The myth of the welfare queen

The year was 1976 and then California Governor Ronald Reagan was struggling to win the Republican endorsement for the Presidency. In an effort to appeal to a more conservative base. He devised  a story to a lunch crowd in North Carolina that would help carry him to the White House several years later.

"In Chicago, they found a woman who holds the record," he said. "She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans' benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. ... Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year."  Reagan's exaggerated character became known as the welfare queen.

 Over 40 years later,  the Republican Party is  still  trying to hunt down this lazy scheming black women who uses her food stamps to buy filet mingon and lobster at the grocery store for her 12 kids and lavish lifestyle while new men jump in and out of her bed every night, since Reagan conjured her in 1976.

None of them have personally met her because they don't reside in the same areas but they're all sure they know somebody whose paying for steaks and shrimp with her food stamps but now while being goaded on by the current inhabitant of the white house, they are  setting out to put an end to this conniving user once and for all by ensuring she would have to get off her shiftless butt and get a job. The only problem is that she doesn't exist.

The assumption that those who receive food assistance don't work is flat out false, as nearly one-third of all SNAP households report an income. Many families rely on SNAP when they are between jobs or because they are among millions of American’s working minimum wage jobs.

Despite significant increases in enrollment during the recession, SNAP error rates have gone down every year since 1998.  In addition, when Congress passed the the Improper Payments Act in 2000, SNAP was among the few programs to meet its high standards. The U.S. department of Agriculture, who administer the  SNAP Program, monitors it  constantly and they hit states with high error rates with large fines and other sanctions.

Proposals such as work requirements and asset limits accomplish nothing except for ensuring people spend down so they don't have a bank account or any sort of savings and an increased patterns of churning (getting on and off SNAP) people also may not understand eligibility guidelines so they don't utilize the service.They also create an administrative burden to agencies and counties. When Pennsylvania implemented an asset limit, the Dept. of welfare found that it costed  them $3.5 million a year.

So the next time you hear someone complaining about "lazy users" or  a customer taking too long at the checkout because they're paying with food stamps, tell them that it could be a friend or a relative who is simply trying to make ends meet. And as for that elusive "welfare queen"? She's just a figment of the imaginations of the uninformed

Ode to Scott Knight in honor of his retirement

Roses are red violets are blue Police Chief Scott Knight  belongs in a zoo.

 Don't  be afraid, I'll be there too not in a cage but laughing at you

The roses are wilting, the violets are dead, the sugar bowl's empty  just like his head

With a servant spirit so full of float of grace
 If only he could hide his face. 

Kind intelligent, helpful and hot  
These describes things that he simply is not. 

I might want to feel his sweet embrace
As long as he keeps that paper bag on his face. 

I love his face, his smile and eyes
Damn I'm good at telling lies.

Sometimes I see his face when I'm dreaming
Maybe that's why I wake up screaming

Your my hero, you take my breath away
What have you stepped in to smell this way.

My feelings for you no words can tell
Except for maybe "Go to Hell"

What inspired this amorous rhyme
Two parts vodka one part lime.

Have a wonderful retirement, Scott! Stay away from Children!

A Horse of a Different Color: the SD50 DFL and thier Progressive racism problem

I’ll often hear other activists  discuss how they have been put down or attacked  by racist neoconservative Republicans, usually over something criminal justice related, and the assumption that anyone with a darker complexion has a lengthy criminal record or is anti cop and soft on crime.

Amateurs. Wait until you’ve had to put up with all that noise while also getting bullied around on by racist liberal white democrats because you've challenged them on their nonsense. White Liberal Progressives or as I prefer to call them "Progressive Racist" are the worst kind of progressive. They attempt to put people of color in boxes and order them to think a certain way and when they don't they proceed to question their legitimacy.

It happens to me all the time. In fact, sometimes it's hard for me to figure out who hates me more — the GOP who think that I am " way too liberal" or white progressives liberals who have an issue with the fact that I think for myself and don't fall victim to their "sirens song" of ideological purity.

