An Obama Update Updated

I received a polite, informative, and promising email from Seth Harris, co-chair of the Obama campaign's Disability Policy Committee. Apparently an accessibility check list has been in the works and will be released and, more importantly, used soon. According to Harris, who is also a professor at New York Law School, the Obama campaign website is managed out of Chicago but events are not. This obviously makes inclusion of access information more problematic but not impossible to resolve. While Harris' email was promising and supportive in general there were phrases of concern. For instance he noted access was a "desirable goal" while I would characterize it as a must. I replied to Harris email this morning and remain committed to insuring access information be posted at the Obama campaign website. In my email to Harris I wrote that it was not just the right thing to do but would demonstrate Obama is really a man of change. It would also distinguish Obama from every other person running for president. This I would think is very desirable for a politician. I have no idea if I will be successful in my efforts and part of me feels like the classic character in the children's book The Little Engine That Could who repeats "I think I can I think can". Obama is a man of power while I am a man with, well, a blog and determination.

Wheelchair Dumping and Counter Punch

I began to write a post about Brian Sterner and the infamous wheelchair dumping story that is still developing in Tampa Florida last week while I was getting four new tires put on my car. The entry became too long and I decided to send it to Counter Punch where is was published yesterday. Here is the link:

http://www.counterpunch.org/peace02162008.html

The responses to the story have largely been positive. And this is why I love to write for Counter Punch. As a writer, nothing is more frustrating than pouring work into a story and getting no feedback from readers. Counter Punch readers write to authors and most make some astute observations. This is why writing for Counter Punch is such a rewarding experience--it helps that the editor, Alex Cockburn, is not only dedicated but very smart and politically savvy. Please read the article and let me know what you think.

Pistorius Appeals Olympic Ban

Multiple news papers are reporting that Oscar Pistorius has appealed to the Court of Arbitration (CAS) against his ban from running at the Beijing Olympics with two prostheses. As discussed in previous entries, Pistorius was banned the IAAF from competing against non disabled athletes because his prostheses know as Cheetahs gave him an unfair advantage. This ban was based on two days of studies conducted by Peter Bruggeman at the German Sport University.

According to Pistorius, several studies conducted in the United States have contradicted the findings of Professor Bruggeman. The dispute centers around the amount of energy absorbed and returned by Pistorius' below the knee prostheses. This is the mechanical or biological source of disagreement between Pistorius and the IAAF. While I am not qualified to render an opinion on whether Pistorius' prostheses give him a competative advantage, I hardly think a two day study can provide conclusive evidence he should not run. This point has been made by Pistorius' lawyer who stated "The tests that were performed, we believe, were completely flawed and inadequate".

What interests me are the social implications of Pistorius' ban. Why, I wonder, did no one objected to Pistorius presence until he started to post impressive Olympic quality times and beat competators who raced without prostheses? This point has not been missed by Pistorius who in July ran in the 400 meters B race at the Golden Gala in Rome placing second. Pistorius has repeatedly stated that he would have preferred to keep his appeal within the athletic community--he simply wanted to be treated with the same respect as any other world class athlete. Instead, Pistorius has been forced to take his appeal public because he knows it is the only way he will be treated fairly. Pistorius also knows that his appeal has wider significance. He stated that was filing his "appeal not just for myself but for all disabled athletes. We deserve a chance to compete at the highest levels if our bodies permit us to do so".

I doubt Pistorius appeal will result in victory. Sporting events such as the Olympic Games are about much more than sports. They are laden with rampant nationalism and deep symbolic meaning. This leads me to speculate that Pistorius simply does not look like a world class athlete that most people imagine. Runners run with two feet. Winners walk up to and on a raised podium while the national anthem plays. This vision has not changed in more than a century. Thus Pistorius mere presence upsets this tradition and is a social affront to other athletes and viewers of the Olympic Games.

Obama Update

I will not be going to the local Obama event. It is being held at an inaccessible location. How do I know this? I got a reply from the person who organized the event. This is the good news. The bad news is that all such local events are created and run at the grass roots level. Even if a person organizing an event wanted to include information about wheelchair at an upcoming event it is not possible. At the Obama website one goes to "events" and under events there are three subheadings: "Find an event", "Create an event" and "Manage events". Anyone who desires can create an event. Once "Create an event" is clicked the person hosting the event is restricted to posting the time date and location.

