Disability Thinking

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Photo Of The Day

person in a wheelchair having just jumped out of an airborne airplane

From the Disable Seeker Tumblr blog, via Ramp Your Voice!

This morning I watched a few episodes of the British TV show QI, a a sort of comedy quiz show hosted by Stephen Fry. One of the questions was about how many steps a person can take before definitely spilling a cup of coffee. The answer is between 7 and 10 steps. It is predictable like that because of the physics of liquid oscillation. The liquid in your cup starts moving, and as you take each step, the ripples in the cup build on themselves so that no matter how smoothly and carefully you walk, eventually you are going to spill some.

I was thinking that this would be a good way for disabled people to measure just how off-kilter our walking is ... if weird walking is part of our thing ... or how skilled our handling of a wheelchair is I suppose. Judging from the blotches of tea on the tile floor of my kitchen, I can go at most 3 steps before I start slopping.

On "QI", after Fry explained how oscillation works, he talked about how it might be possible to invent a cup that counteracts oscillation so it would be spill-resistant. I literally did not understand the explanation, but I would buy the hell out that cup.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

The Mayor Of Swindon

How did this disabled-hating bigot ever get elected mayor of Swindon?

Frances Ryan, The Guardian - April 15, 2014

"Are we still letting mongols have sex with each other?"

Apparently, Nick Martin, the now ex-Mayor of Swindon in the United Kingdom, said this during a council discussion of the "challenges of disabled adults in modern society". He was officially required to apologize for the words he used, tried several times to do so but with obvious insincerity, and has now resigned.

I have no problem with certain kinds of statements by officials being deemed off-limits and requiring apologies. But the words themselves might be only part of the story. I would very much like to know more about that discussion. Was the Mayor's offensive statement accompanied by regressive policy ideas? What did the other people in the discussion think? Were they all appalled, or did some of them chuckle or nod? Was it a casual chat, or were actual policies being debated that could affect real people? What policies were being discussed that could produce this specific statement about disabled people, sexuality, and fertility? That would seem to be important, but so far I haven't seen anyone mention the context.

Absent any other information, I am glad the man resigned. In all likelihood, this wasn't an isolated incident. Martin probably has regressive views on all sorts of people and ideas he disapproves of. However, it does seem like focusing on the words themselves rather than the meaning behind them serves both sides in a rather unfortunate way. The higher officials get to feel good that they have punished the Mayor for a tasteless, embarrassing indiscretion, without reference or apparent impact on any substantive policy issues. Meanwhile, as this Guardian column points out, the ex-Mayor gets to feel like a martyr to "political correctness" and a defender of free speech and old-fashioned plan-spokenness. And he still hasn't been asked to explain why he apparently thinks "mongols" shouldn't have sex. What is he suggesting? Does he think that government entities that were under his Mayoral control should have the legal power to regulate disabled peoples' most intimate choices?

I suspect that there are many more government officials who feel the same way about the rights of intellectually disabled people, who would never expose their beliefs with such offensive words. That is not a comfort.

Would Martin still be Mayor of Swindon if he had used more polite words to advocate state control of an entire population's fertility and sex lives? Words can be hurtful in and of themselves, but they also reflect ideas, and ideas can be translated into action. It's the actions I worry about more.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

One Year Later

In honor of the Boston Bombing survivors, one year later, I am re-posting this great video by AmputeeOT:

Most of what she says applies equally well to anyone experiencing a new disability.

Survey Results

A big thank-you to the 29 people who have completed my survey on what they’d like to see in a disability-themed website. Here are some of the results so far. I have organized the top rated choices in each section … with ties grouped together. I will be using these results to help shape a more extensive Disability Thinking website. In the meantime, the survey is still open, so if you haven’t done it yet, feel free.

Website Features

First Place

Disability News - Links & Analysis
Articles by Invited Writers

Second Place

Resources - Links by Topic

Third Place

Blogs by Selected Bloggers

Fourth Place

Personal Stories by Invited Writers
Advocacy - Features & Campaigns

Topics

First Place

Accessibility

Second Place

Assistive Tech & Mobility Aids

Third Place

Disability Rights Laws
Disability In Popular Culture & Media
Identifying & Combating Ableism
Disability Policy & Politics

Fourth Place

Medical Care

Who Did The Survey?

