lizzamayhem

I got in on the blog hop a little bit late, so I have to do two entries tonight in order to catch up.

So. “Coming to Terms with Disability in My Life.”

There is (at least for me) a big difference between growing into an identity as a person with a disability after a lifetime of chronic illness, on the one hand, and being handed the news that your first child will have Down Syndrome. For me, getting a diagnosis has always been a matter of putting a name on something I have experienced for a long time. In many cases it was a relief to be given a word to describe what I was dealing with, because it represented an acknowledgment that this struggle was real and not all in my head. Because when you’re a woman, and you experience chronic illness that isn’t easily diagnosed, doctors have a tendency to chalk it up to PMS or anxiety. And when you have fibromyalgia, and you’re a woman, and you experience chronic illness that isn’t easily diagnosed? It’s all just part of the fibromyalgia. Sometimes I think my arms could fall right off and at least one of my doctors would try to convince me it’s a fibro flare up and I would feel better if only I would just exercise more frequently.

But again – by the time I was diagnosed with each condition, I had been going through it for a while. Everything happened in increments. It’s another story entirely when somebody throws a pile of prenatal diagnoses at you before you even have a chance to see your baby’s face. We went from expecting a healthy baby to “high risk for Down Syndrome but no soft markers” to “99.9% risk of Down Syndrome” to “oh, and by the way, did we mention we couldn’t see the baby’s stomach?” to “your baby will need surgery right after birth to repair her esophagus” to premature labor at 32 weeks to “Your baby has to stay in the NICU for 5-6 months to await repair of her esophagus,” and oh yeah, somewhere in the NICU mix, somebody happened to mention, casually, the holes in Leah’s heart – they assumed we already knew. We did not.

We had all of this thrown at us before we ever knew Leah. So we did the only thing we could do: try to get to know her better. Within 24-48 hours of receiving the prenatal diagnosis, we booked an appointment for a 3D ultrasound so we could see her face. About six weeks later we did another 3D ultrasound so we could visit with her again. In between ultrasounds, we reached out to local groups and met with two couples who had teenagers with Down Syndrome. We read everything we could on the topic of Down Syndrome and esophageal atresia. And once Leah was born and we had some time to settle into the hospital life, I started a blog and a Facebook page. It has been really therapeutic and has brought us into contact with many other families going through similar struggles. I think there is a prompt later in the summer for “connections and comforts,” so I’ll talk more about that later.

Somebody posted a link to this “blog hop” on one of the Down Syndrome pages on Facebook. It’s basically a summer writing challenge, with a new prompt every week. Leah’s blog didn’t seem like the right place to put this, so I guess my own blog would be the next most logical place.

So there you go! Here is the first entry: “My Connection with Disability: An Introduction”

How do I talk about my connection to disability? Backwards, I guess? I have a little girl who has Down Syndrome. That’s a pretty strong connection right there – but that’s not where my disability connection begins. I don’t know how to really pinpoint it, because if I really think about it, I guess I’ve had disabilities my whole life, though I haven’t always known about them. I had Tourette’s Syndrome as a child (with related OCD-behaviors manifesting as early as toddlerhood), but it wasn’t diagnosed until I was 25 years old. I had clinical depression in at least fifth grade, if not earlier, but wasn’t diagnosed until I was about 19 or 20. I started showing signs of fibromyalgia at about age 13 or 14, but wasn’t diagnosed until I was 21 and several years into college. Up until then, I was dealing with doctors who a) didn’t seem concerned because nothing showed up in blood tests, b) thought I was faking to get out of PE (even though PE was not in the required curriculum for my grade level and I didn’t have to take it anyway), or c) informed me that “some people just have to live with pain.” I was 14.

I’d say that by the time I graduated from college I identified as a person with a disability. I credit two people in my life – ironically, both lovely ladies who shared my first name – with making me see that what I was experiencing was disability, showing me that there were ways to cope with these issues and get help, and giving me permission to ask for help. It’s a good thing I learned to navigate the accommodation system in college, because during my first year in law school, I was in a car accident that exacerbated everything I had going on and added some new issues as well. It could have been a lot worse, but of all the people in the car, I took the brunt of the bodily injury and I don’t think I have ever really recovered fully.

In 2009 another disability emerged – one that was, in its worst stages, more incapacitating than all of the others combined. My stomach literally stopped working. I’d had random bouts of this for a few days at a time for a couple of years, but that summer I lost 40 lbs in a few months while the doctors scratched their heads in confusion and told me they couldn’t figure out what was going on. I finally found something online that sounded like what I was experiencing, and asked that they test me for it – and I was right. Gastroparesis. I’ve been in and out of what I call “remission,” but last summer I landed in the ER seven times for IV fluids and anti-nausea meds. I lost about 50 lbs because I couldn’t keep any food down. I had a “band-aid” surgery (i.e. not a permanent fix but just a mitigation procedure) in September, and have been in a sort of “remission” since about October – but I’ve had a few episodes in the past month or so and think a new flare-up might be on its way. This is the scariest of my chronic illnesses (unless you count the near-fainting spells). People have literally died from this. Most people who have gastroparesis experience some mild upset in their eating habits, or difficulty in monitoring their blood sugars if they are diabetic. For a small subset of patients, it is absolutely crippling. I’m probably on the more functional side of the more severe subset, but I’m definitely in that club. Unfortunately.