I recently was involved in a campaign in Senate District 50 and to this day I believe that the SD50 DFL owes an apology to a variety of different players in the campaign and a lot of different community leaders because quite frankly they were patently offensive. I had one fired up fired up progressive cite that she "really stuck her neck out when she door knocked on Lake Street." I also had derogatory comments made about my hair because I let it grow naturally.

Another member sat right in front of myself and another individual with a disability and talked about how his mother had recently passed away. He inherited her house but unfortunately he also "inherited his disabled brother" and proceeded to go into a 10-15 dialogue about what a burden his brother was to him and society and what's even worse is the other members of the party sat there nodded their heads and agreed with it.

Perhaps you view the above comments as trivial or maybe your saying "Oh Noah we didn't mean it that way, you misconstrued it". Fine. Then I would encourage you to consider the  white liberal in Richfield who after I said I wasn't a huge Hillary Clinton fan told me that I should just suck it up and vote for her out of gratitude to the Democratic because they fought for affirmative action initiatives that have provided me with all opportunities I have here in Minnesota or this just absolute delight of a woman in Edina who told me I should go back to Africa and take Donald Trump with me after I expressed that I didn't think Medicaid for all was the Panacea (Neither does Dean Philips but let's not get the issue confused with facts or anything)... but anyways apparently, dog whistles and the utilization of racial tropes aren't just for the GOP anymore. Are people of color are criminal and pre- destined for the Hennepin County Workhouse? Are people with disabilities degenerates, who have little substantive value other than to burden  society ? or is the SD50's DFL basic understanding of diversity just a few French fries short of a happy meal?

I’ve been around the block a few times. I grew up in Carver County, the most ultra conservative county in the state, I started off my political career in the Southern Indiana back when Mike Pence was Governor and I encountered more than my share of close minded people but I can honestly can say that I have never been more personally offended than in having to deal with the Limousine Liberals in the Bloomington area. There is something about them that is just royally obnoxious.

There really shouldn't be any reason that a candidate can run for Bloomington School board on the sole basis that they're Anti -LGBTQA and win and yet a candidate managed to win on this exact issue in Bloomington School District and they sit there and ponder how this person won and  I can tell them why, It's because in many ways they're merely a "horse of a different color"  except you know the GOP doesn't care about marginalized communities, while these "progressive racists" feign concern, say and do these types of things  in a more nuanced fashion and they say it from a top down from a position of moral superiority, as if they have some sort of right to sit around and tell communities of color what to do. In short, they talk the talk, rarely do they walk the walk.

These types of progressives really only have one frequency when it comes to diversity and racial inequity in Minnesota. They talk incessantly about racism on the right because they have a need for moral superiority and the occasional "black friend" and the Republicans never fail to play right into that narrative by saying or doing whatever outlandish thing it is they're going to say or do today. It's not like it's a secret that the modern GOP has gone off the deep end and they try  to portray marginalized communities as dumb, dangerous, diseased and determined to change their perceived social order of the nation. That rhetoric of this attack used to be really offensive and it still is but it's expected of them and it's really just kind of boring and unimaginative at this point.

Still, as a person of color and a person with a disability who advocates, votes and writes , the progressive racists all  made sure I knew about a recent interview that Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa did  and I hear all about Donald Trump's tweets but at the end of the day it really all just comes down to the same nativist math and the simple fact that whether or not they're a Republican or a Democrat, Racists are like cars, to see what you’re dealing with, you have to look under the hood.

Being Disabled and PROUD

This past month we recognized the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Inn riots. Since then, we have recognized the month of June as Pride Month in which we remember how far the gay rights movement has come and recognize the resilience of the LGBTQ Community.

Unfortunately, at a time when diversity and inclusion are front and center in the discussion, people with disabilities continue to be absent from the dialogue. Just last year, the historic Stonewall Inn bar denied entrance to a blind queer person because they didn’t provide paperwork for their service dog, in violation of Title III of the American with Disabilities Act.

That is only one of many examples of how Pride remains mostly inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. Accessibility issues are a rampant problem and they are present in gay bars, parties, big parades, as well as protests and rallies. I haven’t looked but I am willing to bet if I had gone and looked at the website for Twin Cities Pride, it probably flunks digital accessibility standards across the board.

