In recent posts I have referred to the blog Special Needs Truth 08. Although an obviously partisan site, the information and links provided are always interesting. I am in agreement with much of what I read at Special Needs Truth 08. The posts are direct and highlight the difference between what McCain says and what he actually does. Regardless of one's political viewpoint, I was stunned by the following post: McCain and Obama were invited to participate in a forum about disability in Athens, Ohio. Obama sent Kareem Dale, National Disability Vote Director to participate in the forum. Who did McCain send? No one, yes, you read that correctly, McCain sent no one! MCain did have Donna M. Jones, National Coordinator of the Americans with Disabilities for McCain Coalition, send an email. Special Needs Truth 08 quotes from Jones email:
"The McCain campaign does not have a vetted disability policy to release at this time. I also do not have any further information on when we might be releasing a platform discussing the senator's stance on issues that relate to people with disabilities. I understand that in this contentious political season, the needs of people with disabilities must be addressed as part of the policy conversation. It is my hope that we will be able to release a vetted policy from Senator McCain in the near future. That being said, I will not be able to send a surrogate to discuss a policy Senator McCain has not approved."
Even if I wanted to, I have no clue how to put a positive spin on the above statement. McCain has no vetted disability policy? This comes from the man whose running mate characterizes herself as an advocate for "special needs children"? How can one advocate for the needs of "special children" an disabled people in general if there is no disability policy? I did not need further reasons to know Obama is the clear choice for disabled voters. The total lack of a coherent disability policy only added to an already long list of reservations about McCain. But beyond my reservations I am increasingly convinced that there is a profound difference between what McCain says and reality. It is easy to say "I support special needs kids" or "Palin has a bond with special needs families". These are great sound bites but where is the substance and evidence these words will be turned into action? Now I know a plan for action does not exist. I did not state this, McCain's own people did! Gosh, don't you just love politics.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Life Worth Living for Second Class Citizens
Over the weekend I carefully followed news reports about Dan James. I doubt readers in America know who Dan James was or the circumstances that surround his death. Mr. James, 23 years old, was by all accounts a gifted British rugby prospect who expected to become a professional player. Mr. James' ambition to become a professional rugby player ended last March when he was paralyzed during a training session with the Nuneaton Rugby Club. Mr. James struggled to cope with his paralysis and attempted to commit suicide several times. Last month Mr. James persuaded his parents to bring him to Dignitas, a Swiss clinic founded by Ludwig Minelli. Dignitas is a non-profit clinic that takes advantage of "liberal" Swiss law to assist those that want to end their life. Mr. James died at Dignitas last month. His parents were the subject of an investigation. The results of the investigation have not been released.
Mr. James death is a social tragedy, a dark statement on how the life of those who are disabled are perceived. The media coverage in Britain is about what I would expect. The beginning point of every article emphasized two points: first, life is exceptionally difficult for paralyzed people. Second, over 100 Briton have sought to end their life at the Swiss clinic and this facts highlights the debate over the ethics of assisted suicide.
As for the difficulty associated with a life and disability, it is indeed hard. But what all the articles I read in British newspapers failed to acknowledge was the problems disabled people face are largely social. The overwhelming negative view of disability was simply a given, the starting point for a debate about how do you choose whose life is worth living. For instance, Mr James' parents only statement about the death of their son was that "it was an extremely sad loss for his family, friends and all those that care for him but no doubt a welcome relief from the prison he felt his body had become and the day-to-day fear and loathing of his living existence". They went on to state that their son "was not prepared to live a second class existence". Where, I want to know, did this self hatred emerge? I also want to know why is it a given that people with disabilities are "second class citizens"? While no one wants to be paralyzed, myself included, I find it hard to fathom why Mr. James could not move on with life. Perhaps he took to heart the notion that paralysis leads to a grim life, one that does not include a family, sex, and athletic achievement. Perhaps he accepted the views of Libby Purves who wants to place the blame on the disability rights movement. In an article entitled "Its Time for a Clear Policy on Euthanasia" (Timesonline, October 20) Ms. Purves suggested a "side effect" of disability rights vocabulary was that "It may blind us to the utter visceral awfulness of confronting a major disability, especially when young. As civilized people we do not allow ourselves to flinch at a half-wrecked body in a wheelchair, yet the flinch and the fear are still there inside". Ms. Purves may be right, perhaps simple minded people will indeed flinch but civilized beings will reject such a primal or thoughtless response. But enlightenment is not within Ms. Purves realm as she goes on to write "we should not prattle about fulfilling lives. Paralympians, Stephen Hawking and the rest if it makes us belittle the terror and self-disgust of a fit young person, paralyzed. No amount of pious writing about the Disability Community should blind us to that". Yikes, these words are sobering to me. If this is an indication of what people think the disability rights community has made little if any progress.