This brings me to my sweet little girl who was born with Down Syndrome and Type A esophageal atresia. She spent her first seven months in the ICU, and I was sick the entire time. My first trip to the ER was two days before my wife went into premature labor. I wound up there six more times throughout the summer and fall. A couple of times they would have admitted me had I not begged them to just get me hydrated so I could get back upstairs to my baby in the NICU.

In a way, I am grateful that I have lived my life up to this point with conditions that were medically challenging and often led to debates and conflicts with health care providers. I will never know what Leah experiences on a day to day basis – her delays are severe and she has a tough road ahead of her – but I have years of experience in being my own advocate while navigating the health care system, and this puts me in a better position to advocate for my baby girl.

Oh yeah – and I also worked as a public benefits attorney at a disability rights nonprofit for two years. Did I mention that the universe has been training me to be Leah’s Mama?

Sometimes, late at night, I get a sudden urge to write – it’s not about anything in particular, just a need to take words out of my head and put them onto the screen.

I took piano lessons for years when I was a kid, but then my parents got rid of the piano after the earthquake in ’94, and after that, the only time I had access to a piano was before religious school on Sundays, when I would sneak into the social hall and play nonstop until it was time to work. I rarely had sheet music; it was all from memory. When we stopped going to that temple, I went for a really long stretch of time without any regular access to a piano. These days, when I sit at the bench, my hands rest on the keys and all the music I ever knew somehow gets lost between my brain and my fingers. The muscle memory is still there for some of it, but most of it is gone.

On these nights, when I just feel the urge to write but have no idea where to start, sitting at the keyboard feels a lot like sitting in front of a piano with melodies swirling around in my head with no place to go. I feel a song coming on, but I don’t remember how it goes.

Hey, you know that baby we were expecting in July?

She turned up about two weeks after I wrote my post about “coming out.” And I am pleased to report that on the whole, people have been absolutely, stunningly, heart-warmingly AWESOME.

I was browsing through saved drafts tonight and found this blog entry that I wrote back in January about a NY Times article I read. In the complete insanity that has been my life these past few months I totally forgot about this entry and never posted it. I shall share it with you now!

—

The New York Times recently published a thought-provoking piece on the difficulty of making friends after age 30. As a side note, I would argue that age is irrelevant – here it merely serves as a proxy for the increased social isolation that comes from major life transition. Since “30 is the new 20” (or not), that makes it a good marking point. But this could just as easily apply to people with disabilities that lead to isolation, stay-at-home moms without adequate support, transplants to new cities, or really anybody.

My first thought while reading this article is that this is an argument for continued participation in online social networking. For years I’ve heard people complain incessantly about the Internet and how it makes people anti-social – and this argument even extends to social networking, which is social in nature. Some people simply refuse to participate – and if that’s how they choose to go, more power to them. But for many people, the Internet provides something that is missing in their lives: an environment that offers what this article suggests are “the three conditions that sociologists since the 1950s have considered crucial to making close friends: proximity; repeated, unplanned interactions; and a setting that encourages people to let their guard down and confide in each other.”

For many people, one of these three factors is missing. If your entire social life revolves around work, for example, what you may be missing is the environment conducive to confidences. It’s hard to confide in people in a competitive environment where the wall between professional and personal might be what’s keeping you from the unemployment rolls. And sometimes you just don’t want your personal business floating around the office. Not everybody is on your side. Or what may be missing is the opportunity for unstructured interaction; if all you ever do is work with people, do you really ever have a chance to get to know them?

Now, I’m the last person to argue that the Internet should take the place of offline social interactions. BUT it can be a lifesaver when your social calendar isn’t exactly overflowing.

Although I have always had a good number of friends “in real life,” I’ve also always been pretty socially isolated. If that sounds paradoxical, so be it. I didn’t go out much in high school – I socialized at school but generally went straight home afterward. I didn’t have a car and both of my parents worked, so I basically couldn’t go anywhere unless I had a ride – which meant I didn’t get out much, especially since my two closest friends also didn’t drive until after high school. Later, in college, I was a commuter-kid without a car. This meant I either relied on the 9AM-5PM commuter van or took the bus. During my entire first two years of college I made exactly one friend at school, and since neither of us drove and both of us commuted, we didn’t get to hang out often.

During my second year of college I got a job on campus, and eventually I started sleeping in the library so I could attend some of the club meetings, which took place in the evenings. It wasn’t until the end of my third year in college that I actually found my social “niche,” and many of the folks I met during that time period are still among my closest friends – including my wife.

I would like to point out, however, that in high school and during those first 2-3 years, I still had lots and lots of company. In fact, I don’t think I would have been able to make the friends I did in college had I not developed the social ties I did in the early years – that is, the online social ties. That’s right – most of my social life in high school and early college took place online, where I sort of “came of age,” came out, got introduced to the music that literally changed my life, and made friends that I still count among my dear friends today. And that was before it was socially acceptable to “meet people online.”

I think it’s that first factor – proximity – for which people don’t really give the Internet enough credit. I have always argued that the Internet creates proximity where none could have existed without it. That proximity is what allows us to develop and sustain long-term relationships; it’s those “repeated unplanned interactions” that provide a basis for future interactions and create the common points of reference that build friendships. And I think it’s fair to state without argument that communicating from behind a computer screen encourages people to let their guard down and be more open – for better or for worse. And so the Internet is a legitimate meeting place from which lasting friendships can develop – at any age.

It just is. I don’t know what else to say.

