February 14, 2012

Mitt My Dad Says

From https://twitter.com/#!/MittMyDadSays

A couple more at the link.

February 8, 2012

My great-grandmother was a Nazi.

Something for you to think about today: my great-grandmother Katherine was a Nazi.

I don't mean that in today's watered-down overblown rhetorical sense, either. My great-grandmother was an actual Nazi. She immigrated from Germany with her family in the 1880's but always stayed in touch with other family members in the Fatherland and kept up on issues.

She was an anti-Semite. She supported Hitler. She was a member of the German-American Bund. Even though she was loyal to America after we entered World War II, she never changed her underlying beliefs and until she died in the 1970's she insisted that Hitler was right.

Now let's move on to my grandmother, her daughter Elizabeth.

My grandmother went to work as a secretary for a Jewish egg farmer who went on to win a seat in Congress. She planted trees in Israel shortly after that country came into being. After her father died in the 1960's she built a small bungalow for her mother on a part of the property she owned with her husband and arranged the sale of the old family farm to an Austrian Jew who had been in the Camps.

She was the kindest, gentlest, person you could ever imagine. And she was the person who had the least trouble accepting my homosexuality or the fact that I'd partnered up with a Jew. (She only disliked him because, like her, he talked too much.)

The lesson is that the sins of the father are not the sins of the sons. What matters most is not how you are raised, but what happens to you when you go out into the world yourself and start to think for yourself.

February 6, 2012

The Faggot Penalty, or, how DOMA and the IRS conspire to screw you

I remember back in the 1990's when the Republicans were whining and moaning about what they called "The Marriage Penalty," where married couples supposedly paid more in taxes.

Well once again this year, my husband and I find ourselves on the short end of the stick tax-wise. But it's not "The Marriage Penalty" that's shafting us, it's "The Faggot Penalty," one of the nasty side-effects of DOMA that doesn't get nearly enough publicity. If you're in a same-sex relationship, you're probably paying too much in Federal taxes and you might not even know it.

Here's how I first became aware of the Faggot Penalty: in 2007 Bryan and I made our relationship official in the eyes of the state, almost as soon as we could under the just-passed Civil Union law. The only reason we didn't register and have the ceremony performed on the first day it was legal was because we decided to hold back a couple of months, invite friends, and make our relationship as legal as we were allowed to do under the law on what we considered our 15th Anniversary.

When the time came to do our income taxes the following year, we had a bit of a surprise. Under New Jersey law we were married and required to file taxes as such, but Federally we didn't have that option. Since New Jersey's tax forms copy information off of the Federal return, this forced us to do five Federal returns instead of the two (or one, if filing jointly) that we would normally do. We had to do the two Federal returns, plus "theoretical" Federal returns for married filing jointly and two married filing separately. Then we could use those theoretical returns to do three State returns to figure out which option would be the best way to file.

A lot of extra work? Yes, but that's not the big problem. The big problem started when we actually started looking at those theoretical Federal returns to see what we would have ended up paying if DOMA wasn't in existence and the IRS would have to recognize us as a married couple. The bottom lines are shocking.

I'll use our 2011 tax returns, which we just finished and filed over the weekend, as an example because the figures are still fresh in my head. For 2011 my Federal tax refund is $468.00. Bryan's is $212.00. But when we calculated our "theoretical" Federal return for the state, we discovered that if it weren't for DOMA we'd be getting a Federal refund of $1,909.00.

That's right. If the Federal Government would recognize our Civil Union as a valid relationship, our taxes for the year would have been $1,229.00 less.

If you get a chance while doing your taxes (and you have time to kill and are a bit masochistic) try preparing theoretical Federal returns for yourself and your partner if you were allowed to be recognized as married. In a lot of relationships that mirror "traditional" marriages where one person is the main breadwinner, you'll find that you're paying considerably more in Federal taxes than you would be if your civil union or same-sex marriage was recognized Federally.

Always remember: we're not only treated like second class citizens, but we're charged more for the privilege.

January 31, 2012

Health insurance question

My husband works for a conglomerate based in New York (a gay marriage state). He and I have been in a New Jersey Civil Union since shortly after they became available, registering our union shortly after our 15th anniversary in 2007.

He's coming up on his company's open enrollment period for health insurance, and was pointedly told by the insurance company rep that they wil not offer coverage to me as his spouse, citing DOMA as their excuse. They claim that as a company that crosses state lines they're immune to state regulations regarding recognizing LGBT relationships, and Federal regulations prevent such recognition anyway.