As for the debate about assisted suicide, I do not want to enter that discussion on the defensive nor do I want to see Mr. James death used by those who support or oppose assisted suicide. This sort of debate misses the point and enables people such as Edward Turner, an advocate for "assisted dying" whose mother ended her life at Dignitas, to argue Mr. James death "breaks new ground". From my viewpoint, the only new ground broken was at Mr. James grave. Disability based bigotry has been present for decades and has crushed the lives, hopes, dreams, and ambitions of an unknown number of people. If Mr. James is to be made out to be a victim it is a victimhood that is directly related to the innate prejudice against disabled people. I for one do not want to listen to Mr. Turner's distinction between "assisted dying" and "assisted suicide". That debate has nothing to do with Mr. James, the difference between depression and terminal illness or end of life issues. The fact is Mr. James would be alive today if the stigma associated with disability was forcefully rejected by all people instead of accepted as a societal norm. Thus the assisted suicide debate in this case is a smoke screen for the real problem Mr, James, myself, and other disabled people encounter. Sadly, the issue of disability rights will most likely be totally ignored in Britain and headlines will focus on the sensational aspects of Mr. James death. This is particularly unfortunate as I thought great progress in disability rights has taken place in Britain.
Mr. James death is a social tragedy, a dark statement on how the life of those who are disabled are perceived. The media coverage in Britain is about what I would expect. The beginning point of every article emphasized two points: first, life is exceptionally difficult for paralyzed people. Second, over 100 Briton have sought to end their life at the Swiss clinic and this facts highlights the debate over the ethics of assisted suicide.
As for the difficulty associated with a life and disability, it is indeed hard. But what all the articles I read in British newspapers failed to acknowledge was the problems disabled people face are largely social. The overwhelming negative view of disability was simply a given, the starting point for a debate about how do you choose whose life is worth living. For instance, Mr James' parents only statement about the death of their son was that "it was an extremely sad loss for his family, friends and all those that care for him but no doubt a welcome relief from the prison he felt his body had become and the day-to-day fear and loathing of his living existence". They went on to state that their son "was not prepared to live a second class existence". Where, I want to know, did this self hatred emerge? I also want to know why is it a given that people with disabilities are "second class citizens"? While no one wants to be paralyzed, myself included, I find it hard to fathom why Mr. James could not move on with life. Perhaps he took to heart the notion that paralysis leads to a grim life, one that does not include a family, sex, and athletic achievement. Perhaps he accepted the views of Libby Purves who wants to place the blame on the disability rights movement. In an article entitled "Its Time for a Clear Policy on Euthanasia" (Timesonline, October 20) Ms. Purves suggested a "side effect" of disability rights vocabulary was that "It may blind us to the utter visceral awfulness of confronting a major disability, especially when young. As civilized people we do not allow ourselves to flinch at a half-wrecked body in a wheelchair, yet the flinch and the fear are still there inside". Ms. Purves may be right, perhaps simple minded people will indeed flinch but civilized beings will reject such a primal or thoughtless response. But enlightenment is not within Ms. Purves realm as she goes on to write "we should not prattle about fulfilling lives. Paralympians, Stephen Hawking and the rest if it makes us belittle the terror and self-disgust of a fit young person, paralyzed. No amount of pious writing about the Disability Community should blind us to that". Yikes, these words are sobering to me. If this is an indication of what people think the disability rights community has made little if any progress.