“Coming out” is such a funny concept. It stems from the fact that human beings – and especially Americans – have a “default setting” for their assumptions about any given individual they meet. If you say “person” what your audience likely hears is “able-bodied, mentally and developmentally typical, white, monolingual English-speaking, heterosexual, cis-gendered Protestant, probably male.” And if you specify any one of those things, the other assumptions still seem to tag along for the ride.

So when you’re a disabled Jewish lesbian with a Mensa card (expired, thankyouverymuch) and a prescription for Prozac (all too current), things get a little awkward.

And now things are about to get a little bit more challenging.

We’re having a baby. My wife is carrying the pregnancy. And we are excited about having a baby. So naturally everybody assumes that a) the child is 100% healthy, and b) the child is biologically my wife’s. As it happens, neither assumption is accurate.

Let’s get the easy part out of the way. The child is biologically mine. Yes. I got my wife knocked up. That baby’s gonna come out with my lips and my hair – and if my mom’s prediction to me when I was little is correct, she’ll have my attitude as well. (Oy, vey iz mir). So at least in the beginning, while the baby is still forming her human facial features and growing out of the little alien face that all newborn babies seem to have, it is inevitable that some people will ooooh and ahhhh and tell my wife how very much the baby looks like her. And if we’re feeling patient, we’ll explain.

But that’s not all we’ll have to explain. As it turns out, our baby has been given a 99.9% chance of having Down syndrome.

Some background: At about 19 or 20 weeks, we were notified that we had screened positive for high-risk of Trisomy 21 (a technical term for Down syndrome). We had a 1 in 52 chance that the baby would have an extra 21st chromosome. Even as recently as 2 years ago, our only diagnostic option at this point would be an amniocentesis, which carries with it a miscarriage risk of anywhere from 1/200 to 1/500 depending on the medical provider and also, it seems, depending on who you ask. As of the past year and a half or so, there is another option called “Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing” (NIPT), and that’s the route we took. It’s a very, very new blood test in which the mother’s blood is drawn, and from that the lab extracts bits of cell-free fetal DNA – pieces of DNA, really, and not full cells. The sample is analyzed and you receive a risk assessment of Trisomies 13, 18 and 21. It’s still considered a screening test because it’s not officially diagnostic and can’t give you results with 100% accuracy, but I’d say 99.9% is still pretty close.

There are still a few possibilities that could change the accuracy of these odds. For one thing, the test is very new. Some medical professionals haven’t even heard of it. So you never know exactly how accurate it is in the long term. Second, only last year this lab still stated that its test was not for use with pregnancies in which the gestational mother is not the biological mother. It’s since been certified for use in such pregnancies, but who knows how many tests they’ve actually done. BUT when all is said and done, the lab states that our baby has a 999/1,000 chance of having Down syndrome with a 1/1,000 chance that it is a false positive.

That 1/1,000 chance is dwindling as the doctor continues to be unable to visualize her stomach on ultrasound after ultrasound, which likely means that there is some sort of obstruction keeping the stomach from filling with amniotic fluid. Esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistulas are fairly common with babies who have Down syndrome – at least as compared to the general population – so if something is actually going on with her stomach that would pretty much confirm the blood test results. It would also be the only physical sign of Down syndrome on any of the ultrasounds. No other markers are visible.

So now the question comes – do we “come out” about this situation? And if so, how? It’s something we’ve been struggling with for almost 2 months now. At this point we’re kind of on a “need to know” basis since we really don’t KNOW anything with 100% certainty so what we’re really sharing right now is the uncertainty. But it’s looking pretty likely. In which case… how do you come out to people about that? I mean, when she’s born people will see pictures and if it’s obvious then it will be obvious… but until then, what do you say? I mean, what do you say when people talk about how she will develop or what she will be when she grows up (G-d willing) based on the assumption that she is “typical”? And then on the other hand, if you don’t say anything, how do you avoid feeling like a fraud?

It’s funny – I almost feel the same way as I did when I was coming out as a lesbian. I never felt ashamed of being gay. What I felt was that if I told people, the fact that I was a lesbian would outweigh any possible redeeming qualities I might have in people’s eyes and they would reject me for being gay instead of considering me as a whole person. Like, “Ugh, you should have told me so I could properly hate you and not waste time getting to know you.” And in this case, I almost feel like if we tell people, the fact that she has a disability – especially this one, for some reason – will outweigh the fact that she is a BABY. Like somehow we are misleading people by being so excited about becoming mommies. Like we should have said something so people could feel properly sorry for us. And I don’t want people to feel sorry for us.

Don’t get me wrong – I want people to appreciate that the challenges we will face if the baby does have Down syndrome (and especially if she has health problems) are going to be difficult, and I want people to respect that we are dealing with something big. But I still want people to be happy for us, and ask to see pictures, and be excited to meet her, and want to hold her and make funny faces at her and count her little toes, because she is still going to be a BABY.

And based on the 3D ultrasounds, she is pretty cute, if I do say so myself.

Do you ever just have the feeling that you need to write without really having any particular topic in mind? That’s me tonight. That’s me the past few months, really. I have set up three new blogs in the past 30 days and haven’t touched a single one. I’m in start-mode but can’t seem to finish anything. I have ideas but can’t seem to put them into motion. What gives?

Well, I know what gives. But still. It’d be nice to get something accomplished.

I literally woke up composing this blog entry, and couldn’t get back to sleep until it was finished. So here you go. This is how my mind works when I’m asleep.

