Lieslmcq

Hush, hush

Liesl — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:27:00 GMT

I went to St. John's College in Santa Fe for graduate school. Part of the reason I went there was because I so admired one of the professors, a man named Robert Sacks. I had read his book on Genesis when I was an undergrad and found his thinking remarkable. He had been a student of Leo Strauss, a political philosopher I have admired for a long time. His book on Genesis and his connection to the great Strauss were enough to push me over the edge into graduate school in Santa Fe; if he taught there and the program was as revered as it is, it must be worth my time. Or, so my thinking was when I applied and then decided to attend St. John's. Here's the ridiculous thing about my time at St. John's: I was so in awe of Robert Sacks that I never introduced myself to him or talked to him. I did talk to another tutor about him and he later told me that Mr. Sacks would be pleased to meet me, but I never had the courage to seek him out. Actually, I sat right next to him at the nail salon while we both had pedicures and was too shy to say a word.

If you know me, you know that it is very unusual for me to be shy or overawed by people. I am a southern woman through and through and my father's daughter in my ability to talk to strangers and make them my friends. The fact that I could not do this with Robert Sacks, that I was too shy to even introduce myself, is embarrassing and a little funny. Mr. Sacks had been an inspiration to me in my desire to go beyond conventional thought in analysis but I could not be conventional in my opportunity to meet him and talk with him about his ideas.

Here's the thing about Robert Sacks: he has cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy, by the way, is considered a birth defect. When I was at the nail salon I watched the women in the salon treat Mr. Sacks with disdain. I watched the people sitting next to me stare at him with a hint of derision on their faces. I turned to one after watching him watch Mr. Sacks and said something like, "Isn't it remarkable that the man who just left is one of the greatest minds in our country?" He turned away from me. I've never forgotten that incident because it made me so mad and showed me so intimately the harm that is done when we devalue people who have what we call birth defects. If a man I revered to the point of silence was treated that way then how could any of us gain a foothold of respect? Though that incident was about six years ago I suspect not much has changed in that nail salon or in Mr. Sacks' day to day life. I also suspect that he didn't notice it and would not have cared as I do not care when people purse their lips and look at me with derision after taking in the full measure of my forearm crutch. It just means that I have a larger job to do as a professor of ethics.

The thing that is so incredibly disheartening to me and, I am sure, many other people who are born with genetic or accidental defects is that things only change when the people we revere change and force us to recognize the validity of the change. That is the reason I find it so incredibly offensive to be referred to as "less blessed" by John McCain. It's obvious that John McCain has more money than I do and can do far more with his power than I will ever be able to do, but that's not what McCain said when he was commenting on his wife's compassion for those who are less than "we are." No, he was talking about people who are victims of land mines, children born into poverty and children with birth defects. I have a serious problem with that.

There is no question that people who are victims of land mines have undergone a severe trauma. We've all seen the pictures of the mutilation and devastation they cause. We all, hopefully, also know that children born into poverty have a very difficult road in life. Those two things are clear and they are two issues we should all recognize as deserving of compassion. Birth defects, however, encompass a huge array of diseases and disorders, from cerebral palsy to club foot. The problem I have with lumping birth defects in with people who are victims of violence and poverty is the assumption that people with birth defects need to be fixed to be as "blessed" as everyone else. Violence and poverty are bad things that lead to lives of hardship marked by tragedy; people who are born with birth defects may have harder lives but that does not mean the birth defect makes us less than others. It is simply part of who we are.

I've wondered many times if I would accept the opportunity not to have become disabled. The answer is, of course, yes. My answer is yes because I miss the things I used to be able to do. I would expect that if I had been born without the ability to balance myself without support (most of the time) or without the energy to be able to run up mountains or without a remarkable ability to recall anything I had heard that I would not miss them now. My disability would simply have been part of the life I lead. The idea that my life is less than the life I had before, however, offends me greatly. I have grown as a person since my events and I treasure the life I lead now. Antiphospholipid syndrome, along with all of the other diseases I collect, is not the thing that defines me. My forearm crutch does not represent who I am as a person. My random word loss is not indicative of my overall intellectual health. These things have shaped me, continue to shape me, but to say that they have taken something away from my life is ludicrous. I am happier today than I was three years ago. I am a better professor since my strokes and heart attack. I am a more consciously ethical person since the realization that my health will probably lead to a shorter life. My birth defect, this genetic autoimmunity, does not devalue my life. I am a whole person, just as all people with disabilities are whole people. We don't need your pity. We don't need your compassion if the price of it is a pound of our pride at the hands of your devaluation. We don't need your charity if you're only doing it because you think you're better than we are. We are whole, we are valuable and we are as important to this country as you are. We are nothing like land mines or poverty; we are progressive people who can't help but live the lives we've been given.

I might pity McCain for his lack of understanding and his clear resistance to educated compassion if he didn't think he was so much better than me. It's hard to feel sorry for someone who refuses to recognize the validity of my life. Yet, John McCain receives a disability pension from the Navy. I don't question the rightness of his receiving that pension in the slightest; McCain paid for it with his own suffering. What I find remarkable about it is the fact that he doesn't see his acquired disability as a disability in the same way as someone who is born with a disability. Whether he wants to admit it or not, he is a disabled man. Clearly, he doesn't like to admit it and had to be forced to divulge the fact that he receives that disability pension. What is it about disability that makes him so ashamed to admit it or embrace it? Does he think that disability means you're less than the rest of "us?"

I find it so odd that the media has not said word one about McCain's devaluation of people with birth defects. People have taken it as true that people with birth defects are less blessed than everyone else without considering what that actually means. When I go to bed at night I do not have to relive the experiences of being held captive for five years. When you get up in the morning you probably don't have to live with the necessity of compromised health. But the comparisons are ridiculous because they don't represent any real value. John McCain is no more blessed than the next person in terms of the entirety of a human being. People have different struggles and some people are forced into roles of abject tragedy by outside forces; some people with birth defects might even lead terrible lives because of their birth defects. But none of that means the person is, as a person, less blessed than everyone else. It just means that our lives are different and we may need help in different ways. There are things I can do that John McCain cannot do. That's true of all of us. We each offer a unique footprint in this world that can only be made by our feet or wheels or crutches. What's wrong with that?

I wonder what my life would be like today if I weren’t disabled; wondering this makes me appreciate the lessons I have learned from my disability and from the disability community. I went through a phase where I was heavily sarcastic and fairly judgmental to people who were, by my estimation and the judgment of the community I was involved in, acting foolishly. I don’t know if that slide into meanness would have ended if I had not been forced to slow at the very least. There is no question in my mind that the recognition of other peoples’ struggles has made my struggle feel lighter. In the sharing of commonality I’ve found the gift of a shared burden.

I suppose I do feel sorry for John McCain. It must be hard to live your life as something you despise. If he were able to find that shared commonality he might be happier man, less prone to violent outbursts. We’d all be better for it, I think. Maybe he just needs to learn the value of giving back to your community on the lower levels and getting down onto the floor with the people who need you the most. A little bit of community organization goes a long way in showing us just how much we need each other. I hope John McCain finds the strength to be the kind of man who accepts himself for who he is and lightens our collective load in the process. I know I can’t carry it alone; can you?