As for the debate about assisted suicide, I do not want to enter that discussion on the defensive nor do I want to see Mr. James death used by those who support or oppose assisted suicide. This sort of debate misses the point and enables people such as Edward Turner, an advocate for "assisted dying" whose mother ended her life at Dignitas, to argue Mr. James death "breaks new ground". From my viewpoint, the only new ground broken was at Mr. James grave. Disability based bigotry has been present for decades and has crushed the lives, hopes, dreams, and ambitions of an unknown number of people. If Mr. James is to be made out to be a victim it is a victimhood that is directly related to the innate prejudice against disabled people. I for one do not want to listen to Mr. Turner's distinction between "assisted dying" and "assisted suicide". That debate has nothing to do with Mr. James, the difference between depression and terminal illness or end of life issues. The fact is Mr. James would be alive today if the stigma associated with disability was forcefully rejected by all people instead of accepted as a societal norm. Thus the assisted suicide debate in this case is a smoke screen for the real problem Mr, James, myself, and other disabled people encounter. Sadly, the issue of disability rights will most likely be totally ignored in Britain and headlines will focus on the sensational aspects of Mr. James death. This is particularly unfortunate as I thought great progress in disability rights has taken place in Britain.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Passion and Politics
I just read an outstanding commentary about Sarah Palin by Christy Everett entitled "I know nothing about special needs" at Parents.com (see Following Elias, The Boy that Could Fly). I approach disability rights from a cultural viewpoint and try to maintain an even temper despite the fact I am directly affected by disability based discrimination. I try to sway people with facts and a firm civil rights agenda. This approach does not work all the time but it suits my personality and background as an anthropologist. Yet I enjoy reading the work of others who write in a far more emotional manner. Perhaps this is why I often read blogs written by parents who have a child with "special needs", a term I detest that, thanks to Palin, is being bandied about in the Presidential campaign. I was very moved when I read the following written by a parent of a boy with multiple disabilities:
"For McCain to say that Sarah Palin “understands special needs better than almost any American I know” just shows how out of touch he is with the disability community.
Does he know anyone with special needs?
Because surely they would know more about living with disabilities than the people who love them.
To claim that a new mother of a child with Down syndrome knows more about special needs than any other American is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who every day face the barriers of an able-bodied world. Or who despite cognitive differences go on to earn a Phd. Or who play ice hockey without full sight or compose music they can’t hear. Or…
…the list goes on."
I love the last paragraph and phrase about the barriers of an able-bodied world. I know far too much about those barriers. I know barriers are needless, overwhelming and sometimes oppressive. On bad days, I truly struggle to leave my home. I do not want to encounter someone who thinks I am public property and suggests that if I prayed really hard could walk again. I do not want to have a stranger tell me it is "amazing" the way I get my wheelchair in and out of my car. What I want is illusive, the ability to blend in and be, well, ordinary. Social equality is simply not something that I experience often. I am different and in many ways proud of my difference, that is proud to be disabled. However, on those bad days my difference, my disability, feels like a chain pulling me down into an abyss from which I fear I will not emerge. It is on these bad days that I force myself to think not of myself but of all those other people with a disability that are not as lucky as I am. I live in a nice house, have a large and supportive family, am highly educated, and have a son I love very much. I thus force myself to move forward for others who find themselves stuck in a nursing home, are unemployed, alone, or simply not able to deal with social oppression. If I give up, if I accept the stigma associated with disability I fear it will create a domino affect in which one disabled person after another will fall. I will simply not let this happen.
"For McCain to say that Sarah Palin “understands special needs better than almost any American I know” just shows how out of touch he is with the disability community.
Does he know anyone with special needs?
Because surely they would know more about living with disabilities than the people who love them.
To claim that a new mother of a child with Down syndrome knows more about special needs than any other American is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who every day face the barriers of an able-bodied world. Or who despite cognitive differences go on to earn a Phd. Or who play ice hockey without full sight or compose music they can’t hear. Or…
…the list goes on."
