Lieslmcq

Byeeeeeee!

2008-10-16T00:15:00Z

I believe it is time for me to be on my way. I've met some very cool people and I have enjoyed most of my time on Disaboom. I wish Disaboom and all of its members success and happiness.

To continue to read my blog or keep in contact, I can always be found here: www.clottedcognition.com

Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to die on it

2008-10-02T05:46:00Z

I just received this action alert from The American Association of People with Disabilities:

Blind activists plan protest of movie "Blindness" The article linked in the alert states:

Blind people quarantined in a mental asylum, attacking each other, soiling themselves, trading sex for food. For Marc Maurer, who's blind, such a scenario — as shown in the movie "Blindness" — is not a clever allegory for a breakdown in society.

Instead, it's an offensive and chilling depiction that Maurer fears could undermine efforts to integrate blind people into the mainstream.

"The movie portrays blind people as monsters, and I believe it to be a lie," said Maurer, president of the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind. "Blindness doesn't turn decent people into monsters."

Oh, come on. Really?After the unsuccessful and counterproductive Tropic Thunder protests this just seems to be protest for protest's sake.

I read Blindness. I didn't like it. I don't remember why I didn't like it, but I suspect I thought it was boring and overwrought. It was a commentary on how horrible humans are and the depths to which we will sink if we are desperate. It was NOT commentary on blind people or blindness in general. Blindness can often be a word used to describe someone who does not see reality, or chooses not to. We are blind to our own follies much of the time though we may be able to physically see. This, it seems, is the intent of the social commentary in Blindness. To say that it is a movie that portrays the blind as monsters is like saying that the latest Batman movie portrays bats as ethically conflicted. It misses the point and it indulges in a sort of self absorption that should make us cringe.

The idea that the movie portrays blind people as unable to care for themselves is, again, missing the point. Is it willful, I wonder? Of course blind people can care for themselves and of course they are often portrayed as not being able to care for themselves. Imagine instead that a person who has always been blind is suddenly able to see; the confusion would be tremendous, don't you think? I would imagine there would be anger associated with it as we do tend to get angry at unavoidable things when we're frustrated. Now imagine that everyone around you is in the same situation. That would certainly create quite a bit of chaos. Chances are good it would bring out the best and worst in people. If you turn this around and take people who have always had sight and suddenly make them blind, the result would be the same. It's true that if you lose one of your senses you must relearn many of the things required to take care of yourself; if everyone around you is going through the exact same thing, imagine the confusion! Imagine the desperation. Now you have the gist of the plot of Blindness. It has nothing to do with not being able to see and everything to do with a cynical view of humanity. Maybe the Optimists Club should protest the movie, too.

There are things in this world that are worth fighting. Aside from issues of poverty and violence, I think there are offensive things people say and do that represent hills we should be willing to die on. We might all choose a different hill, but the fight remains the same for all of us. We fight these battles because we believe the issue is one that contains so much significance that it will make the world a better place if this thing changes. Disability and the way the disabled are treated is one of my hills. It's a newer hill of mine, but it is one I believe is worth the fight because I have experienced the prejudice associated with disability and the callous disregard of the disabled many people unthinkingly display. In connection to my belief in biological equality, the movement to recognize equity no matter the level of ability is something I think serves everyone in equal measure; whether we need it now or later, or whether someone we love needs it, disability and the respect we all deserve is an intimate partner in all of our lives.

So, this hill... it is a steep one. I find myself indulging in despair when I watch a young woman whip into a handicap spot and then run across campus. Or, when I go to the state fair to volunteer for my college only to be told that the handicap parking is, literally, two miles away from the entrance to the fair (as all closer parking was taken, mostly by people who did not have plates or placards). I believe that the only solution to these things is the rule of law. I know that because I also believe that people who would so callously disregard the well being of others to the point of illegally parking in handicap spots must not be people you can logically or emotionally convince that what they are doing is wrong. It is such an easy issue to decide that I fear that anyone who has decided that it is ok for them to do it is beyond the hope of intervention. So, law it is.*

All of that said, all of that contemplated, I must say that the hill of protest about how blind people are portrayed in Blindness is not a hill worth dying on because it is not a hill at all. You see, there are no blind people in Blindness. It is a temporary epidemic and one that is pervasive. Very few people retain their sight during the epidemic and everyone gets their sight back in the end. It is not a book about the blind. The hill of this movie is one of cynicism over humanity and, perhaps, artistic indiscretion. All this protest will do for blind people or people with disabilities in general is make us look like whiners and people who choose extreme political correctness over artistic freedom. That is not a role we should want to inhabit.

And another thing: the way these things change, the misconceptions people have about us, is by our own action, not by our complaints about other people's actions. We will not convince people to portray the disabled as strong, capable human beings if we are so easily offended and if we choose to spend our time protesting things that are not relevant. Rather than shouting about how bad a thing seems, we should be out there changing the actuality. We are demonstrating a level of self absorption in these protests that excludes reason and forces others to live in a world of our making. I'm offended by Carlos Mencia, as I've already mentioned; does that mean, though, that I want him pulled from Comedy Central and I will protest him if he comes to Dallas? Of course not. Rather, I work to make sure people that I know and influence know what it is like to live as a disabled American. I choose the conversation and I choose how I am represented rather than allowing Carlos Mencia to set the tone of the debate. This is the exact thing the Blindness protestors should be doing, but are not. In the end, they are making us look worse and reinforcing the misguided stereotype that many able bodied people have of the disabled being people who want preferential treatment. In truth, I am disgusted by the behavior of these protestors and I hope they change their minds.

