Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
have you heard?
"a man can be wiser today than yesterday" - senator mark grisanti
yesterday the state of new york finally got it right.
the senate approved the bill supporting marriage equality and governor andrew cuomo signed it into law; making it legal for all loving, committed couples to share the joys, struggles and legal protections of marriage in the state of new york.
adam and i were watching the live stream of the senate debate on baited breath. perhaps i was sipping to heavily on my wine, but this bit of history is long overdue. when the votes were read, i didn't breathe. i cried. i googled the affirmative vote over and over just to be absolutely sure i didn't play a trick on myself to avoid being heartbroken by a defeat.
i am particularly humbled that this bill was passed through a republican senate, when just two years ago the democratic senate voted a similar bill for same sex marriage down. this year, three republican senators in specific made this possible, one of whom spoke during the vote. i included the full video of his statement above because it is evidence of how our government is supposed to work and how our elected officials should represent us. i am a staunch democrat but would like to high-five senator grisanti for his bravery and candor. his vote for equality will go down in the history books and i sure hope it garners him many long years in public office.
this law is a most excellent wedding gift, but is only the beginning of the journey. now we need to get this equality party off of the east coast. it's six states down and forty-four left to go. hint, hint california...get on this train!
heavy stuff.
since my engagement, i have been struggling to find a comfort level with weddings, being a "bride", being a "wife" and marriage in general due to my strongly held beliefs about equality, feminism and heterosexism.
to be clear, i am enormously happy and am completely certain that adam and i are meant to be partnered for life. it was obvious to me early on that something was different about my relationship with adam; something comfortable and grounding. our strengths and weaknesses balance each other well, we share similar interests and life goals. we both knew we were in it for the long haul. neither of us are very traditional and since we don't want children, marriage was never a really big issue. but now that forming a legally recognized union is happily part of the plan, i have to negotiate a difficult path.
my feelings about marriage are complicated. i hold marriage in high regard even though i am not particularly religious. but i also discount marriage because it is an elitist club which is rooted in sexist traditions.
i feel more than a little bit guilty that i can marry my partner because i happened to have fallen in love with a man. i believe strongly in marriage equality and originally felt that i would not marry adam until any consenting and loving couple could marry. i now wonder what that choice accomplishes. i'm pretty sure my choosing to not marry my opposite sex life partner in protest to inequality isn't having any affect on changing laws. actually, the state of New York is probably getting a bigger chunk of my paycheck for this act of protest. i am slowly coming to the realization that my marrying a man isn't sabotaging my commitment to marriage equality, although it isn't assuaging my guilty feelings.
from a feminist perspective, the concept of the wedding is a veritable minefield. i am no militant, but i can see why some of the "traditions" associated with weddings could be triggering. a few examples being that there is a lot of implied ownership (what am i, livestock?), there is the word "obey" (i will not), and there is the white dress/virginity thing (no comment). ultimately, i will take out or adjust the parts of the wedding ceremony that are not aligned with my personal beliefs but i still struggle with conflicting feelings. is my wish to have my father walk me down the aisle undermining my principles, or is it a heartfelt gesture of respect for the man who was an integral part of making me the feminist i am today?
there is no easy solution to this conundrum and i know i will continue to wrestle with taking this exciting next step while maintaining my autonomy and using my privilege consciously.
to be clear, i am enormously happy and am completely certain that adam and i are meant to be partnered for life. it was obvious to me early on that something was different about my relationship with adam; something comfortable and grounding. our strengths and weaknesses balance each other well, we share similar interests and life goals. we both knew we were in it for the long haul. neither of us are very traditional and since we don't want children, marriage was never a really big issue. but now that forming a legally recognized union is happily part of the plan, i have to negotiate a difficult path.
my feelings about marriage are complicated. i hold marriage in high regard even though i am not particularly religious. but i also discount marriage because it is an elitist club which is rooted in sexist traditions.