I love the last paragraph and phrase about the barriers of an able-bodied world. I know far too much about those barriers. I know barriers are needless, overwhelming and sometimes oppressive. On bad days, I truly struggle to leave my home. I do not want to encounter someone who thinks I am public property and suggests that if I prayed really hard could walk again. I do not want to have a stranger tell me it is "amazing" the way I get my wheelchair in and out of my car. What I want is illusive, the ability to blend in and be, well, ordinary. Social equality is simply not something that I experience often. I am different and in many ways proud of my difference, that is proud to be disabled. However, on those bad days my difference, my disability, feels like a chain pulling me down into an abyss from which I fear I will not emerge. It is on these bad days that I force myself to think not of myself but of all those other people with a disability that are not as lucky as I am. I live in a nice house, have a large and supportive family, am highly educated, and have a son I love very much. I thus force myself to move forward for others who find themselves stuck in a nursing home, are unemployed, alone, or simply not able to deal with social oppression. If I give up, if I accept the stigma associated with disability I fear it will create a domino affect in which one disabled person after another will fall. I will simply not let this happen.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A Solid Victory for Obama on Disability
I did not get to see the entire Presidential debate last night because I was teaching. However, I did listen to most of the debate on my drive home. When Bob Schieffer asked about the qualifications of Palin and Biden as Vice-President I eagerly awaited an answer. I hoped that for the first time a substantive debate about disability might come up. Although not substantive, the exchange about disability between Obama and McCain solidified in my mind why Obama is the clear choice in the election.
The transcript of the debate is widely available and it is worth quoting some of it. In his answer, McCain fell back on well worn cliches. "She'll be my partner. She understands reform. And, by the way, she also understands special needs families. She understands that autism is on the rise, that we've got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special children. She understands that better than almost any American that I know. I'm proud of her".
As many have pointed out, Palin is not an expert on autism. She does have a nephew who has autism and all know her son Trig has Down Syndrome. This limited personal connection may give her an "understanding" of what is involved in raising children with "special needs" but that does not mean she has any added insight or expertise. This may come with time but to my knowledge her practical experience with disability is limited to caring for her son who is less than a year old. It appears to me she has made a connection with parents of children that have Down Syndrome but this has not translated into action. Indeed, the skeptic could postulate that Palin is exploiting these parents for photo opportunities that tug at the heart strings of those unfamiliar with disability. I also get a sense that Palin has not truly embraced or begun to get a nuanced understanding of the disability community. Again, this may come with time but as of today her failure to act, to change the rhetoric coming out of the McCain cmpaign and offer specific examples of what she would do to enhance the lives of children with special needs makes me question what she says.
The passage in the debate that is of great interest to me did not come from McCain. It was Obama's reply to the above quote that was dignified, polite, and raised the bar above partisan politics. Obama could have lobbed a nasty shot at Palin and the mean spirited comments she has made recently but graciously conceded she was a capable politician, one that has energized the Republican base. I give Obama credit for being polite, I doubt I could have held my tongue. Regardless, this statement by Obama stood out:
"I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs, will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on the behalf of disabled children talks about. And if we have an across the board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it".
Here we have a distinct and profound difference between Obama and McCain. The McCain campaign through Palin pays lip service to special needs children but offers no change in the draconian funding of programs for the people they supposedly care about. Furthermore, McCain and Palin have said nothing about the needs of disabled adults, Supreme Court decisions that have gutted the ADA, rampant unemployment and a myriad of other issues that marginalize disabled people. In contrast, Obama has a plan and a vision for how he wants to empower disabled people in both the short and long term. This is clearly presented and has been readily available for months at his website. If you do not believe me check it out for yourself. Obama's support of people with disabilities goes well beyond empty promises that are designed to generate a knee jerk response. I am not sure why Obama has such a good understanding of disability related issues. I suspect it has less to do with personal experience than it does with those he has received advice from but this is speculation on my part.
Simply put, last night provided proof positive that Obama is the clear choice for the disability community. Even if viewers were not swayed by Obama's words McCain's reply highlighted how unaware he is to the needs of disabled people. McCain replied "We need to spend more, we need to spend more, that's the answer--why do we always have to spend more?" Why do we need to spend more? Let me suggest McCain visit an independent living center, group home, adaptive sport center, rehab hospital, or a myriad of places that are grossly underfunded. There here will be exposed to a system and culture that crushes the spirit of many disabled people who want to lead an ordinary life other take for granted.
The transcript of the debate is widely available and it is worth quoting some of it. In his answer, McCain fell back on well worn cliches. "She'll be my partner. She understands reform. And, by the way, she also understands special needs families. She understands that autism is on the rise, that we've got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special children. She understands that better than almost any American that I know. I'm proud of her".
