What do human rights mean?

Every time someone wants to take a vote on extending human rights, I'm incensed. Human rights aren't things you vote on; they are inalienable, guaranteed because we are human beings.

Or at least they should be.

For decades, Massachusetts stood proud as a state that guaranteed a right to shelter. That was why, even as the homeless population exploded in Boston, you almost never saw families living on the streets. There were reasons, many legitimate, that people wouldn't go into a shelter and felt safer exposed to the elements, but if they wanted to, they had a legal right to, even if shelters were inconvenient to their former lives (this is not a small thing if you have, for instance, school aged children).

I've been saying for years that Massachusetts is more conservative than other people want to admit, or than many others in Massachusetts want to talk about. Well, Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida took our measure, called our bluff, and won. They showed us what we're really made of, and it makes me ill.

Our governor, Maura Healey, after months of an escalating crisis of homelessness, abetted by Abbott and DeSantis busing migrants from their borders to Massachusetts, as well as other "blue" states, is now asking for, essentially, the right to shelter to be effectively rescinded. This is after months of putting limits on how long people could stay in shelters (and that includes families). 

There are so many things about this that repulse me, but I'm particularly nauseated by the requirement that people need to prove their identity and residency status, as well as go through a CORI check, in order to secure shelter. As a reminder, Massachusetts does not have voter ID laws, in part because someone somewhere understands how difficult it is to secure those forms of ID when you live in poverty. But, somehow, those will be easier to obtain when you've been evicted from your home? Of course they won't be. Wait, maybe that's part of the point.

Oh, and if you were evicted in New Hampshire or Rhode Island, sorry, you can't shelter here; MA for MA! (Why did I think we were in a federal system?)

This is not a surprise, and I am not disappointed with Maura Healey (dear reader, there's a difference between being disgusted and surprised). This is the same governor who enacted tax cuts for the wealthy, which led to an inevitable budget shortfall, shortly after the "Millionaire's Tax" passed here after years of lobbying. Among other things, this led to a freezing of benefits for children and families living in deep poverty.

I knew who Healey worked for, but that doesn't make it easier to stomach--or look at.

Deb in the City

Lift Our Kids Lobbying (Day 25)

My plans were derailed today when I was reminded that the Lift Our Kids Coalition had scheduled a lobbying day at the state house for today. I did not want to go--it's cold, I never feel I'm dressed right for anything, I wanted to read--but then I remembered that people in this prosperous state are food insecure, cold, and live in unstable housing, so changed my sweater, put on a coat, and went to the state house.

I complained to someone that the whole process of lobbying is a pre-scripted pantomime. And it is. I felt just a little better when the lead legislative sponsor, State Senator Sal DiDomenico, said pretty much the same thing, and acknowledged the injustice of having to do this in order to secure food and safety for the most vulnerable among us. But here we are, so there I went.

 

I went around with two other people, then another two toward the end, visiting the offices of 23 state representatives. We did not meet with any reps, and only half the time did we find any staff people. But that was fine; we were able to have good conversations with half the staff members, many of whom seemed informed and sympathetic. The big ask wasn't just to support it, but to make it one of the top five budget priorities for 2025 when they speak to the Ways and Means Committee. Here's hoping they can get the message to their representatives.

There's a bunch of different asks, but I think one fact makes it clear why this needs to be included in the budget: the request for an increase in the amount of cash the poorest of the poor receive will not even bring them into "deep poverty". Deep poverty, which is an income of half of the federal poverty threshold, would be a monthly income of about $2100 for a family of three. The grants that family receives now in Massachusetts is $783. If the legislature does raise this by the twenty percent the coalition is asking for, the new amount will be less than $940, still over $100 per month UNDER deep poverty. 

Let me remind you: I am talking about the state of Massachusetts, home to Harvard, MIT, some of the best hospitals in the world, and a thriving tourism sector. We can do better.

Don't worry, being poor isn't going to be any easier. Just as Governor Healey cut the increased cash assistance this fiscal year, it's highly likely that she, like Baker before her, will cut this increase even if it passes, and that will be another fight. But that will be another fight worth having--and worth leaving the comfort of my home--because no one anywhere, but especially here, should suffer that way. 

Deb in the City

Dogged by food, again

One of the consequences of ongoing toxic stress that no one tells you about are digestive failures, and not just something as well known as IBS. It was during the, well, decade that I was living through hell that I developed a number of nasty sensitivities. While I can eat soy and sesame now, wheat is still off the table. (Dairy is as well, but that's down to straight up lactose intolerance.)

Things are better, though not always good (which is why I'm drafting this at 1:28 AM), and I thought I could finally rejoin the eco-conscious food system and buy farm-fresh produce for my family, and focus on things like zero-waste. Well, no.

Let's call COVID-19 "stressful", and for many of us, let's call it toxic. Fair to say that teens are suffering from that even more than adults are. My teens are, and they both manifested some extreme digestive symptoms. After consulting a nutritionist for both, we got some blood work done. One of them was relatively straight-forward -- as expected, don't even look at dairy and wheat, and tomatoes and beans are iffy -- but for the most part, he can eat within relatively normal parameters. I fully expected that his brother would be less dramatic, but I was wrong.

My other son showed up highly sensitive for the vast majority of what he was tested for. FYI, "vast majority" includes not only wheat and dairy, but also beef, chicken, eggs, pork, and most fruits and vegetables. I want to say that pretty much everything he's eaten showed up as something he was sensitive to, but that's not entirely correct as tea, coffee, and chocolate are all things that he's just fine for. 

 

Who doesn't love lasagna? Now all I have to do is make this with gluten free pasta, vegan cheese and meat, and figure out a tomato-free substitute for the sauce...

I spoke to another healthcare provider the day after I got the results, and her perspective was that his (and maybe both of their) immune systems need to be strengthened, and he should have small amounts of the foods he's sensitive to in the meantime. Confining him to a narrow set of food choices is going to add more stress, both physical and mental. That was the conclusion I had started to come to as well: if the food wasn't killing him, I wasn't going to take it away. (Please note, these are food sensitivity results, not allergies. I do not advise anyone to be as blithe with things that could cause anaphylactic shock.)

All of this came to a head as we had an order of farm fresh food waiting to be picked up, which I knew included things both of my sons had shown sensitivities to. Even with a more relaxed attitude, I can't help but wonder what the point is of going out of my way to get premium farm fresh produce (and meats) when my sons can't eat that much of it. Or does that mean that there's even more of a point to it?

Around this time I also found that my favorite food blogger, Jack Monroe, was posting again. Seems for now they've tightened their belt even more (Brexit is rearing it's ugly head in so many ways), and as they're cheerfully shopping for two on a weekly budget of $25.82 (the current equivalent of 20 pounds), I'm wondering how well they would cope if their family members were diagnosed with the same level of sensitivities to things like wheat and dairy. (Let's pretend that people on that tight a budget can access a test like that in the first place.) Actually, I don't have to wonder, because I've been in similar straits myself. The answer for me was to suffer through the things I was sensitive to because I didn't have a choice. I don't think I'm the only parent who has had to make that decision for themselves, and it's horrible. But having to make that decision for your children is the worst. It is also extremely -- wait for it -- stressful, which exacerbates everything and keeps you cycling through your vicious circle. My hat is off to Monroe and anyone else who can continue through that and power through.

Not sure this makes me feel better or worse about the farm order, but for now I've suspended it. It doesn't make sense right now to order something four days in advance, not knowing who will be sensitive to what. This feels like the right decision for me right now, but I can't but feel like I'm part of the problem now.

Deb in the City