*A police officer at the fair told me they are now allowed to issue citations, not just parking tickets for people who illegally park in handicap spots. Positive change in action, not just words.

Picture credit

Wrong, just wrong

2008-09-29T03:24:00Z

Whatever the obscurity of our condition

2008-09-26T00:01:00Z

I know I've been a bad blogger. I've been trying to write something about something that happened last week but I've been unable to finish it. You're devastated, I'm sure.

In looking through my sent mail file for all of the smear emails I've gotten about Barack Obama to send to their watchdog team, I found something I responded to. I wrote the response that I did in an effort to show that this kind of thinking is just silly. I no more believe the things I wrote about people who are voting for a Republican than I believe the things written about people who are voting for a Democrat. I remain convinced that if when we continue to think this way and treat others this way we are dooming our country. We think we're teensy islands living in a cluster of other teensy islands. It just doesn't work that way.

This sort of overweaning stereotyping has the potential to start another civil war. Yes, I think it is that serious.

Because I watch TV and I am Very Informed. Because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would. Because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it. Because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people. Because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

Because I'm not concerned with the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep death row inmates alive. Because I believe business should be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as it sees fit. Because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters. Because I believe that open borders and government give-aways to foreigners is a great way to grow a nation. Because I'm way too irresponsible to own and a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. Because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse. Because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't. And because I love CHANGE.

And now, here is my response:

Why I'm voting for a Republican in a Democratic election

Because I watch TV and I'm very informed, but not informed enough to know that "democratic" is an adjective and "very informed" is not a case sensitive phrase. Because I believe the government has no right to the money I earn, even though I earn money because I live in society governed by, um, government. Because freedom of speech is fine as long as you're not criticizing the United States or its President, as long as I agree with him, of course. Because I know that killing and torturing more and more people will make the bad guys want to submit to our will because people don't fight back when they're being harmed. Because I believe that the ice caps only appear to be smaller because my Humvee is so much bigger and science is all theoretical anyway. I intend to prove it by jumping off of the earth.

Because I believe killing is only wrong when the person being killed is innocent in every way. Because I believe that businesses should be allowed to make profits for themselves in any way possible and not have to pay for the right to do business in society; those who can't do as well as upper management don't really matter anyway. After all, there are more where they came from but the Ken Lays of the world are too precious to squander. Because the majority always makes the best decision and checks and balances are unnecessary. Because I believe that the Constitution is rewritten by the legislative branch, not amended by the Congress. Because I believe that opening the borders for my family was ok but opening them for other people is not. Because I know that I am responsible enough to own a semiautomatic weapon that can kill dozens of people at once for all of those group home invasions we experience and the police are worthless in their ability to protect me and mine. Because I love the fact that I know all about my neighbors' sex lives and can force them to be like me, or else. I've decided to marry Britney Spears today, divorce her tomorrow, then marry Angelina Jolie the next day. I'll stay with Angie as long as she's hot and then begin an affair with a much younger woman and leave my no longer hot wife, only agreeing to pay her dramatic medical bills after a strange-talking Texas man publicly shames me into doing so. Because I believe that "revenue" and "profit" are the same thing. I am voting for a Republican because people are like taxes: it doesn't matter if paying a proportional amount of taxes for the privilege of living in society will force a vast number of people onto the streets or worse; those people are nothing more than write offs anyway. And because I love STANDING STILL!

I went way over the hyperbolic edge on this one to prove a point. These things are flat out stupid. Yes, I said it! they're STUPID.

Picture credit

So long

2008-09-14T00:47:00Z

Today is a very, very sad day. Aside from obviously wishing everyone in the path of hurricane Ike well and hoping for a complete lack of loss of life or injury, there is one casualty of the storm that is to be noted. It isn't a place most people have visited and it isn't a place that is necessary for anything other than nostalgia and a good night out. But it is a place that I have always loved. The Balinese Room in Galveston, Texas has been destroyed.

This was the Balinese Room:

This is what's left:

I hadn't been to the Balinese Room in many years, but I loved it for its exotic if decrepit decor. It was dark and hushed when I was there, reminding me that the grandeur of the place was in the past but still resonated in the walls of its history. All of the great acts of the 1940s and 50s played at the Balinese Room; it was one of the best known and most glamorous nightclubs in Texas, if not the country. I didn't know all of that when I was there as a child; all I knew was that it was a place of damaged luxury. I have often wondered if it was that brief trip into the past of the Balinese Room was the catalyst for my love of 1940s and 50s design. Did the exotic textures and decayed decadence sear themselves into my ideas of what glamour and beauty should look like? I think it did work that way. I think that my Draperized view of what the world should look like is nothing more than the imprints of awe struck by the larger than life structure on a small child.

Picture credits:

1
2
3

Son of a badger keeper!