Homicides in LA County since January 1, 2007: 4,261

LGBTQ people murdered in hate crimes in the United States between 2000 and 2011: 228

Children under age 5 murdered in the United States between 1990 and 2005: 10,533

Men and women killed as a result of partner violence in the United States between 1989 and 2004: 30,121

United States soldiers killed in Vietnam: 58,282

Jewish victims of the Holocaust: About 5.9 million

Victims of Darfur genocide: Tens or hundreds of thousands, depending on the estimates

Victims of the Rwanda genocide: About 800,000

Victims of Saddam Hussein’s Kurdish genocide: Possibly 200,000

Victims of the Armenian genocide: Between 1 million and 1.5 million

Native Americans killed by North American colonization: Thousands by murder/war, hundreds of thousands more by disease.

Syrians killed since start of current conflict in March 2011: Over 40,000

Iraqi insurgents killed between June 2003 and September 30, 2011: 26,320, based on several estimates

Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq war between January 2004 and December 2009: 66,081

Iraqi women killed in “honor killings” from 1991 to 2007: More than 12,000

Women around the world killed for “dishonoring their families”: Between 5,000 and 20,000. ANNUALLY.

Total Palestinian fatalities between September 29, 2000 and September 30, 2012: 7,317, and that includes 695 Palestinians killed by Palestinians, executed by the Palestinian Authority, and executed by Hamas. Of the roughly 6,600 who were killed by Israeli security forces, fewer than half were innocent bystanders, i.e. people who were not taking part in the hostilities but were nonetheless killed by Israeli forces.

Let’s look again at our first statistic. Between January 1, 2007 and November 10, 2012, there were 4,261 murders in the County of Los Angeles. If you find the average annual homicide rate, you get about 710 murders a year – and this is a low estimate, because the year 2012 isn’t over yet. If you apply that average to roughly the same time period as the previous statistic (about 12 years), you get about 8,520 murders in Los Angeles County – and this is also a low estimate because the homicide rate has actually been declining for some time, so the numbers were higher in the earlier years. So while we’re busy killing each other in LA County, Israel is somehow managing to kill even fewer people despite the fact that it is a) defending its citizens against terrorism, and b) allegedly in the midst of perpetrating a genocide.

Incidentally, the mortality rate in the Palestinian territories is an average of about 3.69 / 1,000 annually (3.58 in the West Bank and 3.8 in Gaza). Here is a list of world death rates and a specific comparison of Israel, the United States, and the West Bank / Gaza Strip.

The mortality rate in LA County, as of 2010, was 6.244 / 1000 annually. The mortality rate in California was 6.664 / 1000. The American mortality rate was 7.41 / 1000.¹⁹

In 2010, “16.0% of the households in the West Bank were suffering from poverty in 2010 (16.4% among households with children and 14.6% among households without children). Regarding Gaza Strip, 31.9% of households were suffering from poverty in 2010 (34.4% among households with children and 18.8% among households without children).”

These numbers are comparable to poverty statistics in the United States, where nationally about 15.9% were living in poverty in 2011 (these numbers have increased), but where poverty rates in major metropolitan areas could vary from 8.3 percent to 37.7 percent.²¹

You can also take a look at the average life expectancy for countries around the world. Life expectancies in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are not that much lower than in the United States. [Edit: Interestingly, the life expectancy in the Gaza Strip and West Bank is higher than it is in Egypt and many other countries – for example, take a look at the life expectancy in Russia and Afghanistan. The way I hear this conflict discussed, you would expect similar numbers in the Palestinian territories – but that’s not the case. And the infant mortality rates in Gaza are radically lower than in many other Middle Eastern countries, e.g. Yemen,Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Iraq – Gaza’s rates are more comparable to Lebanon, Jordan and Syria (although I suspect Syria will be thrown off significantly this year).]

Bottom line: I’m not saying the people in the Palestinian territories aren’t living in crisis – and any civilian death is one too many. But I felt like this conflict needed some context. And as my mind is swimming with numbers I can’t help but wonder why Israel, out of all of the countries in the world, receives quite so much attention for its alleged “genocide,” “apartheid,” “bloodthirstiness,” etc. when in fact Israel, unlike other nations, goes out of its way to avoid civilian deaths. I only wish the rest of the world could say the same. So why is Israel treated as “Public Enemy No. 1”?

Some Reading Material

Objective information on the initiatives: SmartVoter.org’s Directory of California State Propositions

The not-so-objective voting guide to the initiatives: Courage Campaign’s progressive voter guide

Preface

I have always hated the ballot initiative process. With a burning passion. Legislative referenda, I can understand; state law requires a popular vote on certain legislative actions, so although I don’t like it, I get why it happens. But regular ballot initiatives are dangerous. Ballot initiatives are written by non-legislators. Their authors are accountable to nobody. They are not elected officials so they stand to lose nothing if their initiatives sour in implementation. They are written in a vacuum without any public policy consideration, and are usually written with the author’s special interest in mind. Since people like to think of themselves as open-minded, they usually try to give each ballot initiative “fair consideration” and an up-or-down vote. Since many people don’t take the time to read the initiatives, they get swayed by advertising that appeals to their emotions without regard to the facts. And we all know that this process has been used to strip people of their civil rights on multiple occasions – and in California, a tax increase requires 2/3 of the popular vote, while a constitutional amendment stripping an entire population of their civil rights requires only 50% plus one vote. In the end, ballot initiatives lead to government by mob rule, and that’s not cool with me.

