A "Master Chef"

My brother Ian is a fellow cooking show fan. A couple weeks ago, he told me about a blind chef who competed on the Gordon Ramsay show, "Master Chef" … one show I haven't watched before. I made a mental note of it and promptly forgot. I don't know what made me think of it today, but I finally searched for some YouTube clips, and watched all 57 minutes of this one:

The commenters and even the person who posted the video all keep calling Christine Ha "inspirational". That just grates on me. As I've said before, partly I think it's the poverty of language; people don't know how else to express their admiration. But really, what's the difference between "inspirational", which I can't stand, and "awesome" or "kick-ass"? The point is that her cooking is excellent by any standard, and apart from a tendency towards tears, she's very tough, practical, and competitive.

A few random observations:

• Christine had a helper for certain tasks, such as gathering ingredients, reading instructions, and walking around the studio. Were the limits of this assistance were discussed on the show itself, with the other contestants?
• It seems like Christine's confidence developed over the course of the competition.
• I was impressed with how well Chef Ramsay seemed to understand Christine's adaptive techniques. It seemed to excite him a little to realize how her adaptations were in perfect accord with the best culinary practices.
• I liked how over time, Christine's fellow competitors would walk in with her holding their arms, hold her cane for her, or whisper a description for her of some visual action taking place on the stage. It looked natural … like what really happens when sighted people get to know and become friends with a blind person.

It seems like this series was a fine balance between sentimentality and high standards. Just when I started to roll my eyes at Christine starting to cry, or at some empty phrase about "overcoming obstacles", the show pulled back and got down to business. The problem with "inspiration porn" is that it lavishes extraordinary praise and emotion on completely ordinary actions and abilities. In this case, the results seem to have more than justified the praise. Christine isn't a blind woman who can cook (Amazing!), she can cook better than most people, blind or not ... (No really, amazing!)

Even though I know the outcome, I think watching the whole season would make the experience even better for being able to see more of the other cooks, all of whom had to be excellent themselves. Unfortunately, Season 3 doesn't seem to be available for streaming. I'll definitely keep an eye out for it though.

Whining, Complaining, and Documenting

1. Whining is when you visit a restaurant you thought was accessible but isn't, and you gripe about it to your friends, blog about it, and add it to your mental list of things pissing you off and stealing your "spoons" today … and that's it.

2. Complaining is when you speak to an employee in the restaurant about the accessibility barriers, and urge that they be fixed.

3. Documenting is when you take available steps to inform others about the barriers, and / or to involve others in an effort to make the restaurant accessible … for instance, posting an accessibility rating on an accessibility website like AXSmap, or AbleRoad, or reporting the details it to your nearest Center for Independent Living or other disability advocacy organization.

Any combination is useful, except maybe doing just #1, which unfortunately is what I think most people with disabilities do ... including me.

Will They Cheer, Or Will They Laugh?

Support shown for MMA bout between disabled fighters

Steven Marrocco, USA TODAY Sports - July 17, 2013

This sounds okay to me, at least based on the information given in the story. They both strike me as consenting adults who know what they're doing, and I see no evidence that the fight will be promoted as any sort of "freak show" … or no more of a freak show than any other MMA fight. Of course, a lot will depend on how it actually plays out. If the spectators cheer as they normally do, then fine. If they laugh at these two guys, that would change everything.

==============

P.S.: By saying, "This sounds okay to me," I didn't mean to imply that these two fighters need my approval. It's just that the article I read and linked to seemed to imply that there is a potential "issue" here, and I'm saying that for the most part, there isn't. In some fundamental ways, this is not another version of "dwarf tossing".

Summer Afternoon Music

It's another hot summer day here … hot enough to keep me inside where I've got air conditioning, wishing it was a little milder so I could be out to enjoy the sun properly. I don't have much to say today, so here's a summery musical interlude, once again from The Onion AV Club's Undercover Series:

Remembering The Pakleds

I was listening to Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast this morning, and they mentioned a point early in the development of Star Trek: The Next Generation, when Gene Roddenberry asked his team to make a list of ways they could have a character with a disability. The writer David Gerrold, who was the guest on the podcast telling about this, said one of the ideas was to create a character with Down Syndrome who would have a "brain augmentation" of some kind. Of course, in the end they opted for a blind character, Engineer Geordi LaForge, played by LaVar Burton, with his iconic "VISOR" device.

I was surprised Gerrold didn't mention the Pakleds. This was a humanoid species introduced in an episode of TNG that I vaguely remembered, called "Samaritan Snare". The Pakleds were was obviously supposed to be an entire humanoid species that was cognitively impaired. In a moment of deep nerdery, I looked up the Pakleds and that episode on the Memory Alpha Star Trek wiki, and found evidence of a possible disability depiction train-wreck. Before I get into it, though, I'm going to watch the episode, so I can comment on it directly, and see if it's as terrible as the write-ups suggest it is.

Mixed Feelings On Another Issue ...