2008-09-11T18:32:00Z

What next?? I have freaking gallstones! Why do I have gallstones, you ask? (you might ask this if you knew that I have amazingly good cholesterol levels) Wellllllllllll... it's a good indication that I do, in fact, have PBC. Remember that? We were freaking out about it a year or so ago, I think. When I changed the focus of this blog I went back to the beginning and either deleted a bunch of posts or changed their content to Monty Python videos. It won't make sense to anyone who hasn't followed along but that doesn't really matter. I did save all of the posts but I can't remember the document name and I am not going looking just so I can find the date for my last PBC scare. Anyway... I'm not going to worry about something that isn't an issue right now. Hey, this just means I have to stay away from fatty foods and there's some good in that.

I am so freaking sick of arguing with people about politics. I don't mind having a reasoned discourse but I am finding that many people have no desire to discuss things with any other consequence than hurting others. I always thought that the purpose of a discussion, however it is held, is to trade viewpoints and add information to our base of knowledge. That isn't so much the case these days. While I continue to offer reasoned responses to positions made all I get in return is belittled and called an elitist. Apparently being logical and smart is a bad thing, now. We've already been over this but it bears going over again until we get it right.

If you are smart you are not better than people who are not smart; but if that's true, if you are not smart you are not better than people who are smart. The same is true of education with one caveat: educated people will necessarily have more knowledge from which to act and we want those people in charge because of that larger base of knowledge. That does not mean all educated people will be better leaders or even use their education wisely, but it is true that the more information you have, the more you are able to evaluate a situation justly. This derision of intelligence as being elitist is simply baffling. Would we want a doctor who proudly declares his derision of new fangled surgery methods in favor of the old school bite-on-the-stick-for-the-pain method? Of course not. We also wouldn't want a doctor who is so sure of his expertise that he forgets the basic necessity of working for the patient rather than for his own benefit. Either extreme is simply not something we seek as good for us or our interests.

I suppose the problem I really have is with the extremes we've decided are the defining characteristics of politics. Rather than discussing what is best for the country we've begun discussing what is best for us and the people we know. We have forgotten that we are not in this just for our own interests and that our interests do not represent the rest of society. I have nothing in common with someone like Sarah Palin; she is literally the anti-Liesl. Does that mean that I would discount her interests as somehow less important than my own? Of course not. Yet, that is exactly what we do, more often than not. Instead of admitting that we live in a country where people disagree, where people have differing abilities and needs and that those things will distinguish our interests from others, we whine about what a politician or party will do to us. Rather than accepting the fact that if you want to live in society you have to pay for it, we whine about taxes as if they are fundamentally unjust.

The truth is, we all have the ability to leave this country. If we think that taxation is unjust, that we should not be "penalized" for making money in society then we have the right to refuse to live in a society where this is happening. The trouble with leaving this country for a country that does not tax its citizens is.... well... is there one? There may be, but I don't know of one. Countries can't survive if we don't pay into the collected pool to keep our society functioning. While you're making money in society you are not being punished with taxes, you are only paying for the privilege of making that money and for living in that society. It just isn't possible to have a society that operates without being paid for through the populace. Let me break it down into a simple example: If you and your friends want to order pizza, you must all contribute to the cost of the pizza, right? But what if one of your friends has less cash on him than another? Should that friend only be allowed to eat half a piece of pizza because he was unable to contribute equally? Or, would you make up the balance for him because you recognize that you are a group and excluding one person from the common good is wrong? Hopefully you would be kind enough to help your friend. Would you do it continually when you know your friend has the money to pay for the pizza but is using your good will? No. That would be an abuse of your good will. There is a difference between the abuse of a thing and the thing itself, though. If you acknowledge that you are part of a group (society) and that group has a need, then you are asked to participate in the need. It may not always work out in the fairest of ways, but nothing ever does. It is up to you to act in a way that is consciously just before you expect others to be consciously just. You simply cannot benefit from society without contribution. If you attempt to do that you are a freeloader.

It is mind boggling to me that the idea of taxation is so hard for some people to grasp. We hear people complain that they will have more money taken from them and that it isn't fair. Fair? You want to talk about fair? How is it fair that you have more money in the first place? How is it fair that you have to work harder than your neighbor who inherited his money? People confuse the idea of ultimate fairness or equity or perfection with the workings of the system; the two are not the same thing. Just because a system is flawed and in some ways unfair does not mean it is unnecessary or lacking in value. We can't control the world into which we are born and that is not fair. We can't control the way we are raised and that is not fair. We can't control the limits of our abilities and that is not fair. So.... what's the answer to those unfair things? There isn't one. We wouldn't suddenly decide to stop having children because the act itself might be unfair. Nor would we decide to stop raising children because that act is unfair, too. Fairness has nothing to do with it; necessity demands the continuance of the unfair action of having and raising children who will have lesser and greater abilities.

I want to be able to wear high heels again. Is it unfair that I can't wear them? Maybe. Does that matter? No. Necessity demands that I wear flats and that I use a forearm crutch for balance. Someone else's ability to wear heels has nothing to do with me, but that is the way many people would calculate fairness. It is the same with taxes: it is unfair that I pay a larger part of my income in taxes than someone in a lower bracket. But it is also unfair that I was born into a family that promoted me and my education and I was born with the ability to be and do things that push me into a higher tax bracket. It is unfair that a person will inherit millions of dollars while most people will have to struggle and work for every penny they possess; but it is also unfair that the inheritor will have to pay taxes on the inheritance that penalize them for something they did not do (make the money). Again, fairness has nothing to do with it.

