Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

On July 26, 2015, we will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. It is one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation for the disability community. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public services provided by state and local governments, public services operated by private entities, transportation, commuter authorities, or telecommunications.

An excerpt from the National Council on Disability (NCD) report:

Living in the community with family and friends, working at a typical job in a regular business, and participating in community affairs is a right of citizenship, not a privilege for individuals with disabilities, as for all Americans. This right was confirmed with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, affirmed with the 1999 Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision, and repeatedly reaffirmed in the years since that landmark decision. 

Disability rights are a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. Accessibility to public places & social programs, equality in employment practices and education – these are all federally protected rights for every person in the United States, including those with disabilities. We must stop viewing individuals who are disabled as subhuman or charity cases. Having ramps and elevators installed at rec centers; having ample aisle space at department stores and restaurants; providing larger stalls with handrails in public bathrooms – these are not things that people with disabilities should feel grateful for. It is not a privilege to have appropriate supports or removals of barriers. It is the LAW.

Forward RISE is a NYS nonprofit committed to the real inclusion of people with disabilities through knowledge-sharing workshops and inclusive social experiences.

http://forwardrise.org/

More 411 on the ABLE Act

In May, I posted "ABLE Act - Savings For People With Disabilities" which explains what the ABLE Act is and why it's so important to the disability community. I just came across this other article that also explains what it's about in very real terms. I wanted to share it because I can't stress enough how important it is that this piece of legislation become a reality! Here's the link to "How Medicaid Forces the Disabled to be Poor"

Bullied Boy Gets Charged After Recording Bullies In Action

A 15-year-old boy with a comprehension delay disorder, ADHD, and an anxiety disorder complained to his school and parents that there were bullies who were intimidating him and physically attacking him yet the school failed to intervene on behalf of their student. He decided to take action and use his school-issued iPad to record an incident with the (rational) thought that if he had proof he could stop the bullying. Boy, was he wrong! Instead what happened was he, himself, was charged with disorderly conduct for secretly recording individuals who didn’t give consent to being recorded! If you’re thinking, “Surely this can’t be happening now, in today’s society” you are very wrong, my friend. He was just found guilty on March 19, 2014. You might also be thinking, “This must have happened somewhere outside of America because this type of unfairness would not be allowed in an advanced country such as ours”, and you would be wrong on this account, as well. This happened in the great state of Pennsylvania, one of 12 states that require the consent of all parties when making a recording. The bullies have never been punished.


Thankfully, the DA eventually decided not to pursue this case and dropped the charges after it gained public attention. But there is something seriously wrong with Lt. Robert Kurta, the officer who made the decision to file a citation against the teen, and the legal system if a teen who isn’t being protected by their school takes matters into their own hands in a non-violent way. You can watch an interview of the teen here.

Thanks to The Mobility Resource for bringing this story to my attention.

ABLE Act - Savings for People With Disabilities

The Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act was introduced in Congress in February 2013 and it has recently been analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that that provides budget and economic information to Congress. If and when it is finally passed, it can make a huge positive impact on the lives of people with disabilities.

ABLE Act – What it means

The ABLE Act would amend the IRS revenue code in such a way that would allow savings accounts to be set up for individuals with disabilities much like the college tuition accounts known as “529 accounts” that have been around since 1996. The money accrued in that account is not considered taxable income to the individual and their eligibility for SSI or Medicaid is not at risk, which are often times the only income and medical coverage people with disabilities have. 

A real life example:

Tony’s sister has a beautiful little girl who was born with cerebral palsy. Little Maggie is the light of her mother’s eye but she has a long road ahead of her. Tony sees how much it costs to get the equipment Maggie needs and deserves in order to be included in the rest of the family’s daily life. Maggie’s mom works very hard but can’t possibly cover all the expenses on her own.  Medicaid only covers the very basics and even those things are often a fight to get. Tony decides to help out by setting up an ABLE account for Maggie’s needs. He knows it won’t count as income to Maggie’s household so there’s no risk that the SSI and Medicaid Maggie and her family rely on will be affected. Family members & friends regularly deposit money in Maggie’s account for holidays & birthdays and Maggie’s mom is able to pay for the expenses that Medicaid doesn’t cover.

