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 . .