Face it: if you live in society you have to pay for it. Whether you believe society should be bare bones or bloated beyond measure, the fact is that our current age requires a level of infrastructure, social consciousness and protection that requires us to pay our share to maintain it. We don't go to society and expect to get something for nothing; the people who do that are called lazy and worthless. We go to society so that we can participate, give and receive our share. How do you expect to do that if you aren't taxed based on what you can give?

Blah, I'm not proofreading because I am tired and it isn't fair for you ask me to proofread. I've given you people enough! Or, have I?

In looking for a picture for this post I found a blog post that states what I just tried to state so much better than I ever could or would. Sheer brilliance from f/k/a:

"I realize this might be too much to ask, as most Tax Whiners (like sulking teenagers) seem to lack any notion of social interdependence, instead asserting an absolute entitlement to all they have and all they receive."

Picture credit from my new favorite blog

Hush, hush

2008-09-06T05:27:00Z

I went to St. John's College in Santa Fe for graduate school. Part of the reason I went there was because I so admired one of the professors, a man named Robert Sacks. I had read his book on Genesis when I was an undergrad and found his thinking remarkable. He had been a student of Leo Strauss, a political philosopher I have admired for a long time. His book on Genesis and his connection to the great Strauss were enough to push me over the edge into graduate school in Santa Fe; if he taught there and the program was as revered as it is, it must be worth my time. Or, so my thinking was when I applied and then decided to attend St. John's. Here's the ridiculous thing about my time at St. John's: I was so in awe of Robert Sacks that I never introduced myself to him or talked to him. I did talk to another tutor about him and he later told me that Mr. Sacks would be pleased to meet me, but I never had the courage to seek him out. Actually, I sat right next to him at the nail salon while we both had pedicures and was too shy to say a word.

If you know me, you know that it is very unusual for me to be shy or overawed by people. I am a southern woman through and through and my father's daughter in my ability to talk to strangers and make them my friends. The fact that I could not do this with Robert Sacks, that I was too shy to even introduce myself, is embarrassing and a little funny. Mr. Sacks had been an inspiration to me in my desire to go beyond conventional thought in analysis but I could not be conventional in my opportunity to meet him and talk with him about his ideas.

Here's the thing about Robert Sacks: he has cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy, by the way, is considered a birth defect. When I was at the nail salon I watched the women in the salon treat Mr. Sacks with disdain. I watched the people sitting next to me stare at him with a hint of derision on their faces. I turned to one after watching him watch Mr. Sacks and said something like, "Isn't it remarkable that the man who just left is one of the greatest minds in our country?" He turned away from me. I've never forgotten that incident because it made me so mad and showed me so intimately the harm that is done when we devalue people who have what we call birth defects. If a man I revered to the point of silence was treated that way then how could any of us gain a foothold of respect? Though that incident was about six years ago I suspect not much has changed in that nail salon or in Mr. Sacks' day to day life. I also suspect that he didn't notice it and would not have cared as I do not care when people purse their lips and look at me with derision after taking in the full measure of my forearm crutch. It just means that I have a larger job to do as a professor of ethics.

The thing that is so incredibly disheartening to me and, I am sure, many other people who are born with genetic or accidental defects is that things only change when the people we revere change and force us to recognize the validity of the change. That is the reason I find it so incredibly offensive to be referred to as "less blessed" by John McCain. It's obvious that John McCain has more money than I do and can do far more with his power than I will ever be able to do, but that's not what McCain said when he was commenting on his wife's compassion for those who are less than "we are." No, he was talking about people who are victims of land mines, children born into poverty and children with birth defects. I have a serious problem with that.

There is no question that people who are victims of land mines have undergone a severe trauma. We've all seen the pictures of the mutilation and devastation they cause. We all, hopefully, also know that children born into poverty have a very difficult road in life. Those two things are clear and they are two issues we should all recognize as deserving of compassion. Birth defects, however, encompass a huge array of diseases and disorders, from cerebral palsy to club foot. The problem I have with lumping birth defects in with people who are victims of violence and poverty is the assumption that people with birth defects need to be fixed to be as "blessed" as everyone else. Violence and poverty are bad things that lead to lives of hardship marked by tragedy; people who are born with birth defects may have harder lives but that does not mean the birth defect makes us less than others. It is simply part of who we are.

I've wondered many times if I would accept the opportunity not to have become disabled. The answer is, of course, yes. My answer is yes because I miss the things I used to be able to do. I would expect that if I had been born without the ability to balance myself without support (most of the time) or without the energy to be able to run up mountains or without a remarkable ability to recall anything I had heard that I would not miss them now. My disability would simply have been part of the life I lead. The idea that my life is less than the life I had before, however, offends me greatly. I have grown as a person since my events and I treasure the life I lead now. Antiphospholipid syndrome, along with all of the other diseases I collect, is not the thing that defines me. My forearm crutch does not represent who I am as a person. My random word loss is not indicative of my overall intellectual health. These things have shaped me, continue to shape me, but to say that they have taken something away from my life is ludicrous. I am happier today than I was three years ago. I am a better professor since my strokes and heart attack. I am a more consciously ethical person since the realization that my health will probably lead to a shorter life. My birth defect, this genetic autoimmunity, does not devalue my life. I am a whole person, just as all people with disabilities are whole people. We don't need your pity. We don't need your compassion if the price of it is a pound of our pride at the hands of your devaluation. We don't need your charity if you're only doing it because you think you're better than we are. We are whole, we are valuable and we are as important to this country as you are. We are nothing like land mines or poverty; we are progressive people who can't help but live the lives we've been given.

