Creature Discomforts Introduces New Characters: Who is your Favorite?

So, I'm finally getting around to writing on the new Creature Discomforts ads developed by Leonard Cheshire Disability, a large disability service agency that operates throughout the UK. I would imagine from reading the LCD site that they are very similar to the ARC or independent living centers here in the U.S., although their reach and agenda seems to be much broader than just delivering services. They work globally and claim to work with NGO's in 52 different countries and has six regional offices in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. One of the more impressive campaigns pursued by LCD has been the Creature Discomforts series of PSA's.

I first stumbled across the Creature Discomforts series last fall as I was preparing to teach a new liberal education class at the University of Idaho called "What is Normal Anyway?" The class encompassed an entire year where we explored the construct of normality, especially as it applies to the (mis)construction of ability and disability. One of the first assignments I had the students do was go out and collect media items that portray disability and then we, as a class, would critique the portrayal. One of my students stumbled on this site through her research. After viewing many disempowering or downright stigmatizing portrayals of disability it was refreshing to see the ads on the Creature Discomforts site. As a class we went through all of the ads on the site and discussed the issues presented: access, stigma, etiquette, rights, and even sexuality are covered in these short 30 second PSA's and present a message that counters the dominant discourse about disability being a tragedy or a flaw in the individual.

When I first watched these ads there was an air of familiarity about them that I couldn't quite put my finger on, but after doing some further reading on the Creature Discomforts site I realized that the characters seemed so familiar because the animation was done by the same studio that created "Wallace and Gromit", Chicken Run, and other animated classics. Even though these are short 30 second PSA's they still retain the high production values we have come to expect from Aardman Animation and perhaps even more impressive is the fact that LCD and Aardman Animation went out of their way to hire disabled voice talent for each of the characters. In the U.S. we often see nondisabled actors playing characters with disabilities...like Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot, or Cuba Gooding Jr. in Radio, so it's nice to see that even for an animated ad campaign like this where the viewing audience can't tell who the voice talent is, the producers placed a high priority on authenticity and reached out to involve the disabled community in the UK...especially in Cardiff.

So, I'd better wrap up this post, but before I do I guess I should get to the point of the post, but first a little background. LCD did a first run of these Creature Discomforts ads a couple of years ago and they were so popular that they went back to Aardman Animation and asked them to develop a second run with all new characters. They've been releasing a new character every couple of weeks this summer. So I wanted to get my humble readers' opinion on their favorite character(s). Of course, that means all two of you will have to respond to this post...LOL...but seriously, what is your favorite ad? Who's your favorite character?

My favorite character you ask? Well, that's a tricky question because I like a lot of them but I think that Tim the Tortoise is my favorite of the original run of PSA's. There's just something about his voice that vaguely reminds me of my grandfather...and the scenario Tim discusses is really down to earth. Everyone likes candy right? I love his last line here...makes me chuckle every time, although there's a certain element of dark humour to it.

In terms of the new characters I think that the ad with Roxy the Rabbit and Millie the Mouse is the most groundbreaking...therefore it's my favorite. There is still this societal taboo around discussing sexuality, and especially around the sexuality of individuals with disabilities. There is this notion among many people that people with disabilities can't or shouldn't be allowed to be sexual beings. In fact many parents of children with disabilities have a very difficult time with this issue and seek to keep their child from fully developing into an adult by sheltering them from issues of sexuality and attraction. Taken to the extreme this infantilization of disabled people results in phenomena like the Ashley X scandal of last year that further drove a wedge between parents groups and self advocacy organizations. Even the most committed of advocates for disability rights sometimes struggle with the issue of sexuality, because it is the ultimate admission that a person with a disability has a right to engage in the procreative process like anyone else. So, that's why I like Roxy and Millie...they directly address this issue.

Now, we just need to get U.S. networks to air these ads during
primetime...think of the uproar it would cause here. I think it would be great. At least it would get people talking and thinking about how we treat individuals with disabilities.

Kids with Behavior Disorders in U.S. Schools: NY Times Article

This article came through the wires earlier this morning and immediately there were calls on the Disability Research list-serv to remove kids with disabilities from regular schools. There were implications that mainstreaming, or inclusion, had "gone too far". Unable to resist I entered the fray with this response that has generated a significant amount of both support and backlash....since it seems to be so divisive I thought I'd post the link to the article in the NY Times for your general edification and then my response to the article and list-serv comments below. After reading these, what are your thoughts on the issue?