While each individual experiences a disability differently, the obstacles experienced speak to a common theme that people with disabilities are asexual or incapable of being in a relationship.  At the core of the concept of Pride is the invitation for people to be Proud of their body, their sexuality, etc . However the same invitation is all too often denied to persons with disabilities, despite the fact that they want the same thing that everyone wants in life: understanding and not to be “othered”

Including people with disabilities at the table should never be an afterthought but rather a priority because as Elizabeth Warren once said If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re probably on the menu. Both the LGBTQ and Disability communities have spent an ample amount of time on the menu and recognizing opportunities for such inter-sectional solidarity can only serve to benefit both of us.

Been there, Done that: the sensationalism of disability farms

Over, the past decade there has been many conversations occuring around how to address the significant disparities that exist around the state of Minnesota in the State of Minnesota, many of which have not been inclusive of the inequality that exists for Minnesotans with disabilities.



Historically, people with disabilities have been segregated in institutions. They have been placed in special schools, and enclaves and left to thier own devices on the margins of society. Such segregation has been ruled illegal after years of legal challenges by advocates, parents and self advocates.



Despite this and the fact that it has historically led on disability rights,  Minnesota is posed to take a significant step backward with the creation of it's first Autism farm, basically communal agricultural settings where people with developmental disabilities can live and work.



 Proponents argue that high support autistic people can’t live fully in the community but group homes cost too much, so the State should fund farm-based settings instead.



The premise is innacurate because high support people CAN and DO live in the community as evidenced by many examples. To suggest otherwise ignores successful, person-centered models in favor of more depersonalizing institutional settings.



The simple fact of the matter is that the overreliance on Group homes and the concept of farms/compounds are equally bad, and cost isn’t the real issue: the core issue is segregation.



While I am aware of the problems with the drop off in services and resources, for Adults on the spectrum, segregated farms are not a long term or legitimate solution. They are reminiscent of the colony model of institutions that arose in the 1880s and gained prominence in the early 20th century, as the eugenics movement ensured that they  were packed with “feebleminded” people.



Back in the day, institutions required a large labor force to keep themselves operational and patients were doing hard labor for little to no pay with zero control over the Conditions in an entirely segregated setting.  The practice came to a halt when the DC circuit court of appeals ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to institutional workers in their decision in Souder v Brennan.



It's not that segregated settings don’t have nice enough things, it’s that people are not treated as people; the institutional staff exercise total control and ultimately become custodial, often resulting with people being trapped in a cycle of neglect or mismanagement for their entire lives and ultimately marks the end of the road for the individuals that live there. And that’s the real tragedy: that there is not enough of a fight being put up for real community integration, not that the Medicaid settings rule wants to help people live in the community.



Furthermore the tactics of proponents are blatantly not ethical. A parent doesn’t get to expose someone else 's private information  just to make a point. Your kid’s disability is not about you.Your kid’s disability is not your story to tell. If you want to help other families with tips on how to help their children, do it in private. If you do it in public at your child’s expense, you are not doing your job, which is parenting.



Our humanity and our dignity should not be conditional to how the world will see us through videos, pictures and comments from such parents. We have a right to integration and this entire concept entirely misses the boat in that regard.

Dear Leader...

 In the early days of the Roman Empire, the Imperial cult of ancient Rome identified emperors as having the divinely sanctioned authority of the Roman State. Monarchs and other heads of state were  held in enormous reverence and imputed super-human qualities. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, in medieval Europe for example, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Ancient Egypt, Imperial Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, Tibet and Thailand are also noted for designating their rulers as God kings.

The spread of democracy in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries brought about restrictions on and the abolition of many monarchies.

However, the subsequent development of mass media, has allowed political leaders to project a positive image of themselves onto the masses as never before and while we are on the topic of fake personalities I thought it neccesary to discuss Representative Jim Nash or as I prefer to call him "Dear Leader"  whose opinions are to be taken as Gospel lest you have to answer to the praetorian Guard we all know as the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus but this past session I had to grovel before him and plead for his divine favor and he informed me and a member of the School Board that we were making him late for lunch.