Judge halts Georgia execution over injection issue

David Beasley, Reuters - July 15, 2013

Can I just say that I hate everything about this? Not about the stay ... I'm glad about that ... but about the whole question of executing people who are cognitively impaired.

Much as I have mixed feelings about people with disabilities running for high office who I disagree with about everything, the issue of executing people with cognitive impairments confuses the hell out of me. I oppose the death penalty entirely, but the pedantic hemisphere of my brain can't stop quibbling about the arguments that have to be put forward in order for laws to say that it is okay for people with "normal" intelligence, but unconstitutional for people who are "mentally retarded". I understand and sort of buy the idea that comprehending the crime and the punishment is the key here, but I still think it is hair-splitting, and in many cases may not even affect reality. It may be harder to understanding things if you have an IQ below 70, but surely it isn't a bright line divide. If a person really can't understand basic moral concepts about killing and beating people, or about punishment of misdeeds, then what does that say about his or her ability to make other decisions, or about his or her agency ... or of other people with cognitive impairments?

On the other hand, this may be a rare kind of case where the law actually does reflect an instinctive moral revulsion. For a sample of that I recommend the Lars Von Trier film Dancer In The Dark. Fair warning though, it is deeply weird and very upsetting.

The Texas Candidate

AG Abbott formally kicks off gubernatorial bid

Houston Chronicle - July 14, 2013

A wheelchair user is running for Governor of Texas.

It's a good test for my disability solidarity. I despise his political philosophy, so I hope he doesn't win, but whatever the outcome, it will be interesting to see how Abbott's disability factors into his campaigning, his opponent's strategy, and the public's reaction. Apparently, he's favored to win, which I guess must say something good about changing attitudes towards disabilities.

It sounds like he cited his injury and disability in a pretty standard, non-controversial way … a turning point in his life, challenges overcome … but I wonder if he'll go further than that. I actually kind of liked his bit about being a politician with a "spine of steel". I wonder if he has more developed than usual positions on disability issues. Would he be more progressive on those matters, or stick with across-the-board conservatism? Will anyone ask him?

It could be fun to watch.

I Love A Parade

Disability Pride Parade to step off in Chicago

Karen Meyer, ABC Local - July 14, 2013

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I have heard of anything like a "Disability Pride Parade", or thought of it as an idea. I can't believe it isn't a more common thing. I'm not big on flashy protests. I'm not against them, it's more of personal dislike. But I could get behind something like this once a year. Sure, it's kind of copycatting the LGBT Pride tradition, but a disability version, done right, could be unique enough to become a strong tradition of its own, with a distinctive message.

The Zimmerman Verdict and Ableism

I realize that claiming a similarity between people with disabilities and Trayvon Martin is potentially volatile and risks overstatement. This is an analogy that I'm still working through, so please bear with me.

One thing the Zimmerman verdict suggests is that young, male African-Americans have a very narrow range of acceptable responses to obnoxious, possibly threatening behavior. If you don't react exactly correctly … if, for instance, you lose your temper and maybe get a little punchy yourself … then it's okay for the other person to kill you. You either show infinite patience and behave absolutely perfectly, or you're toast. I'm no legal expert, but it seems like Trayvon Martin made the "mistake" of confronting the man he probably thought was stalking him or trying to intimidate him. He paid for this rather mild and understandable departure from purely rational behavior with his life.

It's the same for people with disabilities, though not the being killed part. When people with disabilities encounter obnoxious behavior or discrimination from just about anyone, the acceptable reaction is to remain passive, make a joke of it, reassure everyone that "it's okay", or just ignore it. Any other response is met with shock, claims of hurt feelings, and a quickly growing reputation for bitterness and "inappropriateness". When this happens in the context of dealing with any kind of officialdom … human service agencies, housing programs, doctors, teachers, counselors, and government officials … the consequences are worse. We are quickly labeled as either belligerent, mean, noncompliant, or "borderline personality". The exact terms depend on the field involved, but the result is a kind of black-balling that can have massive social and economic effects. We aren't shot like Trayvon Martin, but good luck the next time we try to get a problem resolved, obtain help in a pinch, or even get proper medical attention.

==========

Postscript: Ta-Nehisi Coates posted a very good summary of his take on the Zimmerman verdict.

Not So Secret?

The Myth of FDR’s Secret Disability

Matthew Pressman, Time.com - July 12, 2013

A guest writer at Time.com offers an interesting take on whether and how President Franklin Roosevelt's disability was concealed. The writer confirms that there was concealment, but suggests that the idea of a "gentlemen's agreement" among the press to not photograph or mention FDR's disability grew out of our present-day cynicism about today's "gotcha" journalism. We like to think that in the "good old days", reporters had restraint and respect that they lack today, but in reality, they were plenty ambitious and cynical then, too.