My Response: "So, I have a couple of issues here with the comments made by Jeremy and Dawna on the NY Times article. First of all, there seems to be an assumption in Dawna's comments and in the article that autism and attention deficit disorder are behavioral problems when, in fact, they are merely an expression of neurodiversity. Just because a child has autism or ADD doesn't automatically mean that they will also have behavioral issues. In fact, if students with autism or ADD act out it is generally the result of a classroom or school culture that does not meet their unique needs and does not welcome them. The minute these kids are labeled, teachers, students, and administrators begin treating them as the "other" and I know from personal experience that children are very perceptive and can only stand "othering" for so long before they begin to fight back. We all have a desire to be included and accepted by the group, and children with disabilities are no different.

Second, the notion that we should maybe begin looking at "resegregating" special education or social services in general is a dangerous proposition. The minute we begin segregating on the basis of behavior, it's just a slippery slope away from segregating on the basis of diagnosis and, if taken to the extreme, appearance. Now, I am well aware that "inclusion" and "normalization" schemes are often financially motivated and I know for a fact that for inclusion to be done correctly it takes more funding than is currently allocated to the school system...but the primary problem is teacher training.

I have just completed a large scale survey of teacher training programs in the western U.S. and most regular education teachers are still graduating with little or no training on how to accommodate students with disabilities and diverse students. In fact, our data shows that if regular ed teachers get any training it is on behavior management...which creates a paradox for us in this situation. If the only training regular education teachers are receiving is on how to behaviorally "manage" students with disabilities then you are setting them up for failure in an inclusive environment because the only way they've been taught to deal with students with disabilities is behaviorally, not academically. It's like the old adage: if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. In our research we gathered data from over 800 teachers and administrators on barriers to inclusion and the number one barrier identified by practicing teachers and administrators was a lack of training on how to modify lessons and create academic accommodations for students with disabilities in the regular education classroom. Thus, we have a lot of teachers running around our schools with hammers, and whacking every kid with a disability on the head because that's all they've been trained to do. They don't know how to academically include these students, therefore the students get upset and frustrated, and eventually act up...finally giving teachers the chance to use the hammers they've been trained to use in our colleges and universities.

Now, resegregation is the easy answer. Just make these kids disappear. Let's not deal with them, let's put them back in closets, padded rooms, and jail cells and that will solve all our problems in schools. Right? Well, I for one, doubt that it will solve the behavior problems in schools...it's always easy to blame the kids with disabilities because they can't stick up for themselves. If the author of this editorial wrote that African-American kids had more behavior problems, or Hispanic kids had more behavior problems and were a danger in our schools then there would be a nationwide call for his resignation and for his head...but since it's kids with disabilities we're talking about it's still okay. That doesn't seem right to me.

Resegregation might be the easy answer, the real solution lies in changing the way our teachers and administrators are prepared. Now they are being prepared to "deal" with students with disabilities...we need to change the system to where they are being prepared to effectively include and accommodate the needs of students with disabilities. There is a big difference, and it's a big job, but at least it's not a reactionary call for outdated institutionalization practices. Haven't we already learned that lesson?"

Disaboom Survey Reveals 52 Percent of Americans Would Rather be Dead Than Disabled - Forbes.com

Disaboom Survey Reveals 52 Percent of Americans Would Rather be Dead Than Disabled - Forbes.com

Check this out! As I read this do you know what surprises me? That the number isn't higher. On the other hand I am not surprised by the fact that rich people were more likely to choose death over disability. It just goes to show how backwards the wealthy in this country are. They seem to think that money will protect them and if it won't they would prefer to die. The ironic thing is that the rich would be the only class of people who could actually afford the treatments and supports necessary to live independently with a severe disability.

The other scary statistic is the one that shows people with college education are more likely to choose death over life with a severe disability. These are educated people who should understand something about the social nature of disability...oh wait, that's right, most people are graduating from college with little to no exposure on disability issues. But, that's why getting disability studies insitutionalized in the U.S. is so important. If there is one thing that disability studies excels at it's showing that disability is largely a matter of perspective. We all live with the delusion that we are invincible, but really life is a process of becoming disabled. Bodies, like cars or computers, wear out over time and we all need to make a choice to either accept this fact or to fight against it. Accepting this fact is the more rational response...fighting against it leads to the conclusion that it would be better to die than live with a disability which, when viewed in light of rational actor theory, is an irrational conclusion.

So, what does it mean that more people are afraid of disability than death? An interesting theoretical puzzle that I'll be mulling over this afternoon....