BUT sometimes it is necessary to vote for them. There’s no use shooting ourselves in the foot on principle.

When I was in grad school, I attended a lunch-time seminar on that year’s ballot initiatives. The professor hosting the seminar made a comment that’s stuck with me ever since. His take-away point was that your default vote on every ballot initiative should be a “no.” From there, you should consider whether there is any reason why the legislature cannot or will not take the issue up through the legislative process. If they could, why is it being presented as a ballot initiative? If they can’t or won’t, why not? Do they have a good reason?

Prop 215 was a good example of a law that had to happen through the initiative process, because very few legislators are willing to go out on a limb for the legalization of cannabis for medical use, even if they personally believe it should be legalized. They would likely be painted as “soft on drugs” for the remainder of their political careers.

As a side note, I agree with a lot of the progressive orgs on a lot of the initiatives, but can’t say that I would follow them 100%. Below is my brief guide to the ballot initiatives, with commentary. I’m not going to reinvent the wheel, so a lot of the basic description will come from the state attorney general’s summary.

If you have time for nothing else, read up on Prop 30, 32 and 37. I’m supporting 30 and 37 and strongly opposing 32.

Prop 30

CA Attorney General’s Summary

• Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years.
• Increases sales and use tax by ¼ cent for four years.
• Allocates temporary tax revenues 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
• Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent.
• Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments.

My Commentary

If this initiative doesn’t pass, the resulting budget cuts will be catastrophic.

Opponents have alleged that Prop 30 doesn’t guarantee that the money will go toward education. Prop 30 directs the revenues from the tax increases into the general fund, which funds both education and health care, including In Home Supportive Services (IHSS). IHSS allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain in their own homes instead of being institutionalized – and if you saw some of these homes you would understand why people don’t live as long there as they do in their own homes. Its funding has already been slashed to an unhealthy level. If Prop 30 fails, people will literally die.

Prop 30’s opponents also state that Prop 30 doesn’t guarantee any new funding to schools. DUH. The whole point is that the initiative helps fill the budget cap to prevent further cuts. This is not about new funding – it’s about saving the funding that exists. LAUSD has already reported that if Prop 30 fails they will need to cut 15 days off of this school year – and 5 weeks from the next school year. The LA Times states that “the measure’s biggest selling point is what happens if it doesn’t pass: Massive, crippling mid-year cuts in public schools — from pre-kindergarten programs to Cal State and University of California campuses.”

Bottom line: If you love a teacher or a student, vote YES on Prop 30.

Prop 31

SmartVoter.org’s summary

• Establishes two-year state budget cycle.
• Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified.
• Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act.
• Requires performance reviews of all state programs.
• Requires performance goals in state and local budgets.
• Requires publication of bills at least three days prior to legislative vote.
• Allows local governments to alter how laws governing state-funded programs apply to them, unless Legislature or state agency vetoes change within 60 days.

My Commentary

I’ll admit, I don’t know a whole lot about this initiative aside from having read the fiscal impact report. However, that last element raises a major red flag for me. Our state has its flaws, for sure, but I don’t like the idea of local governments being able to weasel out of state law. In my work I saw more than once how counties decide that state laws don’t apply to them, and it rarely turns out well. I also worry about the wisdom of restricting legislative spending during an economic crisis. Recovery costs money.

The fact that every progressive organization that took a stance on this came out against it helps me make my decision. I’ll keep reading up on it but until then it’s a no for me.

Prop 32

CA Attorney General’s Summary

• Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors.
• Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer-sponsored committee or union if authorized yearly, in writing.
• Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.
• Other political expenditures remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition. [emphasis added]
• Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or officer-controlled committees.

My Commentary

This bill is not what it seems to be.

It appears to be a progressive effort to get special interest money out of politics.

What is it really? It is an effort to get progressive special interest money out of politics.

This has already been on the ballot several times before, but since its proponents couldn’t get it passed by telling the truth, they have offered us Prop 32, which is a giant lie.

At the core of this initiative is a prohibition on the use of payroll deductions for political purposes by corporations and unions. “No exemptions, no exceptions.” Seems to be pretty even-handed, right?

BUT – have you ever met a corporation that uses payroll deductions to fund its political contributions? I don’t think so. Who uses payroll deductions to fund its political activities? UNIONS.

From the text of the proposition: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, or public employee labor union shall make a contribution to any candidate, candidate controlled committee; or to any other committee, including a political party committee, if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.” And “notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.” The initiative “generously” allows a union member to make a separate contribution to the union for political use, but that contribution has to be made with written consent for its political use, and the consent only lasts for one year.

This initiative was written to prevent unions from participating in politics. Period. When the unions are taken out of politics, who is left? Major corporations and Super PACs. Is that the kind of “democracy” you want to live in?

I am voting NO on Prop 32 and I hope you will too.

Prop 33

CA Attorney General’s Summary

• Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company.
• Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some history of prior insurance coverage.
• Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.
• Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days.

My Commentary

I think this one comes down to personal opinion. All of the progressive orgs that took a stance were against this initiative because it punishes good drivers who dropped their auto insurance because they stopped driving for a period of time – e.g. college students, people who were ill, etc. It makes it harder for such people to get insurance again because it will be significantly more expensive. I will likely vote no, but will need to read more about it. It doesn’t bode well for it that it is funded by insurance providers.