Picture credit

Stop

Liesl — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:18:00 GMT

I've been seeing some disturbing editorials lately and I want to address a few of my concerns. First of all, we need to be the kind of people who recognize that a family's personal drama is their own and only our business when it directly affects us. Would you care if someone who lives one street over from you has a 17-year-old daughter who is pregnant? Especially if that situation did not require any intervention from the government? I would hope not. It isn't your business or anyone else's to judge a person based on the actions of their adult child. The same is true for Sarah Palin and her family. It is not our business as Americans to delve into the life of her child if her child is not doing anything that could compromise our interests. If she were found to be spying for another country we would have every right to want to dissect her life and everything that led her to that action. The consensual sexual life of a candidate's daughter, however, has no place in the national debate over which candidate is the best pick for governance.

I know some people think hat because Palin is such a strong advocate for abstinence only education that this situation is fair game. No, it doesn't work that way. You would hope that each of us has examined their ethical foundation, their ideas about right and wrong, and found some beliefs based on thinking rather than experiences beyond their control. What kind of an animal reacts only in the immediacy of necessity? Not a thinking one. We must do the mental heavy lifting if we choose to take a bold stand on any moral issue; anything less is instinctual and not a part of reason. While our experiences shape who we are we cannot allow them to be the end result. Think of the rage we feel when someone violates our trust, whether it is through a break in and robbery, a personal assault or a broken promise; would that experience then shape our moral foundation only insofar as the feelings we experienced? Of course not. We hope that we are able to take the extra step to learn from the entirety of the thing, not just the initial reactions involved.

If you want to argue that Palin is wrong in her stance on abstinence only education, do it based on the issue itself. I would argue that Palin lacks enough experience to come to a just understanding of the difference between what is necessary in sexual education and what is in accordance with her ideology. It's hard to believe that someone who has seen and experienced the reality of teen sex in situations where there are few options would continue to support this thing that clearly does not work. But I don't that this is the case with Palin; all I know is that there is a problem in this country in the inequity of support provided to low income children and one of the results of that problem is teen pregnancy. It is in accordance with my ethical foundation to deal with the entirety of the problem, not just the symptom. I support sex education, but more so, I support the idea that when we effectively throw away large portions of our society through poverty we create this problem ourselves. If we dealt with the poverty and inequity of opportunity we wouldn't be having this debate.

Secondly: Stop with the ridiculous flip flop crap. It was dumb when it was used on Kerry and it is dumb when used on everyone else. People change their minds! What kind of a person would you be if you were so closed that you refused to consider new evidence or to grow intellectually enough to change your mind? 1983 John McCain voted against a federal holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. That was 25 years ago, yet people are still trying to make it an issue. I am embarrassed by some of the things I said 4 years ago! People change, people grow, and not allowing them to do that is an attempt to stifle thought and progress.

Sarah Palin changed her mind about the bridge to nowhere. She did not flip flop, she changed her mind after what might have been more consideration or more information. I don't know why she did it, but she did publicly and emphatically change her mind. That is simply not a problem. The problem with Palin in reference to the bridge is her lying about her initial support of the project. That is where the focus should be, not in the change itself. I have a problem with someone who would lie so willingly and so stupidly. I don't understand why politicians think they won't be called to the carpet for things that are publicly available. I think this exposes a fundamental flaw in Palin and the ease of her lying; it demonstrates a distinct lack of character and it is disrespectful toward the American people who are deemed too dull witted to catch it. Make that the hill you're willing to die on.

Finally, I have a problem with the treatment of Palin as mere fluff because she participated in beauty pageants. Sure, pageants aren't my thing but there is nothing wrong with them, nor do they automatically imply vacuousness. I don't care what Palin or anyone has done in reference to how they look but I do care about their demonstrated ability to understand history, policy and the subtle undertakings of morality in public life. I have far more of a problem with the fact that Palin, an elected official, did not know that the pledge of allegiance was not written by the founding fathers. It speaks to a position of ignorance based solely on ideology rather than considered reason. It's a knee jerk reaction based on... what? religion? Not really. As far as I know the religion Palin chooses to endorse is not one that asks people to make an official statement of faith through a government entity. In fact, such a thing goes against some basic tenets of Christianity and is anathema to faith itself.

We have serious problems in this country, as all countries do, and it is time to focus on them rather than on the personalities of the people we elect. I want to know how Obama and McCain plan to fix the gross failings of our educational system. I want to know how Obama and McCain plan to fix the gross failings in our corporate world. I don't give a good god damn if John McCain owns 7 homes or Barack Obama lives in a beautiful and expensive home. I care about how they are going to address the problems we all face..

Picture credit

Dance with me

Liesl — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:40:00 GMT

I finally saw Tropic Thunder. It was dumb, not that funny, a waste of time. But that's not the important issue with the movie and not the issue I would devote a blog post to, of course. The issue is whether or not the use of the word "retarded" was offensive in the context of the movie. Ultimately, I have to say that I don't think it was. The point of the movie was to poke fun at Hollywood, actors and big players, and to show just how ridiculous their lives are in a world where reality isn't quite so cushy. It didn't do a very good job of that, but that has more to do with the merits of the film than with the controversy surrounding it. I'm going to leave aside the issue of protesting the use of language for now. I have a hard time justifying that, though I do think there are certain words that are should not be used because of their relevance to particular things. However, protesting the use of a word is something else entirely.

The scene that has the disability community up in arms is a scene between Robert Downey, Jr. and Ben Stiller. In this scene, one character tries to explain to the other why he was not nominated for an Oscar for playing a "retard." It isn't exactly a big Hollywood secret that if you play someone with a disability in a big budget film you will get more attention than someone playing an AB. Duh, we know this is true. The hypocrisy of the Hollywood system is one that allows for that sort of thing while being ruthless and as evil as evil gets behind the scenes. I've said it many times: the main reason I left the film business was because I did not possess the ruthless personality necessary to get ahead.* So, the portrayal of the inspirational character with a disability is hollow and done for the glory rather than for the edification we all want and need. Hell, I loved Forrest Gump; but does anyone really think that Tom Hanks is a representative for the cognitively delayed community? Of course not. Yet, he benefited quite a bit from his portrayal of a cognitively delayed character. Is that ok?

The truth is, we all benefit from those portrayals. I tend to agree with Aristotle on this one (naturally): art purges our emotions and allows us to experience things without having the trauma of actually having to experience them. We get the benefit of catharsis without having to go through the experience itself. It's the same with the happy stories. I grew up thinking life was like an MGM musical because that is what I watched as a kid. It was a major disappointment when I learned that it wasn't so. Actually, that's not really true; I can still turn on Silk Stalkings and watch Fred Astaire hoodwink Stalin and I can feel the sense of victory and nostalgia associated with the play of the movie. I know it isn't real but it makes me feel good, even for a little while. I won't ever have the opportunity to make a grand gesture for love and, at the same time, thwart an evil regime; but that's ok because I've experienced it anyway.

I don't think Ben Stiller, Justin Theroux and Etan Cohen were making fun of the disabled in this film. I think they were making fun of a system that sets up the disabled to be the fall people for everyone else's emotions. It's nice to experience Forrest Gump's triumph over the odds, just as long as we don't have to be a part of it. We nervously wait for David Helfgott to stop playing the piano so that we can go back to watching the pretty, the normal people accept their awards. We can even be inspired by Russell Crowe's portrayal of a man with persistent delusions, but that doesn't mean we think people who are mentally ill are like us. Nor will we be running out to embrace the next person we see with a disability just because they have a disability. Nor should we.

