Paralympics Highlight Giant Cultural divide

With the Paralympics about to start in London I have been reading much more about not only the athletes but the plight of people with a disability in Britain. The use of the word plight is chosen for a specific purpose--the British government under David Cameron is literally attacking the rights of people with a disability.  I am not exaggerating. The government is trying to get 500,000 people off the Disability Living Allowance.  The social situation is dire. According to Owen Jones, writing in the Independent on August 26 Cameron:

leads a government that is systematically attacking the rights of the sick and disabled. Their financial support is being confiscated; their ability to lead independent lives attacked; they are subjected to humiliating tests; they are demonised as "scroungers" and drains on the public purse; and abuse towards them is soaring. Keith Robertson, from the Scottish Disability Equality Forum, is warning that so-called welfare reform is leaving disabled people feeling "suicidal".

Here is the link for Jones' article, I urge everyone to read it. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-david-cameron-praises-paralympians-but-his-policies-will-crush-them-8082036.html

Very few people will be exposed to the Paralympics in the United States. Coverage will be taped delayed and limited to highlights. I believe NBC Sports will broadcast the games for about an hour every night. Sadly, this is more than what NBC had planned--the games were originally only going to be streamed online at the Paralympic website. In short, virtually no one will see the games. I find the contrast between the Olympic Games and the Paralympics striking. Total media saturation versus virtually no coverage or reporting. Worse yet, is what is reported in the mainstream media. The formula seems to be set in stone: The paralympian has a great and horrific background story. The athlete overcomes huge obstacles, the larger the obstacles and the more visible the disability the better. The athlete of course then wins an event, pictures are taken and a corporate sponsors feels ever so good. This is nothing short of perverse. It undermines the humanity of the athlete in question and reduces them to a "feel good story". Worse yet, is the fact one of the corporate sponsors is ATOS. This corporation is leading the drive to eliminate the benefits people with a disability receive. ATOS is being paid $100 million pounds this year to "test" sick and disabled people and decide if they are fit for work. Who is fit for work: a person with cancer who takes oral chemotherapy, a person that can move a wheelchair, a person with a visual impairment that can distinguish a word or two of braille. Of course all testing has been designed by a computer--the same reason why ATOS is a sponsor--they provided computer technology.

 Groups such Disabled People Against the Cuts (DPAC) and UK Uncut correctly maintain the entire process designed and operated by ATOS is degrading. I anticipate major protests will take place at the Paralympic Games. The fact ATOS is a sponsor of the games is unethical even by corporate standards.  I find the sponsorship surreal. I  am flabbergasted the International Paralympic Committee was willing to accept  ATOS as a sponsor much less a "major" sponsor. But then again money has a funny way of changing things. The press is of little help, both here and in Britain. I am sure when the highlights are shown on American and British TV not a word of dissent will be uttered. Instead CAmeron and ATOS will get exactly what they want--to appear as though they support people with a disability. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. 

ESPN Discontinues Mono Skier X

I am a big fan of the winter X Games. Obviously my favorite event is Mono Skier X. The best mono skiers compete head to head.  ESPN had a serious commitment to the event and it was a flat out cool event to watch.  You could see big air, big crashes, close finishes and best of all it appealed to all people not just those with a disability that ski. I saw this first hand. I watched more than a few mono ski races in bars and found it amazing to see able bodied people not only get excited about the mono ski race but cheer wildly. I was also delighted to know mono skiers earned the same amount of money as other athletes at the X Games. 

The Mono Skier X was not the only event to get cut. Snowboarder X and Skier X were cancelled. ESPN has been vague at best as to why the events were cancelled. No single factor was sited.  One mono skier stated:

It's definitely perplexing," 2011 Mono Skier X gold medalist Josh Dueck said. "It's not the only mono skiercross race, but in my eyes it is because it does it on a level no other event matches. There's no better exposure we can get for our sport. And right now we're young and growing exponentially. This is a huge, huge hit to the evolution we're seeing. It's hard to digest.