Now that I know how the process works I will now try and find someone who oversees the website and strongly suggest access information be included. This is very important to me for practical and larger reasons: First, I would like to be a part of the process and second, I went to the website of every major candidate, Democratic and Republican, and not a single website includes any information about wheelchair access. Unless disabled people are part of the democratic process, and that means a recognized voting block, their existence will not be valued. I will continue to keep you posted on my progress as I am a man with a mission.

Obama and Disability

I am not impressed by any candidate running for president. The Republicans are, well Republicans and will not be getting my vote. As for the Democrats, I dislike Hilary Clinton for a host of reasons. The only candidate that intrigues me is Barack Obama. He is obviously a gifted speaker and writer. As a fellow Columbia graduate, I liked his book and overall am impressed with how well he is able to articulate his views.

This morning I decided I needed to become a bit more educated about Obama and what he stands for. Readers of this blog will not be surprised to read that the first thing I wanted to know more about was his position on disability rights. I went to BarackObama.com and came away impressed and annoyed. A well reasoned position paper is available entitled "Barack Obama's Plan to Empower Americans with Disabilities". I liked the title and the four point plan that is both forward looking and reactive. There is also a short personal video statement about disability as well.

Given my positive reaction to Obama's plan to empower disabled Americans, I decided that I should try and see the candidate at an event. I also thought going to an event would be a good experience for my son who in a few years will be old enough to vote and has repeatedly told me not to vote for Hilary Clinton. The Obama website is very professional and easy navigate. I clicked on "Find Events", plugged in my zip code and multiple events popped up in less than a second. I then went to event details and this is where things broke down for me. I went to each and every event listing within 100 miles of my home and not once was any information about wheelchair access included. No information about interpreters for the blind--not a single word about accommodations for any disabled people. Obama and his staff have written a good position paper but missed the point about real inclusion. Sure Obama may support the rights of disabled people but neglecting to include information about access at each and every event is more than just a mistake. It is a slap in the face to every disabled person aware of their civil rights. I am angry and this morning I sent two firm but polite emails to the Obama campaign. My vote will now hinge on the reply I get. Is Obama a poser? Does he really support disabled people, want their vote, and support equal access? If so, someone from the campaign will reply to my email and the gross oversight on the website will be corrected. If Obama is a fake and simply seeking to garner votes via position papers I will get no reply. I will keep you posted. And if you want to be part of this experiment in the democratic process send the Obama campaign an email too. Let's see if he is for real--a man of words and actions.

Why the ADA is Needed

I will readily admit that I am not as familiar with Deaf culture as I would like. Two recent stories, one about the upcoming Super Bowl Commercial by Pepsi and the other about a deaf Mom who was refused service at a local Steak and Shake, highlighted why I must rectify my ignorance and demonstrated why the ADA us needed.

On the blog A Deaf Mom Shares Her World a woman details her experience at a drive through Steak and Shake in Illinois. Here is the link to the story:

http://putzworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/steak-and-shake-denies-service.html

I was deeply touched by this story because it reminded me of the many unnecessary social obstacles I have had and still encounter raising my son. This story also reinforced why such seemingly small incidents have such a profound cumulative impact. It is too easy for those who are not disabled to remark that seemingly unimportant incidents should be quickly forgotten. The problem is that these so called small incidents are not isolated experiences. The social affronts may not appear particularly offensive but when they take place day after day they reinforce that the lives and inclusion of people with disabilities are not valued. Thus when I encounter needless obstacles like the deaf Mom that was refused service I get agitated quickly. I am also quick to point out when my civil rights are being violated. This opinion is rarely if ever appreciated and far too many people think I and other disabled people who assert our rights have a "chip on their shoulder". This convenient rationalization ignores the fact the problem disabled people encounter has nothing to do with a particular physical deficit but rather with societal prejudice.