I might pity McCain for his lack of understanding and his clear resistance to educated compassion if he didn't think he was so much better than me. It's hard to feel sorry for someone who refuses to recognize the validity of my life. Yet, John McCain receives a disability pension from the Navy. I don't question the rightness of his receiving that pension in the slightest; McCain paid for it with his own suffering. What I find remarkable about it is the fact that he doesn't see his acquired disability as a disability in the same way as someone who is born with a disability. Whether he wants to admit it or not, he is a disabled man. Clearly, he doesn't like to admit it and had to be forced to divulge the fact that he receives that disability pension. What is it about disability that makes him so ashamed to admit it or embrace it? Does he think that disability means you're less than the rest of "us?"

I find it so odd that the media has not said word one about McCain's devaluation of people with birth defects. People have taken it as true that people with birth defects are less blessed than everyone else without considering what that actually means. When I go to bed at night I do not have to relive the experiences of being held captive for five years. When you get up in the morning you probably don't have to live with the necessity of compromised health. But the comparisons are ridiculous because they don't represent any real value. John McCain is no more blessed than the next person in terms of the entirety of a human being. People have different struggles and some people are forced into roles of abject tragedy by outside forces; some people with birth defects might even lead terrible lives because of their birth defects. But none of that means the person is, as a person, less blessed than everyone else. It just means that our lives are different and we may need help in different ways. There are things I can do that John McCain cannot do. That's true of all of us. We each offer a unique footprint in this world that can only be made by our feet or wheels or crutches. What's wrong with that?

I wonder what my life would be like today if I weren’t disabled; wondering this makes me appreciate the lessons I have learned from my disability and from the disability community. I went through a phase where I was heavily sarcastic and fairly judgmental to people who were, by my estimation and the judgment of the community I was involved in, acting foolishly. I don’t know if that slide into meanness would have ended if I had not been forced to slow at the very least. There is no question in my mind that the recognition of other peoples’ struggles has made my struggle feel lighter. In the sharing of commonality I’ve found the gift of a shared burden.

I suppose I do feel sorry for John McCain. It must be hard to live your life as something you despise. If he were able to find that shared commonality he might be happier man, less prone to violent outbursts. We’d all be better for it, I think. Maybe he just needs to learn the value of giving back to your community on the lower levels and getting down onto the floor with the people who need you the most. A little bit of community organization goes a long way in showing us just how much we need each other. I hope John McCain finds the strength to be the kind of man who accepts himself for who he is and lightens our collective load in the process. I know I can’t carry it alone; can you?

Picture credit

Stop

2008-09-02T18:18:00Z

I've been seeing some disturbing editorials lately and I want to address a few of my concerns. First of all, we need to be the kind of people who recognize that a family's personal drama is their own and only our business when it directly affects us. Would you care if someone who lives one street over from you has a 17-year-old daughter who is pregnant? Especially if that situation did not require any intervention from the government? I would hope not. It isn't your business or anyone else's to judge a person based on the actions of their adult child. The same is true for Sarah Palin and her family. It is not our business as Americans to delve into the life of her child if her child is not doing anything that could compromise our interests. If she were found to be spying for another country we would have every right to want to dissect her life and everything that led her to that action. The consensual sexual life of a candidate's daughter, however, has no place in the national debate over which candidate is the best pick for governance.

I know some people think hat because Palin is such a strong advocate for abstinence only education that this situation is fair game. No, it doesn't work that way. You would hope that each of us has examined their ethical foundation, their ideas about right and wrong, and found some beliefs based on thinking rather than experiences beyond their control. What kind of an animal reacts only in the immediacy of necessity? Not a thinking one. We must do the mental heavy lifting if we choose to take a bold stand on any moral issue; anything less is instinctual and not a part of reason. While our experiences shape who we are we cannot allow them to be the end result. Think of the rage we feel when someone violates our trust, whether it is through a break in and robbery, a personal assault or a broken promise; would that experience then shape our moral foundation only insofar as the feelings we experienced? Of course not. We hope that we are able to take the extra step to learn from the entirety of the thing, not just the initial reactions involved.

If you want to argue that Palin is wrong in her stance on abstinence only education, do it based on the issue itself. I would argue that Palin lacks enough experience to come to a just understanding of the difference between what is necessary in sexual education and what is in accordance with her ideology. It's hard to believe that someone who has seen and experienced the reality of teen sex in situations where there are few options would continue to support this thing that clearly does not work. But I don't that this is the case with Palin; all I know is that there is a problem in this country in the inequity of support provided to low income children and one of the results of that problem is teen pregnancy. It is in accordance with my ethical foundation to deal with the entirety of the problem, not just the symptom. I support sex education, but more so, I support the idea that when we effectively throw away large portions of our society through poverty we create this problem ourselves. If we dealt with the poverty and inequity of opportunity we wouldn't be having this debate.