Now, we can't afford another $100-200 taken out of each paycheck to insure me anyhow, and we're not in a position to be able to risk retribution by the company by pushing the matter, but I'm reasonably sure they are full of shit.

What does the law, and case law, have to say about this? Anyone know?

January 27, 2012

And with the magic words "Paul Tsongas...."

...Romney's Presidential campaign vanishes in a puff of smoke.

January 26, 2012

Prediction: Joe Biden is the last male Vice-President for at least a decade.

In 2016, both parties will have a woman in the #2 slot. For a while, at least, the job will be seen as belonging to a woman much like we haven't had a male Treasurer of the U.S. since 1949.

Gut feeling here.

January 22, 2012

Potential bug: forum selection

I clicked on "Post a new thread" on the "My Posts" page and was prompted to select a forum. Although I'm happily none of the following, I was offered a chance to post in:

Is it unintentional that these possibilities were presented to me? A bug? Or are you teasing us mere mortals?

January 21, 2012

Paul, Ron

January 13, 2012

Thank you Administrators (or, the failsafe)

I was on the jury for the post that said that Taliban members should be buried in pig skins with pigs blood injected into them. I voted to hide the post, but was outvoted:

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Anti-Muslim bigotry. Alerter: If you didn't check Terms of Service violation, please re-alert doing so.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: For this forum, this crosses the line. Comments like this one would find a happy home over at free republic.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

As soon as I was done with jury service, before the results were even announced, I went back to the post's link and re-Alerted, making sure that the ToS box was checked and the Admins would look at it.

Skinner not only cremated the user (who has a history of anti-Muslim posts and really stepped over the line this time) but deleted the post in its entirety.

A great example of how the Admins can compensate when the jury system slips up.

May I just add that I'm very disturbed that all three people voting to leave the post intact chose not to give an explanation. Maybe they, even though they were anonymous, didn't think they could justify their decision?

January 11, 2012

Why the New Hampshire results are bad news for Romney

New England candidates almost always win New Hampshire in a walk and Romney couldn't break 50%. Worse, this isn't like 2008 where the states were winner-take-all for the Republicans. Romney will end up with, probably, slightly more than a third of the delegates from New Hampshire. The Iowa totals are really up in the air because of the way they're assigned at party conventions and Paul might have actually won the majority of delegates in Iowa because of his organization.

To put it bluntly, Mitt Romney can't get anywhere near close to half of the delegates from any state. Right now, Romney is pulling 31% in South Carolina and 32% in Florida. It's too early for polls in the later, most populous states like California, New York, and Texas so we can't call those, but Romney desperately needs a majority in each of those three to start chalking up delegates. Especially if Perry survives until the Texas Primary.

Worse, these votes so far are keeping challengers in the race instead of winnowing them out. Ron Paul is not going to drop out now, and unless he tanks completely in South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida he won't get out any time soon. Santorum will probably get a boost from South Carolina as will Gingrich. Huntsman may stay in for a couple more weeks. Every name on the ballot makes it that much harder for Mittens to start winning actual majorities.

This becomes a problem when the Republicans pack their bags for the trip to Mouseland and their Convention because the nomination ISN'T first-past-the-post; a candidate needs a majority of delegates to receive the nomination. What happens if Mitt keeps pulling 30-40% at best in state after state? He's not going to get to the 50%+1 of the delegates he needs, which means the Convention will probably be deadlocked on the first ballot.

And what happens on the second ballot? It's a whole new ballgame. The opposition forces will start cutting deals so the weaker candidates get out and endorse the stronger ones. Suddenly signs like "DRAFT PALIN," "DRAFT CHRISTIE," and "DRAFT DANIELS" might start appearing in which case all hell breaks loose. Mitt will have to fight tooth and nail to hold on to his delegates if a more charismatic candidate throws a hat in the ring because (much like John Adams in the musical "1776&quot he is obnoxious and disliked.

Even if Romney makes it out of a brokered convention there will be no more bounce than your classic dead-cat bounce. He won't be able to use the convention to make his case to the American people and re-introduce himself. His campaign organization will look sloppy for allowing it all to come to that and the Process Stories will rule the day in the media about how fucked-up the Republican machine is at the moment. And if the "not Romney" forces manage to unite behind someone else on the third or fourth ballot he might not even leave the Convention as the nominee.

So, ironically, with two victories under his belt so far, Romney is even further away from the White House than he was before any votes were tallied.