Casey Martin Qualifies for the US Open

I have been relatively silent in the past two weeks. The reasons are pretty simple. I have been away from home for much of the time. Yesterday I was stuck in the car for the entire day. Classifying myself as "stuck in the car" is misleading--I love long drives. The longer the better in fact. Being in the car enables me to listen to the radio for hours. I have eclectic tastes--I listen to horrible local AM stations, especially talk radio. I listen to much music, mostly pre corporate rock. I listen to NPR outlets. Yesterday much of my time was spent listening to sports talk.  I find this sort of dialog mind numbing. However, yesterday was different. Casey Martin is back in the news. Casey Martin is unknown outside of golfing and his few minutes of fame took place when he sued the PGA Golf Tour in the late 1990s. Martin has a physical disability that makes walking inherently difficult and he believed he had the right to use a golf cart under the ADA on the PGA Tour. The use of a gold cart was in his opinion a "reasonable accommodation". The PGA and many well-know golfers vehemently disagreed. Martin won his case that was decided by the Supreme Court. In 2001 Martin was national news.  What was and was not a "reasonable accommodation" was widely discussed in the popular press. Sport fans were not happy. The PGA was predictably stuffy. What I remember most circa 2001 was friends asking me what I thought. I felt Martin was correct--using a golf cart was very much within the realm of the ADA. Using a golf cart was indeed a "reasonable accommodation". This was not a popular position to take. As I recall, people that engaged me wanted to know where do we draw the line? Was walking not an integral part of the game of golf? I believed then as I do now that Martin's use of a cart did not give him an unfair advantage nor did it change the character of the sport. In Martin's case, it simply empowered him to play the game at the elite level he had achieved.

I have not thought about Martin for ten years. He glided into obscurity after he failed to qualify for the PGA Tour. Apparently he has forged a new career as a golf coach in Oregon where he grew up and went to college. Against all odds, Martin qualified for the US Open this week. This has rekindled a debate about whether the use of a golf cart is indeed a "reasonable accommodation." In 2001 the attacks on Martin by professional golfers was vicious. Some classified his use of a golf cart as outrageous. Walking is part of the game! If you doubt this, many said, try walking 18 holes of golf. Fast forward eleven years and such inflammatory comments are hard to find in the mainstream press. Perhaps the last decade that has witnessed a veritable revolution in adaptive sports has made the general public open to reasonable accommodations of the sort used by Martin and other adaptive athletes. I am not sure this is the case. I would suggest discrimination is alive and well. I would also contend the fact Martin is a long shot at best to win is another variable. I have noticed that no one complains when a person with a disability participates against those without a disability--provided they lose badly--as in come in dead last. When a person with a disability actually wins is when other athletes and the general public complain. All of a sudden the athlete with a disability is not so "inspiring". Instead, the athlete that has a "reasonable accommodation" is perceived to have an unfair advantage. Oscar Pistorius is the best example of this line of reasoning. When he was winning in competitions against other amputees one and all were impressed. When he ran and lost against athletes with two legs no one complained. When he started defeating athletes who had legs all of a sudden he was not inspiring in the least. Instead his prostheses amounted to cheating.

The mainstream press is not interested in Martin. His participation in the US Open is filler. Golfing magazines and other specialist publications remain hostile. For instance, I just read the opening to an article "US Open and the Casey Martin Question" that began: "As we ramp up towards the U.S. Open that will be played at the Olympic Club, I have to get something off my chest: Casey Martin should not be playing at The Open this year." The author notes that Martin is "afflicted" with a birth defect that makes walking 18 holes of golf too painful. Under the guise of the ADA, the Supreme Court decided walking was not an integral part of the game and that Martin could use a golf cart. Blasphemy!  "Anyone who has played 18 holes will tell you walking is certainly a portion of the four-day tournament". Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, and Tiger Woods agree! Using a cart is akin to destroying the integrity of the game. Worse yet, why should Martin be allowed to have "special rules"? Why should Martin "ride easily in a cart for four days in the name of fairness".  The author of this opinion piece concludes: " the world is not fair.  I am sorry to spoil it for you.  As many times as we try to even the playing field we are doing it at another’s expense". 