Secondly: Stop with the ridiculous flip flop crap. It was dumb when it was used on Kerry and it is dumb when used on everyone else. People change their minds! What kind of a person would you be if you were so closed that you refused to consider new evidence or to grow intellectually enough to change your mind? 1983 John McCain voted against a federal holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. That was 25 years ago, yet people are still trying to make it an issue. I am embarrassed by some of the things I said 4 years ago! People change, people grow, and not allowing them to do that is an attempt to stifle thought and progress.

Sarah Palin changed her mind about the bridge to nowhere. She did not flip flop, she changed her mind after what might have been more consideration or more information. I don't know why she did it, but she did publicly and emphatically change her mind. That is simply not a problem. The problem with Palin in reference to the bridge is her lying about her initial support of the project. That is where the focus should be, not in the change itself. I have a problem with someone who would lie so willingly and so stupidly. I don't understand why politicians think they won't be called to the carpet for things that are publicly available. I think this exposes a fundamental flaw in Palin and the ease of her lying; it demonstrates a distinct lack of character and it is disrespectful toward the American people who are deemed too dull witted to catch it. Make that the hill you're willing to die on.

Finally, I have a problem with the treatment of Palin as mere fluff because she participated in beauty pageants. Sure, pageants aren't my thing but there is nothing wrong with them, nor do they automatically imply vacuousness. I don't care what Palin or anyone has done in reference to how they look but I do care about their demonstrated ability to understand history, policy and the subtle undertakings of morality in public life. I have far more of a problem with the fact that Palin, an elected official, did not know that the pledge of allegiance was not written by the founding fathers. It speaks to a position of ignorance based solely on ideology rather than considered reason. It's a knee jerk reaction based on... what? religion? Not really. As far as I know the religion Palin chooses to endorse is not one that asks people to make an official statement of faith through a government entity. In fact, such a thing goes against some basic tenets of Christianity and is anathema to faith itself.

We have serious problems in this country, as all countries do, and it is time to focus on them rather than on the personalities of the people we elect. I want to know how Obama and McCain plan to fix the gross failings of our educational system. I want to know how Obama and McCain plan to fix the gross failings in our corporate world. I don't give a good god damn if John McCain owns 7 homes or Barack Obama lives in a beautiful and expensive home. I care about how they are going to address the problems we all face..

Picture credit

Dance with me

2008-08-26T02:40:00Z

I finally saw Tropic Thunder. It was dumb, not that funny, a waste of time. But that's not the important issue with the movie and not the issue I would devote a blog post to, of course. The issue is whether or not the use of the word "retarded" was offensive in the context of the movie. Ultimately, I have to say that I don't think it was. The point of the movie was to poke fun at Hollywood, actors and big players, and to show just how ridiculous their lives are in a world where reality isn't quite so cushy. It didn't do a very good job of that, but that has more to do with the merits of the film than with the controversy surrounding it. I'm going to leave aside the issue of protesting the use of language for now. I have a hard time justifying that, though I do think there are certain words that are should not be used because of their relevance to particular things. However, protesting the use of a word is something else entirely.

The scene that has the disability community up in arms is a scene between Robert Downey, Jr. and Ben Stiller. In this scene, one character tries to explain to the other why he was not nominated for an Oscar for playing a "retard." It isn't exactly a big Hollywood secret that if you play someone with a disability in a big budget film you will get more attention than someone playing an AB. Duh, we know this is true. The hypocrisy of the Hollywood system is one that allows for that sort of thing while being ruthless and as evil as evil gets behind the scenes. I've said it many times: the main reason I left the film business was because I did not possess the ruthless personality necessary to get ahead.* So, the portrayal of the inspirational character with a disability is hollow and done for the glory rather than for the edification we all want and need. Hell, I loved Forrest Gump; but does anyone really think that Tom Hanks is a representative for the cognitively delayed community? Of course not. Yet, he benefited quite a bit from his portrayal of a cognitively delayed character. Is that ok?

The truth is, we all benefit from those portrayals. I tend to agree with Aristotle on this one (naturally): art purges our emotions and allows us to experience things without having the trauma of actually having to experience them. We get the benefit of catharsis without having to go through the experience itself. It's the same with the happy stories. I grew up thinking life was like an MGM musical because that is what I watched as a kid. It was a major disappointment when I learned that it wasn't so. Actually, that's not really true; I can still turn on Silk Stalkings and watch Fred Astaire hoodwink Stalin and I can feel the sense of victory and nostalgia associated with the play of the movie. I know it isn't real but it makes me feel good, even for a little while. I won't ever have the opportunity to make a grand gesture for love and, at the same time, thwart an evil regime; but that's ok because I've experienced it anyway.

I don't think Ben Stiller, Justin Theroux and Etan Cohen were making fun of the disabled in this film. I think they were making fun of a system that sets up the disabled to be the fall people for everyone else's emotions. It's nice to experience Forrest Gump's triumph over the odds, just as long as we don't have to be a part of it. We nervously wait for David Helfgott to stop playing the piano so that we can go back to watching the pretty, the normal people accept their awards. We can even be inspired by Russell Crowe's portrayal of a man with persistent delusions, but that doesn't mean we think people who are mentally ill are like us. Nor will we be running out to embrace the next person we see with a disability just because they have a disability. Nor should we.

