We'll Be Seeing You

I do not customarily get my news from Joe Scarborough whose MSNBC show "Morning Joe" is largely devoid of substance but rank with middle brow party hack-isms from both sides of the aisle. Still, MSNBC has just reported that Senator John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth will speak today at 1 pm eastern time when they will announce their decision to withdraw from the presidential campaign trail. They will make their announcement in New Orleans, where they started their campaign over a year ago. As almost everyone knows, New Orleans remains in devastation three years after Katrina. My general sense is that of all the candidates running, John Edwards has the deepest conscience and the largest heart. Elizabeth Edwards and John have done more to remind this nation that severe and unacceptable inequality is a direct consequence of political policies that have rewarded the richest people in this nation while ignoring the plight of the poor and the middle class. Our hats are off to John and Elizabeth. In Finland where my childhood was spent, they say when people part: "Nakemiin" which means "Be seeing you." We are with the Edwards family and we thank them for pressing for human dignity on all fronts.

S.K.   

The ADA Restoration Act: What We All Need to Know

News From the Front

The attack is on and the fight is fierce. The ADA Restoration Act is currently being debated in Washington and the proposed legislation which is designed to restore the employment protections that were crafted as part of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act is now under attack from groups that want to severely limit  the kinds of work place accommodations that employees can and should receive in order to remain gainfully employed.

Because the hosts of this blog are advocates for the full employment of people with disabilities and because the high rate of unemployment among the blind and visually impaired remains at catastrophic levels we want to alert our readers to the fact that the Society for Human Resource Management (a “Management” oriented group) has issued a call to arms urging its membership to fight against this crucial disability oriented legislation. Their tactic? They tell their membership that if the ADA Restoration Act is adopted employers will have to make accommodations for people with minor headaches or disfiguring scars—that is, the SHRM has argued to its membership that under the proposed act, the definition of disability is so broad that “virtually every employee” will be disabled and will require some kind of accommodation. This is absolute nonsense and the sophistry and misrepresentation of both the ADA and the ADA Restoration Act that are utilized in the service of this disinformation is really shameful. But to paraphrase Lou Reed (who said “you can’t always trust your mother”)—“you can’t always trust human resource management”.

My friend and former colleague Scott Lissner (who is the superb ADA Coordinator for The Ohio State University) has written the following altogether cogent summary of the ADA Restoration Act and this is, in our view, the most accurate and succinct summary of the proposed legislation. Please read on.

Continue reading “The ADA Restoration Act: What We All Need to Know”

Our Support Needed for the ADA Restoration Act

The Road to Freedom leads us, among other places, to this list of 5 Things we can all do RIGHT NOW to support

"the ‘ADA Restoration Act’ that would restore vital
civil right protections for children and adults with physical, mental,
cognitive and developmental disabilities."

For more information, visit the ADA Restoration Act 2007 blog where you’ll find this ****ACTION ALERT!****

HURRY!

~CK

Cross-posted on Blog [with]tv

[with]tv Recommends the Inclusion Daily Express

Good luck trying to find this much information anywhere else on the web. 
~ C. Kuusisto

INCLUSION DAILY EXPRESS
International Disability Rights News Service

http://www.InclusionDaily.com
Your quick, once-a-day look at disability rights, self-determination
and the movement toward full community inclusion around the world.


Cross-posted on Blog [with]tv

Tabloid Politics

Today on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Tom Brokaw observed that we may be in a new political era in the U.S.— an age that might be characterized as representing “the end of dogma” as we have known it.

I liked Mr. Brokaw’s optimism since his remark was contextualized within the broader assertion that voters in both the GOP and the Democratic party may be less inclined to vote for a candidate merely because they embrace the traditional polarizing political rhetoric of the past thirty years.

As “The Buffalo Springfield” once sang: "Something’s happening here…”

Meanwhile it’s clear given the percentages for each candidate in recent primaries that no one has the affection of the majority in either party.

In turn we have a great opportunity to debate ideas.

And this is where my optimism breaks down. The political coverage in this country is so poor and the lurid ambulance chasing of the press is so rampant that the substantive differences between the candidates on everything from how to fix social security to what we ought to do to repair our international diplomatic and economic status remains woefully under reported.

And so we have moved away from dogma into something like disaffected chatter. Here’s what the various TV political talk shows have focused on over the past week:

Bill Clinton got red in the face while scolding a reporter in Las Vegas. He looked really angry and kind of old. Old Bill was looking uncool. That Clinton was talking about the failure of the press to report on the dirty tricks of local labor unions was of no consequence. Why should it matter that union members who wanted to vote for Hillary were being threatened by union bosses? That’s no story! Look how red Bill has gotten! And he’s shaking his finger! Remember the last time old Bill shook his finger? Isn’t it time for Bill to disappear? Who cares what he’s saying? Aren’t we tired of him? Yeah. That’s right. He was the most effective bi-partisan president in recent history but who cares? Look! He’s red as a lobster!