i feel more than a little bit guilty that i can marry my partner because i happened to have fallen in love with a man. i believe strongly in marriage equality and originally felt that i would not marry adam until any consenting and loving couple could marry. i now wonder what that choice accomplishes. i'm pretty sure my choosing to not marry my opposite sex life partner in protest to inequality isn't having any affect on changing laws. actually, the state of New York is probably getting a bigger chunk of my paycheck for this act of protest. i am slowly coming to the realization that my marrying a man isn't sabotaging my commitment to marriage equality, although it isn't assuaging my guilty feelings.
from a feminist perspective, the concept of the wedding is a veritable minefield. i am no militant, but i can see why some of the "traditions" associated with weddings could be triggering. a few examples being that there is a lot of implied ownership (what am i, livestock?), there is the word "obey" (i will not), and there is the white dress/virginity thing (no comment). ultimately, i will take out or adjust the parts of the wedding ceremony that are not aligned with my personal beliefs but i still struggle with conflicting feelings. is my wish to have my father walk me down the aisle undermining my principles, or is it a heartfelt gesture of respect for the man who was an integral part of making me the feminist i am today?
there is no easy solution to this conundrum and i know i will continue to wrestle with taking this exciting next step while maintaining my autonomy and using my privilege consciously.
an open letter to Senator Little.*
Dear Senator Little,
I am writing as a constituent of Glens Falls to request your support of marriage equality in New York.
While I understand this is a controversial issue; it is ultimately one of civil rights. The legal protections and recognition of committed couples should not be restricted only to those of opposite sexes.
I urge you as my elected representative to support marriage equality so that all loving New York families can be protected equally by their government. I will be watching throughout the year to see how you vote and advocate on this issue that means so much to me and my family.
Respectfully,
Reneé H.
Glens Falls, NY
*an edited version of the letter sent to my state senator. if you are a NY resident and feel that equal rights are essential, please contact your state senator immediately to let them know. tell them to support marriage equality! find your senator here and send them an email!
I am writing as a constituent of Glens Falls to request your support of marriage equality in New York.
While I understand this is a controversial issue; it is ultimately one of civil rights. The legal protections and recognition of committed couples should not be restricted only to those of opposite sexes.
I urge you as my elected representative to support marriage equality so that all loving New York families can be protected equally by their government. I will be watching throughout the year to see how you vote and advocate on this issue that means so much to me and my family.
Respectfully,
Reneé H.
Glens Falls, NY
*an edited version of the letter sent to my state senator. if you are a NY resident and feel that equal rights are essential, please contact your state senator immediately to let them know. tell them to support marriage equality! find your senator here and send them an email!
a digression.
recently, there's been increased MSM coverage of health care reform, or "obamacare" for the conservatively bent. the crappy state of the US health care system has been a concern of mine long before obama's election and i bristle at the mention that i have just jumped on the bandwagon and "drank the obama kool-aid". many folks have been advocating for reform, more specifically a single payer or *gasp* a federal health care system long before the elections even started. the truth is, obama isn't even advocating for single payer, which is a big disappointment to me.
those who are so defensively against this type of reform must have stable jobs, decent incomes and have never been seriously ill and denied coverage. with fifty million uninsured people in our country there is an undeniable problem. beyond that, just having insurance in the US doesn't mean that your serious ailment will be covered when you really need care. what if you lose your job? or what if you have a crappy job that you "have" to keep to maintain your (likely minimal) health insurance?
the for-profit health care system favors the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who are trying to increase their dividends, not the health and well-being of people. our current system doesn't promote preventive care, only illness treatment. i know many with insurance who skip annual visits because they can't afford the co-pays or are afraid of needing follow up appointments, only to end up at with a more urgent issue later.
i'm fed up with all the myths and mis-truths about what a single payer health care system will bring. if it's gotten to the point that protesters are hanging effigies of health care reform advocates, then this has become yet another issue with which you can announce your political affiliations. unfortunately, this reform should be about the health of humans and not about politics. can we really afford to do nothing and what will be the result if we remain scared of change?