The loss of the Mono Skier X is particularly unfortunate as the event was gaining serious traction. There was what I like to call a serious cool factor associated with the mono skiers. This interest was important in that those that watched the event were likely to be supportive of average adaptive skiers--ordinary weekend warriors like me. This in turn would benefit adaptive ski programs in a myriad of different ways. IN short, this is bad news and I hope mono skiers will not be disproportionately affected. 

Tony Nicklinson Dead:

The BBC has reported Tony Nicklinson has died just a week removed from his failed effort to convince a British High Court to allow a person to give him a lethal prescription. I have followed the stories about Nicklinson who was "locked in" after a stroke in 2005. He was very clear he considered his life a living nightmare and that he wanted to die. I found Nicklinson's comments about his life and suffering distasteful. I also believed his words were destructive to people with a disability as they reinforced the antiquated idea that death was preferable to life with a disability. What I found hard to fathom was Nicklinson's contention that his life was a living nightmare never changed. He was consistently miserable and believed his suffering was singularly unique.  Yet Nicklinson was in many ways lucky. He had a wife who was supportive and two children that clearly loved their father. He did not go into bankrupt paying for care. He was able to communicate even though it was a tedious process. I am not dismissing the fact being locked in is extra-ordinarily difficult. I am merely pointing out that Nicklinson was not singularly unique. In fact the only thing that made him unusual was his consistent misery. And the media loves miserable people with a disability. Pity stories abound and a man like Nicklinson provides great visuals. Pity the poor man pictured with his wife and children. No mainstream media outlets write about all the other people with comparable conditions that move on with life--and this is exactly what the vast majority of people with a disability do. We move on, adapt and lead ordinary lives. This does not sell newspapers. This does not make people cry. This does not make people thank God they can walk and talk and do not have a disability.  This line of reasoning is maddening. And this is exactly why I have refrained from writing about Nicklinson. He pronouncements about his life being a living nightmare simply made me mad. Apparently I am not alone. This morning I read "Self Pity is Still Not Lethal! On Tony Nicklinson" written by Miss Dennis Queen (was Claire Lewis). See http://missdennisqueen.livejournal.com/49897.html She wrote:

Know what it isn't easy for some of us crips. To sympathise, I mean - Tony's attitude is quite offensive.I am tired of the pitiful debates. I am exasperated with this dishonest man who admits denying himself a better life but blames it on his body.  I agree Tony needs to see his doctor - not for a lethal injection, for some anti depression support and a kick up the proverbial about how life can get much better if he puts down his fear and self loathing and lets it go.Come on Tony! Give life a go  - almost all of the rest of us manage without suicide. Try living before you throw your life away dude!

I was thrilled when I read the words above. Miss Dennis Queen has been one of the most eloquent and pointed observers on disability rights and assisted suicide in Britain for quite some time. Once done illustrating how far off base Nicklinson was  Miss Dennis Queen went on to state "The reasons for 'helping' disabled people to kill themselves are flawed and rooted in prejudice, internalised oppression, lack of independent living and scare mongering / fear about the future". At issue is not a bodily deficit regardless how severe or mild it may be. At issue is the social response such a body prompts. Thus I do not in any way want society to "help" me. I especially do not want any assistance with my death. I simply want to be equal--I want others to respect my life. I want people in this country to enforce the ADA with rigor-- a law that is not about architecture but rather the civil rights of people with a disability. In short, screw pity. Let's reframe the discussion to what is is really all about--civil rights. 

Fay Vincent in the Wall Street Journal

I never liked Fay Vincent, the former commissioner of baseball. I did not know until August 16 that Vincent has apparently started using a wheelchair. In the Wall Street Journal Vincent wrote an editorial, "Where the Disabled Are'nt Welcome". I was not impressed. Vincent's editorial is a polite plea for businesses and society in general to become more inclusive to people with a disability. Only one line resonated with me:

Even well intentioned legislation cannot specify what is needed to accommodate those of us who are made to feel subhuman by unintentional failures to provide suitable facilities. I know all the excuses".

