Inclusion for disabled people is never easy or welcomed. Progress takes place when disabled people force society to change. The most successful force in my estimation is protest and civil disobedience. Within the disability community the group that has been most successful in this regard is ADAPT. I have the utmost respect for ADAPT--they have been on the front lines of the battle for inclusion for 25 years. This week ADAPT is at it again much to the chagrin of those they target. The target this week was Senator John McCain. At issue is a bill to expand Medicaid coverage to those that want in home care rather than being forced into a nursing home. Sponsored by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter the bill is cosponsored by Clinton and Obama. According to news reports, McCain's Senate Chief of Staff did not know the senators position on the legislation.
ADAPT protests are hard to forget. They are led by Bob Kafka, national organizer, and ADAPT protests are a loud in your face assault. This weeks action was no exception. At least 20 disabled activists were arrested outside McCain's office in the Russell Senate Office Building and charged with unlawful assembly. Apparently McCain was not in Washington when the protest took place. ADAPT chose not to meet with McCain's staff. This should come as no surprise given the fact that McCain's Chief of Staff did not know the senators position on the bill in question. It is unlikely that McCain will ever meet with ADAPT members. This is unfortunate but to be expected as McCain has no interest in disability rights and groupd such as ADAPT.
I am hopefully embedding a short clip from Youtube here--this is my first attempt to include a video on my blog. ADAPT protests must been seen to be understood the power they have. These men and women of ADAPT are of central importance to social change. I think of them every day as I know without them ramps, elevators, lifts, and accessible buses I ride on would not exist if it were not for ADAPT. If there are heroes among the population of disabled people it does not include people like me. Rather it is those disabled people willing to risk the wrath of the government and police and their willingness to be arrested for a cause they believe in.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Berube Writes about Disability and Democracy
Michael Berube is a prolific and gifted scholar I admire very much. His observation about disability in American culture always make me think in new ways and are challenging at multiple levels. I just came across an article he wrote at Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org/2008/04/22/disability-and-democracy/) two days ago. Berube sarcastically writes that it is well past time to write about Obama and Clinton respective views on disability because "(a) no one knows the candidates have policy positions on disability and (b) policy positions on disability are not as important as flag pins." I urge readers to go to Crooked Timber and read what Berube has written as his words are as entertaining as they are thought provoking.
Racism, Segregation and Disability
It has been more than 60 years since Jackie Robinson became the first black man to play major league baseball. On April 15, 1947 Robinson played his first game with the Brooklyn Dodgers ending eighty years of segregation. Every April newspapers print stories about Robinson and the abuse he was subjected to by racists. This year has been no different. Stories about Robinson abound and on April 15 baseball players were permitted to wear the number 42 on their jersey (Major League Baseball retired Robinson's jersey number in 1997). Avid baseball fans are familiar with Robinson accomplishments on and of the field. School children are taught about Robinson's place in history and his refusal to respond to the most vile racist taunts. This year I grew weary of newspaper articles that seemed to focus on peripheral issues such as which current stars elected to wear the number 42 in Robinson's honor. Inspired to learn more, I went on line and came away even more impressed with Robinson's accomplishments. I learned that Robinson was much more than a gifted baseball player whose dignity highlighted the inherent wrongs of segregation. Robinson was a political activist in every sense of the word. For years he wrote a syndicated newspaper column, was an ardent supporter of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King and forerunner of the civil rights movement.