Key Characteristics

• Anybody (including the individuals with disabilities themselves) can set up an ABLE account and multiple accounts in different states can be set up for one individual
• Qualified expenses include education; housing; transportation; employment support; health, prevention, and wellness; miscellaneous expenses (such as financial management or legal fees); assistive technology and personal support services
• Earning and distributions from the account would not count as taxable income to the owner
• Contributions would be made using cash from the contributor’s after-tax income
• Assets in these account would be disregarded when determining the individual’s eligibility for most federal means-tested benefits such as medical coverage
• The first $100,000 would be disregarded when considering the eligibility for SSI

ABLE Act – Impact on SSI

In order to quality for SSI, an individual cannot have more than $2,000 in assets (for couples it’s $3,000). If their assets exceed this maximum amount, they must spend down the excess before they can qualify. Think about what this means! A person with disabilities cannot have a “rainy day” fund or a savings account for fun vacations like the rest of society. Doesn’t every financial expert say that we should have at least 6-8 months of expenses saved in case of an emergency? I guess people with disabilities don’t have emergencies like people without disabilities! Why would they need to have money saved up? The reality is, people with disabilities have higher medical expenses but are expected to live in poverty before they can qualify for government assistance which covers the very, very basics! And I hope that you, dear reader who doesn’t have a disability, will not become disabled due to an accident or illness because any money you’ve worked so hard to save up until then will have to be handed over until you have almost nothing left.

Another real life example:

Joe has always been a hard worker. He got his first job as a cashier at age 16 and was taught to save by his parents. By the time he turned 26, he managed to save over $15,000 in a savings account. For his 27^th birthday he and his friends decided to go bungee jumping. That decision cost him his legs. After a freak accident, Joe became paralyzed from the waist down. He had to stop working because of his injuries and no longer had medical coverage. He applied for SSI and Medicaid but because he had so much money saved – money he was saving to buy himself a home – he didn’t qualify. Joe had to spend all that money he worked so hard for before he could find any assistance. A man who was independent and always worked for the things he wanted now had almost no money left and had to depend on the government for what little they could do for him.

Support is growing

Thankfully, the list of people and organizations that are behind the ABLE Act is steadily growing. The passage of this Act is crucial to people with disabilities and their loved ones.  

Congressman Crenshaw states it well: 

"No longer would individuals with disabilities have to stand aside and watch others use IRS-sanctioned tools to lay the groundwork for a brighter future. They would be able to as well, and that's an accomplishment we can all be proud of."

To see if your state’s Representatives and Senators support the ABLE Act you can check the following websites:

House of Representatives 113th Congress (2013-201

4)

Senate113th Congress (2013 - 2014)

It’s time for the government and certain populations in our society to expect those with the least to give the most!

Equality for all, ALWAYS!

Be sure to Like me on Facebook at theSeed and at Forward RISE

New York Gets Inspired - Work Incentive For People With Disabilities Passes the Senate

GOOD JOB NEW YORK!

Inspire NY is a tax incentive spearheaded by Senator David Carlucci (D) that encourages businesses to hire people with developmental disabilities. It just passed the Senate! This legislation helps thousands of New Yorkers gain a sense of belonging and inclusion in their own community. Businesses will receive up to $5,000 for hiring each full-time employee and up to $2,500 for hiring each part-time employee.

Follow Senator Carlucci on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/davecarlucci

Disability Awareness Month - 5 Influential People of the Civil Rights Movement For People With Disabilities

For Disability Awareness Month I’ve put together a list of five influential people of the disability rights movement in the United States. This is just a short list of some people who have made a tremendous impact on how people with disabilities are able to live today.

************************************************

Hellen Keller

 1. Hellen Keller – Born in 1880, Helen was struck by a mysterious illness called “brain fever” by a family physician at 18 months and became deaf, blind and mute. At the age of 7, her parents found a young teacher who would teach Helen how to communicate and they would become life-long friends. Helen graduated from Cambridge School for Young Ladies and went on to become a well-known speaker doing lectures and working on behalf of people with disabilities. She testified before Congress, advocating for an improvement in the welfare of the blind. She co-founded Helen Keller International to combat the causes and consequences of blindness and malnutrition. In 1920, she helped found the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Helen tackled many social issues including women’s suffrage, pacifism and birth control. She traveled to 35 countries on five continents, including a five month trip across Asia at the age of 75 in order to improve the lives of people with disabilities. She died in her sleep in 1968, just a few weeks before her 88^th birthday.

