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.

How Much Would It Take?

Labour calls for radical reform of social security for disabled people

Randeep Ramesh, The Guardian, UK - July 9, 2013

Awhile back, I was reading a small flurry of articles on big changes in the Great Britain's disability service programs. It was hard to figure to figure out what was going on, but it seemed like the UK system in general was simpler, based more on cash support than services, and possibly more flexible. The problem seemed to be that the Conservative / Liberal Democratic coalition government wanted to make the system a bit simpler still, but also reduce its expense, thereby cutting overall support individuals receive.

Now it looks like the opposition Labour Party has it's own proposal, and it seems to more clearly address simplicity, while reducing one what sounds like the system's most annoying aspect … people with disabilities needing to prove their impairments again and again to different departments. The Labour proposal would apparently consolidate all support into "lump sum" payments, out of which each individual would pay for whatever services they needed … personal care, rent, food, adaptive equipment, counseling, training, whatever.

That sounds good to me, as long as the individual budgets are the right amounts, and based on individual needs, not a cookie cutter formula.

If you have a disability, how big of a support check per month would it take for you to be able to buy the disability-related support and assistance you need?

Who Knew? I Really Want To Know

Ray Begovich, Indiana Professor, Finds Film Of FDR's Secret Disability 

Charles Wilson, Associated Press / Huffington Post - July 9, 2013

The article mentions the President being "pushed" in his wheelchair, but it looks to me like he's wheeling himself; in the video, I think I can see his arms and elbows swinging back and forth.

Everything you read about it says that the President kept his disability a secret, but that just doesn't sound possible. My parents grew up in the 1930s, and my Mother, at least, always told me that people knew FDR used a wheelchair. It wasn't a secret, it just wasn't discussed. I wonder if that's really how it was. I really need to read "FDR's Splendid Deception", which I believe is the definitive book on the subject.

If Roosevelt's disability was a taboo topic but widely known, that would suggest that people had much more complex ideas about disability than people today give them credit for. Roosevelt was already famous when he got polio as a younger man, so people knew he'd had it. People certainly knew a lot about polio in general … a lot more than people know these days. So, wouldn't they have assumed that Roosevelt had to have at least some residual impairments? Maybe they didn't know the details. Maybe they didn't know he was fully paralyzed. They had to know something, and I suspect there was kind of an unspoken deal between the people and their President … an agreement not to acknowledge or discuss the disability.

Anyway, that's why I need to read the book, because I really am curious about the nature and extent of FDR's so-called "deception."

"FDR's Splendid Deception: The Moving Story of Roosevelt's Massive Disability-And the Intense Efforts to Conceal It from the Public", by Hugh Gregory Gallagher, 3rd Edition, 1999

Unemployment Followup

I reread what I wrote yesterday about different kinds of unemployment / employment figures. It has occurred to me that the two kinds of figures suggest two kinds of employment goals for the disability community:

1. More people with disabilities working, and
2. More people with disabilities actively looking for jobs.

In theory, we should try to reduce the unemployment rate for people with disabilities to be closer to that for non-disabled people, while at the same time, increasing the number of people with disabilities looking for work. Initially, this would actually raise the unemployment rate, because more people would he counted who are looking but not yet hired. The goal would be to close both gaps.

Does that make sense?

A Bio And A Blog

Being A Blind Teenager

Kody Keplinger, Disability In Kidlit - July 8, 2013

Yesterday, I read this fantastic short biography by a Young Adult (YA) fiction writer, who also runs a collaborative blog of YA writers … Disability In Kidlit, described as, "Reviews, guest posts, and discussions about the portrayal of disabilities in MG/YA fiction".

Here are two of the best bits from the piece:

"That’s the thing about disability, I think. You’re a normal person, you experience normal things, and then, every once in a while, you hit that wall. That reminder that you aren’t quite like the majority of your peers. Most of the time it’s small things ... but it can still hurt like hell." 

"Before I wrap up here, I want to note that none of the typical “blind person” cliches fit me. I am not a musician, I don’t feel people’s face (eww, so weird!), and my blindness really played a very small part in my life. It occasionally impacted my friendships, it sometimes changed the way I did things in class, but for the most part, I was your average middle or high schooler. Your average middle or high schooler who just happened to use a cane and push around a cart with a big CCTV on it."

One day I hope to invite other bloggers to contribute to this site, so I'm encouraged to see a collaborative blog in the disability field.

AmputeeOT Followup: "Devotees"

One of AputeeOT's videos is about "Devotees", people who are sexually attracted specifically to people with disabilities.

I had heard before of the fact that there are people who are attracted to people with disabilities specifically because of their disabilities, but I didn't know there was a term for it, or that it was any kind of recognized subculture. My first reaction was that it's more like a "fetish", and therefore mostly a negative thing, at least from my point of view. I still feel that any such attraction worthy of a name is probably more of a fetish than a milder interest. I also suspect that most "Devotee" attention is objectifying more than appreciative. That is, it is an attraction that is very narrow, that doesn't involve much personal connection, and that turns people with disabilities into objects of highly focused interest rather than appreciation of the whole person.