Robinson's efforts were far greater than I had imagined and for the last two weeks have wondered why disability rights activists do not have a person of such character and fame. I have also wondered why disability rights in the broadest sense of the term has utterly failed to connect with other minority groups who encounter abuse, segregation, and purposeful discrimination. This disconnect is unfortunate because disabled people are among the most disenfranchised minority groups in this country (over 66% of all disabled people are unemployed) and are routinely subjected to shameful acts of exclusion and inexpressible cruelties—many of which are legal and socially sanctioned. The average American is taught that racism is wrong but that lesson does not extend to the rights of disabled people. Few care if disabled people are denied an education, segregated from their peers, and socially excluded. This angers me and reminds me of one of Martin Luther King most famous observations that touched millions: "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
King's famous phrase quoted above, was written on April 16, 1963 when King was in an Birmingham, Alabama jail. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” smuggled out of his cell one page at a time is considered a classic in world literature. It served as a clarion call to action because King noted that there were two types of laws—just an unjust. This led King to conclude that “one has the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” and his letter provided the philosophical foundation for the Civil Rights Movement. There are four elements in King's letter that remain relevant today. First, the collection and interpretation of facts and the determination that injustice exists. Second, identification of injustice and a rally cry for change. Third, negotiation with the oppressors designed to eliminate injustice. Fourth, direct action against a specific injustice aimed to force change. All those subjected to injustice based on race or disability know real freedom and equality is never voluntarily given--it must be demanded by the oppressed. This was true in 1947 and 1963 for black men such as Robinson and King and for disabled people today who struggle against social isolation, invisibility, and a legal system that is hostile to disability rights. At issue for disabled people is a moral responsibility to oppose injustice, that is to overturn unjust laws and social norms or codes that compel and force them to obey social strictures that are inherently wrong. For instance, there was no logical reason for blacks to be ordered to sit in the back of the bus while whites sat in front. Likewise, all new mass transportation systems should be fully accessible to disabled people and there is no need for para-transit systems to exist.
In spite of two decades of activism and the passage of much legislation, segregation from mainstream society remains an all too common form of segregation disabled people encounter. The Americans with Disability Act, passed over seventeen years ago, was designed to prohibit discrimination against disabled people in terms of employment and requires most businesses and public spaces to take “reasonable” steps to accommodate them. Thus the ADA is comparable to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that, by establishing equal rights for minorities, provided a weapon for those struggling against injustice. While the Civil Rights Act has benefited many, it did not end injustice based on racial differences. Similarly, the ADA has benefited many but when the gains are measured against the gritty day to day reality disable people experience the law merely highlights the injustices that still exist. Thus I question what is the real value of the ADA and whether it is a just or unjust law. Needless social and architectural obstacles are the norm; for example elevators, if present, are made useless because they are locked; wheelchair lifts are often used to store trash, and bus drivers do not know how to operate a lift even though they are required by law to test it before they begin their work day. Such social and architectural injustices are accepted as inevitable, overlooked, and excused. This has led law makers to try and pass the ADA Restoration Act, an effort that amounts to tacit admission that the ADA had been gutted by the Supreme Court and that the law has failed to resonate with the general public.
King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” conjured up images of all that was inherently wrong with racial segregation. Robinson's skills on a baseball diamond and dignity off the field did much the same. The laws that upheld segregation were clearly unjust and overturned by nonviolent direct action. Fighting against injustice now has universal appeal and King’s words serve as a reminder of how debilitating injustice is on the minds of all humans who experience it. Given this, King’s words still serve us well as they have inspired a new generation to bring gross injustices to the surface so that they can be seen, opposed and vanquished. The battle against injustice is long and arduous but with perseverance disabled people world wide will some day win.