Gini Laurie

2. Virginia “Gini” Grace Wilson Laurie – She is considered one of the “grandmothers” of the independent living movement. A year before her birth in 1913, two of her sisters died from poliomyelitis and her brother was left severely disabled. As an adult, she volunteered with the Red Cross in the Cleveland Toomey Pavilion rehab center during the 1949 polio epidemic. In 1958, she took the unpaid job of editor of the Toomeyville Gazette, a newsletter put together by patients who recovered at the rehab center after contracting polio. The Gazette published articles on legislation, activism and what would become known as the independent living movement. In 1970, Gini wrote an article in the newly-named Rehabilitation Gazette where she stated plainly that for people with disabilities, the most important thing “is the right to freedom of choice to live as normal a life as possible within the community…Segregation is unnormal.” In 1977, she wrote Housing and Home Services for the Disabled: Guidelines and Experiences in Independent Living”. It pointed to the fact that it is more cost-effective for people with disabilities to live in their community than being put into institutions or nursing homes, an important point still being driven in the disability movement today. She died in 1989 of cancer.

Ed Roberts

3. Ed Roberts – After contracting polio at age 14 and living in the hospital for two years, Ed was finally able to move back home. But things were very different. Because of the polio, he was only able to move two fingers and slept in an iron lung. His struggle against discrimination began immediately when school administrators did not allow him to attend school with his classmates. They felt it was best to have teachers instruct him privately at home. The family fought back and they won him the right to attend school with his classmates. After graduating from a junior college, he had to go through another battle in order to be allowed to attend the University of California in Berkeley. He eventually won this fight as well and went on to study Political Science. Because of Ed, more disabled students were allowed to attend Berkeley and they eventually formed a disabled student organization on campus. Their focus was to make the university more accessible and provide trainings on daily support techniques. In 1972, Ed helped the group form the first Center for Independent Living which was considered radical at the time because it was run by people with disabilities rather than medical professionals. He became the first person to serve as the Director of California’s Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. In 1981, he and Judy Heumann and Joan Leon started the World Institute on Disability (WID) which studies legal rights issues for people with disabilities around the world. Often referred to as “the father of the disability rights movement”, he was president of WID until his death in 1995.

Justin Dart

4. Justin Dart – At the age of 18, Justin contracted polio which left him unable to walk. He came from a wealthy family in Chicago and in 1967 he and his wife devoted their lives to helping people with disabilities. On his own dime, they travelled the across the United States in the early 1980’s which was quite an undertaking because many places were not wheelchair accessible. Universal design was just beginning to be implemented in larger cities but in smaller ones, it was practically unheard of.  What was learned through conversations during this tour was the basis for a policy that called for national rights for people with disabilities. It would eventually become the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Because of the national dialogue that took place during this time and the subsequent passing of the ADA, Justin Dart is considered to be “the godfather” of the ADA. In 1995, he founded the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) along with others. At the age of 71, he died in 2002 from congestive heart failure related to complications of post-polio syndrome.

Wade Blank

5. Wade Blank – emulating the great Dr. King, Wade began a movement in the 1970’s within the disability community in Denver, Colorado that would give rise to ADAPT, a national grass-roots community that organizes disability rights activists to engage in nonviolent direct action. A former minister, he saw the sad living conditions of individuals with severe disabilities in nursing homes and took it upon himself to make changes. He not only moved people from institutions into independent living centers but these very same people became co-protestors in his fight against the discrimination built into the public transportation system. They waged the first sit-in of their kind and surrounded a bus with their wheelchairs in Denver. The group quickly expanded to other cities around the US, holding demonstrations fighting for accessibility in public bus systems. His group’s national recognition paid off as accessible public transportation was included in The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a landmark law passed in 1990. He continued to be a leader in the civil rights movement of people with disabilities until his death in 1993.