When the head of Dear Leader can no longer fit in the doorway and Dear Leader's face can be found all over in a form that is larger than the content his image purports to endorse, then it's no longer about anything of substance. It's about Dear Leader. If you were to ask Jim Nash how many mistakes he has made since he was first elected, I am willing to bet that he'd pause only briefly before answering: none.

Take all of this and combine it with his record of achievement which despite his self proclaimed most effective legislator title, is dismal even by Carver County standards.  He's a human, and humans are fallible. Do we need an elected leader whose primary interest is self-deification, or do we need an elected leader whose policies make a difference for ordinary citizens, like me and you?

And all that money from the same special interests like the Gun Owners caucus constantly flowing into his campaign account. How much money is enough for Nash and his clique? An even larger question How much money are ordinary citizens going to have to fork over in taxes before its enough? Maybe if Dear Leader listened to the educators in our community and worked to aid them in addressing funding issues we might have that answer but alas I am but a speck in our God Kings  eternal gloriousness so what do I know

Carver county violates the ADA...AGAIN

Title II of the ADA states that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity"

 I have been a Carver county resident for nearly 20 years and I have found that the County is woefully noncompliant with Federal law and regulations in regards to both Architectural barriers and the way it conducts its programming and they  don't have any specific person to address concerns about ADA compliance.

They tell people to go fill out a greivance form on thier website, which coincidentally also doesn't meet accessibility standards and the link to the form is broken, so even in the event I wanted to take the extra  time to fill out the form so they can pat me on the head, say there, there, there and and go on and do nothing about it, I couldn't.

Why can  Carver county address discrimination against the East African community by Scream Town in under 24 hours but discrimmination against people with Disabilities is somehow more palatable and hasn't even gotten a nod in over 2 decades?

Why is there  nobody there to coordinate and provide accommodations and support  to individuals protected under the  ADA?  Who is not doing their job? Is it the County Board, public works or someone else?.

I called Carver County last week and asked for the ADA coordinator or person responsible for compliance with the American with Disabilities Act to make a point. I was sent to Human Services, Taxpayer services, The assessor, the County Attorney, the Sheriff, public works, employment relations, etc. I recorded the entire ordeal and seeing as Minnesota is a one party state. I forwarded it to one of my many Attourneys.

The County needs an ADA coordinator. Furthermore, they are legally obligated to have one pursuant to CFR  35.107 (a) which states:

"a) Designation of responsible employee. A public entity that employs 50 or more persons shall designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under this part, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to it alleging its noncompliance with this part or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by this part. The public entity shall make available to all interested individuals the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or employees designated pursuant to this paragraph."

I called the County Attorneys office and was informed they have over 30 employees, the Carver County Sheriff employee 150 plus people.  Meaning they have over 50 employees and should have an ADA coordinator.

You would really think that all these folks working for Metz would know things like this. They're supposed to be Attorneys aren't they?...idk what law school they went to but if I were them I'd be calling and asking for a refund because clearly they aren't very good at it.

Also, if the Countys resident doddering old fool, or should I say Mr. Ivy wants to come after me for the above statement. I say bring it on because he will be violating Title V which prohibits retaliation against those who assert thier rights under the ADA which is just more change in my pocket. Please do.

Reflections on MLK and Disability Rights

Today many are celebrating the life of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King jr. MLK is a leader who many activists idolize and work to emulate. Recently, I have shared in many of his thoughts on the so called white liberals as my criticisms  mirror those of Dr. King as the issues continue to be the same across multiple generations and multiple movements including the disability rights movement because the parralels between the white moderates whom Dr. King criticized in 1963 and nonprofit advocacy organizations whom many disability activists are criticizing in 2019 couldn't be clearer.

They consistently talk about self advocates being  uncompromising, mad, immature, participating in a circular firing squad, blowing up and burning bridges, in need of further support ,alienating allies and a variety of other sentiments about our work.

It's similair to the rhetoric, in the spring of 1963 when Dr. Martin Luther King along with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) began to organize a series of nonviolent protests in Alabama. These protests consisted of demonstrations and sit-ins that targeted white-owned businesses and churches. The City of Birmingham ordered them to cease the protests. In an act of blatant civil disobedience, King and the protesters ignored the injunction in an act of direct civil disobedience, King and 50 protesters were subsequently arrested.

