On Today’s Op Ed Piece in the NY Times

Good morning. I am privileged to have been asked to write an Op Ed piece for the NY Times concerning the ascendancy of David A. Paterson who will be sworn in as the nation’s first blind governor on Monday. You can follow this link to read the piece.

I wish that the Times hadn’t called the editorial “The Vision Thing” since I hate to be associated with George Herbert Walker Bush or his progeny. But they didn’t ask me.

Still, the success of David Paterson is something that all people with disabilities can celebrate!

S.K.

Professor Stephen Kuusisto
Department of English
The University of Iowa
308 EPB
Iowa City, IA 52242

LINKS:

What It Means to be New York’s First Legally Blind Governor
Who Is David Paterson?
Read All About It!
Thanks Blue Girl
The Vision Thing Brigit Abstract
The first legally blind governor  Thanks Heather
David Paterson to Become First Legally Blind Governor of NY on Monday  Thanks Anne
Rhetoric about blindness begins in paterson coverage Thanks BA Haller
Kuusisto on David Paterson Thanks Ken
Building the Internal World Thanks Jean Marie
Blind elected officials  Interesting! Thanks Penny
He’s Blind. I’m Deaf. What Do I Have in Common with New York State Governor David Paterson? Thanks David
NY Times Op Ed on David Paterson Thanks, Ruth


Get Involved: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities "Blog Swarm"

RatifyNow.org is "a
website to support the global grassroots efforts to ratify the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities."  There you will
find this announcement:

Blog Swarm!

Calling all bloggers and writers! On March 30,
2008, the RatifyNow.org site will be host to the RatifyNow CRPD Blog
Swarm 2008! If you’re reading this page, chances are, you care
passionately about disability rights. This is your chance to get on a
soap box and tell the world what the international disability rights
treaty (CRPD) means to you! Learn how to get involved.

If you are not a blogger, you too can be involved.  Simply forward your essay/comments to a blogger, here for instance, to have your thoughts be heard.

Cross-posted on Blog [with]tv and Crimes Against People with Disabilities

Run! It's Brother Nader!

As I type these words Ralph Nader is appearing on NBC’s "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert to announce that he’s decided to run for the presidency. I greet this news with the neurological equivalent of a foot cramp.

Ralph Nader is the monk who none of the other monks will sit next to in the monastery. It’s not that he smells bad. It has nothing to do with his ideas.

No, the problem for Brother Nader is that post-industrial global-corporate society actually wants him to run. And he of course doesn’t possess enough personal irony to sense this.

Ralph, Ye Hardly Knew Ye.

S.K.

Why We Can’t Say Certain Words Anymore. Like "civil rights".

William Peace has written a compelling post about “wheelchair dumping” over at Counterpunch.

He wonders why Americans don’t see abuses against people with
disabilities or crimes against the poor or the elderly as civil rights
issues.

The answer is essentially economic: Ronald Reagan taught Americans
that anything having to do with “minorities” costs money. If a thing
costs money, why by God it must be coming out of the pockets of the
middle class.

(The analogy with Fascist Germany’s public insistence that people
with disabilities were “useless eaters” who cost the ordinary German
pocket money isn’t terribly far fetched.)

In turn, after three decades of this commonplace Reganite
sensibility, Americans can no longer afford to use the term “civil
rights” because the very utterance is a disavowal of the comfortable
assumption that social equity costs too much and will rob the suburbs.

This is why Americans only use the term “civil rights” in a
historical context. We only required civil rights in the “old days”
before the GOP fixed everything.

That’s my “take” but have a look at William Peace’s excellent essay.

S.K.

More of Everything

The news about the tragic shootings at Northern Illinois University the other day will, I’m afraid, have the effect of reigniting the call for permitting students and professors to carry guns on campus.

Americans are the people of excess in all areas of life. Faced with the horrific occasion of terrible violence we call for more of the ingredients that make violence possible.

I am not a social psychologist and I never took a Sociology course in college. Yet I know that the abstract process of emulation depends in no small measure on the absence of revulsion.

The call for more gun toting people at our nation’s colleges is of course a product of fear.

But it’s also a proposition that’s made possible only if one accepts violence as a signature circumstance.

I am repulsed by the industry and machinery of violence.

I don’t accept the proposition that carrying a gun makes a man or woman safer.

I’m not alone by virtue of having this view. I hold no moral compass.

I think that more guns in more stray hands is no solution to our nation’s evident epidemic of mental illness.   

Still it’s the abstract admission of violence as a necessary component of civil life that most troubles me.

More! Let’s have more!

Or to paraphrase Orwell: “perpetual violence for permanent peaceful co-existence.”

S.K.

Our heart goes out to the family and friends of those whose lives were lost by this terrible act of violence.

Send a Haiku Postcard to the President

Split_this_rock_str_bannerhor1_6

Blue Girl? When was the last time you wrote a Haiku? 

Lance?
Dave?
Wren?
Ruth?
Ira?
Andrea?

On the Split This Rock Poetry Festival web site you’ll find a link to Blog This Rock where we can all read read haiku written to "Dubya" by attendees of the 2008 AWP Conference in New York City.