WTF!: UI spends 14 grand to say goodbye to White - Dnews.com

UI spends 14 grand to say goodbye to White - Dnews.com

Okay, so here's the deal...read to the end of this post for my solemn promise. But before you get there you need to understand that earlier this year we were told by the University administration that we were in dire financial straits and that each department and college needed to give back 5% of their budget to make up for the budget shortfall. In the case of the CDHD where I work, the University decided to take back all of our returned indirect costs that we use to support administrative staff and functions. In the end, this was a much larger chunk than 5% for the CDHD and will have a significant impact on our overall ability to function. So, if the university is in such tough financial straits why do we have $14,000 to spend on sending off President White? Even if it was "unrestricted" dollars it seems that they could have been more wisely spent elsewhere. I could make $14,000 go a real long ways here at the CDHD; in fact the research project I've been working on for the past year has a budget of about $14,000 and in the end the project will have a positive social contribution. What was the positive social contribution of White's farewell party?

I know that the folks quoted in the article don't seem to be worried about the amount spent, but I can tell you for a fact that I can make a video of people saying goodbye for less than $5000...yeah the production values may not be as great as the one the UI had made of Gov. Otter and other state leaders, but it would be close.

And another thing: $3900 to plant a tree! WTF! I'm going to go home tonight and have dinner and then I'm going to plant a tree in the backyard and that will cost me about $15.50 for the food, tree, setup, and everything. So, why does it cost $3900 to plant a tree? That must be some special tree or maybe it was a gold-plated shovel.

Finally, what are you going to do with a $500 vase anyway? I put flowers and dirty things in my vases at home and I think that an old Mason jar really sets off a nice bunch of roses or lily's from the garden...I wouldn't know what to do with a $500 vase. I'd probably sell it and take the cash to buy something useful like clothes for my kids or maybe a new set of wheels for my commuter bike, and a few books with the leftover cash.

I know that I may be stepping on some toes here, but it seems to me that if the UI is in a financial crisis...a crisis that White has done little to alleviate...we should be making every effort to conserve resources and spend them in areas that are truly in need, like building maintenance, technology upgrades, accessibility repairs, student recruitment, faculty incentives, HEALTH BENEFITS (hint, hint) etc.

So finally, here's my solemn promise to all you UI alumni, faculty, students, and staff: If I'm ever a president of UI I will make sure that my send-off costs less than $200. You can get me a t-shirt, take me out to Patty's Kitchen for a burrito, and then have some balloons and beer with the leftover cash. That's all I'd need and that's my solemn promise to all you UI faculty, staff, and students out there. So , how about it? We could even plant a tree if there was some extra money. We could head to PCEI and get a local cultivar and I'd bring my shovel from home and we could plant it somewhere in the arboretum. It would be a BYOF/BYOB affair for all those who really wanted to watch me plant a tree. Sound like a deal?

Disabled Woman Left to Die in NY Hospital

They present this story (click on the link in post title) as thought it's an extraordinary event, unfortunately this kind of stuff happens all the time in psychiatric wards, institutions, sheltered workshops, and ICF-MR's. At least this case got some media coverage....but what are we going to do about it? That's what I want to know.

This just highlights the fact that although we've made remarkable efforts to increase the visibility and rights of individuals with disabilities they are still viewed by the majority of society and by professionals, as seen in the tape, as sub-human and undeserving of simple common courtesy.

Autistic Toddler Kicked off Plane

Another example of people not understanding autism and disability in general. Ignorance is rampant and had the crew known about autism and had listened to the mother this would have never happened. But, the child obviously didn't meet the criteria of a "normal" passenger that complies with our strict definitions what a good airline passenger should be. The government and airlines are not interested in helping you travel if you can't sit still and quiet in your seat, look straight, and don't ask questions...if you can't do these things then we don't want you on our planes. Ridiculous!

Click on the link in this post's title to see video of this story.

My Thoughts on the Economy and My Kids Thoughts on the Election

I'm sitting here watching Charlie Rose now, and they're talking about oil prices and the economy. As I've been reading and listening to this talk for several months now, there are some things that are becoming quite clear to me regarding the economy. There are probably those who are truly economists who might disagree with me, but I thought I might throw these ideas out there and see what kind of response I might get. So here goes:

Since the massive economic growth that came to the U.S. with the WW2 arms industry, the prevailing wisdom has been that war is good for the economy. The Korean War helped bear out this assumption, although many would argue that Korea was so close to the end of WW2 that the country was still riding the WW2 wave of economic prosperity. Since the Korean War however, we have amassed a considerable amount of evidence that war is not good for the U.S. economy. I am particularly struck by the similarities between economic trends at the end of the Vietnam War and the current war in Iraq.

