Sandra Jensen: Why she kicks ass February 7, 2013

In a black and white photo, a woman stands outside by a table, microphone in hand. She has shoulder length straight hair and glasses. She is wearing a dress and sandals. She is smiling.

I found this short bio on tumblr and wanted to share it:

Sandra Jensen: Why she kicks ass

• She devoted lots of her time working as an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities; she worked part time as well as being heavily involved in volunteering.
• She was denied a heart-lung transplant by the Stanford University School of Medicine in California because she had Down syndrome. She then (along with supporters) began a very public battle, gaining nationwide attention arguing that Down syndrome should not be enough to automatically deprive a patient of a chance to survive, this resulted in her receiving the transplant (1996).
• She became the first person with Down Syndrome to ever receive a heart-lung transplant.

I’ll be over here in awe

 

I also found her obituary from 1997, which you can read here.

Jensen, an activist for disabled rights, served as president of a Sacramento disabled-rights group and was invited to watch then-President George Bush sign the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. Despite her disabilities, Jensen lived on her own, graduating from high school and busing tables at the Capitol cafeteria.

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of information about her or her story online, but I did find this report, which is taken from NYT and US News articles.

A first for Ontario, a first for Canada January 27, 2013

First woman premier in Ontario, first openly gay premier in Canada! And the final two candidates for the post were both women.

The real history of the 2nd amendment January 20, 2013

UPDATE: Apparently this is not true. (Thanks, HL!)

ANOTHER UPDATE: Or maybe it is true. (See below, in comments.) Keep your views and links coming; I’m learning a lot!

Its purpose was to preserve slavery. (Stick that in your originalist interpretation.)

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

What do you think? January 16, 2013

From today’s NY Times:

The National Rifle Association has unveiled a new advertisement on its Web site accusing President Obama of being an “elitist hypocrite” for expressing skepticism about the group’s proposal to put armed security guards in schools, while accepting secret service protection for his daughters.

The ad does not show images of the president’s daughters but refers to them in the first line of audio, in which a narrator asks: “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?”

Living on the margins in modern Britain January 7, 2013

What makes a life in modern Britain go well? Doing ok involves keeping oneself (and maybe dependent loved ones) fed, warm, and sheltered; being part of human networks that provide emotional and practical support; possessing the emotional and cognitive tools to function day-to-day, and navigate life’s obstacles; being born in a geographical location that means one finds oneself on the right side of borders legislation; existing in a cultural niche where one is presented with opportunities, other than robbing, drugs, and violence. Doing ok in modern Britain depends to a large extent on luck – accidents of birth and upbringing, together with other factors that are mostly beyond one’s control. For those who are unlucky, life is tough. Journalist, Laura Page, interviews five people living on the margins in modern Britain.

Some days, I just can’t. January 3, 2013

I do not know how to describe how disturbed, how heartbroken, how frustrated, and most of all, how angry I am at the moment.   (Trigger warning for the full story, and especially the video itself. )

A chilling video leaked by an Anonymous cell this week has added a new twist to a sordid tale of alleged rape that has shattered the peace of a close-knit Ohio football town.

The disturbing 12-minute video, posted online Tuesday by the hacktivist group “Knight Sec,” shows teens making jokes about the events that reportedly transpired on Aug. 22.

One teen appears to be refer to the victim as “deader than” Trayvon Martin, and adds, “she is so raped her p**s is about as dry as the sun right now.”

I am horrified by what happened in India. I am also horrified that being charged with rape apparently isn’t much of a detraction from one’s political candidacy there. I am absolutely sick and tired of how rape is treated like a joke, again, and again. I am so far beyond over the way our reverence for athletes and loyalty to our favorite teams enables silencing, suffering, and double standards again, and again, and again. I am tired of victim blaming. I don’t even know where to start on American politicians talking about rape. I am incensed that there was controversy at all about the Violence Against Women Act, and even more so that it wasn’t reauthorized.

I simply don’t have the right words at the moment.

Femen: Ukraine’s Topless Warriors November 28, 2012

Interesting piece on today’s Atlantic front page about these bold feminist activists based in Ukraine:

Founded in Kiev in 2008 to protest the country’s burgeoning sex industry (“Ukraine is not a brothel!” was the slogan of their first — and still clothed — demonstration, which aimed to dissuade foreigners from visiting prostitutes in the capital), Femen has since evolved into a vanguard of militant activists who have dubbed themselves the storozhevyye suki demokratii (the “watch-bitches of democracy”) and “modern-day Amazons,” some of whom demonstrate topless to, says their website ”defend with their chests sexual and civic equality throughout the world.”

The article ends with this remark: ‘Just what de Beauvoir would have thought of topless demonstrations is anyone’s guess.’ Perhaps our erudite readership would care to weigh in? This seems unduly dismissive about the possibility of anticipating and reconstructing the views of a very important philosopher.

Promoting job-sharing: let’s start at the top! November 14, 2012

Next Tuesday, John McDonnell MP will introduce a bill to the UK Parliament which would change the law to allow members of parliament to job-share.  According to the explanatory notes,

Over recent decades the practice of job sharing has been introduced into many fields of public administration, private sector companies, professions and civil society organisations.

There is considerable research evidence to demonstrate that job sharing is not only possible and practicable but also benefits both the individuals involved and the organisations that they serve.

More recently the proposal that the role of a Member of Parliament could be job shared has been proposed to enable more people to become MPs who may not be able to at present because of their disabilities or their caring responsibilities.

It has also been suggested that job sharing could be a way of attracting into Parliament people who may wish to contribute to our society by representing their community as the local MP but who also want to continue to contribute to society by working in their chosen field or profession.

It’s being supported by Disability Politics UK and the Fawcett Society, among others. There’s an e-petition you can sign, and if you’re in the UK, encourage your MP to support it!

In case you missed it November 13, 2012

As Nancy Pelosi noted: “The Democratic Caucus will bring to the 113th Congress the first Caucus where the majority is women and minorities.”

(Thanks, Mr Jender!)

Has the United States escaped becoming a fascist country? November 9, 2012

I cannot find the intelligent article I recently read that argued this thesis, but I think it raises all sorts of interesting questions. I should say that I am not a political theorist, and I’d love it if some who are would add more depth to this discussion.

One interesting question is whether Romney and the republicans would have taken the government in the direction of fascism. Next is whether Obama is not doing that. But perhaps first is the question of what fascism is. And the trouble with this question is at least twofold. There doesn’t seem to be any agreed upon definition of fascism, and the elements that do get mentioned seem to be matters of degree.

One source gives what seems to me a fairly weak definition:

The common elements of fascism—extreme nationalism, social Darwinism, the leadership principle, elitism, anti-liberalism, anti-egalitarianism, anti-democracy, intolerance, glorification of war, the supremacy of the state and anti-intellectualism—together form a rather loose doctrine.

For one thing, “the leadership principle” is weaker than a more common “dictatorship.” “Anti-intellectualism” seems to cover anything from a continuing dislike of higher education to a forceful physical attack on people and structures. But even if we take some of these in a quite strong sense – e.g., social Darwinism – then the threat seems to be there. Or at least any segment of the country that blames those without access to adequate medical care on those very people seems to endorse a strong sense of the survival of the fittest.

I’d be really interested in hearing what you all think.