Following the incident, a group of white clergymen wrote a letter, titled, “A Call for Unity,” in which, they criticized the confrontational nature of the protests and called for the black community to obey the injunction and seek redress through lawful means:

"We the undersigned clergymen are among those who, in January, issued “An Appeal for Law and Order and Common Sense,” in dealing with racial problems in Alabama. We expressed understanding that honest convictions in racial matters could properly be pursued in the courts, but urged that decisions of those courts should in the meantime be peacefully obeyed."

The clergymen also criticized the demonstrations as “unwise and untimely” and being led by “outsiders”:

"However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and led in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely."

After pointing out that some of the Black leadership disagreed with the methods of king and his colleagues—“We agree rather with certain local Negro leadership which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area”—they went on to argue that the protests were inciting “hatred and violence”:

"Just as we formerly pointed out that “hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions,” we also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham."

They finished off thier letter calling for “law and order and common sense”:

"When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense."

In response, King wrote his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” in which he noted that freedom must be demanded by the oppressed and that there’s no such thing as being "well timed" when it comes to confronting systemic oppression:

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

King also criticized the white moderate because  they seemed more devoted to order than to justice:

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

He continued on to defend his fellow protesters citing that they were not the cause of the tension, they were simply were merely making an effort to bring that tension to light:

"I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

King also noted that perhaps he had been too optimistic in thinking that the white moderate would see the need for “strong, persistent, and determined action”:

"I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action."

He also praised those white allies—”few in quantity,” but “big in quality”—who were in the trenches with him and committed to taking action and joining the civil rights movement in an effort to pursue a necessary social revolution:

"I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some—such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle—have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as “dirty nigger-lovers.” Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful “action” antidotes to combat the disease of segregation."

All these so called  allies calling for "order" and "comprimise" and attempting to instill a pseudo sense of  unity and peace  in the face of what is becoming a massive systemic injustice are no different than these eight white clergymen who called out Dr King for “unity” called King and his “outsiders.” They are doing the same thing  in 2019 to the Self Advocates of the modern day Disability Justice movement.

Much like white clergymen who criticized King’s protests as “untimely and unwise,” The sentiment of the advocacy group allies seems to be: “We’re in the legislative session, so all these disabled people trying to advocate for  themselves should chill out or else they’re going to hurt our chances at passing our organizational agenda, Now is not the time.”

Third, just as the white clergymen called for the protesters to negotiate with city leaders rather than take to the streets, So have many people wonder why I chose to voice publicly criticize State Senator Jim Abeler for his Autism Council rather than ask him politely for a rap session behind closed doors.(even though I did both)

Fourth, just as the white clergymen pointed to other Black leaders who disagreed with King’s tactics—“[w]e agree rather with certain local Negro leadership which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area”—in order to bolster support for their own criticism, so too have many white progressives latched on to the criticisms of other people with Disabilities who disagree with the’ tactics of the greater disability rights movement to promote their own criticism but every movement has conflict between leaders   i.e Malcolm vs MLK.

The similarities between the white moderate of the 1960s and the white liberal of 2019  who are overrepresented in disability Advocacy orgs are nearly identical  They claim to be so devoutely "progressive", but they act more like the white clergymen who opposed King than the white allies who supported King as they are the first to criticize activists of all movements for not being more like King. Demanding that they follow Kings tactics 

The Martin Luther King Jr. People hold up as this hippie sort of symbol of peace love and tranquility isn't the real Martin Luther King Jr . MLK was a disruptor. MLK was a lawbreaker. MLK was not beholden to protesting the right thing, at the right time or on other peoples schedules.

King recognized as I do that the right time to do something about injustice and systemic oppression is right now. Not tommorrow, not when you get off, not 6 weeks from now. Right now! 

Those who have responded to my guest blog on the Council on Disability by being offended, probably should  be offended. Those who have threatend to walk away from me or say that I've lost a supporter ( as if it's some sort of threat) are the precise sort of  folks who, unlike true allies, refuse to recognize the urgency of this moment. They are more concerned with tone and respectability politics than they are about the civil rights of people with Disabilities

And sadly, many are more concerned with gaining votes from my community than they are improving the quality of our lives and defending our rights and liberties.