************************************************

Without these role models and others like them, people with disabilities would not have the right to a free and public education, public transportation and barrier-free public places, among other civil rights. Although there is still much work to be done, it is uncontestable that the foundation laid down by these pioneers sparked a movement that is still growing today.

Can you think of any others who have made a major impact on the lives of people with disabilities?

People With Disabilities Have A RIGHT To Make Choices

What's For Lunch?

There may be some people who wonder how a person with disabilities can decide important things such as which doctor or therapist to see or which facility to go to. I wonder how anybody can take away another’s right to make such decisions! The institutionalization that began over a century ago in the United States is a direct cause of the stigmatization of people with disabilities. The multi-generational feeling has been that this population is incapable of making minor decisions, such as what to eat for lunch, let alone important life decisions as where to live and which doctor to see. Let’s not even get into the social aspects of life like love, sex and friendships!

"We the People" Includes People With Disabilities!

What A Community IS

The Department of Health and Human Services has completed the final rule on what home and community-based services are under the Affordable Care Act. Why is this so important? Because now a person with disabilities cannot be forced to live in an institution or nursing care facility and made to call it “home”. This statute states “that home and community-based settings do not include nursing facilities, institutions for mental diseases, intermediate care facilities…or any other locations that have the qualities of an institutional setting”. There were reports of “homes” being built on the grounds of former mental institutions where the patients inmates were herded under the guise of “community settings”.

Here are some of the (what I think should be obvious) stipulations to the Final Rule of the Home and Community-Based Services plan: 

* Settings must be integrated fully into the community – you know, like how your home, job, doctor, shopping mall, etc. are 

* Individuals must have access to the community. This sounds like a no-brainer to me. It’s still shocks me that obvious rights like these need to be put down on paper in order to be understood 

* Individuals have a right to privacy in their homes. We needed to write this out – AGAIN – in a new federal statute. I guess the Constitution and Bill of Rights don’t apply to people with disabilities 

* Person-centered care plans are required which means that the individual gets to choose where they go, who they see and what they do, themselves, rather than having a doctor or caregiver decide what is best for them. Rule of thumb: A care plan is made with the individual not for the individual.

There is still a long way to go but this is a good step towards equality in the social and civil rights of people living with disabilities.

Forced Sterilization of the Disabled

EUGENICS

Eugenics is a despicable part of the history of the disabled community. This trend, which had its inception towards the late 1800’s, attempted to improve the quality of American citizens by implementing restrictive social policies that discouraged marriage and/or reproduction of individuals who were presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits. In other words, if you had, or accused of having, any type of disability, it was unlawful to marry or have children. Without even a shred of evidence, it was believed that all social ills, such as prostitution, promiscuity and even poverty, could be linked to people with cognitive disabilities.

During this movement, a tiered hierarchy of defectiveness developed in order to be able to categorize different levels of “feeblemindedness”. Idiots referred to individuals with a mental age of two years or less; imbeciles represented those with an arrested mentality of three to seven years; and morons referred to those attaining a mental age of no more than twelve years of age (Snyder & Mitchell 624-625). These words we throw around today as a general insult were actual medical terms in the late 1800’s, early 1900’s!

Using this pseudo-science as a rationale, prominent figures – doctors, scientists, lawyers and others – of the early twentieth century attempted to purify the American race by passing legislation legalizing compulsory sterilization of individuals believed to be "feeble-minded", epileptic, or otherwise “socially inadequate” individuals. Because this latter criterion was so broad the number of people who were at risk of falling into this category was almost infinite. Those who were institutionalized were almost guaranteed to be sterilized. Approximately 60,000 Americans were sterilized due to compulsory sterilization of institutionalized patients. Although it was a topic of interest throughout the world, the United States was among the less than a handful of countries most involved with this pseudo-science. Between 1907 and 1937 thirty-two states required sterilization of various citizens viewed as undesirable: the mentally ill or handicapped, those convicted of sexual, drug, or alcohol crimes and others viewed as "degenerate"(McCarrick & Coutts, 2010).