Robinson's efforts were far greater than I had imagined and for the last two weeks have wondered why disability rights activists do not have a person of such character and fame. I have also wondered why disability rights in the broadest sense of the term has utterly failed to connect with other minority groups who encounter abuse, segregation, and purposeful discrimination. This disconnect is unfortunate because disabled people are among the most disenfranchised minority groups in this country (over 66% of all disabled people are unemployed) and are routinely subjected to shameful acts of exclusion and inexpressible cruelties—many of which are legal and socially sanctioned. The average American is taught that racism is wrong but that lesson does not extend to the rights of disabled people. Few care if disabled people are denied an education, segregated from their peers, and socially excluded. This angers me and reminds me of one of Martin Luther King most famous observations that touched millions: "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
King's famous phrase quoted above, was written on April 16, 1963 when King was in an Birmingham, Alabama jail. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” smuggled out of his cell one page at a time is considered a classic in world literature. It served as a clarion call to action because King noted that there were two types of laws—just an unjust. This led King to conclude that “one has the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” and his letter provided the philosophical foundation for the Civil Rights Movement. There are four elements in King's letter that remain relevant today. First, the collection and interpretation of facts and the determination that injustice exists. Second, identification of injustice and a rally cry for change. Third, negotiation with the oppressors designed to eliminate injustice. Fourth, direct action against a specific injustice aimed to force change. All those subjected to injustice based on race or disability know real freedom and equality is never voluntarily given--it must be demanded by the oppressed. This was true in 1947 and 1963 for black men such as Robinson and King and for disabled people today who struggle against social isolation, invisibility, and a legal system that is hostile to disability rights. At issue for disabled people is a moral responsibility to oppose injustice, that is to overturn unjust laws and social norms or codes that compel and force them to obey social strictures that are inherently wrong. For instance, there was no logical reason for blacks to be ordered to sit in the back of the bus while whites sat in front. Likewise, all new mass transportation systems should be fully accessible to disabled people and there is no need for para-transit systems to exist.
In spite of two decades of activism and the passage of much legislation, segregation from mainstream society remains an all too common form of segregation disabled people encounter. The Americans with Disability Act, passed over seventeen years ago, was designed to prohibit discrimination against disabled people in terms of employment and requires most businesses and public spaces to take “reasonable” steps to accommodate them. Thus the ADA is comparable to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that, by establishing equal rights for minorities, provided a weapon for those struggling against injustice. While the Civil Rights Act has benefited many, it did not end injustice based on racial differences. Similarly, the ADA has benefited many but when the gains are measured against the gritty day to day reality disable people experience the law merely highlights the injustices that still exist. Thus I question what is the real value of the ADA and whether it is a just or unjust law. Needless social and architectural obstacles are the norm; for example elevators, if present, are made useless because they are locked; wheelchair lifts are often used to store trash, and bus drivers do not know how to operate a lift even though they are required by law to test it before they begin their work day. Such social and architectural injustices are accepted as inevitable, overlooked, and excused. This has led law makers to try and pass the ADA Restoration Act, an effort that amounts to tacit admission that the ADA had been gutted by the Supreme Court and that the law has failed to resonate with the general public.
King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” conjured up images of all that was inherently wrong with racial segregation. Robinson's skills on a baseball diamond and dignity off the field did much the same. The laws that upheld segregation were clearly unjust and overturned by nonviolent direct action. Fighting against injustice now has universal appeal and King’s words serve as a reminder of how debilitating injustice is on the minds of all humans who experience it. Given this, King’s words still serve us well as they have inspired a new generation to bring gross injustices to the surface so that they can be seen, opposed and vanquished. The battle against injustice is long and arduous but with perseverance disabled people world wide will some day win.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
An Example the New York Times Can Follow
Yesterday I posted an entry on my blog that was critical of the New York Times. This was not the first time I have taken an article in the New York Times to task. I do not anticipate it will be the last time I am critical of this influential national paper that seems to invariably screw up all stories about disability related topics. A friend sent me an email after reading my blog and asked if I had read any recent stories in the mainstream press that did not warrant such a stinging critique like the one I gave the New York Times. It did not take too long to come up with an affirmative response.
Although not of the same stature of the New York Times, I read an article in Diveristyinc entitled "7 Things NEVER to Say to People with Disabilities". Normally I do not like such lists but this article by Daryl Hannah was an exception. The author did her homework, talked to people at the National Organization on Disability and made a concerted effort to not only inform potential employers about possible pitfalls when interviewing a disabled person but provided U.S. Census Bureau data about the number of disabled people in the work force. More personally, I have been asked each of the seven things Ms. Hannah listed that should not be said to people with disabilities. Each and every question is rude, intrusive, and grossly inappropriate to ask any person who is or is not disabled.