Here's the funny thing about life: we're all in it together. We're all suffering through our own private hells. Life isn't always hell, but parts of our own worst times stay with us always. Yet, here we are: walking, talking, rolling, living, fending for ourselves in the best ways we can. The true inspiration in all of this is our own ability to live through the bad things that have happened to us. The true inspiration will always be our striving for something better than what is, than what we have now. We're all trying to do that in our own ways. So I do it with a forearm crutch. Hey, I get better parking. So you do it with a brain that isn't full of holes. You get more energy. Either way, neither one of us is getting a break in life and it isn't fair to assume that just because someone seems worse or better off than us that it is so. All we can do is be responsible for our own movements through the heavens and hells of our lives without attempting to make someone else's hell a little bit worse. It is because we have all experienced the pain of being made fun of for something you can't control (retard! get back on the short bus!) and it is because we've all experienced the joy of accomplishment that we do benefit from the portrayals of people who are different. Truthfully, we need those different examples to understand our own experiences. They teach us, they force us to recognize difference and they allow us to experience things we may never know or grasp. And yes, they inspire us. I'll take it! god knows I need inspiration more often than not. Don't you?

*As in all things, there are exceptions. One of my dearest and oldest friends is a veep for a major studio and she is anything BUT ruthless. In fact, the thought of her being ruthless made me giggle so hard I almost fell out of my chair!

Picture credit

Sick

Liesl — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:33:00 GMT

I'm sure there will be all kinds of typos in this post. I spent all day Friday in the E.R. with uncontrollable vomiting and am still loopy from the drugs they gave me. We think it's a simple case of gastroenteritis, but there really isn't anything simple when it comes to my immune system.

The truth is, what most people can fight off without a care, I get full force to the extent of hospitalization. When most people get colds, I get pneumonia. When most people get a 24 hour bout of the stomach flu, I get rushed to the E.R. because my puking is so violent and unending. It's ok, it's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. The problem this is causing, however, is that because of my compromised immunity, I have to give up on the idea that I can take something like Methotrexate. The risk simply isn't worth it.

My doctors were pushing me to start Methotrexate, but the reality of increased numbers of people not vaccinating their children and the rise of diseases like measles to almost endemic levels has made it an unrealistic possibility. So, who do I have to thank for continued pain, continued progression of disease? That's right, the antivaccinationists.

Thank you, Jenny McCarthy for the pain in my hands that is taking away my ability to write with a pen.

Thank you, J.B. Handley, the man who recently said he was unapologetic about the rise of measles in the United States, for the progression of sclerotic tissue in my organs.

Thank you, Andrew Wakefield for the pain and misery you will cause my family when they are forced to deal with a progression of disease that could have been significantly slowed.

Thank you, Dr. Jay Gordon for the students who will not have the opportunity to have a professor who believes in them and who helps them live better lives. You know, teachers who inspire their students are so diffuse in our educational system. /sarcasm

I'm just one person. These are the ways the actions of people who are making money off of the utterly discredited idea of a link between vaccination and autism will hurt just one person. Think of the number of people they will be hurting altogether. Stop and think of it. Chilling, isn't it?

Oh, by the way: I was on my way to the doctor's office when I started throwing up. I was on my way there because I am sick with what will be pneumonia sooner rather than later, again. I just got over a bout a month ago... wait, less than a month ago. The puking was just the icing on the cake. Of course, because I couldn't speak for puking, I was never able to talk to my doctor about it. Back to the doctor I go this week. But none of that affects any of you, right? Unless you want to count the costs of health care, sick days, etc. Nah, doesn't affect you.

Hat tip to Orac.

Picture credit

Leave me alone, I'm busy

Liesl — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:51:00 GMT

Picture credit

Defeated

Liesl — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:27:00 GMT

I'm a member of The American Association of People With Disabilities (AAPD). As a member I get news and action alerts from them informing me of issues related to people with disabilities. The last few I've received have all been about the protest over the new movie Tropic Thunder. I admit, when I saw the first alert, I cringed. I knew what was going to happen and how it would play out to people who couldn't care less about people with disabilities. I was right. Here are some of the comments I've seen on youtube:

"How do you think they bribed the retards to go to the protest? You know that they're not there for any cause - I bet their handlers told them they were going to McDonalds... but first they had to hold up a stupid sign and walk around in a circle 50 times."

"that RETARD says he wants to "ban that word from everybody's vocabulary." the RETARDS are trying to take away our civil liberties. United States Bill of Rights 1st amendment to the constitution. Read it RETARD."

"I think most people that have a disability should be dead- the ones that contribute nothing, they are like that cause they have bad genes (recessive genes), and keeping them alive and letting them breed is stupid- and- Tropic Blunder... what a retarded slogan"

"Suck it up, TARDS!!!"

These things make me feel so utterly overwhelmed. I realize that the people who made the above comments would be quailing little mice in person too afraid to speak much less use such offensive language, but that doesn't seem to matter when you are confronted with such hate and ignorance. I'm left to wonder why we even bother anymore. I honestly don't have anything else to say... I am feeling that defeated.

Picture credit

Addendum

Liesl — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:53:00 GMT

As an addendum to my post earlier today, another example of how treating people who have immigrated like criminals has tragic consequences, this is from tonight's Countdown. The story in questions starts around 1:30:

Link

If that doesn't sound bad enough, the New York Times article that broke the story gives more information:

"In federal court affidavits, Mr. Ng’s lawyers contend that when he complained of severe pain that did not respond to analgesics, and grew too weak to walk or even stand to call his family from a detention pay phone, officials accused him of faking his condition. They denied him a wheelchair and refused pleas for an independent medical evaluation.

Instead, the affidavits say, guards at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls, R.I., dragged him from his bed on July 30, carried him in shackles to a car, bruising his arms and legs, and drove him two hours to a federal lockup in Hartford, where an immigration officer pressured him to withdraw all pending appeals of his case and accept deportation."

The man was dying when this happened. Dying of a cancer that had spread to his liver, lungs and bones and had fractured his spine. This is also a man who owned a home, was married to a United States citizen and had two sons. He was 34 years old! And he was not alone. The article continues:

"In March, the federal government admitted medical negligence in the death of Francisco Castaneda, 36, a Salvadoran whose cancer went undiagnosed in a California detention center as he was repeatedly denied a biopsy on a painful penile lesion. In May, The New York Times chronicled the death of Boubacar Bah, 52, a Guinean tailor who suffered a skull fracture and brain hemorrhages in the Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey; records show he was left in an isolation cell without treatment for more than 13 hours."

I had a student with a name almost identical to one of those names. He was sweet and smart and funny and tried so hard in my class to impress me and do well. He could be one of these men; this could happen to any of them. Last year the government held 300,000 people; how many of them are going through this right now? how many of them are treated as less than human because they had the audacity to be born somewhere else and want to do all they could for a better life? How dare those people think they deserved that, right?

Shame on all of us for allowing these things to happen on our watch. You are responsible for it. I am responsible for it. We have failed as human beings who are supposed to have respect for basic human life. We have failed and it is shameful and we do not deserve forgiveness.