The above line of reasoning is classic. We Americans are all born equal. We are rugged individualists. We pull ourselves up by our boot straps. Some people are not so fortunate. We have "special schools" and "special education" for them. We provide such accommodations out of the goodness of our hearts. We do not to consider individuals with a disability  to be equal to the all powerful bipeds for the author notes life is not fair. And my goodness what could be more unfair than a disability!  Thus Martin is not only a bad sport but hopelessly selfish. He is destroying the integrity of the game. He is ruining the sport for all. To me, this line of reasoning is twisted, hopelessly backwards. It is also common place. It makes me wonder exactly what has the ADA accomplished in the last 20 years. On bad days, I shake my head and conclude the ADA has done nothing. On good day, I think the exact opposite. The truth I suspect lies somewhere between these polar opposites. What remains my constant refrain is the underlying problem with not only the ADA but all legislation meant to empower people with a disability--the total lack of a social mandate. Culturally people object to the notion of any so called "reasonable accommodation". This runs counter to cultural ideals we learn and incorporate without thinking. We Americans are all equal. We must treat one and all equally. One succeeds through hard work and hard work alone. Special accommodations are bad--it  undermines our entire culture. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can read through this cultural ideal as utter fantasy--a fantasy we accept and propagate. The presence of people with a disability upsets the cultural balance. It is a reminder that "life is not fair".  Lost in this cultural quagmire is the simple fact that disability rights are civil rights.  Now that concept is worth thinking about and supporting. 

NDRN Report: Devaluing People with Disabilities

This is Curt Decker, Executive Director of the National Disability Rights Network speaking on the implications of the Ashley Treatment. Today the NDRN released a fascinating document: Devaluing People with Disabilities. When I first read the document I was not impressed. In fact I wanted to take the document and fling it across the room. I thought to myself, what a wasted opportunity. Then a funny thing happened. I realized my initial reaction was largely wrong. Sure I would have taken a different approach. I would certainly not have used some of the selected experts. I absolutely would not have used a focus group of people with a disability. But so what--how many people will react this way? Precious few. It was then I realized the larger aim was more important than my detailed critique. The report forwards a position few consider to be a civil rights issue: disability rights. In this sense the report is a grand success. I also like the multi media release. Yes, you can readily access a pdf of the report at disabilityrightswa.org but you can also access videos of Decker and a group of people with a disability responding to the Ashley Treatment.

What struck me after watching the above video and reading the report is the fundamental divide between those with and those without a disability. To me, disability rights is fundamentally a civil rights issue. This is as obvious to me as is the need to breath. Unfortunately the vast majority of people do not equate disability rights with civil rights. Disability for most people is a medial problem and the notion of disability rights as civil rights requires a theoretical leap they are unable or unwilling to accept. Such a leap in logic requires one to disregard all they have been explicitly taught and absorbed about disability. The inability or refusal to consider disability rights as akin to civil rights is an increasing danger to all people--not just those with a disability. As Decker provocatively begins the report, somewhere in America people are sitting down and considering withholding life sustaining medical treatment from a person who has a disability. And why do these conversations take place with stunning regularity? According to Decker they happen "because the persons being considered are viewed as having little value as they are. They are considered not as fully human, endowed with inalienable rights of liberty, privacy and the right to be left alone--solely because they were born with a disability".  These are not only harsh words but the harsh reality I have lived with for 34 years. I will have much more to say about the report once I thoroughly digest the ideas presented.

A Glimpse into the Future?

I have been reading British newspapers with great interest the last few weeks. I believe disability issues as they are being played out in the British press maybe a precursor to how disability will be discussed in the American presidential campaign this fall. The British Disability Living Allowance has risen sharply in recent years and is being subject to extreme budget cuts. All people on Disability Living Allowance will be reevaluated. It is expected that 500,00 people will lose their disability benefits. This is the work of Iain Duncan Smith who is seeking to slash the budget. In Smith's estimation fraud is rampant and among the primary reasons why the Disability Living Allowance has increased. He thinks that there is a significant problem with lifetime awards. "Something like 70% had lifetime awards which meant that once they got it you never looked at them again. They were just allowed to fester". Fester? Seriously, fester? In defending his reforms, Smith used the example of a person who had lost a limb or limbs. He believes that once provided an artificial limb there was no reason for such an individual to receive a Disability Living Allowance. Smith conveniently ignores the rampant unemployment among people with a disability. 