When was the last major energy crisis in the U.S.? When was the last severe recession in the U.S.? You probably don’t remember because it all began the year I was born: 1973. In 1973 gas prices were skyrocketing because of tensions in the Middle East and there were lines of cars and trucks, often stretching for miles, waiting to get gasoline because of fuel shortages and rationing. At the same time the government started funding research into alternative fuels and energy sources because they recognized that the U.S. couldn’t continue to rely upon foreign energy to sustain its domestic infrastructure. It was out of this era that the first solar cells were developed, electric cars were being tested and were on the verge of being marketed to the public, and then OPEC eased their grip on the market and we left all of this work behind us and returned to our old habits…but the recession continued through 1975.

The recession of 1973-75 was the worst recession since the Great Depression before WW2 and the primary cause of both the Great Depression and the ’73-’75 recession was a major decline in investment purchases. In both cases investors were not putting their money into the market because they didn’t feel safe…so, the economy started to slow down. We are in a similar economic situation today, although unlike the recession of ’73-’75, we know why there isn’t the level of investment and spending that is necessary to keep the market afloat: poor financial practices that are more targeted to huge short-term capital gains rather than long-term market stability.

In his book Moyers on Democracy, Bill Moyers points out that since the late ‘80’s we, as a nation, have developed banking and investment practices that are solely focused on making the most money in the shortest amount of time possible. As a result we have investors pumping money into stocks and futures thereby driving up the value, and then selling it as soon as the price reaches a level of equilibrium. In the ‘50’s and ‘60’s organized crime syndicates (the mafia) used these “pump and dump” schemes to bilk investors out of millions of dollars and to launder money. Many of the accountants for these mob families were convicted of fraud and racketeering for these type of investment schemes in the mid-20^th century…but now these same investment practices that were landing mafia accountants in jail 50 years ago are de rigeur; what was a crime is now commonplace and I’m afraid we are only beginning to pay the price.

During WW1 and WW2 America encouraged savings and investment through war bonds and other long term investment options. The public bought these bonds, which effectively meant that the public was lending money to the government to finance the military operations of the war. These were meant to be long term investments and offered moderate rates of return to encourage saving. At the same time, since the public was lending money to finance the military it helped keep the nation out of less debt than it would have otherwise been in as a result of the cost of war. Another advantage of this system however was the notion of the bond investor being a stockholder in the government…it gave the common citizen more say in how the government and the war was run. If the public didn’t support the war, then they quit investing in war bonds and the government would feel pressured to slow down or stop aggression. Of course, we don’t hear about war bonds anymore. They were sold up through the Korean War, but when the Vietnam War started the bond sales plummeted. Why? Because the public didn’t support the war…but this is where the model of modern war making changed. Instead of curbing aggression, the government chose to run the war on credit. In other words they began the model of borrowing and deficit spending that is the hallmark of the modern U.S. federal government. A good parallel is Frank Murkowski and his jet…the Legislature wouldn’t give him money for it, so he went out and bought it with the State credit card instead. This is essentially how we have funded every war since Vietnam…on credit. As a result we end up digging ourselves into an abyss of debt and when we reach the limit of what we can borrow we are forced to pull out of the conflict. The recession of ’73-’75 was partially the result of running the Vietnam war on credit and the recession played a big role in why we left.

But even at the height of the Vietnam War we were not even close to the amount of debt that the U.S. is currently carrying. Right now, today, the U.S. has the biggest deficit and debt load that it has ever had in it’s almost 300 year history. Even comparatively after the Revolutionary War when we were a dirt poor nation we didn’t have even a tenth of the debt that we are carrying now. Just like most consumers, the country has fallen victim to predatory lending practices and we have more debt than we can possibly pay off. Actually, the estimates I’ve seen have said that even if the U.S. economy thrived and grew exponentially over the next 100 years we would still only have paid off half of the money we owe as a result of the war in Iraq. That means that my grandchildren and even my great-grandchildren will be paying for this ridiculous war…and that’s shameful. Leaving a legacy of debt to children who are unborn is not something to be proud of…in fact it is utterly disgusting that we have politicians who support this kind of poor fiscal management.