Barack Obama said something that’s historically accurate about Ronald Reagan, namely that he represented a period of genuine change in the country. Yes! That’s right! Barack Obama said something factual about President Reagan. But you’d think what he really said was: “Ronald Reagan came down to earth from outer space and I’m one of his pod people!” The scouring that poor Obama has taken for saying something absolutely benign is astonishing. And that’s the problem of course. Barack Obama is one of the most reasonable people to run for the presidency since Abe Lincoln. This requires the tabloid press to stretch the senator’s features out of shape. Lost in all this is the fact that Obama was talking about the fact that this election may be a different political moment for our nation and that a smart candidate should recognize that. God almighty! You’d never know what the poor man was saying. Newsroom! Newsroom! Hold the presses! Obama said “Reagan” out loud in front of a camera and he didn’t demonize him. Yep! That’s right! What a scandal! Let’s show the film clip over and over as if it’s the Zapruder film.

Notice any substance here? I didn’t think so.

Mitt Romney got angry at a reporter who confronted him about his assertion that he had no political lobbyists in his campaign. When the reporter said this wasn’t true, that one of Romney’s top advisors is a noted Washington lobbyist, Romney argued that his campaign manager isn’t a lobbyist “so there” Nah Nah Nah! Then the reporter was confronted by Romney’s chief campaign strategist who dressed him down for confronting “the candidate” and Lo and Behold! The coverage on MSNBC was about whether or not that reporter was actually wrong to have asked the question. I swear on my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring that this is true! And the talking heads argued back and forth about whether a reporter should ask a tough question like that and lost in all of this nonsensical palaver was the fact that Mitt Romney has a genuine aura of unreliability when it comes to certain facts. If the current reporting trends continue Romney doesn’t have much to worry about. I think he can count on the press to fixate on the dropped scraps of butcher’s paper. In short, you can say what you want nowadays so long as you look good doing it.

Obviously these are just a few recent examples of what I like to think of as the post-dogma tabloid trivialization of our political reporting.

Perhaps the most egregious thing I heard today on “Meet the Press” came from Peggy Noonan (who else?) who in a neat bit of sophistry argued that the sight of Bill Clinton fighting on the front lines for his wife’s candidacy is essentially an “anti-feminist”position. Apparently Ms. Noonan has forgotten all those solo campaign stops hosted by Nancy Reagan who did her level best to get angry for her Ronny whenever she could.

Is it possible that we’re in the post-dogma era but there’s no one left in the fourth estate to report on it?
S.K.

Hats off to New Jersey

Watching Governor John Corzine of New Jersey attempting to modernize his state’s highways and bridges should tell us a good deal about the future of the United States. It’s altogether possible to miss this story in the flux of substandard reporting about the presidential campaigns. But this story "is" the story of our nation’s fast approaching decades.

Governor Corzine’s problem exemplifies the dilemmas of leadership in post-Reagan America when the idea of taxation is triangulated in the public imagination with waste and inefficiency. The Reagan shtick was always built on the idea that the government was big and wasteful and if you just kept starving the government the wondrous world of the private sector would step in and take over and everything would be more efficient and cost-effective.

I’m all for the private sector. I love my kitchen appliances. Who would want a government built toaster?

(The government built toaster is powered by a recumbent bicycle which is also hooked mysteriously to your neighbor’s electric garage door opener.)

Governor Corzine’s problem is that the Reagan revolution produced unimaginable consequences. The Federal government that was built by FDR and was perfected by Eisenhower, the government that John F. Kennedy inherited—a government that could imagine sending people to the moon within a decade has been largely destroyed. The federal government can’t rebuild New Orleans or even build a fence along the Mexican border without Haliburton and a thousand lobbyists and hangers on who work for the lobbyists and who used to be known as "loan sharks" but nowadays are called "public policy advisors".

The Reagan legacy is both a tale of privatization and deregulation of commerce and the successful misrepresentation of government as a problem.

God help the politician who would step to the microphone and tell the people that schools and roads and bridges and water treatment and meat inspection and the center for disease control cost money. These things don’t run on private donations.

Both FDR and Eisenhower understood that these things must necessarily be paid for by taxing the wealthy more than the middle class. And the wealthy disliked these men. Reagan was the political son of Senator Barry Goldwater who was the GOP’s reactionary answer to Eisenhower.

Say what you will but President Eisenhower understood how FDR had saved America from foes both foreign and domestic. God how the right wing wealthy hated the old general.

How will our nation build new bridges or clean our water supply?

Will we hold a bake sale?

Will we have special TV telethons depicting collapsed bridges and calling on the good hearted public to phone in a generous donation?

Governor Corzine has proposed a comprehensive plan to save New Jersey’s transportation infrastructure because everyone knows that we’re in a crisis.

The plan calls for some substantial tax increases. All of these are staggered over time and they are carefully indexed to cost-effective public management of capital resources.

(People forget that FDR’s "New Deal" was not wasteful. An efficient government working on behalf of the public can account for every dime. We forget this at our peril.)

While the respective presidential candidates talk about change in vaporous terms and when the Bush administration is calling for more tax cuts to stimulate an imperiled national economy, only Governor Corzine has had the courage to step forward with a proposal that reminds us of FDR and the old general.

Will we pay taxes in order to remain a first world nation?

I for one am praying that the people of New Jersey will show the courage to do what’s right. The people of the garden state must return our faith to accountable and democratic government.

The private sector ain’t gonna fix the roads. They can’t even run an airline.

S.K.

My Theory Du Jour

These days in the United States there’s a backlash against complexity. I won’t trot out the "founding fathers" (Jefferson with his home made bible; Franklin’s personal library) but I think it’s safe to say that the contemporary disdain for complexity is not an 18th or 19th century American characteristic.

Ronald Reagan said famously, "facts are stupid things" and by saying it he was merely articulating what Americans had come to feel by the 1980’s—the facts may well be against us. Let them go.

I was put in mind of this today because I can’t help but wonder if Senator John McCain may have lost the Michigan primary because he strove to tell voters that there are jobs "that won’t be returning to Michigan".

Senator McCain likes to characterize himself as a straight talker and unfortunately for him post-factual America doesn’t like complexity.

During last evening’s democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas it became clear that there’s a substantial difference in management style between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Hillary is a gatherer of facts; a sifter. Barack Obama doesn’t like to be inconvenienced by the details. He has suggested that if elected he will surround himself with good advisors because he sees his primary strength as being a motivator of people.

I can’t help it: I’m detecting the ghost of Reagan in this campaign. Complexity is to be eschewed or ignored.

We can assemble the usual suspects. TV and commercial culture; sound bytes and pixels; disposable conveniences; geographical illiteracy…

If this was simply a matter of complexity’s downfall I’d be okay. The problem lies with the red herring of post-factual politics, which is to say that Mike Huckabee tells America we need "the living God" in our Constitution and it seems to me you can only make a nonsensical proposal like that when people aren’t capable of telling the difference between logos, ethos, and pathos.

If John McCain and Hillary Clinton prevail then perhaps I’ll reconsider my anti-complexity reaction formation theory.

A guy can dream, can’t he?

S.K.

"Hi. I'm Elizabeth Edwards"

Steve and I had just received a tip that John Edwards was appearing in
a local restaurant around the corner from where we happened to be (in
downtown Iowa City).  Winding our way down the hallway to the back room
where the crowd was, a woman stepped out of the restroom.  We almost
bumped into each other.

Just as I was processing the thought Elizabeth…? she said "Hi.  I’m Elizabeth Edwards…" She then stuck her hand out to shake mine. 

Yes, so I noticed!" I replied…

We caught the tail-end of John’s speech and as he made his way through the room to leave, I shook his hand for the second time in two weeks.  He smiled and thanked Steve and I when we wished him good luck this evening.

What were we doing in downtown Iowa City early this morning you ask?  Why we had just attended a Chris Dodd pre-caucus coffee hour.  There we met and had a brief conversation with his wife, Jackie.  We had met Chris a couple of weeks ago…

Quite the morning I’d say. 

Now I’m not sayin’ who has my vote.  But I will say it’s fun to experience for the first time what all this Iowa Caucus hoopla is all about.  Any way you look at it, this is history in the making and as Chris Dodd said this morning, no where but in Iowa do people have the opportunity to really get to know the candidates – and on a first name basis at that. 

Elizabeth, Jackie – it was a pleasure to meet you both this morning.  You too, John and Chris.

~ Connie

My New Year's Resolution

I generally arrive at the end of the year with a bout of insomnia. I lay awake last night and listened to "No Country for Old Men"—a book that has been much praised and which is now a major motion picture, and which I found to be largely senseless and gratuitously violent.

I see of course why this should be a book for our times.

I heard numerous politicians say yesterday that "the surge" in Iraq has been a success.

What this means is that over the past six months fewer American troops have been killed in Iraq while civilian casualties have gone up. It is true of all civil wars that civilians die in great numbers.

Most of the GOP’s candidates are comfortable with this outcome.

Accordingly they are in support of civilian casualties in the name of "American foreign policy".

In the aftermath of 9-11 the Bush administration has promoted civil wars in Pakistan and Iraq in the name of the war on terror.

In the final analysis I can’t square my Christian conscience with my nation’s present foreign policy. I do not believe that by killing civilians we foster freedom and peace.

I am appalled by the easy and imperial indifference to the taking of innocent lives which continues to be promulgated by the major Republican presidential candidates, including Mike Huckabee who ought to be the most outraged of all.

America has lost its collective ability to see violence as a grievous fascination and a moral mistake.

Cormac McCarthy’s "No Country for Old Men" is just junk. His characters are cartoon figures held together by the standard pathologized clichés favored by an increasingly illiterate culture.

Continue reading “My New Year's Resolution”