What Smith is trying to do is not original. Think back to the 1980s and Ronald Reagan's role in de-instituionalizing millions of people with mental illness. Reagan did not do this out of the goodness of his heart but rather to save money and close institutions. In a British twist to an old story Smith is trying to cull the ranks of people eligible for the Disability Living Allowance. Like Reagan, he is doing this to slash the budget. Do not be fooled. A Girl with the Cane, a wonderful Canadian blog, points out Smith's efforts to mislead the public.  Fraud accounts for 0.5 of Disability Living Allowance but 30% of claimants will have their supports cut or eliminated. She posits is this not just a tad bit excessive? 

What is left unsaid is the belief people with a disability who receive Disability Living Allowances are sponging off the public. They are charity cases whose demands are excessive. They are, to use Smith's own words, a "festering "problem". The press wants to know who is to blame? First, and foremost cheaters. Those individuals who are not really disabled and take money away from those with a real disability. In the estimation of Christina Odone in the Telegraph, "Iain Duncan Smith Must Not Give in to the Disability Bullies" writes: "The system allows alcoholics and drug addicts take away from more than someone who's blind: it allows anyone to fake a back ache and stay off work, earning money as they do so". This too is an old story. Pit people with a disability against one another. Establish certain disabilities as inherently in need of charity while others are dubious at best. Blindness, deafness, paralysis, these are socially acceptable. Mental illness? This is inherently bad. Obesity? Sorry this too is bad. Not content to merely divide, Odone goes on to blast the people with a disability that are willing to defend themselves. She wrote Smith:        

is taking on a powerful and often extremist lobby. He got a taste of the uproar to come a year ago last Saturday, when hundreds of disabled marched and rode in wheelchairs in protest in central London. Organised by the UK Disabled People's Council and the Disability Benefits Consortium, the "Hardest Hit" protest marked the first anniversary of the Coalition government. Some threw fake blood on the pavement, others wore gloves to show, as they told the BBC that the government cuts had cut off their hands. Hard-hitting stuff – and more is sure to follow with IDS's defiant stand in today's Telegraph: he will not be derailed from reforming the disability benefit system. The system clearly needs radical changes...Yes, there are many who are truly disabled; but some are milking the system. Even the BBC, in a memorable Panorama, began to investigate "Britain on the Fiddle", finding that benefits claimants were sailing yachts and driving Bentleys.

Please show me the people with a disability that are sailing yachts and driving Bentleys. The disability activists I know are living on shoe string budgets, barely able to survive. And what happens in this country when they fight back? Well, if you are a member of ADAPT and you take an action like they did last month in Washington DC. 76 people get arrested including a woman, Martina Robinson, I once taught at Purchase College. She is a member of ADAPT and lives in Massachusetts. As of today, she is being required to appear in court. It will cost her $367 to get to Washington DC by train. A night in a Washington DC hotel that is accessible will cost about $200. Robinson may be forced to spend $567 to defend herself. Like other members of ADAPT she cannot spare that money she uses for luxuries like rent and food. I call this economic abuse and intimidation. But in Odone's estimation Robinson is a disability bully. I suggest Odone spend time with Robinson, a member of ADAPT for 16 years. Robinson is not driving a Bentley or sailing in a yacht. Instead, she is fighting the good fight. She is fighting for herself but more than that she is fighting for those who cannot escape a nursing home and live in the community.         

Taxis New York City Style

I hope Mayor Bloomberg sees this video. This is an accurate assessment of the taxi situation in New York City. A person that uses a manual wheelchair has a chance to hail and enter a cab in the city. It is not easy but possible. A person that uses a power wheelchair is screwed as this video shows. I rarely take cabs in NYC. When I do I have a friend hail the cab--a friend that is bipedal and well dressed. I hide between two parked cars. When I emerge from between the parked cars my friend opens the rear door and then moves to stand in front of the cab so he cannot drive off. The result is I am able to ride in a taxi with a driver that will either be silent the enter time or will berate me the entire drive. Yes, this happens. This is why I use the MTA bus service which is reliable, though slow, and the majority of drivers polite and actually know how to use the lift. Still you would think I should be able to hail a cab like I do in many other cities across the country. Mayor Bloomberg should be ashamed--ashamed he is knowingly violating the law. If the Taxi of Tomorrow that he is backing with all the power he can muster is put in use I know I will not be able to use a NYC taxi for the next decade or more.       