Let President Bush know how you feel.  We’re all invited to do just that.  Send a "Haiku Postcard to the President!" c/o

Split This Rock Poetry Festival
The Institute for Policy Studies
1112 16th   Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Here’s mine:

I support our troops
but you can’t have my children.
Not for your mistakes.

~ Connie

The Fight to Come

New polls are out suggesting that if the presidential election were held today Hillary Clinton would be in a statistical dead heat with Senator John McCain; the same polls show Barack Obama would have a three or four point lead—which, in terms of the margin of error means he would be tied .

As a Democrat I’ve always argued to anyone who would listen that McCain is the most viable candidate in the GOP largely because by the time November rolls around it’s predictable that Americans will once again be confused about the war in Iraq and that other war in Afghanistan, and that other war shaping up in Iran.

I make no bones about my own views. I’m a participant in the loosely affiliated group called Poets AgainstPoets_against_the_war_2
the War
which was co-founded by the poet Sam Hamill.

The Democratic House and Senate have shown those of us who are fiercely opposed to the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq what we can pretty much expect from Democratic leadership. The party opposes the war but lacks all conviction when it comes to fashioning a credible pullout strategy.

I have always said to anyone who would listen that the GOP will make this autumn’s election about the war on terror and whoever its candidate is will mark the Democratic ticket as being cowardly in the face of terror. We’re already hearing what we can expect from McCain: any withdrawal from Iraq would constitute a victory for Osama bin Laden. In fact, Senator McCain will base his entire campaign on this idea. He will have to do this because he has no substantive plans to assist the middle class or repair the U.S. economy. You can bet that part of his campaign will be smoke and mirrors.

The problem for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is that they’re respective plans for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq are made from the same smoke and mirrors the McCain forces will use for the economy. In point of fact neither Hillary or Barack has any idea how to get troops out of the middle east.

In the meantime you can predict that events on the ground in that troubled and wide region will remain precarious.

And so, in turn, the Democratic ticket will look weak.

Which of these two leading Democratic candidates do you suppose will have the tougher position and the most seasoned advisors when it comes to fighting John McCain on the war on terror?

For my money the answer is clear: Hillary Clinton is the toughest candidate the Democrats can choose. In this matter Connie and I are putting our money behind Senator Clinton.

Hillary will have to fight on two fronts: she will have to assert that the Democrats are tough enough to fight terrorism when and where it counts while arguing that the ticket possesses the leadership and vision to map an effective military and diplomatic strategy.

Again, our money’s on Hillary in this critical fight.

S.K.

Which Scrooge Will Be Left Standing?

As America looks to the election results on “Super Tuesday” I hope the voters comprehend the implications of George W. Bush’s latest budget.  President Bush has called for deep cuts in Medicaid and Medicare: cuts that, if adopted will be devastating to the elderly and the poor: just the folks who are already struggling with the cost of health care.


Bush’s budget is heartless and the President is playing politics with the health of people with disabilities, single moms, children in poverty, and the old.


The drama in Washington will now be about whether the House and Senate can “do something”.

I said this budget plan is heartless but that’s really not fair to the rest of the heartless people. Even the amateur Scrooges of America understand that rising poverty and infant mortality aren’t in the best interests of the nation.


Apparently only George W. Bush is still saying: “Are there no prisons, are there no work houses?”


S.K.

Still Outraged

After reading this article one can only pronounce the
following:

What’s the matter, Osama? Are you running out of martyrs?
Not enough brain washed testosterone poisoned zealots loitering around the
cave, just waiting to do your handiwork? Gotta use unwitting disabled women in
order to blow up more innocent civilians? Yeah, I’m talking to you, Osama, you
swaggering worm, you inedible insect.

Okay. I feel better.  For the moment.  But why are people with Downs Syndrome
or any other disabling condition forced to beg for survival in

Iraq

?
Where is the United Nations?  Where is the

United
  States

sense of conscience?

S.K.

TV Goes Down the Drain

The press coverage of the democratic presidential race has descended to one of those circles of hell wherein greedy appetites and exaggerated punishments exist side by side and without end. Did Barack Obama “snub” Hillary Clinton by turning his back on the New York senator as she sought to shake his hand at the State of the Union address on capitol hill? Who knows? What seems clear is that the Balkanization of identity politics has been a profitable story, particularly for the TV broadcasters, and that in turn, substantive issues are not discussed.

I continue to yearn for a dis-modern America where each of us is liberated from the symbolic and semiotic categorizations of the past. When individuals are reduced to symbolism there’s a very real chance that the hoary heads of discrimination and bigotry are doing most of the talking.

None of the reporters in the MSNBC or CNN crowds would easily admit to partaking in glib and discriminatory rhetoric. Yet the reduction of Barack Obama to a mere representation as “the black candidate” or the similar categorization of Senator Clinton according to her gender represents the most clay footed and witless symbolic obfuscation we’ve seen in this country since the reign of Lee Atwater.

I can’t say which I dislike more: the reduction of two fine candidates to racial or gendered inferiority or the money making feeding frenzy that this phony story has created in the media.

Continue reading “TV Goes Down the Drain”