Rolling: Film and Disability

The vast majority of films produced to date portray disabled people in a way that reinforces negative stereotypes. Disabled people are often depicted as angry, sad, or bitter individuals who are unable or unwilling to overcome their physical deficit. The "problem" always rests with the individual and their flawed or damaged character. There are, of course, some exceptions. For example Coming Home (1978), Children of a Lesser God (1986), Born on the Fourth of July (1989), My Left Foot (1989), Water Dance (1992), and Passion Fish (1992) all have some redeeming value. At the opposite end of the spectrum there are films that openly advocate or at least tacitly approve killing disabled people (Million Dollar Baby). Regardless, the message sent to society by film makers is clear: the lives of disabled people are not valued--America has no use for such flawed people.

In the past few years, independent film makers and documentaries have begun to shed positive light on disabled people. The first such film was Murder Ball (2005), critically acclaimed but a box office bust. Murder Ball was ground breaking in that it portrayed the lives of young paralyzed men who played international Quad rugby and followed the intense competition between Para Olympic teams. The men depicted were cool, funny, and typical jocks. The year after Murder Ball was released another documentary, So Much So Fast, was released that was well received. This film was about Stephen Haywood and the impact his diagnosis of ALS had on him and his family. So Much So Fast also explored why rare conditions such ALS have not been studied by drug companies. Both Murder Ball and So Much So Fast are excellent films and in different ways try to explore what life is like for disabled people. To a certain extent they succeed but the gritty reality of every day life for disabled people is not the focus.

The real world experiences of disabled people are the subject of Gretchen Berland's superb documentary Rolling that will be airing this month on Public Television. More than any other film I have ever seen, Rolling provides the viewer with a real life understanding of what life is like when one uses a wheelchair. The film is based on 212 hour of tape taken over a period of two years (2001 to 2003). The vast majority of the film footage was recorded by three people (Galen Buckwalter, Vicki Elman, and Ernie Wallengren) from Los Angeles who had video cameras mounted on their wheelchairs. For those unfamiliar with disability, the film is not easy to watch yet gripping at the same time. It took less than thirty seconds for me to be hooked and realize Rolling was going where no other film about disability has ever gone. The opening observation made by Buckwalter was: "Because most people can walk and run and climb, and since I can't, I'm defined as disabled. Not only defined as disabled, I'm expected to act and feel disabled. For many years I did the same, but what they don't see now is that I'm a survivor". What Buckwalter is able to survive is not the injury that rendered him paralyzed but the stigma, prejudice, and social isolation that results from using a wheelchair. This is exactly where Rolling excels--it graphically reveals the gross social inequities that exist for people who use a wheelchair.

Several themes are evident throughout Rolling and Berland is obviously a first rate story teller. Among the themes that struck me as particularly important are independence versus dependence, the utter failure of the health care system to provide basic services to disabled people, the lack of wheelchair access and the resulting social isolation as well as the lack of common respect awarded to people that use a wheelchair. To me, this is old story but never have I seen a film get to the nitty gritty of what it is like to be disabled. This is not a sexy or cool film--it is a remorseless indictment of American society that reveals the overwhelming social and practical obstacles disabled people routinely encounter. For those unfamiliar with disability, some scenes are bound to be shocking. For example, when Vicki Elman's wheelchair breaks her doctor wonders aloud "what are we going to do with you? Do you want to go to a nursing home or get a baby sitter at home?" During filming of Rolling Elman was forced to enter a nursing home and where an aide tells her to urinate in a bed pan or in diaper she states "the degradation begins".

The greatest strength of Rolling is that by the end of the film Buckwalter, Elman, and Wallengren are humans who even the most resistant person to inclusion will acknowledge are treated poorly by their bipedal peers. Once the social stigma associated with using a wheelchair is removed the viewer simply sees three ordinary people who have learned how to adapt. Using a wheelchair is a means of empowerment and enables people to lead a rich and full life. This is what makes Rolling such an important contribution for illustrating this is a major accomplishment on the part of Berland. I hope Rolling and the website created by Thirteen.org for the film will be widely utilized by colleges and groups interested in disability rights, health care reform, and disability awareness advocates. Berland and all those associated with Rolling are to be commended for making a major contribution one that I hope will enlighten those willing to think about their preconceived notions about the meaning of disability.