72% Disabled
12% Disability Services Providers
8% Family Member of Disabled Person
8% Other

Of The Disabled People ...

85% Physical / Mobility Impairment
30% Mental Illness
30% Chronic Illness
15% Sensory Impairment

Photo Of The Day

Photo of a woman wearing sunglasses, in an electric wheelchair, taking a selfie, reflected on the dirty, scuffed side of a parked car

From the Disability Fashion Project Tumblr blog.

Tax Day!

Where your tax dollars go, in one chart

Matthew Yglesias, Vox.com - April 14, 2014

Chart reading: Most of budget goes toward defense, social security, and major health programs

"As the saying goes, the government is an insurance company with an army — it takes care of the elderly and the sick, and it projects force abroad.”

Since today is tax day, I agree with Vox.com that it is a good time to look at the broad outlines of what the Federal Government spends money on. I am also including the chart they use, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The quote above seems to say it all, and I must say, put this way, it doesn’t sound so terrible. The “insurance” part … Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare I happily support. The military? Well, that’s another matter. Still, until we decide to become an entirely different kind of country, it seems like the United States’ position in the world means that the military will always be a big portion of the Federal Budget, with modest fluctuations as circumstances change.

A few more thoughts:

- It is hard to pick out spending for disabled people, because most of our direct benefits are parts of the Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare categories, plus portions of the 12% “Safety Net” category for things like Food Stamps and Housing Subsidies. This report doesn’t say how much of Social Security is Disability and SSI, and how much is Retirement, which I might try to find out.

- It has been said before, but bears repeating. Non-miliary foreign aid, shown here as “Non-Military International” is only 1% of the Federal Budget. So the notion that we ought to stop spending money on foreigners and help our people here is really kind of an empty idea. The same goes for things like government worker salaries and pensions, and paying Members of Congress. We might begrudge them their perks and benefits, especially when we disagree with them anyhow, but paying them nothing wouldn’t add much to programs we actually like, or reduce the deficit.

- Why is “Education” so low? Because this is the Federal Budget, and most day-to-day costs for public education are borne by states and localities. Federal money for Education generally goes for grants and extra supports which, again, don’t amount to much in comparison to the rest of the Federal Budget.

- Where is Obamacare? It isn’t here yet, in a chart of the 2013 Federal Budget. Next year it will probably be split between the “Medicaid and Medicare” category, and maybe have a category of it’s own for the subsidies people will be getting to buy private insurance.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Photo Of The Day

Man with full beard and mustache, wearing sunglasses, sitting in an electric wheelchair. Wearing bright red pants and a dark jacket

From the Oldmaninsorrow Tumblr blog, via Wheelchair Problems.

The Guy With The Sign

Man ordered by judge to hold sign saying he bullied disabled children starts his five-hour shift

Adam Ferrise, Northeast Ohio Media Group, Ohio Media Group / Cleveland Plain Dealer - April 14, 2014

I am deeply ambivalent about this. On the one hand, the man’s specific acts of bullying are so bizarre that maybe there just aren’t any really appropriate legal remedies for them. The judge may have felt that none of the normal punishments available to her seemed right. As terrible as the man’s behavior was, it would probably be overkill to put him in jail for months or years, and it’s doubtful he has the money to pay a really big fine. But you can’t just ignore what he did, and public shaming may serve not just to punish Mr. Aviv, but also to raise awareness of bullying and the more vicious forms of ableism.

Also, it is possible that public shaming is just what Mr. Aviv needs. Maybe over 15 years he's convinced himself that he is the reasonable one, and he needs a reality check that most people do not approve of his actions.

Yet, I can’t help thinking that this is a stunt that will generate a lot of notoriety, and instead raising awareness, it will just raise a lot of self-righteousness as people say to themselves, “Look at that horrible schmuck. Thank God I’m not a terrible bully like him!” While most people aren’t bullies, many people do harbor some pretty awful ideas about disabled people. The difference is that they are self-controlled and smart enough to keep their own behavior in check.