Here's the funny thing about life: we're all in it together. We're all suffering through our own private hells. Life isn't always hell, but parts of our own worst times stay with us always. Yet, here we are: walking, talking, rolling, living, fending for ourselves in the best ways we can. The true inspiration in all of this is our own ability to live through the bad things that have happened to us. The true inspiration will always be our striving for something better than what is, than what we have now. We're all trying to do that in our own ways. So I do it with a forearm crutch. Hey, I get better parking. So you do it with a brain that isn't full of holes. You get more energy. Either way, neither one of us is getting a break in life and it isn't fair to assume that just because someone seems worse or better off than us that it is so. All we can do is be responsible for our own movements through the heavens and hells of our lives without attempting to make someone else's hell a little bit worse. It is because we have all experienced the pain of being made fun of for something you can't control (retard! get back on the short bus!) and it is because we've all experienced the joy of accomplishment that we do benefit from the portrayals of people who are different. Truthfully, we need those different examples to understand our own experiences. They teach us, they force us to recognize difference and they allow us to experience things we may never know or grasp. And yes, they inspire us. I'll take it! god knows I need inspiration more often than not. Don't you?

*As in all things, there are exceptions. One of my dearest and oldest friends is a veep for a major studio and she is anything BUT ruthless. In fact, the thought of her being ruthless made me giggle so hard I almost fell out of my chair!

Picture credit

Sick

2008-08-25T04:33:00Z

I'm sure there will be all kinds of typos in this post. I spent all day Friday in the E.R. with uncontrollable vomiting and am still loopy from the drugs they gave me. We think it's a simple case of gastroenteritis, but there really isn't anything simple when it comes to my immune system.

The truth is, what most people can fight off without a care, I get full force to the extent of hospitalization. When most people get colds, I get pneumonia. When most people get a 24 hour bout of the stomach flu, I get rushed to the E.R. because my puking is so violent and unending. It's ok, it's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. The problem this is causing, however, is that because of my compromised immunity, I have to give up on the idea that I can take something like Methotrexate. The risk simply isn't worth it.

My doctors were pushing me to start Methotrexate, but the reality of increased numbers of people not vaccinating their children and the rise of diseases like measles to almost endemic levels has made it an unrealistic possibility. So, who do I have to thank for continued pain, continued progression of disease? That's right, the antivaccinationists.

Thank you, Jenny McCarthy for the pain in my hands that is taking away my ability to write with a pen.

Thank you, J.B. Handley, the man who recently said he was unapologetic about the rise of measles in the United States, for the progression of sclerotic tissue in my organs.

Thank you, Andrew Wakefield for the pain and misery you will cause my family when they are forced to deal with a progression of disease that could have been significantly slowed.

Thank you, Dr. Jay Gordon for the students who will not have the opportunity to have a professor who believes in them and who helps them live better lives. You know, teachers who inspire their students are so diffuse in our educational system. /sarcasm

I'm just one person. These are the ways the actions of people who are making money off of the utterly discredited idea of a link between vaccination and autism will hurt just one person. Think of the number of people they will be hurting altogether. Stop and think of it. Chilling, isn't it?

Oh, by the way: I was on my way to the doctor's office when I started throwing up. I was on my way there because I am sick with what will be pneumonia sooner rather than later, again. I just got over a bout a month ago... wait, less than a month ago. The puking was just the icing on the cake. Of course, because I couldn't speak for puking, I was never able to talk to my doctor about it. Back to the doctor I go this week. But none of that affects any of you, right? Unless you want to count the costs of health care, sick days, etc. Nah, doesn't affect you.

Hat tip to Orac.

Picture credit

Leave me alone, I'm busy

2008-08-20T17:51:00Z

Picture credit

Defeated

2008-08-15T06:27:00Z

I'm a member of The American Association of People With Disabilities (AAPD). As a member I get news and action alerts from them informing me of issues related to people with disabilities. The last few I've received have all been about the protest over the new movie Tropic Thunder. I admit, when I saw the first alert, I cringed. I knew what was going to happen and how it would play out to people who couldn't care less about people with disabilities. I was right. Here are some of the comments I've seen on youtube:

"How do you think they bribed the retards to go to the protest? You know that they're not there for any cause - I bet their handlers told them they were going to McDonalds... but first they had to hold up a stupid sign and walk around in a circle 50 times."

"that RETARD says he wants to "ban that word from everybody's vocabulary." the RETARDS are trying to take away our civil liberties. United States Bill of Rights 1st amendment to the constitution. Read it RETARD."

"I think most people that have a disability should be dead- the ones that contribute nothing, they are like that cause they have bad genes (recessive genes), and keeping them alive and letting them breed is stupid- and- Tropic Blunder... what a retarded slogan"

"Suck it up, TARDS!!!"

These things make me feel so utterly overwhelmed. I realize that the people who made the above comments would be quailing little mice in person too afraid to speak much less use such offensive language, but that doesn't seem to matter when you are confronted with such hate and ignorance. I'm left to wonder why we even bother anymore. I honestly don't have anything else to say... I am feeling that defeated.