Vincent is seeing an unsavory part of American society for the first time. I suspect this is quite a shock for Vincent as his professional associations are with spectacularly wealthy people such as men who own baseball teams. Welcome to my word Mr. Vincent. I am not "stunned" as Vincent is when I come across new buildings that are grossly inaccessible. This is part of my daily life.  I appreciate Vincent's words and support but a life time of experience has led me to conclude polite and reasonable requests for equal access gets people with a disability nowhere. I expressed this sentiment to a friend who also read the editorial by Vincent and he believed I was being difficult. I was told "things have changed since you were paralyzed. People support the ADA. You are looking for a fight". I laughed in response and held my tongue. I saw no reason to demonstrate how wrong my friend was. Vincent's editorial is very important but not in the way most will think. It is not his words that natter but rather the response generated. As of today, 88 comments have been posted to the editorial. I would estimate 90% or more are opposed to the ADA.  I expected this--the ADA is grossly misunderstood. I will readily admit I did some cherry picking to highlight just how far off base people are when it comes to the ADA. Below are many juicy quotes that raised my blood pressure more than a few notches.

�Scammers use ADA to blackmail businesses (larger and small)" 

�His claim is just emotional exaggeration�

 "Business owners are asked unfairly to shoulder burden alone"

 "I know a dozen of such corners [curb cuts] that I�m guessing cost 100k minimal".

 "I don�t think its right to require all businesses make adjustments to suit a few people so their feelings aren�t hurt". 

"Oh here we go again with the snide accusations of thoughtlessness and condescension. You�re hurting your own cause".

 "I had a discussion not long ago with two people who wanted a law forcing all software manufacturers to optimize their programs for the blind� I pointed out the obvious difficulties and costs involved in making sure 0.1% of the population can use every app they might ever want to� I was promptly called an assortment of bad names".

 "The ADA has generated a lot of hostility because its approach is heavy-handed and punitive".

 "The world is full of selfish and self-centered people who take access for granted and assume that if they�re taken care of then all�s right with the world".

 "The ADA comes with force. The force of the State".

 "It�s so sad to go to a small hotel with a pool and see handicap access contraption collecting dust in the corner".

 "The ADA is a bridge too far".

"Hey, I�m a lefty. You don�t hear us complaining. We�ve learned to make do".

 "I appreciate the challenges you face, Mr. Vincent, but it seems awfully selfish of you to expect the world to reconfigure itself based on your specific needs at no cost to you".

 "George HW Bush made a HUGE mistake with this bill� This law has forced closure of some long run businesses and been a HUGE waste of taxpayer money".

 "Under the guise of compassion we have bastardized laws that do less for their intended purposes and more to line the pocket of some lawyer".

 "Mr. Vincent�s complaint involved a luxury hotel and prominent Manhattan�s men�s club. From that I can conclude Mr. Vincent could afford a valet when he travels".

 "He sure was strident".

 "I believe the ADA to be an overreach and over burdensome".

 "The disabled certainly cannot be expected to disassociate themselves from normal participation in society , and a civil society owes an obligation to its less fortunate citizens to provide accommodation reasonable to its standards and resources. Yet, the cost of access by some, the few, or in our case the none, jeopardizes the viability of entity itself".

 "No matter how much we spend, we cannot make the handicapped unhandicapped: it is just not possible".

 "My father, may he rest in peace, was handicapped� He always found a way to overcome his infirmity".

I have heard variations on each and every one of the comments listed above. To me such largely ignorant and condescending comments reveal the larger social failure of the ADA. I will readily acknowledge the physical environment is far more accessible than it was when the ADA was signed. I will also acknowledge the law protects the civil rights of people with a disability.  But just because plastic blue wheelchair placards abound and handicapped parking is evident nationwide does not mean people with a disability are any more welcome today than they were two decades ago. What has changed is the way we approach disability from a cultural standpoint. We acknowledge the ADA exists and buildings, schools, and government offices should be accessible to all. Note the word should--it is still believed that one can pick and choose when to comply with the ADA. Thus when the cold hard reality of equal access and equal rights arises people abandon and ignore the law.  Extreme examples are raised--curb cuts cost 100k, adaptive equipment gathers dust in the corner at luxurious hotels--and use them to disregard the law. In place of access and equal rights "reasonable accommodations" are made. The problem with these seemingly benign words is that the people who decide what is supposedly reasonable know nothing about disability. What others find "reasonable" I find unacceptable. Let me provide a not so clear cut example.