those who are so defensively against this type of reform must have stable jobs, decent incomes and have never been seriously ill and denied coverage. with fifty million uninsured people in our country there is an undeniable problem. beyond that, just having insurance in the US doesn't mean that your serious ailment will be covered when you really need care. what if you lose your job? or what if you have a crappy job that you "have" to keep to maintain your (likely minimal) health insurance?
the for-profit health care system favors the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who are trying to increase their dividends, not the health and well-being of people. our current system doesn't promote preventive care, only illness treatment. i know many with insurance who skip annual visits because they can't afford the co-pays or are afraid of needing follow up appointments, only to end up at with a more urgent issue later.
i'm fed up with all the myths and mis-truths about what a single payer health care system will bring. if it's gotten to the point that protesters are hanging effigies of health care reform advocates, then this has become yet another issue with which you can announce your political affiliations. unfortunately, this reform should be about the health of humans and not about politics. can we really afford to do nothing and what will be the result if we remain scared of change?
know your pigeonhole.
find it here.
apparently i correctly identify myself, as the result of my typology survey was 'liberal'.
apparently i correctly identify myself, as the result of my typology survey was 'liberal'.
partisan black hole.
i have been thinking quite a bit about politics for the last few months. my feelings have bordered on anxiety at many times. i do not feel well represented by the current government. that is not because it has been Republican dominated for the last eight years (although this has not helped). it is because i believe our democracy has some pretty big flaws.
one problem is that too many citizens do not participate in our democracy. there are many reasons for this, which will need to be parked for another post.
another overwhelming issue is the dominance of partisanship that serves to completely destroy the possibility of thoughtful and evolutionary debates and policies. a two party system ultimately swings people to the far left or far right and creates antagonism.
this all came to a head for me this morning while reading one of my favorite blogs, urostream. keagirl's last two posts had generated so much feedback, much of it ugly, that i couldn't help but post my thoughts.
i voted for barack obama. i am proud of my vote, but i do not believe that obama will "save the world". i do not agree with all of his positions, but i do believe he is the right person to lead our country forward. i do not know what ultimately what will come out of his presidency and feel that it is wasteful to debate this.
if we place all of our hopes in one person, we will always be disappointed.
barack obama will be our president, but we will still need to be active in our democracy.
if citizens only participate on election day by pushing a lever then nothing will ever change. partisanship will abide as the rule and the media will follow. some people will hold fast to their party affiliation just as blindly as they would their baseball/football/hockey team. if we do not educate ourselves this pattern will repeat over and over and over.
there is a difference between debate and verbal warfare. we must be cautious to not believe that "all people" of "that" category can be summed up in any one way.
are all liberals pro-choice?
are all conservatives pro-war?
if we do truely love our country, we will find a way to use our differences to become stronger as a people. there is no irony in the fact that a 'partisan' is also a weapon.
_______________________________________________________________
"change is inevitable. change is constant." benjamin disraeli
"mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. the foundation of such a method is love." martin luther king, jr
one problem is that too many citizens do not participate in our democracy. there are many reasons for this, which will need to be parked for another post.
another overwhelming issue is the dominance of partisanship that serves to completely destroy the possibility of thoughtful and evolutionary debates and policies. a two party system ultimately swings people to the far left or far right and creates antagonism.
this all came to a head for me this morning while reading one of my favorite blogs, urostream. keagirl's last two posts had generated so much feedback, much of it ugly, that i couldn't help but post my thoughts.
i voted for barack obama. i am proud of my vote, but i do not believe that obama will "save the world". i do not agree with all of his positions, but i do believe he is the right person to lead our country forward. i do not know what ultimately what will come out of his presidency and feel that it is wasteful to debate this.
if we place all of our hopes in one person, we will always be disappointed.
barack obama will be our president, but we will still need to be active in our democracy.
if citizens only participate on election day by pushing a lever then nothing will ever change. partisanship will abide as the rule and the media will follow. some people will hold fast to their party affiliation just as blindly as they would their baseball/football/hockey team. if we do not educate ourselves this pattern will repeat over and over and over.
there is a difference between debate and verbal warfare. we must be cautious to not believe that "all people" of "that" category can be summed up in any one way.
are all liberals pro-choice?
are all conservatives pro-war?
if we do truely love our country, we will find a way to use our differences to become stronger as a people. there is no irony in the fact that a 'partisan' is also a weapon.