“We support Disability rights, but not the tactics of these self advocates.”

“You’re hurting the chance of electig the only person who cares about you.”

“ insert long time parent activist name here" was fighting for you before you were born.”

" If you give us your story to use in our testimony we will now sure POC who have disabilities are spoken for and incorporated"

Once again these are all the same claims of the white clergymen who asked Dr. King and the protesters to “observe the principles of law and order and common sense.” These are not the claims of allies. These are the claims of oppressors or, at a minimum, of people so comfortable with ableism and the privileges it grants, that they aren’t truly willing to take the necessary action to do anything real about it.

To my so called allies , critical of my reprimand to the advocacy organizations, asking people to sit down and shut up until after session or to wait until time is convinent for you. I'm here to tell you that’s not going to happen.

There can be no order or unity when certain people assault the work of self advocates and there can't be any forward movement when the response from our supposed allies when we express frusteration. Towards you is I'm not able-ist, some of my best friends are disabled or I had a cast for 6 months so  I know everything about the barriers you face in everyday life. There cant be any sort of collective victory , when you continuously demonstrate that you care more about the order of the status quo and advancing your organizational agenda than you care about the every day lives of  the people you claim to represent and support.   

You can continue to criticize and continue to attempt to preserve the statutes  quo. It's fine, but know this: We are not going to sit down and shut up, we will keep speaking out and we will keep moving forward..we will just do it without you.

Putting Lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a hot date

Earlier this evening, Zavier Biccott,the Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus announced on social media that he had joined the NAACP citing concerns that the GOPs outreach efforts to the black community have not been adequate. Shortly, thereafter the social media feed exploded with the howls of derision from the far right about "why is there no association for the advancement of white people? " and "They want equality, they've had it for fifty years"   and as I sat there watching all these white folks squabbling over what's good for the black community and what isn't, I  rolled my eyes because it's just absolutely pointless and its exactly why most of the black community doesn't want to be in the Republican Party.

One of the big issues I have with this effort is outreach is about more then sensational verbiage. It's about values. Things like poverty, crime,healthcare, things that the GOP makes a mess of regularly are things that matter to the black community.
.....Gutting Medicaid doesn't help the black community,
 slashing public transit funding all over the place doesn't help the black community,

harshening sentencing guidelines doesn't help the black community,
asset limits do not help the black community,
for profit prisons do not help the black community,
voter suppression doesn't help the black community,
continuing the war on drugs kind of policies does not help the black community,
adversity to housing programs doesn't help the black communty, slashing a fourth of MDHRs budget doesn't help the black community.....

Everybody knows the issues exist,  continuing to blab about them and initiate conversations does nothing unless your policies are going to reflect those conversations and we all know their not going to. So what's the point?

While I appreciate Biccott's Tenacity, his is not the majority opinion and putting sugar on a pile of crap, doesn't make it any less of a pile of crap, putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a hot date and trying to better explain bad policy ideas doesn't make the policy ideas less bad...

MINNESOTA STRAW BAN PROPOSAL SAYS "SUCK IT" TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

This past week Senate File 756 was introduced in the Minnesota State Senate which makes the unrequested distribution of plastic straws by places of accomodation a petty misdemeanor. The passage of this legislation would be a significant affront to the rights of Minnesotans living with Disabilities.

Over the past few years, the environmentalist lobby has made a lot of progress with accomplishments such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Now, they are faced with the current political climate and the current occupant of the white house and are continuing to take matters into their own hands and advocate for cutting pollution like plastic waste, but thier ignoring the unintended consequences of doing so including in regards to Plastic Straw bans which in part came about due to a viral video of a Sea turtle that was injured by one.

While, protecting our natural resources is important the people who are advancing straw bans are severely misguided. In their shortsighted rush to ban plastic straws, they have missed two critical facts.

First, according to a study published in Marine Policy, straws account for less than 0.03 percent by weight of plastic pollution entering the oceans every year, so the straw ban is symbolic at best.