As many have pointed out, Palin is not an expert on autism. She does have a nephew who has autism and all know her son Trig has Down Syndrome. This limited personal connection may give her an "understanding" of what is involved in raising children with "special needs" but that does not mean she has any added insight or expertise. This may come with time but to my knowledge her practical experience with disability is limited to caring for her son who is less than a year old. It appears to me she has made a connection with parents of children that have Down Syndrome but this has not translated into action. Indeed, the skeptic could postulate that Palin is exploiting these parents for photo opportunities that tug at the heart strings of those unfamiliar with disability. I also get a sense that Palin has not truly embraced or begun to get a nuanced understanding of the disability community. Again, this may come with time but as of today her failure to act, to change the rhetoric coming out of the McCain cmpaign and offer specific examples of what she would do to enhance the lives of children with special needs makes me question what she says.
The passage in the debate that is of great interest to me did not come from McCain. It was Obama's reply to the above quote that was dignified, polite, and raised the bar above partisan politics. Obama could have lobbed a nasty shot at Palin and the mean spirited comments she has made recently but graciously conceded she was a capable politician, one that has energized the Republican base. I give Obama credit for being polite, I doubt I could have held my tongue. Regardless, this statement by Obama stood out:
"I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs, will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on the behalf of disabled children talks about. And if we have an across the board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it".
Here we have a distinct and profound difference between Obama and McCain. The McCain campaign through Palin pays lip service to special needs children but offers no change in the draconian funding of programs for the people they supposedly care about. Furthermore, McCain and Palin have said nothing about the needs of disabled adults, Supreme Court decisions that have gutted the ADA, rampant unemployment and a myriad of other issues that marginalize disabled people. In contrast, Obama has a plan and a vision for how he wants to empower disabled people in both the short and long term. This is clearly presented and has been readily available for months at his website. If you do not believe me check it out for yourself. Obama's support of people with disabilities goes well beyond empty promises that are designed to generate a knee jerk response. I am not sure why Obama has such a good understanding of disability related issues. I suspect it has less to do with personal experience than it does with those he has received advice from but this is speculation on my part.
Simply put, last night provided proof positive that Obama is the clear choice for the disability community. Even if viewers were not swayed by Obama's words McCain's reply highlighted how unaware he is to the needs of disabled people. McCain replied "We need to spend more, we need to spend more, that's the answer--why do we always have to spend more?" Why do we need to spend more? Let me suggest McCain visit an independent living center, group home, adaptive sport center, rehab hospital, or a myriad of places that are grossly underfunded. There here will be exposed to a system and culture that crushes the spirit of many disabled people who want to lead an ordinary life other take for granted.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Quid Pro Quo
I am a sucker for films that involve murder, mayhem, and story lines that are out of the norm. Given this, I looked forward to seeing Quid Pro Quo, a film made by Carlos Brooks that stared Vera Farmiga and Nick Stahl. The film reviews I read all characterized Quid Pro Quo as akin to David Cronenberg's Crash. I got to watch Quid Pro Quo last night and am at a loss as to what to make of the film.
The main characters, played by Farmiga and Stahl, are Fiona and Isaac Knott. Isaac is an NPR reporter who was paralyzed in a car accident as a child. Fiona is an attractive blonde art restorer that works in a museum. Fiona contacts Knott about a group of people that want to be disabled. Characterized as "wannabes" Isaac tries to understand why anyone would desire to be paralyzed or become an amputee by choice. Two story lines emerge in this film, first, being disabled for "wannabes" is an exalted status and a wheelchair is akin to a throne. Second, Fiona is a closet "wannabe" and seduces Isaac because she has an overwhelming desire to be paralyzed. The first half of the film is captivating. Fiona and Isaac are interesting characters that draw in the viewer. Isaac is reserved and a thoughtful soul. In contrast, Fiona is a beautiful, exotic, and creepy. Their developing relationship is fascinating to watch.
From my perspective, the most interesting part of the film involves subtle and pointed comments about disability. For example, I liked the low wheelchair height camera angle that followed Isaac as he navigated the streets of the city. Another disability theme that was well done involved Isaac's dating life. Isaac's co-worker sets up a date for him and the woman he was supposed to meet walks out once she realizes he uses a wheelchair. Another scene worth noting involved Fiona's seduction of Isaac in which he declares "Yes, I can have sex". In answering an unspoken question Isaac is confronting a specific social inequity--disabled people are considered public property and expected to answer any and all questions that pop into people's minds. At the forefront of rude and intrusive questions people ask is about sex.