Prop 34

CA Attorney General’s Summary

• Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
• Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death.
• States that persons found guilty of murder must work while in prison as prescribed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with their wages subject to deductions to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them.
• Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases

My Commentary

All of the progressive orgs are in favor of this proposition. I’m not. Hate me if you must. A moratorium is something I would support, because I understand that there are problems with the way the death penalty is implemented and I would like to see those problems resolved. But this isn’t a moratorium; it’s a complete elimination of the death penalty as an option, and hate me or not, I don’t support that. I’m voting NO on 34.

Prop 35

CA Attorney General’s Summary

• Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life and fines up to $1,500,000.
• Fines collected to be used for victim services and law enforcement.
• Requires person convicted of trafficking to register as sex offender.
• Requires sex offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in online activities.
• Prohibits evidence that victim engaged in sexual conduct from being used against victim in court proceedings.
• Requires human trafficking training for police officers.

My Commentary

I’m torn on this one for one huge reason: I see absolutely no reason why the legislature could not handle this. Who would criticize state legislators for cracking down on human trafficking? Why does this need to happen via the initiative process?

[Edit 10/16/2012] It looks like I’m not the only one who had this major concern with Prop 35. Take a look at the LA Times official endorsement against Prop 35. The Sacramento Bee also has an editorial urging a no vote on Prop 35.

I will most likely vote NO on Prop 35.

Prop 36

CA Attorney General’s Summary

• Revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent.
• Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and judge determines sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.
• Continues to impose life sentence penalty if third strike conviction was for certain nonserious, nonviolent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession.
• Maintains life sentence penalty for felons with nonserious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation.

My Commentary

This is one of those issues that cannot be taken up by the legislature, partially because nobody wants to appear weak on crime, but mostly because the original 3 Strikes law was put into place through the initiative process and I don’t imagine it allowed for legislative amendment. Therefore, the law can only be amended through the initiative process.

I will vote for it. It seems to address the major concerns of those who point to examples of murders committed by repeat offenders by carving out appropriate exceptions. But more importantly, while I support enforcement of criminal law through incarceration and other forms of punishment, I believe it is absolutely immoral to condemn somebody to a life sentence when they have never committed a crime that merits such a grave punishment.

I will vote YES on Prop 36.

Prop 37

CA Attorney General’s Summary

• Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
• Prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as “natural.”
• Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.

My Commentary

Folks, this is huge. We have an opportunity to demand that genetically modified foods be labeled as such. This is not a ban on GMOs; it’s a chance for us to make informed choices about what we consume. Why won’t the legislature take this up? After all, Prop 37 has long list of endorsements from many respectable entities. My guess is that the legislature won’t touch it because the No on 37 campaign is “sponsored by Farmers, Food Producers, and Grocers. Major funding by Monsanto Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and more than 40 food company members.” Prop 37 is opposed by countless agriculture, grocery and food manufacturing companies, which leads me to the question: Why don’t they want us to know what is in their products?

I’m already sold on Prop 37 because I believe we have a right to know what we are eating and make informed choices. That’s my number one reason for voting in favor of 37. But for me, the second biggest reason to believe that Prop 37 is a good idea is that the Monsanto Company is spending a whole lot of money to defame it. Monsanto is a threat to farmers everywhere; it routinely sues farmers for patent infringement when they grow plants that have Monsanto-patented genetic modifications, even if the farmers’ plants were cross-contaminated by adjacent farmlands growing Monsanto crops. That is just the tip of the iceberg. If they’re against it, that’s just another reason for me to support it. Call me spiteful.

However, there are some legitimate reasons to vote against Prop 37, most of them having to do with the way the initiative is written and the change is implemented. Personally, as with Prop 19 a few years ago, I prefer something over nothing in this case. However, if you want to read more, here are a pair of dueling articles from the LA Times, one an op-ed in favor and one the paper’s official endorsement in opposition to Prop 37.

That being said… now that this is on the ballot, I have the feeling that if it fails, the legislature (and especially opponents of GMO labeling) will use its failure as “proof” that Californians have “spoken” and don’t want GMO labeling.

I will vote YES on Prop 37.

Prop 38

CA Attorney General’s Summary

• Increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, for twelve years.
• During first four years, allocates 60% of revenues to K+12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K+12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs.
• Provides K+12 funds on school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input.
• Prohibits state from directing new funds.

My Commentary

There were a large number of initiatives designed to raise taxes to support our education system. All of the others agreed to back out so that they would not compete with Prop 30. The Prop 38 campaign refused. That alone is enough to make me wonder whether the Prop 38 backers have the state’s best interests in mind. Between Prop 30 and Prop 38, the one that gets the higher number of votes will win. But Prop 38 is being offered to the public by a wealthy daughter of a billionaire (and her brother is funneling money into the No on 30 and Yes on 32 campaigns), while Prop 30 is brought to us by our elected officials.

Prop 30 directs money to the general fund, so its revenues can help both schools and social services. Prop 38 limits its revenues to use for schools.

Prop 30 limits the income tax hike to those earning $250K a year, although it does increase the sales tax by a quarter of one cent. Prop 38 increases the state income tax on just about everybody. Even those living in poverty will be hit with a greater increase in taxes under Prop 38’s plan (which starts at a 0.4% increase on earnings over $7,316) than they would even if every dime of their income went toward purchases for which sales taxes were levied under Prop 30.