Chen Guangcheng: Bad Ass

Last week my son sent me an article from the Huffington Post about Chen Guangcheng. He was following the news about Chen Guangcheng, the Chinese activist, who he described as a being a "bad ass of epic proportions". Why was Chen Guangcheng a "bad ass of epic proportion"? In my son's estimation he was a real life Rutger Hauer as in the Grade B 1980s movie Blind Fury. I am not a fan of this movie. We watched it together a long time ago. After the film I explained to my son why I had serious reservations about the content. I explained it was based on a faulty premise and followed a well worn super cripple belief used throughout film history. My son listened politely and said "Dad, its just a cool movie, you know the suspension of willing disbelief and all that stuff". 

I was reminded of this exchange because in the last week dozens of stories about Chen Guangcheng have appeared in nearly every news media outlet. As I hoped, Stephen Kuusisto has chimed in at Planet of the Blind and is quoted in a very good article by Alan Greenblatt. Greenblatt notes that central to all stories about Guangcheng is the fact he is blind. He wonders if Chen Guangcheng is in the news because of his activism or because he is blind. This is a damn good question. Kuusisto is quoted as stating "His blindness did not give him any particular bravery or insight. It is just a factor in a much larger life". I completely agree with this statement. Predictably tabloids have had a field day as they are prone to when it comes to any sort of disability.  I perceive no change in the way Chen Guangchang is described--there is always a reference to the fact he is blind. Kuusisto is quoted as noting "Blindness stands as a kind of metaphorical intensifier. The cleric [Omar Abdel Rashman the so called blind sheik] is angrier than other people because he is blind. In that way Chen is more miraculous and heroic because he is blind". This is in part exactly why my son was so enamored with the movie Blind Fury. Rutger Hauer was not an ordinary bad ass. He was an epic bad ass because he was blind. Chen Guangcheng is no ordinary activist, he is as Kuusisto observes a miraculous and heroic activist.

When people I know, and the many I do not know, note my assessment of how far people with a disability have come in terms of disability rights is inherently negative stories such as Chen Guangchang come to mind. Have we made any progress since the 1980s--progress here in a cultural not legal sense? Legally yes culturally no. Many laws exist that are designed to protect my civil rights. On bad days I think there these laws are useless because there is no social mandate to enforce them. I am distressed by people in positions of power who hold an antiquated view of disability. Here Mayor Bloomberg comes to mind and his all out effort to have the so called Taxi of Tomorrow approved in spite of the fact it is not accessible. Bloomberg is simply one of many that think providing basic and what are known as "reasonable accommodations" is a matter of choice not law. And this is the real problem, American culture--something Robert Murphy noted when he wrote the Body Silent. In short, progress is taking place but at a glacial pace.


    

Comfort Care: Killing a Bad Cripple

Last friday an article I have alluded to was made available on line.  Here I refer to "Comfort Care as a Denial of Personhood". My essay can be read on line at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.38/full. Please note Wiley, the publisher of the Hastings Center Report where my essay will appear in print later this summer has a very impressive pay wall. To access my essay you must subscribe. I cannot even access what I wrote!  However, I can post some quotes. The essay pertains to the severe wound I had in 2010 and in particular one experience I had late at night.  Let me be clear: I was very sick, critically ill. This is what transpired, an event that has haunted me. I was asked:


"if I understood the gravity of my condition. Yes, I said, I am well aware of the implications. He grimly told me I would be bedbound for at least six months and most likely a year or more. That there was a good chance the wound would never heal. If this happened, I would never sit in my wheelchair. I would never be able to work again. Not close to done, he told me I was looking at a life of complete and utter dependence. My medical expenses would be staggering. Bankruptcy was not just possible but likely. Insurance would stop covering wound care well before I was healed. Most people with the type of wound I had ended up in a nursing home.
This litany of disaster is all too familiar to me and others with a disability. The scenario laid out happens with shocking regularity to paralyzed people. The hospitalist went on to tell me I was on powerful antibiotics that could cause significant organ damage. My kidneys or liver could fail at any time. He wanted me to know that MRSA was a life-threatening infection particularly because my wound was open, deep, and grossly infected. Many paralyzed people die from such a wound.
His next words were unforgettable. The choice to receive antibiotics was my decision and mine alone. He informed me I had the right to forego any medication, including the lifesaving antibiotics. If I chose not to continue with the current therapy, I could be made very comfortable. I would feel no pain or discomfort at all. Although not explicitly stated, the message was loud and clear. I can help you die peacefully. Clearly death was preferable to nursing home care, unemployment, bankruptcy, and a lifetime in bed. I am not sure exactly what I said or how I said it, but I was emphatic—I wanted to continue treatment, including the antibiotics. I wanted to live."