It would be easy for me to quibble about some things Ms. Hannah wrote. However, the general points she made were on target, perfectly suited for a large or small company that might be seeking to hire a disabled employee. Given Ms. Hannah's probable audience, people who work in human resources that have little knowledge of disability, her article is constructive and likely to prevent a potential employer from inadvertently asking an insulting question. If Diversityinc can publish an informative article about disability surely the New York Times and other major media outlets can do so as well. Until that happens I will keep on reading the New York Times and skewering them when needed.
Although not of the same stature of the New York Times, I read an article in Diveristyinc entitled "7 Things NEVER to Say to People with Disabilities". Normally I do not like such lists but this article by Daryl Hannah was an exception. The author did her homework, talked to people at the National Organization on Disability and made a concerted effort to not only inform potential employers about possible pitfalls when interviewing a disabled person but provided U.S. Census Bureau data about the number of disabled people in the work force. More personally, I have been asked each of the seven things Ms. Hannah listed that should not be said to people with disabilities. Each and every question is rude, intrusive, and grossly inappropriate to ask any person who is or is not disabled.
It would be easy for me to quibble about some things Ms. Hannah wrote. However, the general points she made were on target, perfectly suited for a large or small company that might be seeking to hire a disabled employee. Given Ms. Hannah's probable audience, people who work in human resources that have little knowledge of disability, her article is constructive and likely to prevent a potential employer from inadvertently asking an insulting question. If Diversityinc can publish an informative article about disability surely the New York Times and other major media outlets can do so as well. Until that happens I will keep on reading the New York Times and skewering them when needed.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
New York Times and Rich Cripples
The New York Times has a penchant for publishing amazingly demeaning articles about people who are disabled. A friend sent me a link to an article published last Sunday that took demeaning to an entirely new level. The article was published April 13 and should have appeared in Town and Country. In a special Sunday section, Habitats, an article by Celia Barbour appeared about Bronxville, NY. Entitled "A Place to Get Better and Thrive", the article was as thoughtless as it was vacuous--a life styles of the rich and famous about a wealthy man, Francesco Clark who has been a quadriplegic for six years.
By the second paragraph I knew the article would be dreadful. Mr. Clark is an ambassador for the Christopher Reeve foundation a sure sign that he is oblivious to the civil rights of disabled people. In the article readers are informed Mr. Clark was injured in a swimming accident six years ago and is a quadriplegic. Readers are told tidbits about Mr. Clark's life that include the fact he traveled to China for stem cell surgery, lives in an opulent home in Bronxville, and that two years ago he spent $35,000 converting the family garage into a gym. Mr. Clark is characterized as "well-to-do-enough to afford top-notch treatment" and that he learned Spanish to help him communicate with some of his caretakers. He also comes from a long line of doctors and inherited a creative outlook toward healing.
Obviously Mr. Clark is wealthy. I do not begrudge Mr. Clark his wealth but I sure do question his penchant for surrounding himself with others who share his outlook and interest in innovative treatments and clinical trials. These are the same buzz words and "interests" that Mr. Reeve used to distance himself from other disabled people who did not share the economic power these men clearly enjoy.
In sharp contrast to Mr. Clark, I am far more interested in the economic and social reality that most disabled people are forced to confront. Statistics demonstrate that the vast majority of paralyzed people in this country are unemployed, live at or below the poverty level, cannot afford substandard health care, and many quadriplegics such as Mr. Clark have no choice but to live in a nursing home. Few paralyzed people can afford to purchase state of the art exercise equipment and hire local trainers to work with them for hours on end. Mr. Clark exclaims that the result of his hard work has left "medical community dumbfounded by my progress" (similar claims were made by Mr. Reeve). Perhaps doctors would not be surprised by Mr. Clark's condition if they knew more about the grim social and economic conditions most paralyzed people deal with. I know not a single individual that can afford to live the life Mr. Clark leads.