Picture credit

Addendum

2008-08-14T03:53:00Z

As an addendum to my post earlier today, another example of how treating people who have immigrated like criminals has tragic consequences, this is from tonight's Countdown. The story in questions starts around 1:30:

Link

If that doesn't sound bad enough, the New York Times article that broke the story gives more information:

"In federal court affidavits, Mr. Ng’s lawyers contend that when he complained of severe pain that did not respond to analgesics, and grew too weak to walk or even stand to call his family from a detention pay phone, officials accused him of faking his condition. They denied him a wheelchair and refused pleas for an independent medical evaluation.

Instead, the affidavits say, guards at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls, R.I., dragged him from his bed on July 30, carried him in shackles to a car, bruising his arms and legs, and drove him two hours to a federal lockup in Hartford, where an immigration officer pressured him to withdraw all pending appeals of his case and accept deportation."

The man was dying when this happened. Dying of a cancer that had spread to his liver, lungs and bones and had fractured his spine. This is also a man who owned a home, was married to a United States citizen and had two sons. He was 34 years old! And he was not alone. The article continues:

"In March, the federal government admitted medical negligence in the death of Francisco Castaneda, 36, a Salvadoran whose cancer went undiagnosed in a California detention center as he was repeatedly denied a biopsy on a painful penile lesion. In May, The New York Times chronicled the death of Boubacar Bah, 52, a Guinean tailor who suffered a skull fracture and brain hemorrhages in the Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey; records show he was left in an isolation cell without treatment for more than 13 hours."

I had a student with a name almost identical to one of those names. He was sweet and smart and funny and tried so hard in my class to impress me and do well. He could be one of these men; this could happen to any of them. Last year the government held 300,000 people; how many of them are going through this right now? how many of them are treated as less than human because they had the audacity to be born somewhere else and want to do all they could for a better life? How dare those people think they deserved that, right?

Shame on all of us for allowing these things to happen on our watch. You are responsible for it. I am responsible for it. We have failed as human beings who are supposed to have respect for basic human life. We have failed and it is shameful and we do not deserve forgiveness.

Discrimination is illegal

2008-08-13T19:44:00Z

Let's talk about immigration: Why is it that we have begun to refer to people as illegal rather than referring to their actions as illegal?...(read more)

Everything matters

2008-08-10T06:41:00Z

It will not be surprising to know that I have seen The Sound of Music many, oh so many, times. It's not just that I was named after it and that it's still unusual to hear my name spoken on screen, but I do love it. The production is beautiful, the acting is great and the idea of resisting evil through a thing so sublime as music is something I love. My favorite song in the movie isn't the one you will think; I like Sixteen Going on Seventeen, but it lacks true relevance in my overall life. The song I love the most is Something Good. I understand that song intimately. There is sweetness here: "Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could. So, somewhere in my youth or childhood, I must have done something good."

It is that time again: another semester has ended. As usual, it is bittersweet because, as usual, I had such phenomenal students. I am forever humbled by them and I cannot help but wonder what I ever did to deserve them. As I have begun to do, I gave them each a personal note to tell them how much I value them and to make sure they understand that they will forever be a part of me. It took me five hours to write fourteen notes; it takes me that long every semester, though I usually don't do it all at once as I did this time. It is always easy to express how dear they are to me, but it isn't always easy to find the right words to make sure they understand their tremendous value. They are more valuable than they know.

I worry about my students and I wonder if they will be OK. I would have them never feel pain, never want for anything in life, as silly as that is. They are not, after all, my children; they have parents of their own. Yet, I believe I have a part in their growing, if only a small one. The kicker is, they have an equal part in mine.

There will never be a time when knowing that I had given a student the nicest card he had ever received is not profoundly meaningful. It hurts me to know that he has reached his late teens? early twenties? and has not had the simple kindness of supportive words. In fact, it pained me so much that I cried when I told my mom about it an hour later and my husband two days later. The tears didn't last, as they should not have; for, those were tears of recognition of what was, not what is. I am simply the taste of what he will and should have in life from anyone who is able to recognize his tremendous promise. The truth is, all of my students deserve that recognition. I'm trying really hard not to go on and on (too late) about them, but it's simply unrealistic to expect anything else.

The thing that really gets me is this: what could I have possibly done to deserve these students? I can't quite wrap my head around that idea. It reminds me of the Sound of Music song, of course. I have not always acted as I should, as we all do not; but I have had some tremendous luck in my life. Luck that I did nothing to deserve, frankly. I suppose it's true that there is no such thing as "fair" when so much is left to chance. Justice would really be a human construct, then, and all of our entitlements nothing more than what we choose to make of them. I choose to make the current generation my project and my hope.

Let me make something clear: all of this gushing about students over and over and the harping on their promise might be maudlin and sappy, but it is tremendously important to me that the world understands the resource we all have in the current generation. My students are representatives of what is best in their generation and what we could all benefit from in public and private life. I trust them to carry on our world and to make it better, make the progress clean. I want people to realize that in recognizing these people, we recognize ourselves. We allow for them to be as brash, elastic and fertile as we once were. We allow them to be the spring in our forward motion and we trust them to know the correct direction. We owe them that for bringing them here in the first place.

Damn, I miss them already.

I wrote the above two days ago when the semester ended. I have to add one more note: Two students who have both taken other classes from me just called me from the Metallica concert to let me hear a bit of it. It was great! They were screaming and singing along while I was screaming with them. How could you not love kids who do such a thing?!

Picture credit