CARRIE BUCK 

Carrie's wedding photo after being deinstitutionalized

The most infamous case of eugenic sterilization was that of young Carrie Buck. Shortly after her birth, her mother was placed in an institution for the feebleminded. Carrie was raised by foster parents and attended school until the sixth grade. At 17, she became pregnant. Her foster parents committed her to an institution on the grounds of feeblemindedness and promiscuity. She gave birth to a daughter who was adopted by her foster parents. The child died at the age of eight due to complications resulting from the measles. Soon after being committed, Carrie was picked as the first patient to undergo forced sterilization after the enactment of the Eugenical Sterilization Act in Virginia. Officials claimed that Carrie and her mother shared the hereditary traits of feeblemindedness and promiscuity therefore Carrie was the "probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring." (Lombardo) In Buck v. Bell (1927) the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the sterilization law, with Justice Holmes infamously proclaiming in his opinion “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Carrie Buck, along with her daughter, Vivian, was sterilized. 

But this “justice” was in actuality an abuse of government and law which by extension was abuse of “degenerate” citizens. Carrie was not promiscuous; she was raped by a nephew of her foster parents who sought to cover up the family embarrassment by institutionalizing her. At her trial, “experts” who had never even met with Carrie testified to her feeblemindedness and moral inadequacies (Lombardo). Not only was her defense attorney childhood friends with the prosecuting attorney, he was also a longtime supporter of sterilization and a founder of the colony to which she was committed (Lombardo). School report cards showed that Carrie had passed each year with very good marks and Vivian had made the honor roll (Pitzer, 2009). She and countless others were the victims of corrupt individuals who used their education and standing in society to abuse the judicial system in order to reach personal political ends.

END TO FORCED STERILIZATION

The Nazis cited the American eugenics ideology as their model behind their “ethnic cleansing”. The systematic murder of over 250,000 disabled people between 1939 and 1945 helped to finally dilute the fierce support for engineering a master human race here in the U.S. Fortunately, we have seen the end of compulsive sterilization albeit more than a little late for the more than 65,000 people in the United States alone who were forced to endure this procedure. Thank goodness, too, because if forced sterilization was still in effect, Myra Brown would never have a chance to become an honors student with the goal of attending the University of Cambridge in England.



Citations:

Lombardo, Paul. "Eugenic Sterilization Laws."Eugenics Archive. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 November

2010. <http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html>.


McCarrick, Pat, and Mary Coutts. "Eugenics." Georgetown.edu. Bioethics Research Library at

The Joseph and Rose Kennedy Institute of Ethics, July 2010. Web. 3 November 2010.

<http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/publications/scopenotes/sn28.htm>.


Pitzer, Andrea. "U.S. eugenics legacy: Ruling on Buck sterilization still stands." USA Today (2009): n. pag. Web. 1 November 2010. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/

2009-06-23-eugenics-carrie-buck_N.htm>.


Snyder, Sharon, and David Mitchell. "Eugenics."Encyclopedia of Disability. 2. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, 2006. Print.

Cops beat man with Down Syndrome

Unconstitutional Use of Force

I recently posted on Google+ and Facebook about how the US and the city of Portland, Oregon have have jointly filed in federal court a proposed court enforceable settlement agreement to remedy constitutional claims that the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional uses of force in response to “low-level offenses” against persons with actual or perceived mental illness.

I guess it’s time to do the same in Vista, CA. A deputy pepper-sprayed, beat with a baton and detained a man (after throwing him to the ground with the assistance of another deputy who showed up) in handcuffs who has Down Syndrome. There were witnesses in the area shouting that he had Down Syndrome but that didn’t slow the cops down from beating him and leaving many contusions, scrapes and bruises on him. He was transported to the hospital (still in cuffs I might add) and allowed to go home with his family. The following day, police officers showed up at the family’s place of business and informed them they would be dropping the citation they had against him (they claimed he was acting “suspicious”; he was walking the 5 minute walk to work) and offered them a turkey with stuffing for their Christmas meal as an apology. Yep. A turkey dinner. 

Now, I am not claiming that if a person is being aggressive or a danger to others or themselves, they should not be handcuffed or sprayed just because they have down syndrome or any other form of developmental disability. And again I say, I'm not anti-cop but there is definitely a culture of beat 'em, taze 'em. The fact that the U.S., not a local town or county, has filed against a particular city's police bureau (Portland, OR) indicates there have been egregious violent acts against a vulnerable segment of our population: the mentally ill. This story is just one account that made it into mainstream media. And hardly even that – I saw this only on CNN.