Recently I attended an event at the Yale Club in New York City across the street from Grand Central. At the main entrance I saw a blue placard directing me to a locked accessible side door about 100 feet away. At the accessible entrance a clear sign read "please ring bell to enter". I rang the bell. The person who answered the intercom stated "I will be there shortly". A few minutes later a person opened the locked door and after five minutes or more figured out how to work the wheelchair lift. In short, it took at least ten minutes to enter the building. As I waited outside this spectacular building I watched people enter and depart and began to wonder exactly how reasonable was this so called "reasonable accommodation"? What would have happened if it were raining or frigid cold? What if a person did not answer the intercom which is in my experience is the norm. Not a single person that entered the building and saw me waiting outside believed my civil rights were violated by being forced to use a side entrance. I use this example because it is not a clear cut violation of the law. This example highlights the problem with the ADA--it is not thought of as civil rights violation. Was waiting ten minutes really a civil rights violation? On a clear lovely evening as I watched busy Manhattanites speed by the answer is no. But this minor inconvenience is far from an isolated event. Locked side entrances abound. Locked elevators and wheelchair lifts are the norm. Curb cuts are not cleared of snow after storms. Restaurants are impossible to navigate as aisles are too narrow. Forget about ordering a drink at a bar. Changing rooms that are accessible in department stores are locked. Accessible bathrooms are a true rarity. I wait an inordinate amount of time for assistance when I get off a plane. Most medical facilities are grossly inaccessible. Schools where I teach do not have accessible podiums. At conferences podiums are rarely if ever accessible. Hotels such as the Marriott Residence Inn have washing machines for guests that are not accessible. All these barriers are not necessary. If American culture valued the existence of people with a disability such barriers would be met with outrage. Such outrage does not exist. As the people who commented amply demonstrated we people withe a disability are supposed to "overcome" and adapt. We are expected to be thankful for any accommodation. If we assert ourselves we are too strident. Many think we who advocate for disability rights are bitter about our plight. The leap in logic people are reluctant to  make is that disability is a social problem with well established and tested solutions.  Is it any wonder I do not feel equal? Come on people, make the leap in logic, it is in your best interest. 

American Airline Ignorance This Time

It is the height of the summer travel season. This is also when tempers get short and grumpy business men and women are deeply annoyed by people who are unfamiliar with the rituals of flying. This is also the time of year when flight crews are less tolerant than usual. I get why flight crews are short tempered. They are overwhelmed, overworked, under paid, and operate thoughtlessly on remote. They rely heavily on routine. Upset the routine and you are nothing but trouble thus any passenger out of the norm represents work they do not have the time to do much less think about.  As one who is obviously out of the norm I have been the brunt of much abuse on the part of flight crews. Abuse here meaning I have experienced a stunning disregard for the fact I am a human being and cannot get on and off a plane independently. My existence I assure you is a giant problem from a flight crew and from a larger airline industry viewpoint.  There is a deeply ingrained bias against any person out of the norm whose existence cannot be turned into a profit margin. I cannot speak for others but I can assert that in my experience airlines are hostile to any effort to make travel for people with a disability hassle free.

Given the above I was not at all surprised to read about Carly Fleischmann, a 17 year old with autism. Last week on her way home to Toronto from Los Angeles a flight attendant insisted she turn off her iPad before the plane took off. This is standard procedure. But Ms. Fleischmann uses her iPad to communicate--it is her primary means of communication. The iPad is in her words "her voice". It does not take much thought or familiarity with disability to realize Ms. Fleischmann needed her iPad. The word here is need. Think common sense--this is not a typical situation and requires a modicum of thought. Ms. Fleischmann has autism, it is her means of communication. This was made clear an yet the flight attendant refused to accommodate her.  And here in lies the inherent problem with the notion of "reasonable accommodations". The people making those decisions are largely ignorant or in this case hostile. Ms. Fleischmann wrote:

I need to ask a question of all of you. If a flight attendant came up to your child and ducked taped there moth shut for take off that includes the minute the safty video starts to the minute the plane taxis to the runway and than getting permission to take off. Would you be ok with that? Or If some one who was deaf had the stewardess come and than handcuffed that persons hand to a chair. Would you be out raged as a society? My augmentative device is my mouth and my hands. I take my iPad to the washroom to my bed and everywhere I go. I am not playing games on it I am SPEAKING with it. Why am I looked at like I dont have the same rights!