Secondly, it's a quality of life issue for individuals with disablities. Able-bodied people see straws as ubiquitous and they don't think about how essential these simple devices are for anyone with a disability. Without straws, it's impossible for millions of disabled people to go anywhere without worrying being able to drink, become dehydrated, spilling their drink everywhere or aspirating it into their lungs. Individuals with Autism also expirience oral sensory problems that often are allievated by the use of a straw.

Where able-bodied people see waste, my community sees a simple device that opens up the world to people with disabilities.

Proponents of the bans will suggest that we use alternatives to plastic straws, such as paper, metal, glass or biodegradable straws, but all of those options have major drawbacks for people with disabilities. For example, metal straws are unusable for people with tremors or sensory issues. Paper straws do not work because they often disintegrate before an individual can finish and they don't handle heat well. Straws made of sugarcane are problematic for diabetics.

Others have suggested that we carry around straws, instead of getting them from resteraunts but that has problems of its own because it's another expense for disabled people, who are already likely to have to suffer lower income and extremely high medical costs. Futhermore, there's no way for those straws to be kept sanitary.

The Authors argue that the bill language doesn't actually explicitly ban straws but it and that one can request a straw or establishments can use any sort of other straw but buisness owners aren't going to buy paper straws for some people and plastic straws for others. Thier going to get one or the other because of the economic advantages. If plastic straws are more heavily regulated which one do you think they're going to buy? I recently saw this scenario play out in a discussion with Pizza Luce over straws. 

The burden of reducing plastic waste by a measly 0.03 percent should not fall on disabled people, who already face barriers to participating in the daily activities in their prospective communities. Yes, we should reduce pollution, but it is unethical to force already marginalized groups to pay the price. We need to search for alternative enviromentally friendly solutions because blanket plastic straw bans are irresponsible, unneccesary, unreasonable and immoral.

Considering Marriage Equality for the Disability community

 was sitting at the American Legion the other day and I overheard 2 older gentleman discussing how many funerals they had been too in the past year and I complained about how many weddings I had been to. The older gentleman chuckled and informed me there's really not a whole lot of difference between the 2.

While I clearly have very little interest in being burdened with long term commitments.Others do. I had somebody talk to me the other day about how their child has a disability and wants to get married and in all reality their kid really can't get married because even though The SCOTUS ruling that legalized marriage for those in the LGBT community has brought the issue of marriage equality to the forefront, the issue of people with disabilities and the right to marry without being penalized is just now bubbling to the surface.

Unfortunately, the issue of why people with disabilities are sometimes penalized if they get married is fairly complex. It does not affect every person with a disability but it does affect a significant chunk as it pertains to Supplemental Security Income ( SSI).

SSI is a needs-based federal program that helps people with disabilities (as well as people who are elderly) who have little or no income. It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. If two people receiving SSI get married, they will receive 25% less in benefits than they did as two individuals. The theory is that a couple can live on less income together than they would as individuals. In addition, even if a couple doesn't get legally married, they can be considered to be "holding out" if they are presenting themselves as a couple by SSI definition; for them, the same rules apply as for a married couple and they will have their benefits reduced. If only one person in the couple is receiving SSI, the benefit will still be reduced or they may no longer be eligible for it. In addition, there is also a resource limit; the amount of money you can have in the bank for an individual is $2,000 and for a couple it is only $3,000. Beyond these marriage-related SSI benefit and asset restrictions, eligibility for SSI in most states means eligibility for Medicaid. Medicaid covers services not covered by other health insurance plans such as a personal care aid, certain durable medical equipment, medications, and transportation to medical appointments. So anything affecting SSI eligibility may have a ripple effect.

The issue of marriage equality for the disability community is not a new one. It is heavily intertwined with the eugenics movement where people with disabilities were labeled as "undesirables" and forcibly held down and sterilized against their will, but also prohibited from marrying. In Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kansas, Minnesota, and Michigan, people with intellectual disabilities, mental disabilities, and epilepsy were prevented from marrying due to a series of laws that were passed in the early 20th century. Other states used legislation prohibiting anyone they considered to have a “genetic defect” from marrying. To this day, while in some instances the law is unenforced, most of these laws have never been repealed.