Some questions to ponder:

How about some education for those who are supposed to protect us so that those among us don't need protection from them?
How about instead of locking people up and throwing away the key, we get them some medical support? 

Would you think that would be a better idea if you knew it decreases recidivism? 

How about if it reduced the level of violence of the repeat offenders?

Read about how changing our current prison system could possibly change our society as a whole here.

The Great American Family - Why The Traditional US Perspective Is Wrong

American Families

I am so sick of hearing about the “decline of the traditional family”. People, let’s get something straight here. Politicians are so quick to talk about the “traditional family” but in truth, there is no such thing. That type of family - a father and a mother with children -  was created in the 1950’s as a means to uplift the country’s emotional well-being and as a means to increase commercialism. A quick look back in history shows that white families (European settlers) were focused on maintaining independent households. Women did little child-rearing – this was mostly left up to siblings or servants. Children were not seen as precious or important as they are today.

Not too much changed in regards to the roles of family members until the Great Depression hit. This “traditional family” phenomenon only caught on and spread like wildfire because the depression was so difficult on society that people were craving feelings of happiness. The government played their role in creating this phenomenon by making it economically easier to be married – most government programs were geared towards supporting the family, meaning a married couple with children. And advertisers began to realize the enormous power they had in influencing the American public to buy their brand! What better way to compel them to buy, buy, buy than to show pictures of a happy family using their products? Their trickery worked. Americans wanted that nuclear family they felt would get them out of their bad situations.

The government and commercialism created a false sense of nostalgia. Do you get what I’m saying? People longed to have something back that never even existed in the first place! There was no such thing as the “traditional family” when the forces-that-be began touting it. The mindset of what made a family was set. What’s most important to realize is that the status quo – meaning, those “in charge” – decided what does (and thereby what does not) define the American family.

What makes up the traditional family?

Alright, let’s talk about it. We have the breadwinner, the husband and father who goes out and works hard to bring home the bacon, the MAN. Then we have the caretaker, the wife and mother who cooks and cleans, the WOMAN who always looks pretty for the MAN when he gets home from a hard day’s work. They get married, buy a cute home and have the CHILDREN, a boy and a girl who are smart, polite and love each other. There’s usually a PET playing in the background, too.

If you look at the ads tailored to brand the American Family they are also white, blonde with blue eyes, successful, in their late 20’s or early 30’s and quite beautiful.

Where’s the rest of society? Where are the non-whites? The poor? The gay? The disabled? It was during this time period the United States experienced the height of forced institutionalization of people with disabilities. If anybody from an outside country were to make an assumption on us based on the “traditional family” they would have a very incomplete picture. We are not all white; we are not all well-off; we are not all healthy; we are not all heterosexual; we’re definitely not all beautiful. So why do legislators insist on trying to fit everybody into this tiny little box?

Why “tradition” sucks

Here’s why: because huge groups of people are left out, that’s why. Just because the government (or any other non-governmental group) labeled something as correct, does it actually mean that it is? Yes, pushing everything into that box makes for a neat appearance and easy marketing. It’s just one box; no need to worry about different styles or sizes. The problem is, the person in charge gets to decide what everything in that box gets to do and feel and anybody who tries to get out of that box is seen as an outside agitator and is met with severe resistance and oftentimes, violence. Eugenics was a practiced "science" in the United States with a goal of creating a master human race - one that the traditional American family would fit into perfectly. 

Let’s go over a few things we would still be doing if we relied on tradition and those neat little boxes:

THE TRADITION	THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE TRADITION
Slavery - yep, if we kept on doing what we’ve always done just because that’s what’s always been done, whites would own blacks.	Blacks are not smart enough or capable of standing on their own; they’re so dirty that whites need their own entrances, water fountains and seating areas.
Suffrage – women wouldn’t be able to vote	Those crazy women and their irrational moods! How could they possibly form a thoughtful position on things as complicated as politics or the household budget?
Exploitation – kids would still be in our mines and factories	Their little bodies can fit in smaller spaces; their higher level of energy can produce more output; their level of intelligence merits less pay.
Institutionalization – anybody who was even slightly different would be locked up	Anybody with a physical disability cannot be a productive member of society; ADD & promiscuity would be enough to institutionalize someone today if we held on to traditional thought. Yes, really!
Interracial marriage – blacks were prohibited to marry whites	It would be the downfall to society as we know it if this was legalized. Those rapes committed by slave owners against their “herd” didn’t count though.