I never told anyone about what transpired. Not my family, friends, the nurses I saw for over a year when I was bedbound. I did not tell anyone for a very good reason: I was scared. Terrified really. A physician, a person who is highly educated, and I would hope free of any bias considered my life not worth living. Disability was a fate worse than death. It was the ultimate insult. People with a disability do not write about fear, we feel it I am sure, but few delve into how deadly cultural assumptions can be. Harriet McBryde Johnson and Kenny Fries are two exceptions--others exist I am sure. Doctors usually chalk this up to misunderstandings on the part of the patient and sweep such incidents under the carpet.  But as many people with a disability know critical care hospitals are a hostile environment.  I wrote:

"Hospitals and diagnostic equipment are often grossly inaccessible. Staff members can be rude, condescending, and unwilling to listen or adapt to any person who falls outside the norm. We people with a disability represent extra work for them. We are a burden. We also need expensive, high-tech equipment that the hospital probably does not own. In my case, a Clinitron bed, which provides air fluidized therapy, had to be rented while I was hospitalized. Complicating matters further is the widespread use of hospitalists—generally an internist who works exclusively in the hospital and directs inpatient care. The hospitalist model of care is undoubtedly efficient and saves hospitals billions of dollars a year. However, there is a jarring disconnect between inpatient and outpatient care, which can represent a serious risk to people with a disability. My experience certainly demonstrates this, as no physician who knew me would have suggested withholding lifesaving treatment."

When I showed my essay to a friend he was deeply annoyed. He thought what I wrote was counter productive. I was exaggerating the situation. He told me no one is out to get you and you are going to scare people. I replied people with a disability have every right to be scared. While no one wakes up in the morning and thinks I will discriminate against people with a disability, that does not mean discrimination is non existent. I am sure when I saw the film Million Dollar Baby and the audience cheered when the main character, Maggie, was killed I doubt anyone clapping thought they were bigots. But I was shaken to the core--the assumption clearly was one is better off dead than disabled. What exactly does that mean about the quality of my life? The belief one is better off dead than disabled has real life consequences I wrote about:

"people with a disability who publicly express a desire to die rather than live become media darlings. They get complete and total support in their quest. Ironically, who is discriminated against? Those people with a disability who choose to live. We face a great challenge in that society refuses to provide the necessary social supports that would empower us to live rich, full, and productive lives. This makes no sense to me. It is also downright dangerous in a medical system that is privatized and supposedly “patient-centered”—buzzwords I often heard in the hospital. It made me wonder, how do physicians perceive “patient-centered” care? Is it possible that patient-centered health care would allow, justify, and encourage paralyzed people to die? Is patient- centered care a euphemism that makes people in the health care system feel better? When hospitalized, not once did I feel well cared for".

I went on to note:

"What I experienced in the hospital was a microcosm of a much larger social problem. Simply put, my disabled body is not normal. We are well equipped to deal with normal bodies. Efficient protocols exist within institutions, and the presence of a disabled body creates havoc. Before I utter one word or am examined by a physician, it is obvious that my presence is a problem. Sitting in my wheelchair, I am a living symbol of all that can go wrong with a body and of the limits of medical science to correct it."

When I was stuck in bed at the end of 2010 and for much of 2011 I often thought of my mentor at Columbia University, Robert Murphy whose book The Body Silent changed my life. I had found myself socially isolated and miserable. I did not handle the situation well--my family can vouch for this assessment. Looking back, I realize now I was deeply depressed.  I am far from a social butterfly but being stuck in one's living room for a year will test the inner fortitude of any human being. But the point I am trying to stress is that one phrase from Murphy's book resonated in my head. Those that know me would likely guess liminality but they would be wrong. I realized one important thing when I was in bed. We people with a disability are no longer liminal beings--the ADA has seen to that and this is evidence of hard fought social change. We people with a disability can have a place in society--we are no longer on the outside looking in. We can force others to make "reasonable accommodations".  This is a battle but the law is on our side. However we are far from equal and I would maintain are "ambiguous people", our existence acknowledged but not necessarily valued or wanted. Thus I am convinced the next step in the evolution of disability rights will entail a social battle for recognition. The law is on our side but society is not. We have an ambiguous identity but that by itself is a sign of major progress. I absolutely look forward to what is to come. And today I am thinking life is sweet.  