It is obvious to me that Mr. Clark is using his wealth to insulate himself from other disabled people. In many ways I cannot blame him for who wants to deal with stigma, economic deprivation, and social isolation. Money can buy many things but it cannot purchase equality even for Mr. Clark. Ms. Barbour's article contains many unfortunate phrases such as "confined to a wheelchair" that demean not just Mr. Clark but all paralyzed people. Ms. Barbour is also blissfully unaware of the difference between a medical and social model of disability. She writes that doctors expected Mr. Clark to "accept his fate, curb his expectations, and get used to living on the margins". No such message is sent by the medical community. Based on my experiences as a paralyzed man for the last 30 years doctors are unaware of such social obstacles. The idea that disabled people have limited lives is a social norm enforced by ordinary citizens--your neighbors and mine. Disabled people are marginalized by a social system that denies them their humanity by placing needless obstacles in their way. Sure no one wakes up and thinks I am against the disabled--the social oppression is sanitized and rationalized in a myriad of ways that makes it palatable. Thus people are not bigots but rather fiscally responsible when they refuse to include expenses that provide equal transportation for disabled students in a given school system.
What I hope to see in the New York Times someday is an article about the social and economic variables that prevent equality for all that have some sort of physical deficit. I want to read an article about average people that do not live in Bronxville but rather in a nursing home because they cannot afford a personal attendant at home to assist them with routine aspects of daily life. This is a gripping story and a human rights violation that the New York Times chooses to overlook and conspicuously ignores. I guess fluff pieces like the one penned by Ms. Barbour sell papers.
By the second paragraph I knew the article would be dreadful. Mr. Clark is an ambassador for the Christopher Reeve foundation a sure sign that he is oblivious to the civil rights of disabled people. In the article readers are informed Mr. Clark was injured in a swimming accident six years ago and is a quadriplegic. Readers are told tidbits about Mr. Clark's life that include the fact he traveled to China for stem cell surgery, lives in an opulent home in Bronxville, and that two years ago he spent $35,000 converting the family garage into a gym. Mr. Clark is characterized as "well-to-do-enough to afford top-notch treatment" and that he learned Spanish to help him communicate with some of his caretakers. He also comes from a long line of doctors and inherited a creative outlook toward healing.
Obviously Mr. Clark is wealthy. I do not begrudge Mr. Clark his wealth but I sure do question his penchant for surrounding himself with others who share his outlook and interest in innovative treatments and clinical trials. These are the same buzz words and "interests" that Mr. Reeve used to distance himself from other disabled people who did not share the economic power these men clearly enjoy.
In sharp contrast to Mr. Clark, I am far more interested in the economic and social reality that most disabled people are forced to confront. Statistics demonstrate that the vast majority of paralyzed people in this country are unemployed, live at or below the poverty level, cannot afford substandard health care, and many quadriplegics such as Mr. Clark have no choice but to live in a nursing home. Few paralyzed people can afford to purchase state of the art exercise equipment and hire local trainers to work with them for hours on end. Mr. Clark exclaims that the result of his hard work has left "medical community dumbfounded by my progress" (similar claims were made by Mr. Reeve). Perhaps doctors would not be surprised by Mr. Clark's condition if they knew more about the grim social and economic conditions most paralyzed people deal with. I know not a single individual that can afford to live the life Mr. Clark leads.
It is obvious to me that Mr. Clark is using his wealth to insulate himself from other disabled people. In many ways I cannot blame him for who wants to deal with stigma, economic deprivation, and social isolation. Money can buy many things but it cannot purchase equality even for Mr. Clark. Ms. Barbour's article contains many unfortunate phrases such as "confined to a wheelchair" that demean not just Mr. Clark but all paralyzed people. Ms. Barbour is also blissfully unaware of the difference between a medical and social model of disability. She writes that doctors expected Mr. Clark to "accept his fate, curb his expectations, and get used to living on the margins". No such message is sent by the medical community. Based on my experiences as a paralyzed man for the last 30 years doctors are unaware of such social obstacles. The idea that disabled people have limited lives is a social norm enforced by ordinary citizens--your neighbors and mine. Disabled people are marginalized by a social system that denies them their humanity by placing needless obstacles in their way. Sure no one wakes up and thinks I am against the disabled--the social oppression is sanitized and rationalized in a myriad of ways that makes it palatable. Thus people are not bigots but rather fiscally responsible when they refuse to include expenses that provide equal transportation for disabled students in a given school system.
