Heads
So, I got the brilliant (?) idea to do a tour of all of the giant heads of Boston. Not sure if I'd want to do, say, a bike tour, or more like a party bus tour (bike tour is better for the planet and urban living and such, but party bus would be accessible to people who can't ride a bike).
The heads I've come up with so far are:
Joseph Wheelwright's "Sleeping Moon" sculpture at Ashmont Station
Antonio Lopez Garcia's "Day and Night" sculptures outside the Mofa
John Wilson's "Eternal Presence" at the National Center of Afro-American Artists
Ralph Helmick's Arthur Fiedler Memorial on the Charles River Esplanade
Can anyone think of any more giant heads in Boston?
All images ganked from the respective linked websites. Please notify me if you would like your photo taken down.
The heads I've come up with so far are:
Joseph Wheelwright's "Sleeping Moon" sculpture at Ashmont Station
Antonio Lopez Garcia's "Day and Night" sculptures outside the Mofa
John Wilson's "Eternal Presence" at the National Center of Afro-American Artists
Ralph Helmick's Arthur Fiedler Memorial on the Charles River Esplanade
Can anyone think of any more giant heads in Boston?
All images ganked from the respective linked websites. Please notify me if you would like your photo taken down.
Dear Capital One
You know those e-mails you keep sending me?
The ones that promise $100 for opening a Capital One savings account?
The ones that address me by first and last name and refer to me as a valued customer, which indicates that they're being sent to cardholders rather than just to generic mailing lists?
The ones that say in the tiny print at the bottom that the average balance during the first year must be more than $10,000?
Well jeez, you people have full access to my credit report and other financial information. Shouldn't you be able to tell that there's no way in fuck that I have $10,000 lying around, nor am likely to any time soon?
(And you realize, don't you, that a $100 return on $10,000 over 12 months is, well, 1% APR. Which you damn well better be paying people if you're using their large sums of cash to fundsketchy e-mail campaigns about car loan ripoffs your financial institution. What kind of person who has $10,000 puts it in some gimmicky Capital One account anyway?)
The ones that promise $100 for opening a Capital One savings account?
The ones that address me by first and last name and refer to me as a valued customer, which indicates that they're being sent to cardholders rather than just to generic mailing lists?
The ones that say in the tiny print at the bottom that the average balance during the first year must be more than $10,000?
Well jeez, you people have full access to my credit report and other financial information. Shouldn't you be able to tell that there's no way in fuck that I have $10,000 lying around, nor am likely to any time soon?
(And you realize, don't you, that a $100 return on $10,000 over 12 months is, well, 1% APR. Which you damn well better be paying people if you're using their large sums of cash to fund
Mixed feelings as usual on these "supercrip" stories
This video is making the rounds right now, portraying Mariah Slick, a high-school senior with Down syndrome who was crowned the homecoming queen at her high school in Texas.
I have some very mixed feelings about this story. Not about the event itself or about Mariah -- hey, you go girl! -- but about the media portrayal.
First, the reporting itself seems somewhat patronizing. There's no interview of Mariah, just footage of the event and an interview of a typical peer who says that she's a great person, because they have a class together and "she calls me by my first name" (what?). There's nothing about Mariah's talents or interests. It doesn't actually commend her on anything she herself has chosen to do in life, giving the impression that she's only a neat person because she has a disability. I'd love to hear more about her -- what she thinks of her high school and her social life, what interests her.
Second, this always brings up for me the overall media trend of the supercrip phenomenon. This particular young woman is being noted in the media mainly because she "overcame" the discrimination that people with disabilities face, and she managed to be successful within the model of how nondisabled people are supposed to be. I've gathered from the quick snippet that she has enough cognitive and academic ability to attend high school without being substantially separated from nondisabled peers, she manages to be conventionally stylish and attractive, managed to have good social skills, managed to "fit in" in her high school.
While all this is pretty cool, and I'm guessing took a lot of work on her part, where is the media coverage of the people with disabilities who face tons of discrimination and don't manage to be "just a normal kid?" I'd like to see media coverage about people with disabilities that isn't "heartwarming. The only time we do see such a thing is when someone is trying to illustrate how much a particular aspect of the social services system is failing someone, and that isn't what I mean either.
I'd love to see a slice-of-life piece that balances out this story about Mariah Slick. Say, a story about someone with Down syndrome who experiences life as happy and stable, but hasn't been successful in making friends, didn't have access to an education that really met his/her needs, has mannerisms that most of society doesn't find attractive, and has made an informed choice to stay in the house most of the time fixated on one activity. This hypothetical person should be just as valuable in our society as Mariah Slick, yet I had to make up such a person because we aren't seeing any portrayed in the media. These people are invisible.
I have some very mixed feelings about this story. Not about the event itself or about Mariah -- hey, you go girl! -- but about the media portrayal.
First, the reporting itself seems somewhat patronizing. There's no interview of Mariah, just footage of the event and an interview of a typical peer who says that she's a great person, because they have a class together and "she calls me by my first name" (what?). There's nothing about Mariah's talents or interests. It doesn't actually commend her on anything she herself has chosen to do in life, giving the impression that she's only a neat person because she has a disability. I'd love to hear more about her -- what she thinks of her high school and her social life, what interests her.
Second, this always brings up for me the overall media trend of the supercrip phenomenon. This particular young woman is being noted in the media mainly because she "overcame" the discrimination that people with disabilities face, and she managed to be successful within the model of how nondisabled people are supposed to be. I've gathered from the quick snippet that she has enough cognitive and academic ability to attend high school without being substantially separated from nondisabled peers, she manages to be conventionally stylish and attractive, managed to have good social skills, managed to "fit in" in her high school.
While all this is pretty cool, and I'm guessing took a lot of work on her part, where is the media coverage of the people with disabilities who face tons of discrimination and don't manage to be "just a normal kid?" I'd like to see media coverage about people with disabilities that isn't "heartwarming. The only time we do see such a thing is when someone is trying to illustrate how much a particular aspect of the social services system is failing someone, and that isn't what I mean either.
I'd love to see a slice-of-life piece that balances out this story about Mariah Slick. Say, a story about someone with Down syndrome who experiences life as happy and stable, but hasn't been successful in making friends, didn't have access to an education that really met his/her needs, has mannerisms that most of society doesn't find attractive, and has made an informed choice to stay in the house most of the time fixated on one activity. This hypothetical person should be just as valuable in our society as Mariah Slick, yet I had to make up such a person because we aren't seeing any portrayed in the media. These people are invisible.
It's right in front of your face
How do people manage to spell my name wrong in a reply to an email signed with my name? Like, when they've never communicated with me before and only know my name from reading it on my email?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)