_______________________________________________________________
"change is inevitable. change is constant." benjamin disraeli
"mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. the foundation of such a method is love." martin luther king, jr
these people are my heroes.
i recently watched mclibel. its about helen steel and dave morris, who decided to stand up to a super-huge, transnational corporation and stick to their guns. they were up against money and lawyers and the didn't back down. in a world where big business is often more important than regular ol' people, these brave folks remind us that the truth will come out on top.
mcdonald's is still selling us garbage disguised as nutritious food, but maybe they don't take the general public as complete morons anymore.
because you probably haven't thought about this in a while...
first of all, watching this documentary makes me angry. i just can't believe (and i can be pretty cynical) that our government is capable of such ignorance. almost more upsetting is the fact that some folks actually believe in the jerk-offs currently in office. i mean, i realize our election system is a bit off, but SOMEONE voted for GWB (can you IMAGINE???!!!).second of all, this documentary solidifies the idea for me that we as a country need to start worrying about ourselves. we need to stop going oversees and butting into other folks business. are we telling them to do things like us???? what a crock. if the aftermath of hurricane katrina isn't a perfect manifestation of racism, classism and pure ignorance, i don't know what is.
oh. and third, thanks to my brother for another great movie recommendation.
inside a case worker's head
here's a few uncoordinated thoughts on the federal poverty level, the criteria used to determine eligibility for most forms of state and federal assistance.
the federal poverty level is a income threshold that is re-evaluated annually based on inflation. the formula for calculating poverty has not been significantly changed in over 40 years. it is based on the cost of food and how much of one's income the US Dept of Health and Human Services assumes one spends on food. the basic idea is that a person spends about a third of their income on food. the govemment makes an assessment on how much food would feed a person for a month, estimates what it would cost and then multiplies it by three.
the main issue i have with this is that it doesn't make sense. think about it, do you spend a third of your income on food? i don't. what about your housing cost? the cost of housing has increased faster than the rate of inflation. much faster.
if your monthly income is $850 or below in 2007 you are in poverty. if you are unlucky enough to be at or below this place, you will hopefully be eligible for multiple types of assistance like Medicaid or Food Stamps.
lets say that you work a minimum wage job.
(i am going to use the federal minimum wage because we are looking at the federal poverty level. each state has the ability to create their own minimum wage)
you make $5.85 an hour and you probably work about 37 hours weekly because your employer doesn't want you to be eligible for company health insurance. you gross about $11,255 annually. you are over the federal poverty level of $10,210 annually for a single person.
based on the way the goverment looks at it you spend about $312 on food. that leaves you $626 for rent, utilities/phone, transportation and health care (because you are over the income threshold for Medicaid). considering the median rent in 2000 was $602 monthly, you're screwed. what are you going to go without? you certainly cannot afford a car and insurance, so how do you get to your job? how do you pay for public transportation? what happens if you get sick?
how much of a difference in comfort is there between the person who has an annual income of $10,000 and $13,000? not much from the way i see it. but the goverment doesn't see the latter as being in poverty.
certainly this definition of poverty is helpful for the purpose of statistics. in my opinion the current federal poverty threshold is very low, and in turn it looks like we have less poor people in our country.