What I hope to see in the New York Times someday is an article about the social and economic variables that prevent equality for all that have some sort of physical deficit. I want to read an article about average people that do not live in Bronxville but rather in a nursing home because they cannot afford a personal attendant at home to assist them with routine aspects of daily life. This is a gripping story and a human rights violation that the New York Times chooses to overlook and conspicuously ignores. I guess fluff pieces like the one penned by Ms. Barbour sell papers.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Obama and Clinton
I just finished reading two interesting articles about Obama and Clinton. The first article was by Nat Hentoff in the Sacramento Bee entitled "Barack Obama vs. Terry Schiavo" and the second by Stephen Drake at Not Dead Yet entitled "Hilary Clinton says Assisted Suicide is Appropriate Right to Have". Each article raises serious concerns with regard to the depth of knowledge Obama and Clinton have on disability rights. My expectations for Obama and Clinton are minimal at best--disability rights are not a priority for either candidate and there has not been one substantive discussion in the mainstream media about disability rights during the election campaign. I do not expect this to change any time soon. I am also aware it is simply too late in the tight campaign race to alienate voters hence I doubt Obama or Clinton will take a firm stand on any issue. But this has not stopped Obama or Clinton from annoying me to no end.
In the February 26 debate Obama and Clinton were asked if they would take back any of their votes made as public servants. Obama replied that he regretted congress interjected itself in the Schiavo case. Obama stated he thought this was a mistake, that the American people knew it was a mistake, and that as a professor of constitutional law he knew it was a mistake. The Shiavo case was handled miserably by the mainstream press. Aside from sensational headlines, few will recall that the real issue was not a right to die case as Nat Hentoff put it but a "right to continue living". Shiavo's parents and her ex husband did not help clarify the issues--indeed I for one thought they behaved quite poorly. What was never mentioned or discussed was the implications of letting the courts decide if Shiavo would live or die. A quick internet search reveals that every major disability rights group in the country was opposed to removing Shiavo's feeing tube thereby killing her. Disabled people are all too well aware that society devalues their lives and the Schivo case served as a reminder of this unacknowledged social fact. Obama should stand behind his original vote in the senate and think long and hard before he changes his mind.
As for Clinton, she sure lost my vote (not that she had it to begin with) when she stated that assisted suicide was an appropriate right to have. Of course, this statement contained multiple contradictions and refers to Oregon's assisted suicide law. Just like Obama failed, Clinton needed to conduct a quick search of assisted suicide and the handiwork of the notorious convicted Jack Kevorkian. Had she done so such a search would have revealed that those who commit suicide are not the terminally ill but often disabled people with a physical or cognitive deficit. The Oregon law has "safeguards" built into the law but somehow I do not trust the state to make an effort to help me when my life as a disabled person already has less value than bipedal citizens. Here I cannot help but note that Oregon's abutting state of Washington failed to protect Ashley X who was sterilized, an action that broke the law.
The two articles about Obama and Clinton underscore the degree to which they are both ignorant about disability rights. Another possibility is that they are stating what the mainstream press and American population wants to hear. What is very clear is that they are not pandering to disabled voters--indeed, they have no interest in them at all. As I have pointed out previously Obama and Clinton do not even bother to post information about disabled access at campaign events--and in this failure they have lots of company as not one candidate posts this information. To me, this is infuriating. While I do not like Clinton, I have no doubt she is a smart charismatic woman who has surrounded herself with a professional campaign staff. Obama too is very smart, a gifted speaker and has a professional campaign staff. Why then are Obama and Clinton unaware of disability rights? The skeptic in me thinks it is because number crunchers have told them that disabled people are among the poorest and most disenfranchised minority groups in the country. Not a single influential, rich, Hollywood figure exists among the disabled. Perhaps Obama and Clinton simply do not care. If this is the case they are typical Americans for few care about the rights of disabled people. This fact is thrust upon me every day when I leave my home and encounter needles social and architectural obstacles that were supposed to be made illegal by the ADA--a law the Supreme Court has done its level best to gut. Ugh, today is a frustrating day one in which I am not enamored with my fellow citizens or elected officials.