The problem with Quid Pro Quo is that once the relationship between Isaac and Fiona is established the film spins out of control. The story line becomes convoluted and grossly unrealistic. I understand the filmmakers intent--a role reversal in the lives of the two central characters--but the way this is accomplished is terrible. Fiona "comes out of the closet" and uses a wheelchair while Isaac gets a pair of magic shoes that enable him to walk. Worse yet, the film tries to explain the cause of Isaac's disability and Fiona's obsession with paralysis. In short, Quid Pro Quo is an interesting movie that had great potential but failed to resonate in the end.
The main characters, played by Farmiga and Stahl, are Fiona and Isaac Knott. Isaac is an NPR reporter who was paralyzed in a car accident as a child. Fiona is an attractive blonde art restorer that works in a museum. Fiona contacts Knott about a group of people that want to be disabled. Characterized as "wannabes" Isaac tries to understand why anyone would desire to be paralyzed or become an amputee by choice. Two story lines emerge in this film, first, being disabled for "wannabes" is an exalted status and a wheelchair is akin to a throne. Second, Fiona is a closet "wannabe" and seduces Isaac because she has an overwhelming desire to be paralyzed. The first half of the film is captivating. Fiona and Isaac are interesting characters that draw in the viewer. Isaac is reserved and a thoughtful soul. In contrast, Fiona is a beautiful, exotic, and creepy. Their developing relationship is fascinating to watch.
From my perspective, the most interesting part of the film involves subtle and pointed comments about disability. For example, I liked the low wheelchair height camera angle that followed Isaac as he navigated the streets of the city. Another disability theme that was well done involved Isaac's dating life. Isaac's co-worker sets up a date for him and the woman he was supposed to meet walks out once she realizes he uses a wheelchair. Another scene worth noting involved Fiona's seduction of Isaac in which he declares "Yes, I can have sex". In answering an unspoken question Isaac is confronting a specific social inequity--disabled people are considered public property and expected to answer any and all questions that pop into people's minds. At the forefront of rude and intrusive questions people ask is about sex.
The problem with Quid Pro Quo is that once the relationship between Isaac and Fiona is established the film spins out of control. The story line becomes convoluted and grossly unrealistic. I understand the filmmakers intent--a role reversal in the lives of the two central characters--but the way this is accomplished is terrible. Fiona "comes out of the closet" and uses a wheelchair while Isaac gets a pair of magic shoes that enable him to walk. Worse yet, the film tries to explain the cause of Isaac's disability and Fiona's obsession with paralysis. In short, Quid Pro Quo is an interesting movie that had great potential but failed to resonate in the end.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Election Double Talk
As election day nears the Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin campaigns are in high gear. The rhetoric of the campaign has been building and has not yet reached its apex. In terms of disability related stories, exaggeration and falsehoods abound. If I had to pick a "winner" for misleading statements McCain and Palin are the clearly ahead of Obam/Biden. Two examples should suffice: 1. Special Needs Truth 08 pointed out an October 9 Sean Hannity interview with McCain and Palin. McCain said that many "special needs" families show up at campaign events and "Sarah Palin wants to take on that task of helping relieve the burden". Apparently in McCain's estimation Palin wants to discover the cause of autism and find a cure for it, a job she is "uniquely qualified to do". 2. According the Boston.com at a town hall meeting in Milwaukee Palin boasted that she had increased funding for programs for children with disabilities in Alaska and would do the same nationally.
On example one: Palin's son Trig does not have autism. Trig has Down Syndrome. Palin is not the least bit qualified to find a cure for autism. McCain should know the difference between autism and Down Syndrome. McCain should also know that children with autism or Down Syndrome are not a "burden" on anyone. If McCain doubts this, he should listen to what Palin has to say about her son Trig.
On example two, Palin stated she will increase spending for special needs children. McCain has stated he will not increase spending programs. In fact he often states that he would "impose a spending freeze to stop the spending spree in Washington". This line garners applause but is at direct odds with what Palin has stated.