American Airlines messed with the wrong person. Ms. Fleischmann took to twitter and Facebook to voice her complaints. Apparently Ms. Fleischmann is well-known. She has been featured on television programs and has 42,000 fans on Facebook and 26,000 twitter followers. The airline response is exactly what I would expect. They defend the flight attendant who was following U.S. Department of Transportation regulations and regret any discomfort Ms. Fleischmann may have experienced.  Ah, just what the world needs--a strictly legal reply.

It is Ms. Fleischmann's last line quoted above that always has me shaking my head--Why am I looked at like I don't have the same rights? This is a question I have been pondering for three decades.

Bad to Good in 50 Yards

I am in Ontario and had an interesting morning. I have been to Ontario a number of times this year. I am learning |Canada has a differnt cultural response to disability. Generally speaking, I have found Ontario residents to be far more tolerant than my fellow New Yorkers. By tolerant I mean I am not accosted as frequently in Ontario than I am in New York. In the last few months I am struck by the nuimber of people I see with a disability doing ordinary things in Ontario. every day I see a person with a disability out and about. For instance, I saw a woman using a power wheelchair and holding the hand of the man next to her. A child was getting a free ride on the back of her wheelchair. I was thrilled to see this normalcy--just parents out for a walk with their child. As passed this family what I saw only got better. On the woman's lap was another young child. This truly made my day as I rarely see parents with a disability. Regardless, fast forward to today. I am leaving a local supermarket and an elderly man looks at me and says "Bugger me, your life must really suck.".  I just stared and did not reply. I consider myself lucky as the follow up line was not forthcoming--such lines are always even more more demeaning. I drove all of 50 yards to a gas station to fill up my tank. As I am getting out of the car and putting my wheelchair together a young guy at the opposite pump asks me "How do you like it?" I reply "The wheelchair or the car? This is greated with a healthy chuckle and he says "the car". We engage in a typical male discussion about cars--model type, year, engine size, reliability etc. In short, it was an ordinary conversation.

The above anecdote makes me realize just how uneven the response to disability can be. On the one hand I had an elderly man demean me. It was likely not his intent and he obviously had an antiquated view of disability. He could also fear disability. Given his age,  if he lives long enough he will have a disability of some sort. In contrast the young guy I met did not even deem my wheelchair and paralysis worthy of mention much less disacussion. The guy just really liked my car. He was far more interested in the sort of engine my car  had and we wondered why more diesal cars are not sold in North America. The startling social dichotomy I experienced within 50 yards and less than five minutes reveals the inherent difficulty in assessing the social impact of disability. The elderly man clearly accepted a medical model of disability. The young man in contrast did not consider my disability worth a mention. Age is surely a factor. But I am not going to blast all elderly people--I have met many older folks with a nuanced view of disability. I have met young biggots as well. I am not sure what to make of my experience but do know my life is never dull or that I can never truly be anaonymous.

Alaska Airlines and Blatant Discrimination

A few friends sent me emails about a story that has generated online buzz. Multiple stories have appeared in various mainstream news outlets as well. Alaska Airlines has been accused of discriminating against an elderly man with a disability and his friend. The source of the story is from Facebook--a fellow passenger who was outraged by what took place. Below is the raw Facebook post. 