In the February 26 debate Obama and Clinton were asked if they would take back any of their votes made as public servants. Obama replied that he regretted congress interjected itself in the Schiavo case. Obama stated he thought this was a mistake, that the American people knew it was a mistake, and that as a professor of constitutional law he knew it was a mistake. The Shiavo case was handled miserably by the mainstream press. Aside from sensational headlines, few will recall that the real issue was not a right to die case as Nat Hentoff put it but a "right to continue living". Shiavo's parents and her ex husband did not help clarify the issues--indeed I for one thought they behaved quite poorly. What was never mentioned or discussed was the implications of letting the courts decide if Shiavo would live or die. A quick internet search reveals that every major disability rights group in the country was opposed to removing Shiavo's feeing tube thereby killing her. Disabled people are all too well aware that society devalues their lives and the Schivo case served as a reminder of this unacknowledged social fact. Obama should stand behind his original vote in the senate and think long and hard before he changes his mind.
As for Clinton, she sure lost my vote (not that she had it to begin with) when she stated that assisted suicide was an appropriate right to have. Of course, this statement contained multiple contradictions and refers to Oregon's assisted suicide law. Just like Obama failed, Clinton needed to conduct a quick search of assisted suicide and the handiwork of the notorious convicted Jack Kevorkian. Had she done so such a search would have revealed that those who commit suicide are not the terminally ill but often disabled people with a physical or cognitive deficit. The Oregon law has "safeguards" built into the law but somehow I do not trust the state to make an effort to help me when my life as a disabled person already has less value than bipedal citizens. Here I cannot help but note that Oregon's abutting state of Washington failed to protect Ashley X who was sterilized, an action that broke the law.
The two articles about Obama and Clinton underscore the degree to which they are both ignorant about disability rights. Another possibility is that they are stating what the mainstream press and American population wants to hear. What is very clear is that they are not pandering to disabled voters--indeed, they have no interest in them at all. As I have pointed out previously Obama and Clinton do not even bother to post information about disabled access at campaign events--and in this failure they have lots of company as not one candidate posts this information. To me, this is infuriating. While I do not like Clinton, I have no doubt she is a smart charismatic woman who has surrounded herself with a professional campaign staff. Obama too is very smart, a gifted speaker and has a professional campaign staff. Why then are Obama and Clinton unaware of disability rights? The skeptic in me thinks it is because number crunchers have told them that disabled people are among the poorest and most disenfranchised minority groups in the country. Not a single influential, rich, Hollywood figure exists among the disabled. Perhaps Obama and Clinton simply do not care. If this is the case they are typical Americans for few care about the rights of disabled people. This fact is thrust upon me every day when I leave my home and encounter needles social and architectural obstacles that were supposed to be made illegal by the ADA--a law the Supreme Court has done its level best to gut. Ugh, today is a frustrating day one in which I am not enamored with my fellow citizens or elected officials.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
David Paterson: Governor of NY
This blog post heading omitted one fact that is not relevant. As all New Yorkers must know David Paterson is not just a democrat, black, and the new governor of the state. Drum roll please... yes he is blind. Oh my, the headlines have been oh so cute and comments oh so stupid. My favorite stupid comment was made by a radio commentator who I refuse to name that wondered "how can a blind man lead the state when he cannot even see where he is walking". This was not a joke and I cringe when I pick up a newspaper these days. The catchy headlines and bad puns about blindness do not bother me. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, tabloids like the NY Daily News and NY Post have all been guilty of being too cute for my taste. But hey, the headlines sure do sell papers.
What angers me about the news reports are that David Paterson is always identified as blind. At first I thought this was great and hoped disability matters might be discussed with a level of seriousness. Wrong and I have quickly grown weary and depressed. The mainstream media thinks David Paterson is amazing. Wow, a blind man is the governor! Wow, the blind governor made a great speech! The blind governor got a standing ovation! The blind man who is governor ran in a marathon! The blind governor is a lawyer! The blind governor is married! The blind governor had an affair! Oops, maybe I should have left out the affair the blind governor had or the prostitutes his predecessor Customer #9 visited.
