Lawsuit against IRS in re reassignment surgery moves forward

In July I noted a case going into tax court about Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who underwent reassignment surgery in 2001, and listed the $25K as a medical deduction, had the deductibility disallowed by the IRS in 2003.

The case has now finished oral arguments, and Judge Joseph Gale has stated he wants briefs filed from both sides by Nov 6.

In a development that indicates that this may not be as simple as just deciding arcane developments in tax law, but seemingly has a definite political slant, one of the government witnesses was forensic psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz, who testified that Gender Identity Disorder is not a disease. Dr Dietz has a small problem in credibility, when one reflects that he was the same doctor who testified that Andrea Yates had apparently seen an episode of the TV series "Law and Order" that depicted a woman who had an insanity defense after drowning her children. The problem, however, was that no such episode of Law and Order had ever aired.

Dietz's credibility was challenged by the lawyer for Ms. O'Donnabhain in open court.

The model of a truly impartial judge? (updated)

During his confirmation hearings in 1991, I recall saying that Clarence Thomas, who was nominated in 1991 by President Bush (senior) to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, would, by his own words, not be an impartial member of the U.S. Supreme Court. I suppose that I should feel lucky, in that Thomas at least never complained pettily that it was unfair for his fellow justices on the appellate court to criticize him for refusing to recuse himself from sitting in judgment over matters that directly affected his family, as another sitting U.S.S.C. Justice has done.

Part of the controversy over the confirmation hearings concerned the allegations of sexual harassment leveled against him by Anita Hill, the the absurdly low competency rating from the lawyers guild, and his allegations that the hearings were a "high-tech lynching."

The Thomas nomination was the first in recent history that showed just how unconcerned with acumen a proposed justice could be and how much ideology was the requirement, and the administration would twist arms to get the ideology rather than the competency (the Bork nomination hearings were a different matter -- Bork is extremely intelligent, but a nutcase on Constitutional matters).

Also of concern to me were simple matters of honesty -- as when Thomas declared he hadn't thought about the matter of abortion in a Constitutional setting, or when he was following the conservative line about affirmative action and set-asides when he never would have been admitted to law school except for minority set-asides.

Well, Thomas has a new memoir that has just been published ("My Grandfather's Son" - Harpers), and according to reports about the book he's still railing about how he was "lynched" and about how Hill was just "traitorous" to him. (one of the most telling facets for me that had me give credibility to Hill rather than Thomas was that Hill had nothing to gain by her testimony, and the certain knowledge that her testimony would be a cause of trouble for her in her future career.)

I didn't think he was qualified when he was confirmed, and I think it's even less complimentary for him to be bruiting about these sentiments when he's still a sitting Justice.

As an aside, I see that the right-wing noise tactics are not changing any -- if you look at the comments on Amazon, the description of one commentator who call Thomas a "liar" has just been painted as a "racist" based on that evidence alone. Just as Thomas himself is making the oblique charge of racism when he continues to call the confirmation hearings a "lynching."

I'll wait until I have a chance to see this from the library before I make a final determination about the worth of the book. I very much doubt that it will change my opinion of Thomas a a Supreme Court Justice however -- which feeling has been confirmed by his voting record and written opinions from the bench since his confirmation.
-----------------------

UPDATE: Anita Hill has responded to the smears in Thomas's book (OK, OK, I believe Hill, I don't believe Thomas. And that will affect my choice of phrase). In a piece in the NY Times Hill addresses some of Thomas's accusations against her. Among the comments she made in the Times article is:

Regrettably, since 1991, I have repeatedly seen this kind of character attack on women and men who complain of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In efforts to assail their accusers’ credibility, detractors routinely diminish people’s professional contributions. Often the accused is a supervisor, in a position to describe the complaining employee’s work as “mediocre” or the employee as incompetent. Those accused of inappropriate behavior also often portray the individuals who complain as bizarre caricatures of themselves — oversensitive, even fanatical, and often immoral — even though they enjoy good and productive working relationships with their colleagues.

Finally, when attacks on the accusers’ credibility fail, those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will believe their accusers’ versions of events, individuals confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or “slights” that should be dismissed without discussion.

Unfortunately, Hill thinks those tactics as a defense against sexual harassment are going away, when they really are still being used extensively. And they will continue to be used as long as that kind of deception is allowed, and that will continue as long as sexual harassment is viewed as a minor matter in the workplace.

5'11" and 154 lbs is "fat?"

At least according to the British television show "Make Me A Supermodel," when model Jennifer Hunter (see picture at left), a divorced mother of one who is 5'11" and weights 154 pounds.

The show, similar to the U.S. "reality" show "America's Next Top Model," pits men and women against each other in an elimination format, with the winner getting a contract with the Select modeling agency, one of the sponsors for the show. The overall winner was a male model, but Ms. Hunter was the top female vote getter in a UK-wide phone vote. This win came after the show's judges castigated her for being "selfish" and "greedy" because she wouldn't drop "extra" weight to fit their demands. In her stead, the judges' favorite female contestant was Swedish teenager Marianne Berglund, who is supposed to weigh 112 lbs, but she appears a lot less. One commentator likened her to a concentration camp survivor. (see side-by-side comparisons of Hunter and Berglund wearing similar swimsuits here)

The judges, while cutting down Hunter, praised Berglund as having a "perfect body for modeling." If that's a "perfect body" we're in bizarro-world and someone's lost the key out.