I would go a step further and say that maybe we also underestimate the sophistication of ordinary Americans in that time, and assume most people didn't know about the President's disability. Like I said earlier this week, I just have a gut feeling that most people knew on some level that Roosevelt's polio wasn't completely "beaten". Multi-layered thinking wasn't invented in the 60s. People in the 30s and 40s might have had access to less information overall, but they weren't stupid or simplistic, at least no more so than today. I think it's perfectly possible that a nation desperate for leadership in the Great Depression would choose to overlook something like physical impairment in someone they otherwise felt was "the man of the hour." Overlooking doesn't mean not knowing.

I wonder if in some ways, attitudes towards some disabilities might have been healthier than they are today.

More Lego!

This went up on YouTube many months before AmputeeOT's "Lego Leg" video. It has a lot of views, but according to the stats history, there was no spike at all in connection with the Lego Leg video. I would think it would be a natural related video suggestion.

The chair itself is pretty cool, and looks to be about as practical as the Lego prosthetic.

One thing about disability awareness gimmicks is that it is very hard to predict how people will process them. People seem just as likely to come away with a message of pity or sympathy as they are to see capability and empowerment. You can see that in the mix of comments on AmputeeOT's videos. I wonder what long-term effect these Lego videos will have on people's perceptions about disability and adaptive equipment.

In Which I Succumb To Godwin's Law

I'm reading "Winter Of The World: Book Two of the Century Trilogy" by Ken Follett. The Century Trilogy is a series of historical novels that follow the intertwined lives of about a dozen characters as they go through the major historical events of the century. The second book covers the Great Depression and the Second World War.

At the moment, I'm in the middle of a section of the novel that dealing with Aktion T4, the Nazi program of deliberately killing people with disabilities. I knew the main details of this aspect of the Holocaust, but it's interesting to see characters I've come to know through other depicted events suddenly dealing with disability … disability as a social and political matter, not just medical. The main thing I'm curious about is whether the author will suggest that Aktion T4 was a rare "misstep" for the Nazis, in terms of domestic politics. I have read some accounts suggesting that the Nazis actually had to back off their "euthanasia" policy, or at least make it more secret, because they angered too many "good" Germans … including parents who might have previously been Nazi supporters. So far, the novel has hinted at this … focusing particular attention on a Catholic priest who has started making waves about the issue. This also highlights the extent to which many of the mainstream, "respectable" Christian denominations either supported the Nazis or cut some kind of informal deal with them in order to avoid stronger persecution.

So far, the novel hasn't fleshed out any of the theories or justifications that underpinned Aktion T4, just a brief reference to the high cost of care. My understanding is that there were a variety of "ideas" behind the "program".

I admit that I can't help thinking about this when I hear debates over "assisted suicide" and the "right to die". I agree that today, these issues are mostly about personal choice, not governent-sponsored extermination. On the other hand, I've heard plenty of arguments over this evolve towards issues of cost, to families and to society, so I don't think the comparison is too radical. Godwin's Law states that the longer an online debate goes on, the more likely it is for someone to resort to a Nazi Germany analogy. Nazi analogies are too common and easy to draw, but occasionally, they actually are valid.

Judging Disability Onscreen

Superfest Disability Film Festival Presents "The Dissies"

Paul K. Longmore Institute on Disability at San Francisco State University

Why The Dissies?

Catherine Kudlik, Disability Remix Blog - July 9, 2013

This sounds like a blast, and I haven't visited San Francisco for years … Maybe after I finish this post I'll just check Expedia.com, just in case there are cheap fares to be had.

How do I judge disability movies and TV shows? I've been thinking about this, and here are the criteria I think I use:

Politics - Does it support or undermine an agreed-upon set of social or political goals for disability rights and social equality?

Offensiveness - Does it trigger a gut-level, involuntary feeling of personal offense and disgust in us as people with disabilities?

Realism - Do the disabled characters look, sound, and behave like people with disabilities do in real life?

Fresh or Cliché - Do characters and plots feel unique, personal, and three-dimensional, or cliché, generic, and flat?

Human or Objectified - Are we brought closer to disabled characters or distanced from them? Are they people, with feelings, motivations, and free will, or just objects to which things are done?

I listed these criteria from least important to most important, though I do use all of them. To this list, I would add another two other principles that aren't specific to disability portrayals only

The first is "Show, don't tell." That means morals and lessons shouldn't be stated like an essay, but demonstrated by what happens in the story. I don't want to hear people make speeches in the middle of conversations. If they have to explain something to me, in the audience, they should do it as naturally as possible to other characters on the screen. I'm willing to sacrifice a lot to "Show, don't tell." I'd rather miss "the moral of the story" entirely than sit through a stilted, clunky, "Afterschool Special" of a story.

The second general principle is to take into consideration "What's the film / TV show trying to do?" In practice that means a negative or even horrific depiction of disability might be "good", if the character feels real, or if the scenes serve a "good" purpose. We might weep and feel emotionally devastated by a movie that shows a disabled character dying from abuse or neglect, but if the character is three-dimensional and human, and if the story teaches us something about a real and important issue, then we might consider it a "good" portrayal. The flip side of this example might be if we never get to know the disabled character much, and his or her death functions mainly as the trigger for someone else's emotional breakdown or revenge-fuled rampage.