What
I want, which I do not have, insofar as I’m aware, is for a prominent
conservative to look at disability, trim away the Orwellian pork rinds, and
come up with something less draconian than what Harrisburg has done with
Maximus, and I want it despite the aphorism that stipulates doing it yourself.
People generally pay attention to recognized personalities, and not to me,
unless I am blatantly illegal, and when I’ve pushed that envelope, I have paid
on a personal level, let alone social media drubbings and my oscillations of up
and down. The Speaker has *said* something charitable on occasion, and I gave
him the savant-cute hug, prior to his failure on healthcare, for his
highlights. There is James Woods too, expending his industry capital as an
ambassador. This is a good thing, and brought my attention to him, which prior
to Twitter had been casual. Praise is deposited where due, but Woods is an
actor keeping his profile relevant, not an analyst who can influence policy. It
doesn’t have to be a Briton like Niall Ferguson or Andrew Sullivan, (obviously outraged beyond consolation in my link) but someone
like them would be useful.
I
have taken my potshots at Andrew, very unfairly, as he is not the “deep state”
behind the militancy of disability activism, hoping to goad him into
castigating me. Despite the fact that Dr. Ferguson was equally cursory in his
own way, and despite the fact that I was once many many years ago merely
another spectator scrolling The Dish, it rankled me that a man with such a mind
sent me a damn screen shot of my Amtrak building. It is a landmark around center
city, but what’s that? Should I have responded with a photo of anti-virals? If
I was on equal footing as a disabled female journalist, Sullivan might say you
cannot alter the fact I have AIDS, right, so what do you want?
Not
being patronized would be a start, as opposed to being challenged. I am also
the type of person to get involved and interject myself in socially
inappropriate fashion, much like the fictional Dino Ortolani hearing the plea,
and smothering a dying AIDS patient prior to his own savage murder. Mercy killings
are harder on the actor than the recipient, but have their place.
My
solutions are only a partial stab in the muck:
1. Women need to curb high risk obstetric births. If an infant is
not viable without acrobatics, allow it to die. I agree with male authority
that women with children and without
have gone too far.
2.
If the above assertion is to be dismissed, families with such
children need better planning, as any parent can die unexpectedly or otherwise.
3.
Look for areas where technology can reduce the dependence on
caretakers.
4.
Architects can solve many of these problems without that much inconvenience
to ambulatory majorities.
5.
Institutional innovation is rather long in the tooth. This needs
to be addressed.
No comments:
Post a Comment