Anti Intellectualism: A Rampant Problem

"Greed is good". This well-known line is from the fictional character Gordon Gekko in the 1987 film Wall Street. I was reminded of this line after reading about what Mitt Romney told a group of engineering students at Otterbein University. As many will have heard Romney suggested young people take risk. He said "Take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business". And how much did Romney suggest students borrow? $20,000. This amount was not pulled out of thin air--it was how much the owner of a sandwich chain, Jimmy John's, borrowed from his father to start the business. As expected people have blasted Romney for being out of touch--and for good reason.  The vast majority of parents are either broke or in debt by the time they are finished paying tuition costs. What the vast majority of people have missed is an even more objectionable comment Romney made at a round table discussion with students. Thus the statement about borrowing $20,000 is a red herring.

Speaking to a group of engineering students he told them they were in high demand. High demand meaning they will likely get jobs upon graduation. Romney then speculated about the value of other areas of study and prospects for employment. He stated: "you really don’t want to take out $150,000 loan to go into English because you’re not going to be able to pay it back. You might want to think about something else that meets your interest”.  Romney believed he could make this claim because he was an English major. I could blast Romney as many Democrats have done on borrowing $20,000 from one's parents. Instead, I will comment on why his statement r.e. English majors is significant. Romney clearly believes an degree in English is not worth $150,000 of debt. You can't pay it back. So who can major in English? Only those that can afford it. This is bad enough but Romney's statement I take to be most damning is his suggestion those that cannot afford to major in English study something else. And what would that something else be? Business, engineering, computer science and other majors with perceived "value".  Perceived value here meaning a reasonable chance to get a job and start a career.  By implication majors such as history, anthropology, sociology, english, art history and others have no value. They are not worth $150,000 of debt.

Romney's take on the value of an education is not unusual. To me, it is an indication of a corporate mentality that has firmly gripped higher education, parents and students alike.  Higher education is no longer valued. It is a means to an end. Universities hire people like me--highly educated day laborers with no job security or benefits. Good luck finding a professor with tenure. They are a rarity. More classes are now offered at night than during the day as the vast majority of students are working at least 20 hours a week to pay for tuition. Many of my students miss class because they are forced to work late. Every class I teach has at least one student sitting in the back who struggles not to fall asleep. Students are simply too busy working to put in the needed time and effort to do well in class. I cannot get angry at students--they are likely accumulating major debt to pay for tuition. They are understandably worried.

What I worry about are the broader cultural implications.  That is what does it say about American society when a person like Romney thinks a degree in English is not worth $150,000 of debt. This statement is grossly misleading. I want to know why a college degree is so expensive. I worry about the fact tuition for a four year college education has increased an astounding 827% since 1980. I want to know why student loan debt has increased by 511% since 1999. I want to know why no one is discussing student loan debt that exceeds $1 trillion dollars. When I read these statistics I can think of only one thing--capitalist society is creating a permanent class of people deeply in debt. Worse yet, students in my classes are apathetic. They know exactly what they are doing. They realize the long range implications. The constant refrain I hear from them is always the same: "there is nothing we can do. That's just the way it is".  This sort of deep depression about the future reminds of the origin of Punk music in the 1970s in the UK. In college when depressed I would play the Sex Pistols song God Save the Queen over and over.  It was the unofficial Punk rock anthem. The lyrics seem particularly relevant today:

God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
Potential H-bomb

God save the queen
She ain't no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future, no future,
No future for you

God save the queen
We mean it ma'am
We love our queen
God saves

God save the queen
'Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems

Oh God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
All crimes are paid

When there's no future
How can there be sin
We're the flowers in the dustbin
We're the poison in your human machine
We're the future, your future

God save the queen
We mean it ma'am
We love our queen
God saves

God save the queen
We mean it ma'am
And there is no future
In England's dreaming

No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future,
No future for me

No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future
For you

Is there no future? I do not want to believe this but will readily admit I am worried. I am worried about my students and worried about my son. What will their future hold? These worries are connected to the implications of a Republican victory in the upcoming presidential race.  If Romney wins I fear he will be given a mandate to wage a war on the poor in this country of historic proportions. Republicans, galvanized by a presidential victory, will not just slash the social safety net for the poor but eliminate it entirely. I have no doubt those close to me, people with a disability, will be among the first to be targeted. These are troubling times and we need an educated public that refuses to be misled. Perhaps that English degree is worth it.