On the other hand, maybe that's not saying much. A lot of sexual attraction is objectifying. Are guys who are heavily into breasts or feet, or women who are into big muscles or mustaches (or breasts or feet for that matter) all that different from people who are attracted to amputations or paralysis?

If these attractions are just the first step … the hook if you will … that can lead to a fuller connection, then fine. It's when they stay laser-focused on these particular aspects that the attraction of Devotees would be troubling to me, and unwanted.

That said, I don't object to Devotees per se. I think it all depends on behavior and whether the interest … or fetish … leads to real human connection.

Here's what Wikipedia says:

Attraction To Disability

Note: Wikipedia identifies three sub-groups, Devotees, Pretenders (people who like to pose as disabled), and Wannabes (people who actually want to become disabled), abbreviating them together as DPWs.

A couple of quotes that stood out for me:

"Despite the explosion of the DPW Web [Internet sites], many disabled people remain unaware of the attraction. Those newly introduced to it often report initial alarm and deep shock. Subsequent reactions (often after further research) appear to involve deep introspection and an eventual revision of attitudes." 

"The [disability rights] movement perforce backs the DPW stance that the disabled ought not to be branded unattractive and asexual, but by the same token resists suggestions that they ought to welcome the attentions of a sexual minority. If it has any real stance on DPWs, the movement is generally negative, seeing them as unacceptably needy and fetishistic. Despite early hopes that DPWs were welcome allies in the battle against lookism, the movement has found that they do not offer any escape from the tyranny of visual norms; they merely pile bizarre standards atop mainstream ones. In addition, the 'hero adulation' and protectiveness elements of the attraction are ideologically most unwelcome to the movement."

Weird, wild stuff … sometimes, but not necessarily, in a bad way.

Unemployment Rate? Which Unemployment Rate?

Today I think I finally understand something that's been mystifying me for years. Why are quoted employment and unemployment figures for people with disabilities all over the map?

For at least the last 20 years, I have heard figures between 60% and 75% cited as the unemployment rate for people with disabilities. Those are very high figures, yet sadly they don't seem out of line with reality. I've quoted figures like that to all sorts of audiences, and nobody ever questioned me about them. The high unemployment figures may or may not seem "right" to people, but they always seemed to be accepted as more or less accurate.

Then a couple of years ago I started seeing reports of unemployment rates more like 20% or less. That's quite a difference. Which figures are correct?

I figured these had to be two entirely different measures, encompassing different populations but under similar-sounding labels. But I could never find an explanation, until today. If you want to get a more accurate and nuanced picture of employment and unemployment of people with disabilities … and you don't mind reading figures multiple times and thinking hard about statistics … Read this June 12, 2013 release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics Summary.

Yes, I know … snooze.

The summary worth studying, because while the situation is bad, it is comprehensible.

First of all, it's important to know that the "Unemployment Rate" you hear every month on the evening news is a more narrow measurement than the simple term suggests. It is the rate of joblessness only among people who:

a. Are employed, full time or part time, or

b. Are available for work (i.e., not retired or acutely sick), and

c. Have looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

So, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities in 2012 was 13.4%, compared to an unemployment rate for people without disabilities of 7.9% in the same year. This does not include retired people, children younger than 16, or anyone unemployed who has not looked for work in the 4 weeks before being polled. So, it does not count people with disabilities who … whatever their thoughts and long-term dreams about working … are essentially not looking for work.

On the other hand, there's the "Employment-Population Ratio" ... a measure of how many people are employed ... which in 2012 was 17.8% for people with disabilities, and 63.9% for people without disabilities. These figures do count retired people, children, and anyone of working age who is not employed, for whatever reason. These are more like the figures I used to hear.

The narrower comparison, which focuses just on people who are actively in the labor market … employed or actively looking for jobs … indicates that people with disabilities have a 5.5% higher unemployment rate than non-disabled people. (13.4% disabled unemployed minus 7.9% non-disabled unemployed).

By the broader measure, including people who are unemployed for any reason, including age and short or long-term choice, shows an employment gap of 46.1% between disabled and non-disabled people, if you count everyone. (17.8% disabled employed minus 63.9% non-disabled employed). That gap represents people with disabilities who can't find work but seek it, but also those too young or too old to work, and people who for whatever reason are not actively looking for work when the poll is taken.

Which kind of measurement is the most informative?

Actually, I think you need them both. The reasons why some people with disabilities are employed and some are not are very complex, involving for each person a unique mix of the disability itself, plus training and credentials, past work experience, references, community connections, motivation, perseverance, the state of the local and national economy, and the rise and decline of specific industries and professions. A person with a disability who hasn't looked for a job in over a year … and may even tell you he or she isn't interested in working … may in fact have in mind various scenarios for eventually being employed. So, it's important to know the absolute number of people with disabilities who are unemployed, and be able to compare that percentage with the percentage of non-disabled people who are unemployed. The narrower figure, in turn, gives you a picture of the odds you may face  once you decide to look for working a focused way … as opposed to just thinking about it.

Both measurements also confirm what I'm pretty sure we all knew, which is that there is an employment gap for people with disabilities that can't be fully explained by our disabilities themselves. It is not a natural gap. It's a gap that shouldn't be there at all.