Marriage

So, marriage was defined by one man and one woman at some point in our history; does that mean that that’s the ONLY way it could be? I know, I know, some of you out there are thinking that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman because God made it so. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam”. So catchy; so brilliant. Before all you religious zealots get your feathers in a ruffle and start commenting on God and how I will burn in hell, let me tell you this: I LOVE Jesus. He is my savior, my Lord. I went through my religious revolution I talk about here and I haven’t looked back since. But we are not here on this earth to judge others; only God holds that power. In Romans 12:16 we read: Consider everyone as equal, and don’t think that you’re better than anyone else. BOOM

So even if religion is the basis of your argument (which it almost always is), how is that a reason to put it into the LAWS of our country? I thought there was supposed to be a separation of church and state? One thing that really gets me is when Republicans want a smaller government, less intrusion, yet they want the law to control who can marry whom! (That’s not to say that Democrats haven’t traditionally been against same-sex marriage although the tides have been turning lately, haven’t they?)

You can’t have it both ways! Either the government CAN intrude into people’s private lives or it CAN’T; you can’t cherry pick in which area you want to stick your nose. I guess separation only applies when the status quo wants it to.

Which brings me to another point: Who the hell are you to tell anybody what they should do in their private lives? Listen, if Tina loves Shannon and they are happy together, how does that negatively impact MY life? Are they inciting a riot, spreading messages of hate or committing murder by being in a loving relationship? No. It seems to me that people who have a problem with same-sex relationships have some internal issues they are having difficulty sorting out.

And let me ask you this: what is the difference between “marriage” and “legal union”? Don’t they both give the same rights to the parties involved? It’s just another game of semantics played but when it comes down to it, you can call a rose a turd but it’s still a rose.

What do YOU think?

Handicapped Parking

Ok people. Let’s talk about handicapped parking. If you do not have a placard that allows you to park in a handicapped spot, DON’T PARK THERE. If you see diagonal stripes on the ground in between or beside a handicapped spot, DON’T PARK THERE.

This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Listen, if your lazy ass doesn’t feel like walking the 2 extra spots it would take to get from your car to the 7-11 door, then stay home. If you’re at Wal-Mart or the mall or at the Piggly Wiggly and the parking lot is packed and you don’t feel like walking that far, then stay home.

“I’m really late”

How is your being late my problem? Perhaps if you didn’t snooze the alarm sixteen times/spent less time applying the caked on make-up/hadn’t stayed out too late last night and woken up with a hangover the size of Cleveland, you might be running on time. But again I ask: how is your being late my problem? Now, because Your Royal Highness has decided it so, the spots designated for people who cannot walk as far, as fast or at all due to their disability are a free-for-all and I have to drive around the lot trying to find a spot that will allow me to get my daughter out safely.

“This will only take a minute”

It never takes just a minute…and even if it really did take only a minute, why should I have to wait on you? Ah yes, Your Royal Highness feels we should wait until Your Majesty has procured a mocha-capa-frappa-latte with just the right amount of sweetener and a carton of Pall-Malls before we, the commoner, the lowly simple folk can have the same opportunity. Wait; allow me to roll out the red carpet upon your exit, Your Majesty, lest your Louis Vuitton’s be soiled!

All joking aside, it is so infuriating when I see people park in the reserved areas and don’t even think twice about it. I know there are folks with invisible disabilities that use handicapped parking and they get the evil eye because they don’t look disabled. But then you have those who use their granny’s or aunt’s or brother’s placard. If you are somebody who uses a placard when you know you’re really not supposed to, I hope you get fined. And I hope I’m the reason you got fined. Because I looove calling people out on their douchery. That word is so gross and anybody who knows me knows I hate that nasty word but that’s how I feel about people who refuse to walk the extra 10 feet.

Stop being a jerk!