My overwhelming sarcasm above has served as a reminder for two facts: first, that mainstream media outlets always cater to the lowest common denominator. Second, society always sees a disability first and the human being with a disability second. This conveniently lets society off the hook for placing needless obstacles in the way of people who are blind or have another type of disability. Does anyone with vision (pun intended) care to understand why 70% of blind people are unemployed? Do bipedal citizens care that 66% of all people with a disability are unemployed in our country? These are grim facts that are quickly and silently swept under the carpet. Thinking about the astronomical unemployment rates and rampant poverty experienced by disabled people makes others uncomfortable. So, instead the media and average citizen laud over disabled people who overcome their disability. I can assure you I for one never think this way because if I have overcome anything it is bigotry and ignorance of my peers. I have not overcome my disability because there is nothing to overcome in this regard. What I have overcome is the assumption that I cannot do anything with my life--that the ordinary, marriage, family, a career are not possible for people like me or David Paterson. Why do people think this way? I wish I knew because I have spent most of my adult life trying to figure this out.
I do not want to be paralyzed and I assume David Paterson does not want to be blind. But who is ever really completely happy with their body and position in life. I wish my teeth were straighter; I wish my son got better grades in school; I wish I could afford to do many things that are beyond my economic reach. What is not on this wish list is the desire to walk. What I wish for is something I have been working toward my entire life: to be treated equally and not be defined by my wheelchair. I suspect David Paterson feels the same about being blind and is just as annoyed with the media as I am. He has, afterall, stated that his blindness created more problems for him than did the color of his skin. Now this is an astute observation that no one has thought worth following up on.
What angers me about the news reports are that David Paterson is always identified as blind. At first I thought this was great and hoped disability matters might be discussed with a level of seriousness. Wrong and I have quickly grown weary and depressed. The mainstream media thinks David Paterson is amazing. Wow, a blind man is the governor! Wow, the blind governor made a great speech! The blind governor got a standing ovation! The blind man who is governor ran in a marathon! The blind governor is a lawyer! The blind governor is married! The blind governor had an affair! Oops, maybe I should have left out the affair the blind governor had or the prostitutes his predecessor Customer #9 visited.
My overwhelming sarcasm above has served as a reminder for two facts: first, that mainstream media outlets always cater to the lowest common denominator. Second, society always sees a disability first and the human being with a disability second. This conveniently lets society off the hook for placing needless obstacles in the way of people who are blind or have another type of disability. Does anyone with vision (pun intended) care to understand why 70% of blind people are unemployed? Do bipedal citizens care that 66% of all people with a disability are unemployed in our country? These are grim facts that are quickly and silently swept under the carpet. Thinking about the astronomical unemployment rates and rampant poverty experienced by disabled people makes others uncomfortable. So, instead the media and average citizen laud over disabled people who overcome their disability. I can assure you I for one never think this way because if I have overcome anything it is bigotry and ignorance of my peers. I have not overcome my disability because there is nothing to overcome in this regard. What I have overcome is the assumption that I cannot do anything with my life--that the ordinary, marriage, family, a career are not possible for people like me or David Paterson. Why do people think this way? I wish I knew because I have spent most of my adult life trying to figure this out.
I do not want to be paralyzed and I assume David Paterson does not want to be blind. But who is ever really completely happy with their body and position in life. I wish my teeth were straighter; I wish my son got better grades in school; I wish I could afford to do many things that are beyond my economic reach. What is not on this wish list is the desire to walk. What I wish for is something I have been working toward my entire life: to be treated equally and not be defined by my wheelchair. I suspect David Paterson feels the same about being blind and is just as annoyed with the media as I am. He has, afterall, stated that his blindness created more problems for him than did the color of his skin. Now this is an astute observation that no one has thought worth following up on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)