 I request a complete and thorough review of the actions of staff today.. at the Redmond Oregon Airport. Cameron Clark reports, from the Redmond, Oregon Airport today.. """"i witnessed today, what i consider to be the worst of humanity.
standing in line at an @alaska airlines ticket check in, in redmond oregon, i watched as a disabled/mentally and physically challenged couple were left standing in the front of a line by the ticket attendant, melissa, who didn't say a word- no "final call, redmond to seattle"-- no "if you are flying to seattle, it's too ... 
late to make this flight," etc-- nothing. 
when a different agent appeared 1/2 hour later-- the flight still had not left. i asked for a quick "side bar" with the new agent-- telling her that this couple needed some leeway-- some additional help. she quickly informed me that "we treat every single customer the exact same here"-- she was annoyed by my insistence and advocacy. i tried to explain to her that her colleague had left the man and his companion alone, without saying a word to them. that they were "different" and that it would be ok for her to make exceptions for them (uttering something like, "exceptional circumstances sometimes require, exceptional responses").
melissa finally agreed to try to get the man on the flight-- but he couldn't bring his luggage (ug).
he had a hard time walking-- no one offered him a wheelchair or asked how they could be helpful. he stumbled off toward the safety inspection line.
predictably, he didn't understand/comprehend their restriction of his luggage, and got stuck in security. 
while this was going on, the ticket attendant and myself were continuing to have quiet words about how they needed extra help-- she told me that "i didn't know the whole story"-- that he had the "same problem yesterday, showing up late to his first flight." i told her that i thought there was a real reason he was struggling to make it anywhere on time, and that this was cause for some compassion and some exceptions to rules, and some additional assistance. by now i was fully annoying her. she had her rules, and she was growing tired of my moral compass.
security ended up sending the man back, telling him in the confusion around his luggage that there was no longer enough time for him to make his airplane, without the plane running late.
the original attendant, melissa, returned, and lightly shamed the couple for being late for the second time in a row, telling them there was no way the man could get to bellingham before 9pm now.
the man and woman broke into tears. his "nervous system hurky/jurkyness" became profound. he begged her to help him. nothing.
i asked tiffany to go on with the kids, that i wanted to stick around and advocate for this couple for the 20 minutes i could and still make my own flight...
i asked the man for his name. "brent" he and his companion were easily 70 something. he was crying something fierce by now. i asked him what his condition was. he said he had late stage parkinsons, and that his companion had MS. 
i asked to speak to the on site manager- a man named "jim cook." jim listened to me politely tell him the story about the man with parkinsons, and the woman with MS, and how none of his staff did anything to offer them additional assistance when it was clear to all 20 of us in line, how much they needed it and deserved it, and then he explained to me that the "laws don't allow alaska airlines to provide anyone, for any reason "special treatments." i wrote that comment down, word for word. he responded by saying, "so great, you are going to take me completely out of context aren't you?" i said, "what other context is there?" i asked you why your staff didn't help these people, and, in that exact context, you backed up your employee who told me that everyone is treated exactly alike. he stood by this position.
the end of this story is sad to the core. after wrapping up with mr. cooke, i talked to brent for a bit longer. 
this trip- redmond to seattle/seattle to bellingham, was allowing him to see his daughter one final time, who works on the ferry system and is out on the water for most of her time-- she was scheduled to meet him in bellingham at 3pm today. he said that it was a "bucket list" item that he could no longer realize. i asked him if she could get off the ferry and wait for him tomorrow-- and he said that she was only available for this brief time today-- that he was to join her on the ferry, and that otherwise she'd be out on the water for days-- his trip was done. he couldn't re-schedule. he was simply, now, in defeat, asking for his money back.
what part of this story is "ok" in any way?
what happened to our collective sense of decency, of compassion, of our disposition to help those in need of extra help.
alaska airlines. you broke a man's heart today. you maintained your policy, and ignored an opportunity to do the right thing.
you broke my heart too.
if i knew who to contact, i would contact them and invite them to pay for this man's daughters unpaid leave, and provide her a ticket to come see her father? short of that, i know of nothing that could undo the inhumanity i witnessed today.
blech.

I have no doubt this is an accurate description of the incident. It would in part reflect my experience every time I fly. Airline personnel are routinely rude to people with a disability. When I show up at a gate I do not even need to utter a word--the gate agent sees me as nothing but extra work and a hassle to deal with. When I fly I have the plague. Using a wheelchair and flying is a miserable experience. If I am lucky and all goes smoothly I will only be delayed about an hour. If things go wrong, and they often do, much worse things can happen than just being delayed. With this background in place nothing reported above is a surprise. What is a surprise is the reaction--over 42,000 people have noted they like this story and are upset with Alaska Airlines. This will surely sound like sour grapes but where are all these out raged people when I fly and get treated like dirt by airline personnel?  I cannot think of a single incident when I was supported by a fellow passenger. Once every few years a passenger will look at me as they pass and say something to the effect they are sorry I am being treated so badly.  This summer as I waited and waited and waited for assistance well after every passenger exited the plane the pilot for the next flight looked at me puzzled and asked "Are you still waiting?" Yes, I replied. He said "You guys who use wheelchair really have it rough" and then entered the cock pit and closed the door.  

The point of my two stories is simple and will negate the sour grapes aspect of this post: when one observes an injustice speak up. Offer your support. Take the risk and tell airline personnel you are offended by the way a fellow passenger is treated. And I know this is a risk. When people fly once they enter an airport thanks to the Patriot Act they give up their civil rights. All people must endure the humiliation ritual performed by the TSA. I get crowds need to be controlled. I get people have to get from point A to point B. I get airlines need to operate efficiently and maintain rigid control of passengers. Within this structure however the rights of people with a disability can be respected. When I assert those rights I am not liked--I am deemed a "problem". Perhaps if other passengers supported me and the airlines realized this would occur my rights might not be violated in the first place. I might even be treated with respect. I hope one day to have this sort of experience.

Olympics and Disability

If the popular press is to be believed the Olympic ratings are through the roof. NBC has the broadcast rights to the Olympics and are milking the event for everything it is worth. I dislike the coverage--it is all tape delayed and I can sense the athletic stampede for corporate sponsorship. This may sound like sour grapes but it not meant as such. This is what elite athletes do and cannot blame them. This is how a small fortune can be made.

A few people with a disability are competeing. I read about a blind archer that won a gold medal. No name was provided in most news accounts--just"blind archer". No gender, no age, no nationality. Think dehumanizing. Would such a headline or brief filler about a typical athlete exist? No way. I doubt I will ever read "bipedal gold medal winner".  The press has largely ignored disability issues and sports. But this will change when Oscar Pistorius runs. Pistorius is a sensation. He is a hyped athlete, perhaps the first such athlete with a disability to exist. He is the Blade Runner, the fastest man with no legs. A great tag line if there ever was one. I have read everything I can about Pistorius. I am not impressed. I groan when I hear him say he is not disabled. I groan not because of the statement but rather the missed opportunity. There are so many other ways he could talk about disability. zlike it or not he is asked all the time. I am sure he is weary of the subject. I refuse to be critical of him. He is not an academic theorist or disability rights advocate.  He is a world class athlete. He is a South African so his experience with disability is very different from what an American would experience. In short, cut him a lot of slack--he is an athlete first and foremost.

Today started what will likely be a number of articles about Pistorius. All mention his disability first. All mention his battle to compete against typical athletes. All wonder if it is fair for him to run--many imply he has an unfair advantage with his protheses. Demeaning comments abound. In the Wall Street Journal today. One athlete was quoted as saying "It takes a lot of courage and confidence to do what he is doing".  This is typical super cripple propaganda. There is no doubt as next week progresses Pistorius will become a big story. How it will be framed will be split into two categories. First, does he have an advantage because of his protheses? I doubt this debate will be grounded in scientific reality and opinions will be screamed at high decibel levels. Second, he will be portrayed as a super cripple--an inspiration to all other amputees. I am sure they will trot out images of him running next to little kids with no limbs as well. I am equally sure some veterans will be exploited and patriotic music in the background. And lost in all this is the most basic aspect of Pistorius life--he is just another athlete trying to win a gold medal.

In a world that does not exist I could imagine how Pistorius could be used. He could be a tease to lead NBC into coverage of the Paralympic games. Pistorius could be a color commentator and explain the rules of adaptive sports. The viewing audience would tune in nightly to see thrilling competition. It is too bad no one will see the Paralympics. It will not be broadcast in the United States. In about six months a special will appear on NBC condensing the games into 90 minutes of inspiring trash. Worse yet, it will be broadcast once at 3:30PM, perhaps in the Fall when every American interested in sports is watching professional football. If some TV executives were smart they would push to broadcast the Paralympics. The X Games prominently feature mono skier races to a receptive and enthusiastic audience. In other words it is a rating winner.  If given a chance, I suspect the Paralympic Games could be a real ratings winner. I just wish they were given a chance.