Prop 30 recognizes the importance of higher education and includes community colleges and state universities under the umbrella of public education. Prop 38 is restricted to K-12 and does nothing to address the crisis at our state’s community colleges.

Most critically, Prop 38 will not stop the crippling cuts that are slated to take place as a matter of law if Prop 30 fails.

Since the initiative with the higher vote count wins, for me it’s a YES on 30 and a NO on 38.

Prop 39

CA Attorney General’s Summary

• Requires multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California.
• Repeals existing law giving multistate businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California.
• Dedicates $550 million annually for five years from anticipated increase in revenue for the purpose of funding projects that create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs in California.

My Commentary

The very fact that the No on 39 campaign tosses around terms like “job creators” and “a blank check to spend billions” and argues that an expenditures as a result of Prop 39 could instead go to The Children is enough to tell me what I need to know about this campaign. The money could also go to starving babies in Africa, but it’s not going to. And I don’t really think this could get through the legislature right now.

I will vote YES on Prop 39.

Prop 40

CA Attorney General Summary

• A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.
• If the new districts are rejected, the State Senate district boundary lines will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court.
• State Senate districts are revised every 10 years following the federal census.

My Commentary

The California Report describes Prop 40 as follows:

The California Republican Party sponsored this referendum to overturn the new state Senate districts. The GOP then asked the state Supreme Court to rule on whether the new maps or the old maps would be used for the November 2012 election. In January, the state’s high court ruled that the district maps drawn by the Citizens Commission must be used in 2012.

So on July 12, the supporters of Prop. 40 announced they’re no longer campaigning for people to vote “no.” However, the measure remains on the ballot because there’s no way to remove measures that have qualified via a signature campaign.

Here is some more back story on Prop 40. Apparently the state GOP backed away from its support of the No on 40 campaign after deciding they could probably make up some of the losses in 2014.

At this point, both the California Republican Party and the California Democratic Party are endorsing a “yes” vote for Prop 40, as are all of the progressive orgs that took a stance on the measure. I will most likely vote YES.

In Conclusion

Summary:
Prop 30: AN EMPHATIC YES.
Prop 31: LEANING TOWARD NO.
Prop 32: AN EMPHATIC NO.
Prop 33: NO.
Prop 34: NO.
Prop 35: MOST LIKELY NO.
Prop 36: YES.
Prop 37: YES.
Prop 38: AN EMPHATIC NO.
Prop 39: YES.
Prop 40: YES.

I hope you have found this commentary to be useful, and I welcome your comments.

[Inspired by somebody’s Facebook status update and the responses it generated.]

Asking why there is no Hetero Coming Out Day is like asking why there is no White History Month. You don’t need White History Month because every month is White History Month. The whole point of carving out time to celebrate the societal contributions of underrepresented groups is that most of those stories go untold except along the fringes where they interact tangentially with white history. What do you know about black history aside from the fact that black people were slaves in America and then there was a Civil War and oh yeah, Martin Luther King Jr.? What do you know about Jewish history except that we were slaves in Egypt and then Charlton Heston came along and freed us and then there was a Holocaust and then Israel happened? And what do you know about gay history that doesn’t involve people getting beaten and murdered or killing themselves because of their sexuality?

So. The whole point of having a National Coming Out Day is that 99.726% of the time (yeah, that’s 364 out of 365 days) the world beats us to the punch; it assumes we are straight and forces us to correct that assumption on a daily basis and face whatever consequences arise as a result. On National Coming Out Day, we acknowledge our identity on our own terms.

Obviously there are other reasons for NCOD and also for Gay Pride Month, not least because by being out and proud we empower the members of our community who didn’t know there was a community or haven’t been able to find us – people who thought they were alone in the world and that nobody else felt the way they felt. We empower people who have been taught that what they feel is shameful and a sin and something to hide and deny and smother until it dies (or they do). And yeah, we remind straight people that LGBT Americans are everywhere and everyone: siblings, parents, children, grandparents, friends, doctors, bus drivers, teachers, postal workers, police, neighbors, etc. (and soldiers!). And yet somehow we never stop being treated as outsiders.

Although straight people may feel alone in the world for a variety of reasons, it’s not by virtue of their heterosexuality. Unless you are a straight person living in the Castro. Then you might be justified in feeling a little bit isolated. But otherwise? Get over yourself. You have nothing to be proud of for being straight. What struggles have you overcome in your heterosexuality? What oppression have you faced because you are only attracted to members of the opposite sex? None. Move on. You don’t get a special day because every day is your special day.

To answer the question more succinctly: We don’t need Straight Coming Out Day or Straight Pride Day. Straight people don’t have to come out; you are the default setting in people’s minds. And every day that our rights are not equal to yours is Straight Pride Day, a giant high-five to heterosexuality. Enjoy.

Recently I have had some… spare time on my hands. In addition to hunting feverishly for suitable employment and planting new fruits and vegetables like a madwoman, here are some of the movies I’ve been watching:

Aimee & Jaguar – One of my favorite movies of all time. I think I watched this every day for like, two weeks when I was recovering from my most recent medical procedure. I love the story, how thoroughly flawed the characters are, the fact that it’s (loosely) a true story, and also that it’s in German. Now that I pretty much know every line I can try to put my Yiddish knowledge to work and try to understand some of what they’re saying rather than just rely on the subtitles. Also, it doesn’t hurt that the title characters are… quite lovely. 🙂

Children Of God – This is one of those gay indie films that I’m glad I saw, but don’t think I could watch again, largely because of the way it ended. It’s got everything you need for a standard gay movie: religious wingnuts who turn out to be hypocrites, a struggling newbie, a gay dude with a ‘beard’, and a random scene in a bathroom bar. The acting was great but the story was a little slow sometimes and overall the movie was just depressing.