Discrimination is illegal

Liesl — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:44:00 GMT

Let's talk about immigration: Why is it that we have begun to refer to people as illegal rather than referring to their actions as illegal?...(read more)

Everything matters

Liesl — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 04:41:00 GMT

It will not be surprising to know that I have seen The Sound of Music many, oh so many, times. It's not just that I was named after it and that it's still unusual to hear my name spoken on screen, but I do love it. The production is beautiful, the acting is great and the idea of resisting evil through a thing so sublime as music is something I love. My favorite song in the movie isn't the one you will think; I like Sixteen Going on Seventeen, but it lacks true relevance in my overall life. The song I love the most is Something Good. I understand that song intimately. There is sweetness here: "Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could. So, somewhere in my youth or childhood, I must have done something good."

It is that time again: another semester has ended. As usual, it is bittersweet because, as usual, I had such phenomenal students. I am forever humbled by them and I cannot help but wonder what I ever did to deserve them. As I have begun to do, I gave them each a personal note to tell them how much I value them and to make sure they understand that they will forever be a part of me. It took me five hours to write fourteen notes; it takes me that long every semester, though I usually don't do it all at once as I did this time. It is always easy to express how dear they are to me, but it isn't always easy to find the right words to make sure they understand their tremendous value. They are more valuable than they know.

I worry about my students and I wonder if they will be OK. I would have them never feel pain, never want for anything in life, as silly as that is. They are not, after all, my children; they have parents of their own. Yet, I believe I have a part in their growing, if only a small one. The kicker is, they have an equal part in mine.

There will never be a time when knowing that I had given a student the nicest card he had ever received is not profoundly meaningful. It hurts me to know that he has reached his late teens? early twenties? and has not had the simple kindness of supportive words. In fact, it pained me so much that I cried when I told my mom about it an hour later and my husband two days later. The tears didn't last, as they should not have; for, those were tears of recognition of what was, not what is. I am simply the taste of what he will and should have in life from anyone who is able to recognize his tremendous promise. The truth is, all of my students deserve that recognition. I'm trying really hard not to go on and on (too late) about them, but it's simply unrealistic to expect anything else.

The thing that really gets me is this: what could I have possibly done to deserve these students? I can't quite wrap my head around that idea. It reminds me of the Sound of Music song, of course. I have not always acted as I should, as we all do not; but I have had some tremendous luck in my life. Luck that I did nothing to deserve, frankly. I suppose it's true that there is no such thing as "fair" when so much is left to chance. Justice would really be a human construct, then, and all of our entitlements nothing more than what we choose to make of them. I choose to make the current generation my project and my hope.

Let me make something clear: all of this gushing about students over and over and the harping on their promise might be maudlin and sappy, but it is tremendously important to me that the world understands the resource we all have in the current generation. My students are representatives of what is best in their generation and what we could all benefit from in public and private life. I trust them to carry on our world and to make it better, make the progress clean. I want people to realize that in recognizing these people, we recognize ourselves. We allow for them to be as brash, elastic and fertile as we once were. We allow them to be the spring in our forward motion and we trust them to know the correct direction. We owe them that for bringing them here in the first place.

Damn, I miss them already.

I wrote the above two days ago when the semester ended. I have to add one more note: Two students who have both taken other classes from me just called me from the Metallica concert to let me hear a bit of it. It was great! They were screaming and singing along while I was screaming with them. How could you not love kids who do such a thing?!

Picture credit

Marks-a-lot

Liesl — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:56:00 GMT

I want you to take a moment to consider a dollar amount. I want you to stop yourself and think about what this amount could and does mean to you. The amount I want you to consider is $2,000. What would you do with $2,000?

It's less than our mortgage payment, taxes included. It would buy five of the classes I teach. It would buy two pairs of Christian Louboutin shoes, maybe three. It's more than the monthly amount earned for a family of four
living above the poverty line in the United States. It's more than the monthly salary a new teacher received in Montana in 2002-2003.

Here's the really astounding part: With $2,000, you could change the lives of thousands of people in Africa, South America, Central America and Asia by building potable water wells. Through organizations like The Water Project you could literally provide safe drinking water, therefore less disease, therefore less death, for thousands of people. According to the strictest numbers, you could give 100 people access to potable water for 15 years. What happens if we change it a bit and say that the $2,000 is a monthly expenditure? it adds up to 12,000 people a year, each continuing for 15 years. As that number grows, the ripples would be astounding. It would take very little time for the number to have rippled into the millions, perhaps even billions. All from $2,000, initially and $24,000 annually. Imagine the ripples you could create with that amount of money. Imagine.

Did you know that over 27,000,000 people are enslaved in the world today? Did you also know that the number of people enslaved on the earth today is largerthan it has ever been? Not all slaves are children, but the majority seem to be since children are unable to care for themselves. There are sex slaves and there are workers slaves, though the two are often combined. One thing all enslaved people have in common is their vulnerability to forces that seek to profit from their degradation. Yet, you could buy 40 enslaved children in Haiti with $2,000. That equals 480 children a year you could liberate from a life of rape, work, disease, and malnutrition. Children. Imagine the childhood you could restore with that gift. Imagine.

Have you considered what $2,000 means to you?

This is what it means to me: Between my insurance company and my copays, we pay $2000 a month on prescriptions for me. That's $24,000 a year. Three fourths of that amount is spent on one medication. It happens to be the one that keeps me alive, but it is only 90 mg a month of fluid. That's 0.003174656575462237 of an ounce. Let's say you wanted to spend that amount on Chanel No. 5 perfume, instead: you could buy 5 ounces of it with $2,000. That's just short of half a can of Coke! (I may be really off in my calculations. I am, ahem, not that good at that math stuff.) Admittedly, I don't know how drug prices are calculated and where the true cost lies, but I do know that there are reasons why some drugs remain exorbitant and others do not: demand. My example is perhaps not the best example because the drug I take is very rarely used and the problem I take it for is rarer, still. However, it is an indication of what it means to live the life of a woman in the United States with the benefit of medical insurance. Honestly, it seems... distorted, bloated and not at all based in the reality faced by most people in the world. I simply would not have survived as long as I have if I had been born in a third world country, or in this country without health insurance. I, like you, am literally measured by the amount I can pay for the care I receive.

I am left, finally, to ask: why do I deserve to live when others do not?

It must truly be admitted that if we do not see our actions as purposeful and meaningful to others as much as they are to ourselves, we lose all perspective and all consciousness in the idea of otherness and individuality. If we do not acknowledge our place in the system of poverty, hatred, and a valueless driven life, we do not acknowledge our place on the earth. It isn't enough for us to shake our heads in disgust at what others do to cause suffering; how can it be? Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Yes! Act only in a way that you consciously choose to make true and real. Act only in a way that does not allow for slavery in your name or in the name of your lower price, your freer choice. It must be so. That is the only way to be worthy of the lives we are privileged to lead. You choose! You decide! You act in a way that is conscious of others!

Now ask yourself: Do you deserve your life? Does your life, in all of its daily functions, its lesser and its greater moments, cause or alleviate suffering? It is not enough to allow others to do the work for us; to acknowledge that the organizations who fight these things exist and are therefore acting in our stead. It cannot be enough when the problem exists at all. It's easy enough to understand that if we support companies who employ slave labor then we support slavery. When we grab a Hershey's bar at the convenience store or a Reese's peanut butter cup out of the vending machine, we are eating off of the backs of slaves. We endorse the idea that cheap chocolate is a better outcome for all of us than paying more for chocolate, or anything else. We decide that our palates, our taste buds, are more important than the suffering of others. How can this be? How have we gotten here so willfully and yet so ignorantly?

Priorities.