I don't follow fashion trends, and I tend to view fashion photography with a "bus man's holiday" view. But of late I've been seeing more and more images that I find disturbing, from the heroin-chic wasted runway models to the magazine "fashion" spreads that look like sexual assaults.

Now two fashion models have recently died from self-induced starvation, and the authorities in Spain have gone so far as to regulate what the minimum body-mass-index can be for a profession model.

If it wasn't that the "fashion industry" has such a disproportionate influence in young women as they are growing I could pass it off as an aberration in the industry, but this is too pervasive.

From a meta-context viewpoint, it's also a further indication of the societal constraints that have women's lives and self-images controlled by male-dominated corporations.

Terrorists attacks are in the news? Lets run sexy ads!

"They're beautiful, and they can strip a rifle"

That's the lead to a short Sky News clip on the nation of Israel's new PR campaign to make the country more attractive to tourists.

According to Sky News, the Israeli government paid for a photo spread in MAXIM magazine that highlights the more personal attractions of the country. As the Sky News correspondent notes, "Israel has an image problem."

And someone had the bright idea that "rebranding" the country by pushing more websites with scantily clad women is the way to fight that image.

This, however, is so bizarre that it feels like it was dreamed up by someone in the Cheney/Bush administration. Or maybe the PR honchos at Southwest Airlines.

Oh, Lord, Protect Us From.. Cleavage?

Well, it sure seems to be what both the Washington Post and Ann Althouse want to save us from. But I actually agree with her (sort of), which is kinda sad, as she doesn't want to be taken seriously, anyways.

In a copyrighted article on Friday, the WaPo makes noises about Sen Clinton's cleavage. I kid you not. The opening paragraph was:

There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The WaPo writer seems to think that it's some sort of Major Story if a female politician reveals evidence of having boobies. I mean, really -- is this something that deserves column space in a Real Newspaper?

And Althouse is no better -- in the comments section of her own post:Ann Althouse said...

Breasts that are conspicuous in the political sphere warrant commentary. A woman speaking in front of the Senate or at a political lunch with an ex-President, unless she is utterly incompetent, has thought about how she wants her breasts to appear. Visible cleavage doesn't just happen. Nor does a clingy sweater. Every woman who is competent enough to play a significant political role knows how to change to a top with a higher neckline or put a jacket over a sweater. So how she has chosen to appear means something and it is a fair subject for political commentary. I will not be pushed back from this subject.

You know, for once I agree with Althouse.

Women in the public sphere (the workforce as well as politics) *do* need to be aware of how any implied sexuality is viewed.

However, where I differ from Althouse is that I don't see it as an issue that the *women* should be modifying their behavior for, but the men (and other observers) -- if someone is so fixated on tits or a rear end that they can't pay attention to "bidness," *they* need to address their own issues.

Thanks to Amanda at Pandagon, where I saw their coverage of this.

The picture at the left up top shows the image on C-SPAN that has the Washington Post and Althouse clutching their pearls over. The image on the right is one of Althouse I cadged from Google Images. *That* pic shows that Althouse is plainly wearing a top with a less-than Victorian neckline, so she is forcing all the menfolk to use their imagination about what might be revealed beyond the image cutoff, and that is worse than outright cleavage, eh? So obviously, Althouse doesn't want anybody to take her seriously on any issues.

Reassignment Surgery Deductability Headed for IRS Tax Court

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who underwent reassignment surgery in 2001, and listed the $25K as a medical deduction, had the deductability disallowed by the IRS in 2003.

The IRS is claiming that the surgery, which O'Donnabhain underwent only after 5 years of therapy, was "cosmetic," and not medically required. (I'm not going to even try to firgure out that logic)

The Tax Court has not ruled on this issue yet, but there has been at least one case where the IRS ruled against the deductability of the procedure, while in another case the IRS allowed the travel expense for a man who drove his college-age son to a clinic for reassignment surgery.

One of the peculiarities of the IRS and the Tax Court are that they do not need to follow strict precedent when considering cases, unless a situation is clearly codified by law, rather than practice.

It would appear, from my viewpoint, that the deductability of the procedure is valid in these circumstances. However, the rules the IRS are operating under may have been influenced by the prevailing political climate in Washington DC from 2001 to the present.

The AP writeup for the story can be found here.

Hang 'em High

I guess some of our legislators think that if anyone is running from the cops they must be guilty, and deadly force is A-OK.

Sen Tom Coburn (R-OK) (see left) stated, or at least left the impression, that there should have been no repercussions when two U.S. Border Patrol agents shot and killed a fleeing suspect who turned out to be drug trafficker, but who had neither fired at nor threatened the agents or any bystanders.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Border Patrol agents should be allowed to shoot at fleeing drug traffickers, a Republican senator suggested Tuesday.


Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, testifies about Border Control agents.

The patrol's deadly force rules were questioned at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing concerning the conviction of two agents who shot a fleeing, unarmed drug trafficker and covered it up.

"Why is it wrong to shoot the [trafficker] after he's been told to stop?" asked Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma.

Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, said the Supreme Court has ruled that using deadly force in that way is illegal. Agents also may not know if the fleeing person is a trafficker, he said.

Agents can return fire to defend themselves, their partners or other people, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar said.

Some of you remember that Coburn is in favor of the border fence between the US and Mexico, and against the guest worker programs.

He also raised a few eyebrows in 2005 and 2006 when he was caught, live, on C-SPAN, filling out crossword puzzles during the confirmation hearings for both the Roberts and Alito appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. (the photo above shows his rigorous concentration during the Alito hearings)