Removing the laws from the books has been argued against, because some members of the government seem to believe that it is protecting people with disabilities who they deem as, “unable to make their own decisions.” The people affected usually have intellectual disabilities, severe physical disabilities, or they lack the ability to communicate in a ‘typical’ way such as through vocalization. However, these laws are just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to the government’s interference in deciding whether people with disabilities are able to marry or not.

I think it goes well beyond legalities and the mumbo jumbo of sensational legal verbiage as it establishes that a right to marry is contingent on a system of classism, which already seeks to keep many people with disabilities living in poverty. The Disability community faces an unemployment rate of over 80%, and while some of that is heavily embedded in workplace discrimination, a large part of it has to do with the idea that people with disabilities must rely on the government for their most basic of needs.

Living with a disability is incredibly expensive, This is why so many people with disabilities rely on programs such as SSI, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8, Welfare, and food stamps. Those who qualify for these services are often caught in a catch-22. To pay the exorbitant cost of living with a disability, they need the programs that help us to pay the additional expenses. However, to remain on these programs they essentially have to remain living in poverty. For many, removing themselves from these programs is a matter of life and death.

When a person with a disability gets married, the government expects them to become the responsibility of their partner. The SSDI program is specifically for the adult children of people with a significant work history who have paid into the system. Usually, DAC (the Disabled Adult Children program) is awarded when a parent dies or retires. The entire program is embedded in the idea that the adult child is the burden of their parents. If the person were to marry, they are automatically kicked off the program because they are then expected to become the burden of their partner, unless they themselves also have a disability.

For those with non-disabled partners, the rules of such a program unfairly put pressure on said partner to not only care for their disabled spouse physically, but also monetarily. I know I have already said that having a disability is not cheap. However, unless a partner is quite wealthy there is just no way that they would be able to support their disabled partner if the services they were receiving were paying for the many expensive things people with disabilities require…things like equipment, home health care, and even medication.

When people with disabilities have to choose between their basic necessities and marriage, it is not like its all that much of an option

This particular philosophy also gives credence to the misconception that people with disabilities can not have relationships, are unable to freely express themselves.

This is emphasized by the fact that Social Security can make the determination that a couple is living as if they are married, and cut services like SSI and SSDI, whether there is a legal marriage or not. It can be incredibly dangerous for couples to live together when at least one person has a disability, and that person receives benefits, for this very reason.

Many arguments have been made stating that everyone loses access to programs like SSI, Food Stamps, and section 8 if they get married. With those arguments comes the idea that those people living with disabilities are just looking for a handout. Most people experience disability at some point in their lives. When those that become disabled later in life, or those who are older Americans and have similar needs to those who have disabilities, have to consider getting divorced simply to get needed healthcare and financial services, there is a problem with this system.

Imagining if some of the newly married LGBT or interracial couples had to get divorced in a few years for this very reason, places this entire issue into perspective.

It sounds harsh and unrealistic but. Yet, it is an all too real scenario for those who develop illnesses or impairments later in life.

People with disabilities need access to services. The exorbitant cost of living with a disability makes it impossible to turn those services down. SSI, Medicaid, SSDI/Medicare, Section 8, Food Stamps, and welfare are impacted, and typically lost, if the person on these programs gets married.

Marriage offers many benefits that are not available to single individuals. One of the most important, having your partner with you at the hospital is often denied to people with disabilities, even when a partner has power of attorney, there is a living will, or even with other papers attempting to denote the relationship status. Marriage universally protects couples and families and the fact that these protections are in many ways nonexistent when it comes to couples in which one or both individuals have a disability actually is fairly bothersome as at the end of the day, the issue really transcends race,gender, orientation, culture, etc. It can affect anyone with a disability, and maybe it might not be affecting a person right now. However, if their disability progresses, this may become an issue they face, and they may have to end up getting divorced. I know many people who have had disabilities progress or have acquired a disability later.

It can also affect Senior Citizens as they require more care, some of them have had no choice but to divorce their partners, if they want to remain in their home and in their comunities and marriage is not an option if they need services.