We'd rather have 500 channels of satellite TV than use that money to fight rampant slavery. We'd rather have 30 pairs of shoes than spend that money to build wells for people who get their water from a swamp. We'd rather have a perfectly manicured lawn than spend that money on education, in our own damn country! We'd rather shop at Walmart than spend more to shop at Costco, where employees are treated like human beings worthy of respect and the bottom line is, amazingly, secondary to the health of the company and employees themselves. We'd rather we didn't have to think about how the cocoa for our cheap chocolate bar was obtained. We'd rather unthinkingly go through life allowing others to do the moral heavy lifting for us.

We don't want to bother. And the sad part is: we don't have to be bothered. We can continue to go about our lives as if nothing we do truly matters to anyone but us and ours. That absence of conflict in our lives has been brought to us by the people who do stand up and fight for the rights of others. Those people are the ones who have given you the choice to be oblivious, the choice to be selfish. Do you deserve it? No. There is no such thing as a deserving selfish act because there is no such thing as an act that exists on its own. Whether you choose to use more water to keep your non-native grass alive than a person in Africa uses all year, or whether you choose to live as well as you can but only insofar as it doesn't inconvenience you, you are choosing to act in a way that has consequences to others. All others. The only truly selfish act you are allowed is the act of existence; everything else is a gift. Be sentimental: treasure it.

For, we are the makers of ripples.

Picture credit

Evil dick? yup

Liesl — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:20:00 GMT

I just tried scribefire after having so many problems with blogger. I wrote an entire post which then magically erased itself. Have I mentioned how much I despise blogging software? If I write a post in Word, the spacings get all screwy. Yet, I am sure to lose at least part of each post I write when I write it on blogger. Yes, I am whining. I'm sick, I'm allowed to whine.

Did you hear about Dick Cheney and the suggestion that Navy Seals be used as bait to give us an excuse to invade Iran? I can't imagine how betrayed the soldiers and soldiers' families who voted for these "people" must have felt when they heard this story. It takes a special brand of evil to consider using soldiers as bait just so that we can get what we want, not because it will do some good. This is the sort of thing that gives the 9/11 conspiracy nuts more fodder and the sort of thing that makes us all that much more distrustful of our country. The fact that this kind of evil is allowed to prosper, is allowed to make decisions for us is abominable. This is the kind of evil that doesn't masquerade behind a benign countenance; it is the kind of evil that lays it bare and then laughs at anyone who objects. It is this totalitarian thinking, this idea that we can do whatever we wish simply because no one will be there to stop us that has caused such a serious rift between reality and politics in this country. Who is watching the watchmen?

And yet, what has the highest ranking democrat done about any of it? Nothing. First, Nancy Pelosi states that impeachment is "off the table" for Bush. Then she says she's willing to entertain it, but doggone it! there just isn't time before he leaves office. Now she has stated through a spokesperson that she will not decide on the contempt citation for Karl Rove until September. What in the name of all things good and true is she waiting for? If I were a conspiracy nut I might be inclined to believe that Pelosi is a highly successful republican plant. I am left to wonder if she is nothing more than a power player who, like Dick Cheney, cares for nothing other than her own power and her own gratuitous fortune. One thing I do know for sure: she has misled people when she claimed to be a democrat.

What do politicians think will happen if we continue on this road to extreme gaps in earning? Do they really think the people will not rise up and revolt against their lack of opportunity? Do they really not know that the soaring crime rates are exactly that? I don't get it, I really don't. How can so many people be so divorced from reality and so cut off from the common person that they think people will quietly starve to death, or die of kidney failure on the street, or die in a random shooting? Did you know that if you're homeless and you're in renal failure, if it takes you more than a few days to die they kick you out of the charity hospital? You only get so long for your final death throes before you are either kicked back to the street or put in a medicare nursing home. And spare me the, oh, but they chose to be homeless! rhetoric. No one chooses to be homeless. When you were a kid did you think, I want to grow up to be a homeless crack addict! Of course not. No matter the road that brought you to homelessness, being homeless or begging on the street is not a happy place to be.

Yet, we do nothing. We sit back in our comfortable homes, paying $350 a month for air conditioning and $200 a month to water our pristine lawns full of non-native flowers and we shake our heads at the evil of it all while sipping our iced tea. If you don't think you have as much responsibility in this whole ridiculous situation we're in, think again. You, me, everyone in this country who is capable of speaking out has the duty to stop this shit. Now. Stop the reign of terror brought about by the Bush administration. Bring back checks and balances to government. Stop the devaluation of life as a basic necessity, not a luxury! You realize that, don't you? Life is now a luxury. Can't afford to feed/house/care for yourself? Sucks to be you. Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, George Bush, even you Barack Obama, you can all do those things. What about us?

Picture credit

Spandau Sounds*

Liesl — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:53:00 GMT

I had a funny experience yesterday afternoon: I was driving to the pharmacy in an enormous SUV (rental) when a man in a Jeep darted in front of me and almost caused an accident. I instinctively honked at him, which he apparently didn't like. He sort of swerved a little bit toward me as I passed him, then got into the turn lane behind me and turned into the pharmacy parking lot. As I pulled into the handicapped spot at the front of the store, he pulled into a spot down the row. My usual exit the car routine goes something like this: 1. Take off seatbelt, 2. Put purse over head and arm (cross ways over chest), 3. put my arm through my crutch and grip the handle, 4. open the door and either swing my legs out or step out, one leg at a time (depending on strength that day), 5. pull crutch through the car after me. Imagine my doing all of this while being blocked from view by a large car door; you wouldn't see the crutch at all. So, as I was getting out of the car I saw the man from the Jeep walking purposely toward me, with a nasty look on his face. On his way toward me he had to navigate a column that necessitated some deviation from a straight path. If the man went in front of the column, he was coming toward me; if he went behind, he was going toward the store. Just as he was going in front of the column toward me I shut the door of the car and he clearly saw the crutch. He literally did a circle around the column and kept walking, acting as if he had never intended to come near me! It was freaking hilarious. I almost wish he had started yelling at me before I shut the door just so I could have seen his reaction when confronted with the gimp aid. That would have been priceless!

I've noticed this sort of attitude before; this attitude of gentleness toward people who are clearly disabled. What's odd is that I tend to see either that or the exact opposite. It's as if we inspire such strong emotions in people that they are incapable of reacting to us in a moderate way. While I was in the bathroom at Red Lobster the other day two women came in; one went into a stall and the other stood by the sink. They were talking up a storm about their different aches, pains and ailments, complaining away their time in the potty. As I exited the stall the woman by the sink literally stopped talking mid sentence and looked at me like she wanted to hit me. It was such an odd reaction and one I don't understand, still. Was it my age? Was it the crutch? Did she have instant guilt for complaining about minor aches and pains when a young woman with a crutch (i.e. a more unfortunate person) was listening? It's hard to say. I have an Obama sticker on my crutch but her angle in reference to the sticker made it impossible for her to see. It was just so odd.

It's natural for many of us to want to be sweeter to people whom we view as less fortunate than ourselves, just as it is natural for others to want to be mean to people they view as inferior to them. We know that, it isn't particularly revelatory. I simply find it odd that there tend to be only two categories that necessitate action toward people with disabilities: unfortunate or inferior. It's very similar to the kind of thinking that leads to or is engendered by extreme racism. I am not saying that is what is happening with these people; I am saying that the instantaneous nature of the emotion is one that has to come from long and fiercely held generalizations. Where do those generalizations come from?