Which leads me to another thought. Doesn’t it seem likely that Mr. Aviv is at least a little bit mentally ill? Nothing in the article suggests he or his lawyer brought that up, but I wonder. I keep coming back to the fact that his acts were not just mean, they were bizarre. So were his apparent motivations … like smells from a dryer. Is this a guy who just can’t function in close proximity to other people? Does he imagine a thousand slights and impingements that aren’t really there? I’m glad the judge also sentenced him to anger management classes, though as I say, a psychological evaluation might be a good idea as well.

I don’t know. Maybe the guy is a racist, ableist misanthrope who just couldn’t stand having a large, possibly noisy and active family next door. On the other hand, when I worked at the CIL, I knew people with certain mental health diagnoses who at their core were decent people, but because of sensory issues combined with garbled thinking, had a terrible time living in an apartment where people were constantly coming and going and talking with each other. I’m talking about people who I wished I had the resources to just move them to a nice cabin in the woods, where nobody would bother them. The article says that the family next door didn’t have the money to move away from their abusive neighbor. Maybe he didn’t have the money to move away from them, either.

Finally, I wonder how things will between Mr. Aviv and the Prugh family after his sentence is complete. My wild guess is that there will be Order of Protection sometime in the near future, because I doubt that Aviv is going to learn any meaningful lesson from holding his sign.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

"Serfdom"

Doubly Disabled in Life

The Editorial Baord, The New York Times - April 11, 2014

The New York Times has followed up its very good article on the Justice Department’s agreement with Rhode Island on changing the practice of Sheltered Workshops and Day Programs, with an even better Editorial in support of it.

If nothing else, the Editorial should be treasured for describing segregated employment and service programs for intellectually disabled people as “serfdom”. As a history buff, I don’t really think “serfdom” is an accurate description, but it’s close enough and it is emotionally, if not technically accurate. It is especially apt since serfdom, though not quite slavery, did basically trap people in jobs decided by others. It was also underpinned by an assumption that serfs’ occupations were their natural lot, and it was legitimized by a veneer of benevolence. Serfs were to be grateful for being taken care of by their lords who were supposed to be responsible for them, not just exploit them.

People who defend Sheltered Workshops usually use a combination of one or more of the following arguments:

- Sheltered Workshops provide a job-like experience, and a little pocket money, for people whose disabilities are so severe that they could never make it in a “real” job, so it is better than sitting idle at home. Part of this argument is that those who despise Sheltered Workshops just don’t understand how disabled these people are. This may actually be true, to some extent. On the other hand, the same kind of argument has been made numerous times to justify slavery, serfdom, and other exploitative models. "If you knew what wretches these people are, you wouldn’t turn your nose up” the argument goes.

- Workers in these programs are often paid less than Minimum Wage because they aren’t as productive as “normal” workers, and their pay is calibrated to reflect their actual productivity. It is argued that paying everyone Minimum Wage, even those with extremely low productivity, would make the model unsustainable.

- Ending the practice will result in people being worse off … without any kind of job, no earnings at all, and disruptive lives for people for whom disruption of routines is especially harmful. Of course, there are better ways of accomplishing the same goals. But, even worthwhile revolutions are hard. They are sometimes also necessary.

It may be worth noting that historically, the end of serfdom led for most serfs to systems that were only barely improvements … such as sharecropping and factory labor, which brought a slight increase in income, but arguably less security.

But, would we really trade back? Freedom can be rough and it offers few promises, but most people choose it when they can. I find it interesting that free-market conservatives and capitalists tend to defend Sheltered Workshops, when they take a moment to think about it. You would think that they would champion the idea of self-reliance. But that fails to account for ableism. The key here is that these aren’t “regular” people … they are disabled, and intellectually disabled to boot … so the normal rules and values don’t apply. A "nanny state" is, apparently, fine for cripples, even if it anathema for everyone else.

Part of the problem is that the abilities of just about all disabled people tend to be underestimated. Also, Sheltered Workshops have always been a convenient landing place for disabled people, used by disability professionals and even families when they can’t imagine any better outcomes. Finally, there’s plain inertia. It’s just easier to keep doing the same thing than to try “new” models.

As I have noted before, better ways exist and are hardly “new”. It is truly encouraging that some real movement may just be ahead to end this “serfdom” decisively.