My comments were specifically directed toward US citizens, but not with the
intent to exclude our list members who are citizens of other countries, or to
suggest that many of the items I listed are not issues of interest to other
sovereign nations.

My intent was to suggest that there is a multitude of concerns facing our
nation (and others, yes), and that the majority of our citizens will be led
to make decisions based on its perception of this variety of concerns.  Their
thinking will be influenced by factors and events that we need to be aware of
as well, if we are to be sure-footed on this complex field of battle.

A narrow focus on disability rights -- without a broader understanding of
issues important to the citizenry at large -- may serve more as a detriment
than an advantage.  If nothing else (except that there is else), I am not
going to appear as a person with a credible opinion about anything, if I only
care to know that I want rights for disabled people, but am clueless in a
conversation where someone has made the statement that Sharon won't play
"lets make a deal."  I'll surely seal my fate when I ask if the West Bank has
a night deposit box.

The reason I attempted to address US citizens, was to lead into a subsequent
comment about not turning this nation into something more appropriately
described as a nation "at the people."

For example: Candidate X may advertise loudly about his position on
disability rights, while part of his platform may also involve a less than
obvious agenda to dismantle a constitutional amendment.  The voter who
readily grabs the bold promise without searching for that which lay
underneath cannot adequately fulfill his obligation as a citizen of the
United States, a government established to be of the people.  In effect, he
has relinquished his power as a citizen to a greater power.  If enough of our
citizens succumb to this kind of thinking, we become a nation at the people.


I speak as though this has not already occurred.  How many in the disability
rights movement closely watched the activities of Clinton's bioethics
committee, and Harold Shapiro, one of his committee appointees?  Who was
thinking that this man, this President of Princeton, was about to engineer
Peter Singer's presence in a highly influential position at a university
which tends to produce highly influential people?  We've reveled in our
verbal executions of Singer, but have we discussed the relevance of the fact
that his arrival was an inside job?  We tend to speak of him as though he
were a lone gunman, but what are his numerous philosophical associates
accomplishing -- unregulated due to lack of public awareness -- while we're
throwing all our rocks at him?

Obviously, I could introduce a number of examples, and might just throw in
stem cell research for fun.  Michael J. Fox and Chris Reeve are proponents of
cure, and hopeful about stem cell research among other possibilities.  This
may indeed be a good thing, but the wise man stops to ponder the potential
ramifications of opening such a door.

I'm only saying that we cannot afford to lust after the realization of our
quest to such a degree, that we fall short of our overall duties as citizens
and inadvertently pave the way for a future consequence that is undesirable
for all.  We cannot afford to allow ourselves to be short sighted in a way
that demonstrates to the majority of the population of the United States that
we are not interested in being fully engaged citizens.

It's not my place to address citizens of other nations in this way, no matter
how similar their form of government may be to mine.  On the other hand, if a
citizen of another nation is able to use these comments to the advancement of
people with disabilities in his nation, that seems good.  I am interested in
the health and well being of all people, and I am interested in how other
countries have come to pass civil rights legislation as well.  But I don't
presume to think that it might be acceptable to comment about their
responsibilities as defined by their governments.

I know you are not saying that either.  I'm just hoping -- while in the
process of making a point that I feel is important enough to try to make here
-- to explain that my genuine intent is to be respectful of this
international audience.

Betty



























In a message dated 4/9/2002 6:45:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> Betty, your concerns are echoed worldwide and are not unique to the US. I've
> heard these same opinions echoed in the UN, the UK, Canada, France, etc.
> etc.   The US is not alone in this.
>
> Kat
>