Charlie Bartlett – The premise of this movie is that the main character, in order to become popular at his new school, starts dispensing prescription drugs to the other students… “as needed.” Why did I find this movie to be so funny? It’s a sort of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off for the modern teenager. Thoroughly implausible, but at the same time, sure, why not? We’re the Prozac generation, right? And Ritalin, and Zoloft, and Paxil, and Xanax… Yeah. But our school never had a cool clubhouse.

Incendies – I recorded this randomly because it sounded interesting – a mother’s last wish sends a pair of twins to the Middle East to learn more about their history. What they really wind up learning is about their mother’s history – a pretty compelling story that was simply not on their radar while their mother was alive. Throughout the course of the film they come to understand what made their mother the person they knew. This movie has one of those moments that I can only liken to the scene of Grey’s Anatomy in which a battered, unrecognizable patient traces “007” into Meredith’s hand repeatedly and you can’t quite figure out what is going on, and then the realization hits you just as it hits her, with a moment of shock and horror you didn’t quite anticipate. That’s all I’m going to say.

Disengagement – What can I say about this film? You just never know where Juliette Binoche is going to show up. This movie was a little bit disjointed – it’s a little bit Hebrew, a little bit French, a little bit indie film, a little bit docudrama, a little bit random lady singing German opera. The short version is that Juliette Binoche’s character travels to Gaza on… personal business, and it happens to be right in the middle of Israel’s disengagement from the territory. As stories go it’s disjointed, as I said, but it’s an interesting depiction of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and shows a side to the conflict that you don’t usually get to see. Not that I think the settlers are in the right (on the right, yes, but…), but sometimes we forget that Israel did literally tear its citizens from their homes in order to extract itself from the Gaza territory. See where that got them…

Worlds Apart – This is another one that I recorded just because it seemed interesting – a Jehovah’s Witness starts to question her beliefs when she falls in love with a non-believer. Is this an accurate depiction of the Jehovah’s Witnesses? I never understood them to be quite so… cultish.

In America – I actually watched this a few months ago so I don’t really remember it in detail, except that it was a sweet story – a little bit caricatured, a little bit sappy, but sweet nonetheless. It’s a sort of modern day Irish immigration story. It’s got 89% on Rotten Tomatoes, which has to say something, right?

The Boy In The Striped Pajamas – This is something you don’t see too often: a Holocaust movie where the concentration camp victims are on the periphery of the storyline. This is a film about a German boy, the son of a Nazi officer, whose family goes to live in the countryside during the war. Their new home happens to be located fairly close to an unnamed concentration camp. The boy, seeking some age-appropriate entertainment, wanders off to the concentration camp and befriends a young prisoner on the other side of the barbed wire fence. The whole premise is an exercise in suspension of disbelief, but at the same time, it gives you something to think about, especially once it’s over and you’re left sort of staring at the screen, wondering what you just saw. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.

At this moment I am watching Flame and Citron, a drama about Danish resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied Denmark.

Okay, maybe a sentence or two. Possibly some paragraphs.

Has it ever occurred to anybody that the reason public retirement funds (e.g. CA teacher pensions and Social Security) are failing is not because the benefits are too high or because individual participants are not contributing enough, but because the total incomes and the number of contributors are simply too low?

Take Social Security, for example. The idea behind Social Security is that the present generation pays for the previous generation’s workers when they reach retirement age. In theory, that should always be sufficient to support retirees, because the work force should grow exponentially, and wages should increase gradually over the years.

But that hasn’t really happened, has it? Our work force has grown, but not as much as it should have, because a) the economy tanked, and b) employers are finding it easier to force salaried workers to work 60-80 hours per week rather than hiring additional workers. Additionally, wages have not grown at anywhere near the pace of the cost of living, largely because the cost of our “free” employer-provided health care has gobbled up any possible wage growth we might have experienced. Compounding matters is the fact that public employee pension funds are held in investment portfolios, so when the global economy is tanking, those funds are not going anywhere good. The result: Social Security and related pension programs are endangered.

To me, this makes sense. I’m not sure why people seem to want to blame public employees for the fact that their pension systems are failing.

Part I: The Economy
How does Romney propose that we get the best schools in the world when his party chooses to strangle our school system from kindergarten to college? Also, yeah, “trickle-down government” is what saved us from all-out depression.

Romney has what has to be the most irritating smirk in the world.

What’s the difference between a tax “cut” and tax “relief”?

I’m sorry, an increased cost of living does not count as an “economy tax” for the purpose of blaming the president for “tax increases” on the middle class.

Yeah, Romney wants to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. Know who that will hurt? THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Yeah, offshore drilling is a REALLY good idea, as we learned from BP.

“No tax cut that adds to the deficit” means slash and burn on social programs. Let’s be real.

The problem is that complexities are harder to understand than “I like coal.”

Edit (10/10/12): You can see I pretty much gave up on this. It is useless and a waste of time to argue substance with a liar, and Romney pretty much proved himself a liar during this debate. Just enjoy this “Bad Lipreading” edition instead: