HAVING ONLY “THE RIGHT KIND” OF HAPPY THOUGHTS


Responsively musing on Advocacy:

We could be no more wrong if we continue to believe that
advocacy comes to us neatly packaged only in the right
kind of box.  And as the legitimate needs of disabled
persons are as varied as there are specific
disabilities, there are as many distinctly valid ways to
advocate for their disabilities and the particular needs
of the individual.

When we take the time to stop our car to give a disabled
homeless person an old blanket that we had put in the
trunk for that purpose or even that we use on our
camping trips, we advocate our style of advocacy.  When
thoughtfully adding to our McDonalds food order another
hamburger for such a person and maybe buy him or her
even a cup of coffee on a cold day also, we again
display our brand of generous advocacy.  When we take a
day out of our “busy” life and serve a meal in some
dingy soup kitchen a couple of times a year on Christmas
or Thanksgiving Day, we practice the right kind of
advocacy.

When we actively utilize our talents and write letters
to governors to keep the ADA and our disabled rights
strong and viable, we practice active advocacy.  And
when we get a “tight fisted” lawyer in our town to help
stop a disabled person from being evicted at no charge,
or when working for an agency we really do all that we
can for a homeless or a disabled person, we have then
practiced good advocacy.  And if we generously advocate
because we can easily do so because of the high
positions we have at work or because of the prominent
social standing we have attained, and move events in the
government or an institution by arguing disabled persons
rights, we practice our advocacy.

Or, when we have the power and the means to hurt,
slander, or damage a disabled person in some way, but we
don’t indulge in that base feeling, then we will have
contributed to the noble concept of advocacy.  And if we
complain against the billions of dollars wasted by
corporations that could have bought a lot of technology
for the blind or other disabled, we display our activism
spirit.  And when fully respecting the sometimes bizarre
opinions of others while we speak our mind candidly but
truthfully, and correctly reflect the facts, to the
point that it may embarrass some people who don’t care
about disabled persons, or to those who to suit their
own needs outrageously just perform eloquent lip service
to our cause, then we are actively advocating our own
humanity.


And some musings on Technology:

We must be able to clearly discern both sides of that,
what spurs on the rapid growth and advancements of
technology.  But as much is being said for technology as
a focal point, the attribute of human compassion is not
often brought up.  What is unstintingly and for good
reason mentioned many times, are praises that are
showered on those who have or might accomplish a thing
or two for the disabled because of what they have
already been given, or in the course of “just doing
their job.”  And that is an o.k. thing too:  But only if
that praise given to those folks is presented in its
proper perspective and in moderation by ratio to the
importance of accomplishment vs. the still existing
disabled needs.

Of course and without question, I join in lauding all
our victories, and welcome any such technological
advancement.  But I have serious concerns about “renewed
hope” for those disabled who have fallen through the
cracks, and who have never had any personal hope to be
realized and renewed.  What I am talking about is “that
disabled bunch there in the corner” who never has had
significant hope for advancement in their life.  Or
even “those disabled humans living on the other side of
the track” who in the foreseeable future don’t have any
hope to be able to even have a hope, that the tech
goodies will be there for them to aspire to, and move
their life up to the “second reality” as a result of
their “first reality” having been acknowledged by the
able bodied and disabled alike.

Understanding and recognizing the legitimate and genuine
real needs of disabled persons, concisely defines the
parameters of our humanity and established the real
worth of us as a human being.  Distinguishing these
compassionate delineations of humanity sets us apart
from our own creation and above technology.  For us who
do a single act of compassion towards someone who has no
choice, no hope, and who needs our help, can put that
one in touch with his or her own humanity.  And it is
the element derived from that humanity and our personal
interaction with unfortunate ones, that makes us what we
should be and allows us to lay claim to being genuinely
human.

That humanity then, distinguishes and separates us from
our creation and it sets us aside from technology that
is only a tool and is not to be viewed as a “god” over
and above any human’s worth, as is often done today.


Concluding musings:

In my group as well as in others, the issue of the
validity of the varied claims of certain disabled
persons has often come up.  What has been discussed is
that when “we are too busy to help disabled people” and
others, we allow the destructive hydra to rear its ugly
heads in our society.  We invoke just another type of
discrimination in its subtle form of just not caring,
and its counterpart of the more clearly defined and not
so subtle form of discrimination on basis of just plain
apathy.  And while we continue to accord volumes of
praises to those who are doing the right thing, and are
doing what they ought to do by the simple virtue of
being “human”, and we continue incessantly to extol
accomplishments and virtues:  Globally, the communal
frustrations and the excruciating pain and suffering
from lost hope, for the majority of the disabled world
continues unabatedly.


Are these musings true?

There may not be a sure fire answer, and it may well be
that more questions are raised to the answers given.
But what I think is, that we could run ourselves ragged
speculating on an infinite number of possibilities and
probabilities towards a resolution.  We could also waste
much valuable time and personal energies that should be
better spent on helping those others empower them-
selves.  I think that we need to expand our
understanding of the situation by learning to
figuratively “talk their talk” and “walk their walk”,
and just get busy and start doing instead of analyzing
the problems so much.

And as I have stated before in a previous posting, I
think that we all need to respect the law even if we
agree with it only partially, completely, or not at
all.  And as I have said about that law, and without
anyone becoming abusive or demeaning to the other person
that you don’t see eye-to-eye with, that law still gives
you the absolute right to disagree with me no matter how
wrong I know you are on the issues.

Rudy
.
.