Philosophy has many subcategories that people tend to specialize in and focus on in their studies and writing. Ethics is one of those categories, as is epistemology. Epistemology is, generally speaking, the search for the meaning of truth, or how we Know. There are several different theories for how truth is established and how we Know, of course; philosophers must always disagree or think up new ways to torture students. Some think truth cannot be established, others think it is established through the necessity of it, while others think it is established through coherence. While I tend to agree with a mishmash of theories (the McQuillan theory of Pragmacorrespondence?), William James's theory of truth is one I think serves us well when discussing the reasons for the broad generalizations people make whenever they are confronted with something new. James's theory is that there is no such thing as absolute, static truth; truth is simply what is true in pragmatic terms at the moment of its use. In other words, truth exists to apply itself to the general, not as a macro idea or fact that applies always, regardless of the particular.

I think James hit on something quite interesting with this idea of pragmatism being the true (!) focus of knowledge. Think of it this way: if we were constantly forced to reevaluate every new thing we see, hear, taste, touch, smell or do we'd never progress beyond a baby's ability to process life. If we had to do that much work constantly, we would never get anything related to the utility of life accomplished! For example: when you go to a party where you don't know anyone, it requires far more work than if you were at a party where you do know everyone. You've already assigned belief and meaning and truth to the people you know and you only need to change those things when something new about that person is established. But when you are in a new situation with new things you are forced to find belief, meaning and truth for each thing. That's a hard process! Luckily, we've already established some larger generalizations that can be applied in general terms to the new things we're experiencing. If you see a person reading a book in the corner at the party and you know that everyone you've ever met who is that bookish is also quite shy, you make the unconscious generalization that the bookish person in the corner is shy. If you're wrong, it's an easy fix and it's something you are not required to discover on your own. People will act as they act, regardless of what we think; it is up to them to show us who they are and up to us to change our generalizations on the fly.

This theory and practice does get a little tricky when we add in things like hate, anger and closed mindedness. If you were raised to believe that all Asians will cheat you when dealing with them financially, you will make the assumption that the Asian man at the pharmacy is taking something from you that he has no right to take. You assumed something from a generalization you believe is based on truth. But that is not a generalization that works. Even if you had experienced an Asian person cheating you, the cheating had nothing to do with the man's race and everything to do with his character. We might say that a person who belongs to the North American Cheater's Club would be someone who will cheat us because they have demonstrated a willingness to do that by their behavior. Behavior is the key in these things; people may look like they behave (clothes, makeup, hygiene), but those things necessitate behavior. When we generalize correctly, we make assumptions about people based on what we know about others like them. What do we know about the Asian cheater? We know that he is a man, he is Asian, and he cheated. The cheater’s gender and race have nothing to do with the act of cheating; the cheating is what we have to understand the person. In other words, do you know more about a person by looking at them or by seeing them act? Clearly, actions are the only indications of a person’s character and the only way we can know who they are.** Accordingly, if your only experience with people in wheelchairs has been that they are cranky and have huge chips on their shoulders, you will generalize that behavior for all wheelers because it is backed up by the assumption that people in chairs might have a harder life than people who are able to ambulate without assistance. There are good reasons behind these generalizations and these particular assumptions translate to all the knowledge you require until you have a new experience with a wheeler that changes your necessary knowledge. That is the nature of this fluid idea of truth; we change our understanding and beliefs when it is pragmatically necessary.***

This is all very idealistic, but it does work well for us in practical terms. The challenge will always be, though, how to know when a change in generalization is necessary and which generalizations are nothing more than prejudices. You will hear people say things like, "I Jewed them down to a lower price," about bargaining for a better deal. That is the phrasing for an improper generalization. While there may be some Jews who are parsimonious, ascribing that characteristic to such a large group of people is not something that will ever work on pragmatic grounds. If you make that large of a generalization you are bound to be in a constant state of confusion or anxiety because you are constantly having to either refuse to acknowledge that your idea is wrong (which requires more work than accepting that your idea is faulty and moving on) or you will have to constantly be reevaluating the idea.**** If the constant reevaluation is happening, you've missed the pragmatic utility of generalizations entirely! While it seems like the Jewish generalization and the disability generalization are the same, they are quite different. The cranky behavior of the wheeler has two things backing up the generalization: the experience you've had with a cranky wheeler and the knowledge you have that ambulation usually makes life easier. The Jewish assumption has only one thing behind it and that is your experience with one person without any kind of reason behind the experience itself. While the wheeler may not be cranky because he or she is in a chair (and really, being in a chair can be a good thing, too), the generalization does have some soundness to it in relation to how we understand the nature of our existence. What is there about the Jewish person and parsimony that makes sense? Is there any utility in the action itself? No, of course not. There isn't a practical reason for the assumption that all Jews are parsimonious, though there might be more of a practical reason behind the assumption that all wheelers are cranky. The more practical nature of the wheeler assumption does not, however, absolve us of guilt if we keep the generalization once we know it is not valid. That is why prejudice, or a belief we want to be true no matter if it is true or not, are so detrimental to our epistemological understanding. With every generalization comes the necessity of the acknowledgment of our fallibility as humans. Quite simply, we can always be wrong in everything we think we know.

Let me give you one more example: If you live in the United States and you drive a car, and you live in a state that allows people to pump their own gas, chances are good that you've pumped gas into a car on more than one occasion. If you're driving around in an unfamiliar area of town and you notice you need gas, the process for getting the gas will be known to you already and would not necessitate new knowledge on your part. Even if you find that the gas station you chose has a slightly different process for getting gas, your generalizations about pumping gas are ultimately still true; you've simply added a new element to what you already understood. If, however, we change the way we fuel our cars you will have to learn a new way of doing it and the old generalizations must be discarded; they will no longer be pragmatically true.

What does this wordy discussion of truth have to do with the reactions people have to the disabled? Simple! People react the way they do because the experiences they've had and the truth of those particulars fuel their generalizations about the disabled. It's harder to attach blame when that is the case because we're not talking about something like race or even culture; we're talking about a very specific way of life that is particularly different for every disabled person, but generally the same for every all disabled people. The generality is the limitation we have that able bodied people do not. Yet, everyone has limitations; that is the thing, the knowledge of limitations, that allows for the somewhat appropriate generalization about people who are more limited than you. If I were to think about it (not that I do that sort of thing) I would probably find that I have made some assumptions about what it is like to live life in a wheelchair and about the people who do that. My generalizations might be closer to particular truth than an able bodied person's generalizations, but they are no less fluid. The amount of change needed does not alter the necessity of the fluidity of the generalization or the generalization itself; all it does is give me a head start on truth.

Another reason able bodied people react to us in strong ways much of the time is partially due to the fact that we are a minority of people whose differences are imposed on others. Five able bodied people standing in a group discussing dogs are just standing there discussing dogs. If there is one black person in the group the situation does not change; the race of of the participants is irrelevant to the negotiation of the conversation. If, on the other hand, one of those people is disabled the negotiation does change. If they are deaf, for example, they either need to face the person speaking to read their lips, or someone needs to translate with ASL, or the person speaking must use both ASL and spoken language. The difference doesn't make the disabled person inferior to the others, nor does it make the situation harder or less valuable. The difference is only the imposed limits on others in the situation, not just the person with the disability. Again, that isn't a bad thing, it's just a necessity. Unfortunately, some able bodied people do attach value to these things and assume that a person who can't do the things they do in the same way is lacking in something. That is not an appropriate generalization because it forces the particular to be general. While the deaf person in the dog discussion can't hear as everyone else can, they can still have as much participation in the discussion as everyone else; it is simply a difference in the way it is communicated. It is the same with walking versus wheeling; the movement necessary to get to a different spot is accomplished in different ways but it is accomplished. Any generalization of lesser value is one that has nothing to do with the actuality and everything to do with a forced version of reality. It simply does not correspond to truth.

We need to be thoughtful and aware of our generalizations for them to work for us instead of against us; I do realize this is easier said than done. Generalizations can turn into steadfast beliefs if we are lazy or if we think we benefit from a truth that is not supported by correspondence. When you allow for belief to correspond to truth, it must actually correspond to truth; if we allow for such a thing, we also must acknowledge that the truth we think we know is still understood in human (fallible) terms. Even if you think you Know, doubt will always creep in. We are, after all, human. Generally speaking.

*I admit, sometimes the obscurity of the titles I choose cracks my ass up!

**Appearances are relevant to generalizations only when they involve action.

***Please do not think that this theory legitimizes every generalization. There must be practical necessity involved and it must be based on actuality. If someone is rude to you and you assume it's because they have a little green alien residing in their bottom, you are making an assumption that is utterly divorced from necessity or actuality. If you were to then make the generalization that all rude people have little green aliens in their bottoms you are basing the generalization on something that cannot be true. Generalizations must be knowledge and reality based to constitute truth.

****I recently read Schindler's List, by Thomas Keneally. I can't remember who it was that said it, but one of the high Nazi party members (Goering, maybe?) made a speech in which he admitted that "Aryans" probably knew one Jew who was a "good" Jew. He went on to tell them that they must make no exceptions and be merciless with all Jews because they were all the same at bottom. I would imagine the willingness to admit that there might be some goodness in this thing you have decided is all bad would make your steadfast bias painful. The futility of a generalization that admits flaws is the thing that ultimately dooms tyranny.

Picture credit

I'm angrier than I can say

Liesl — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:19:00 GMT

Before I begin let me state unequivocally: I do not in any way support terrorism in any form. I am a huge fan of order in society and in giving up some liberty for the insurance of greater freedoms. But I am also a huge fan of biological equality and for being responsible for what we do alone. Our justifications for our deeds can never, never be based on what someone else has done; that is a coward’s gambit. I am also a big believer in enforcing an idea, not just stating it as fact. (edit) OK mom, I'll take out the naughty language.

Whenever I am in the car I listen to NPR. I listen to it every morning on the way to work and every afternoon on the way home. It has been informative and interesting all these years and I usually come away from the brief NPR sessions with more than I had before I listened to it. This morning was no different but the thing I came away with was outrage. And the thing I can’t believe is that I wasn’t outraged before and there are few people who are outraged still.

We live in a country that no longer holds itself accountable to the Geneva Conventions. I never thought I would write or say or think such a thing, but the truth is inescapable. For those of you who are not familiar with the Geneva Conventions, they are a set of treaties written and ratified on how enemy captives are to be treated by their capturers, among other things. In other words, the Geneva Conventions are there to insure that anyone captured by an enemy in the time of war is entitled to a basic standard of treatment that prohibits things like torture and abuse. The Bush administration is trying to claim that the detainees at Guantanamo are “unlawful enemy combatants” but that notion has been soundly put to rest by the International Court: "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." This is in addition to the 4^th Geneva Convention which deals with civilians.

Here we are, in the 21^st century, and we’re torturing people we have captured and are holding them without due process of law. I can get around the habeas corpus objection if they are prisoners of war, but we cannot get beyond basic standards of care. When we allow, endorse and practice torture on people who are in our care, no matter who they are, we are endorsing the very idea that those things are acceptable for everyone. We don’t have the luxury of saying, do as I say, not as I do as a country. We are the country we choose to be and if we choose to ignore that most basic standard of right conduct, we have chosen tyranny. How did this happen?

I’ll tell you how it happened: We are so busy being angry about men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women that we have forgotten that there are some basic issues we have yet to resolve, some basic tenets of the principle of harm that are being violated every minute of every day. We have chosen to care about how people have sex rather than the way we treat other people, as if we can be responsible for the way other people live and not responsible for our own endorsements and lives. If you support the torture of prisoners through your lack of outrage over the fact of its existence and yet you are outraged over people having sex… honestly, I don’t even know what to say to that. What is wrong with you? How do you lay your head on your downy pillow at night knowing that there are people being tortured in your name? Do you honestly care more about other peoples’ sex lives? Where is your sense of perspective?

While you are happily debating whether or not people have the right to love whomever they wish, the world has gone to hell. Have you noticed that the Taliban are making a strong showing in Afghanistan? Did you notice the dire figures being released by a vast majority of scientists that show a crisis in environmental issues? How about the fact that our prisons are overflowing but our education system is underfunded by hundreds of percentage points? Any of those things bother you? Maybe just a teensy bit? Or is it really all about penises and vaginas for you?

Gay men and women marrying and having sex has nothing to do with me and will never affect me. Torture? That affects me as long as I am a citizen of this country. As a citizen, I am subject to the laws of the land as much as anyone else, and if the law states that it is ok to torture people, I could be that person one day. Gay? Nope, not going to happen in this lifetime. Tortured? Could happen tomorrow. Yes, that goes for you, too. Comfy, now?

Even if you believe that every person being held at Guantanamo is guilty, is rightly there, you still have the obligation of outrage on behalf of the ideal your country is supposed to uphold. You still are responsible for the idea that our country is allowed to torture human beings in the name of the citizens of this country. You get to own that. You. Those of you who rail against the terrible things the terrorists have done to their own captives as an excuse to torture them don’t get to have all of that moral indignation. Sorry! You lost that right when you said it was ok for us to do it, but not them. You lost that right when you decided that people who are like you are better and deserve better treatment than people who are like them. We’re not talking about people who have demonstrably harmed people in every instance, here; there are people being held who have done nothing. Yet, that makes little difference when we are trying to find moral justification for our own acts. We are not responsible for what they did; we are only responsible for what we do. That is the fundamental reason we should be taking to the streets and protesting the idea that torturing people under our guard is both vile and utterly anathema to everything we profess to believe in this country. Remember this? “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Where in that brief quote does it say, but only the Americans? Where does it say, but only the ones who think like us?

I am sick to outrage of the idea that people think they believe in equality when all they do shows that belief is unthinkingly empty. We are not asked to coddle murderers or dictators or terrorists; we are asked to treat them as if they are human as they have not themselves done. How can you condemn a person for doing something you are doing to them? Do you not see the problem inherent in that action? As vile as they are and as horrific as their crimes remain, we did not do those things. The proper response to vile acts is not the endorsement of those acts by doing them ourselves!