While I do not like McCain and Palin, I will admit that within a very narrow range Palin states many good things about "children with Special needs". The Palin interviews I have seen are either conducted by media cronies such Sean Hannity who asks powder puff questions or pointed interviews in which Palin refuses to state anything beyond memorized talking points. The result is I have no clue as to whether she has the inclination or power to become an advocate for children with special needs. This is particularly confusing to me in part because Palin generates such a strong response--people seem to either love or hate her. No such reaction is evident in the disability community. Savvy disability commentators are critical of Palin because of her far right-wing positions and distrust of Republican policies. Yet, like other disabled people, I hope she does indeed become an advocate for not just special needs children but the adults they become.
On example one: Palin's son Trig does not have autism. Trig has Down Syndrome. Palin is not the least bit qualified to find a cure for autism. McCain should know the difference between autism and Down Syndrome. McCain should also know that children with autism or Down Syndrome are not a "burden" on anyone. If McCain doubts this, he should listen to what Palin has to say about her son Trig.
On example two, Palin stated she will increase spending for special needs children. McCain has stated he will not increase spending programs. In fact he often states that he would "impose a spending freeze to stop the spending spree in Washington". This line garners applause but is at direct odds with what Palin has stated.
While I do not like McCain and Palin, I will admit that within a very narrow range Palin states many good things about "children with Special needs". The Palin interviews I have seen are either conducted by media cronies such Sean Hannity who asks powder puff questions or pointed interviews in which Palin refuses to state anything beyond memorized talking points. The result is I have no clue as to whether she has the inclination or power to become an advocate for children with special needs. This is particularly confusing to me in part because Palin generates such a strong response--people seem to either love or hate her. No such reaction is evident in the disability community. Savvy disability commentators are critical of Palin because of her far right-wing positions and distrust of Republican policies. Yet, like other disabled people, I hope she does indeed become an advocate for not just special needs children but the adults they become.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Required Reading
I just read yet another outstanding article by Pul Longmore entitled "Palin Talks About Special Needs Children, But Obama has Substantive Plans For All People With Disabilities". The article appeared in the Huffington Post October 4. Below is the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-k-longmore/palin-talks-about-special_b_131758.html
Here are some of the highlights worth noting:
Palin talks about being a friend of "special needs children". This is great but Longmore points out that 90% of Americans that have a disability are adults.
The McCain/Palin website has a single page about "Americans with Disabilities for McCain". The Obama/Biden website has detailed policy proposals and a comprehensive "Plan to Empower Americans with Disabilities".
Longmore provides excellent summaries of the McCain and Obama positions on health insurance, medicare, mental health parity, and community based personal assistance services. If you are undecided who to vote for or want to confirm why Obama is the logical choice disabled Americans I urge you to read Longmore's article.
On final point, Obama and Biden support the Community Choice Act, CCA, S. 799. At the national presidential forum on disability issues held last July McCain stated that such a law would cost to much and was the wrong kind of legislation. This is the sort of legislation that will some day have a profound impact on the life of Sarah Palin's son Trig. If Palin is indeed the friend and advocate of children with special needs a good way to demonstrate that would be to change McCain's position with regard to the CCA. Palin has done nothing that has impressed me but this sure would be a step in the right direction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-k-longmore/palin-talks-about-special_b_131758.html
Here are some of the highlights worth noting:
Palin talks about being a friend of "special needs children". This is great but Longmore points out that 90% of Americans that have a disability are adults.
The McCain/Palin website has a single page about "Americans with Disabilities for McCain". The Obama/Biden website has detailed policy proposals and a comprehensive "Plan to Empower Americans with Disabilities".
Longmore provides excellent summaries of the McCain and Obama positions on health insurance, medicare, mental health parity, and community based personal assistance services. If you are undecided who to vote for or want to confirm why Obama is the logical choice disabled Americans I urge you to read Longmore's article.
On final point, Obama and Biden support the Community Choice Act, CCA, S. 799. At the national presidential forum on disability issues held last July McCain stated that such a law would cost to much and was the wrong kind of legislation. This is the sort of legislation that will some day have a profound impact on the life of Sarah Palin's son Trig. If Palin is indeed the friend and advocate of children with special needs a good way to demonstrate that would be to change McCain's position with regard to the CCA. Palin has done nothing that has impressed me but this sure would be a step in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)