what happens to all the folks just above the poverty level? there is an enormous amount of people that exist between the poverty level and the 'middle class'. these folks work hard and pay taxes. they often don't have health insurance and can't afford stable or safe housing. they have unreliable forms of transportation. they work jobs with no security and feel invaluable and overlooked. they don't vote because no one is talking about things they experience, or maybe they are just too busy 'surviving' to care.
at a time when we are cautiously hopeful for real change in the united states, i would certainly like to hear more political conversation in this area. although the idea of universal health care is optimistic, it is only one small piece of the larger puzzle. are there any politicians creating a comprehensive solution to poverty in the united states?
if so, please let me know.
the federal poverty level is a income threshold that is re-evaluated annually based on inflation. the formula for calculating poverty has not been significantly changed in over 40 years. it is based on the cost of food and how much of one's income the US Dept of Health and Human Services assumes one spends on food. the basic idea is that a person spends about a third of their income on food. the govemment makes an assessment on how much food would feed a person for a month, estimates what it would cost and then multiplies it by three.
the main issue i have with this is that it doesn't make sense. think about it, do you spend a third of your income on food? i don't. what about your housing cost? the cost of housing has increased faster than the rate of inflation. much faster.
if your monthly income is $850 or below in 2007 you are in poverty. if you are unlucky enough to be at or below this place, you will hopefully be eligible for multiple types of assistance like Medicaid or Food Stamps.
lets say that you work a minimum wage job.
(i am going to use the federal minimum wage because we are looking at the federal poverty level. each state has the ability to create their own minimum wage)
you make $5.85 an hour and you probably work about 37 hours weekly because your employer doesn't want you to be eligible for company health insurance. you gross about $11,255 annually. you are over the federal poverty level of $10,210 annually for a single person.
based on the way the goverment looks at it you spend about $312 on food. that leaves you $626 for rent, utilities/phone, transportation and health care (because you are over the income threshold for Medicaid). considering the median rent in 2000 was $602 monthly, you're screwed. what are you going to go without? you certainly cannot afford a car and insurance, so how do you get to your job? how do you pay for public transportation? what happens if you get sick?
how much of a difference in comfort is there between the person who has an annual income of $10,000 and $13,000? not much from the way i see it. but the goverment doesn't see the latter as being in poverty.
certainly this definition of poverty is helpful for the purpose of statistics. in my opinion the current federal poverty threshold is very low, and in turn it looks like we have less poor people in our country.
what happens to all the folks just above the poverty level? there is an enormous amount of people that exist between the poverty level and the 'middle class'. these folks work hard and pay taxes. they often don't have health insurance and can't afford stable or safe housing. they have unreliable forms of transportation. they work jobs with no security and feel invaluable and overlooked. they don't vote because no one is talking about things they experience, or maybe they are just too busy 'surviving' to care.
at a time when we are cautiously hopeful for real change in the united states, i would certainly like to hear more political conversation in this area. although the idea of universal health care is optimistic, it is only one small piece of the larger puzzle. are there any politicians creating a comprehensive solution to poverty in the united states?
if so, please let me know.
election day.
i wish there was something to be more excited about today.
or what i mean to say is...i wish that i wasn't going to my polling place to vote between some dude and himself. how is it that someone can run for office if no one runs against them? maybe this is unique to small towns? does no one else care enough to run?
shouldn't that render an election pretty useless?
the worst part is that the person running doesn't even have to promise you anything.
"hey, i'm the only one that'll take this position as coroner so vote for me. i'll win even if you don't."
with that exceptionally enthusiastic hoorah for the power of elections...i'm off to vote.
or what i mean to say is...i wish that i wasn't going to my polling place to vote between some dude and himself. how is it that someone can run for office if no one runs against them? maybe this is unique to small towns? does no one else care enough to run?
shouldn't that render an election pretty useless?
the worst part is that the person running doesn't even have to promise you anything.
"hey, i'm the only one that'll take this position as coroner so vote for me. i'll win even if you don't."
with that exceptionally enthusiastic hoorah for the power of elections...i'm off to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)