I received an email today entitled, “The Axis of Idiots.” I won’t go into much detail because I don’t want to make you all sick, but the email states that Edward Kennedy was wrong for showing the pictures of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and asking for an end to that kind of treatment. Who thinks that way? What kind of a person thinks we should measure our actions on the actions of terrorists? Make no mistake, when you justify the continued abuse of prisoners of war based on the principle that what they are doing is worse, or they started it, you are stating that you think the idea of torture and annihilation are super keen, okey dokey for everyone. If you state that they are doing it so you can too, you are saying that what they are doing is right! How is that not evident? How? Can you imagine the outrage in our country if the Abu Ghraib actions had happened to one of our own? Let me guess: it would be ok as long as the person being tortured had already done very bad things; things like torturing another human being. Oh, wait…

You and I and everyone else who lives in this country have a responsibility to make sure our interests as citizens are protected. If you think torturing human beings protects your interests, then I suggest a quick move to Sudan; they are all about one side being right and the other side being disposable. Have a blast. I choose to live in a country that stands for equality, no matter who you are; a country where, no matter how vile your actions, you are still entitled to fundamental rights because the rest of us carry the moral majority for your sorry ass. I choose to live in a country where torture is condemned because it is wrong, not because we didn’t think of it first.

I don’t want to live in a country whose citizens think as the Nazis thought. I don’t want to live in a country whose citizens think as the terrorists think. I don’t want to live among people who believe their biological and ideological rights are more important than those of others. Anyone who would endorse that view is low, vile and acting in a way that endorses tyranny and injustice. Stop it. Stop it now. Stand up for the idea of equality in all things, not just in the easy ones. Stand up for the idea that people, no matter who they are or what they’ve done, are still people. Stand up for the idea that in matching a person’s crime with an equal or worse crime you are endorsing the very idea of the rightness of the crime itself. Stand up, now, before the person being tortured is you and your only redress to law is the empty promise of a once great nation. Stand up before we lose the soul of our most treasured, fundamental belief: equality, responsibility, and the condemnation of any act that infringes upon those ideals. Stand up against the tyranny inherent in terrorist thinking and torture. You never know when the tide will turn from tyranny over them to tyranny over you.

"You've gotta say, "I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!"

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell,

"I'm as mad as hell,

and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Picture credit

Oh, by the way, the soldier in that picture recently overdosed. The consequences of tyranny reach into the depths of our despair.

Blah blah

Liesl — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:37:00 GMT

Miscellaneous blah blah today.

Sometimes I wonder how it is possible people can think others are ridiculously stupid. Does anyone really believe that these people are who they say they are? Come on... where did they go to promote their agenda? Fox News. It's so obvious they are people who, for whatever reason, are attempting to make Democrats generally and Obama specifically look bad. A group that claims: "This website was founded in the desire to reveal the corruption, misconceptions and distortions of the liberal and biased media who have prohibited the free flow of ideas and truth," has no true interest in the middle ground they claim to occupy. The liberal bias? Who is it that owns the largest chunk of the media on the planet? Here's a hint: it's not Oprah Winfrey. Regardless of their clear agenda, I hope they fall into the dustbin of history sooner rather than later; we don't need more pandering to those who lack the ability to think critically or who think it's funny to cause demonstrable harm to the cause of democracy.

Simon's Cat has a new video and it is the best one, yet! Well, it's the best one until the next one:

I spent a lovely morning trying to get myself to class. These are the times when being ill sucks more than it is irrelevant. I'm clearly sick with something (pneumonia? probably) that is causing all kinds of pleasant effects. When I get sick my body does two things: it fights anticoagulation and the deficits I already possess make themselves really, really known.

Weakness? Oh, I must have forgotten to condition my hair because this brush just won't go through it.
Anxiety? Excuse me while I shake here in the corner.
Dizziness? Wheeeeeeeee! the merry-go-round goes faster! faster!
Fatigue? The sun hitting the horizon means it is time for sleep, right?
Words? What? No, you said what. What? I don't know. Wait, what?

Did you hear about Michael Savage? Disabled Politico blogged about this several days ago and I've been wanting to mention it, but the whole sick issue has been getting in the way. Michael Savage, a man with a PhD, mind you, thinks that autism is a fraud. All those kids need is a strong male hand to tell them to stop being babies and stop acting like idiots. I know I don't need to say much about this as it speaks for itself, but it does make me wonder if Savage has suffered some brain trauma. He's bound to know that no matter what he thinks about autism, this kind of thing is not going to make him any friends and is likely to lose him his job. Whether you agree or not, calling people who are considered disabled (a whole 'nother debate there) frauds is not going to go over so well. There will be people who will say that the world has become too P.C., but that misses the point; the point is that when a thing is medically documented it is not something anyone else gets to pass judgment upon as being "fake." Even if you think people use it as an excuse for bad behavior, you still don't have the right to discredit the entirety of the thing. It's as if people think that the exception proves the problem, when the reality will always be that the reason we even know about the exception is because it is remarkable among sameness. We hear about the abuse far more than we hear about the need because the need exists in a bland, realistic way. The abuse is something that exists in a sensational, look at me! way.

What I am trying to say, rather weakly today, is that I am tired of the abuse of a thing, the exception of a thing being the definition of a thing. We saw this with "welfare mamas" during the first Bush (Sr.) campaign and we see it over and over with everything else. If a cop rapes a man with a broom handle, it suddenly is indicative of all cops. This is seen even more so when we're talking about things like disability or behavior. When someone brags about getting disability for something they don't need, that becomes indicative of people who receive disability. Yet, how many people know that disability payments are extremely hard to get and do not cover basic living expenses? The exception never, never proves the rule.

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent, I know. Autism is not something that is lacking in clear diagnostic guidelines. Autism is not something you can just snap out of with a good smack on the butt every day. Yet again, we have this asshole with a microphone who thinks it is easy because he has never had to deal with it, he's never been intimately acquainted with the thing itself. We all do this, of course. Most of us, however, have the sense to realize that just because our experience is different doesn't mean our experience is right or universal. Hell, I got a whole new understanding of the crushing despair associated with depression when I had that horrible reaction to Trileptal. I'm sick of the conceit so many people have that because they have experienced things differently they know better than others what the truth of the matter, any matter is. The reliance on blind anecdote, or anecdote without examination, is ruining us as a society and it must change.

Michael Savage is hardly worth mentioning because he is so obviously an asshole and an idiot. The same is true for the organization I linked first in this post. These people will always be marginal in society because they do not have the best interest of society at heart. But that doesn't mean we can just roll our eyes and walk on past when we see their ridiculous antics. The necessity to stand up and say "no" to them is never going to go away. In a quick search for the reaction to Savage I saw that the autism guide on About hoped that people would not respond to Savage. I had to shake my head at the lack of care that attitude indicates and wonder how on earth someone who professes to have an interest in autism in particular could be so blindly blase. It is in how we deal with the marginalized lunacy that we learn that it is lunacy in the first place. Look at what has happened with the antivaccination canard: too few people spoke up and now it has unleashed an epidemic, and not an internet epidemic, a real epidemic.

Ya know, I am simply lacking the strength to write any more. One final note: Matt Scott didn't win the Espy and that makes me sad. But he did have a great time and he has an incredible attitude about it. We should all endeavor to be more like him.

I'm going to watch The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, now. I watched Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism the night before. Meh, nothing we didn't already know. The funny thing about that documentary was that I was only half way paying attention until I realized that the disguised voice of one of the anonymous interviewees was Keithy. I'd recognize his modulation anywhere. God, I love netflix. Oh, Jon and I tried to see the new Batman movie in the middle of the day on Saturday. Yeah, no. It was sold out for the entire day by 2:00. Has anyone seen it, yet? I'm curious. Wow, for someone who lacked the strength to write anything more, I've sure written more than I wanted to. Wait, what?

Picture credit

Dear Senator Obama

Liesl — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:51:00 GMT