But, despite my disgust with our country’s addiction to credit, it is not wholly at fault. There are also the capitalist creditors, the literal loan sharks, who will lend any nation or anybody money as long as they are willing to pay a price. In the case of mortgage lenders we have seen that the price that many people had to pay was much higher than they were able to afford and, as a result, we have the housing crisis. The selfishness and greed of lenders to make a buck had put the mark in this situation…they wanted to see how high and hard they could push. They wanted to see how much money they could make, so they started offering mortgages and home equity lines of credit to anyone regardless of income. If you had lower income you just had to pay a higher interest rate…it didn’t disqualify you. But isn’t that paradoxical? If you don’t have enough money to make the payments, then you had to pay a higher interest rate? That’s crazy isn’t it? Although I understand the need to attach a price to the greater risk a lender takes on a person who has poor credit or not enough to pay…but charging outrageous interest was actually defined as a sin in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament; it was called usury and, in my opinion, it’s still a sin and part of the reason why the U.S. economy is in such dire straits.

There was a time in the this country when credit was only extended to those who had the ability to pay it back…now credit is a commodity that is available to anyone regardless of their financial situation and as a result there is a credit and home mortgage crisis that is part of the reason we are currently facing the worst recession in 20 years of more. Credit has become the new measure of social fitness in the United States. When you apply for a loan, for school, for employment, for the military, or anything else it is quickly becoming de rigeur to do a credit check. Your worth as a citizen and as a person is being measured by a scale that indicates how well you play the capitalist economic game. If you play the game well, and by the myriad rules included in the small print of every mortgage, credit card, and auto loan, then you are deemed to be socially “fit” and a desirable employee or citizen. If you don’t play by the rules, or perhaps more appropriately if you don’t understand the rules, then you are undesirable and are not allowed to participate in modern civil society. Actually, you are allowed to still participate but you have to pay to play…you can still play if you're willing to pay the multiple penalties and fees that make up for your less desirable status as a citizen with bad credit.

Well, so much for my rant on the status of the American economy. I have a lot more to say, but Lianne says that I’ve probably bored you long enough so I’ll try and wrap up with some ideas about what I’m going to do about the economy: Honestly I’m not going to do anything about it…I’m not sure that I myself can do anything to influence the direction that the country is heading, but I can do certain things to make sure that my family and I are relatively insulated from the effects of the recession. In other words, we can think globally and act locally.

One of the things that we are doing is making a serious effort to bike more and not drive our car. We live in the perfect place to do this and the only difficult part is figuring out how to manage the kids. Meridian is old enough to ride her own bike, but Elias and Isabelle still have to be towed, but it’s possible. A couple of weeks ago I hooked up Isabelle’s tagalong bike to my bike and then attached the trailer to the tagalong. As a result we had a very long and cumbersome human powered train…but we had fun and caused quite a stir at the farmer’s market. Which brings me to the next thing I/we can do: like many people we are trying to raise a larger garden this year, build up our food storage, and eat locally…at least during the summer months. We feel that all of these things help to minimize the costs that are incurred to produce and ship food and thereby make a difference by minimizing our carbon footprint. We also know that by having a garden and more usable food storage we are prepared for worse days to come should the economy and impending food crisis become much worse. In fact, we just came back from Portland where we went to Bob's Red Mill and stocked up on a lot of whole grains and other "goodies". I could survive on Bob's 10 Grain Hot Cereal...it's so stinkin' tasty!

Perhaps the most important thing we are doing is talking to our kids about why we make the lifestyle choices we do and about how we can all make a difference by doing small things in our homes, neighborhoods, and communities. We are also talking with the kids about the war and the upcoming presidential election. We want them to know that how we vote can make a difference in the direction of the country and, because they often listen to the news with us, we want them to know that there are other options besides war and that we don’t have to be a war-like country. There are other options to solve our problems…and the girls are becoming quite aware of this. Just the other night as we were driving home we were talking about Muslims, the war and the upcoming election. As we headed toward home Meridian asked: “Does Barack Obama like the war?” I said “No, I don’t think he likes the war and if he was elected President I think he would try to stop the war.” Then Meridian asked: “What about John McCain? Does he like the war?” “I think that he would keep us in the war and that he would make it last a lot longer” I replied. Then Isabelle chimed in: “But God doesn’t like us to fight. I don’t think that God likes war.” I replied to this keenly astute observation with: “I think you’re right Isabelle; God has told us that we shouldn’t fight and I don’t think that he likes war either.” Both girls were silent for a few minutes and then Isabelle piped up from the back seat in a thoughtful voice: “Then I think God would like us to vote for Barack Obama.”

So there you have it…that’s as close to an official endorsement as you’ll get from the "man upstairs" and because it came from the mouth of a sweet, innocent child, I'm even more inclined to believe that it's the truth. I have to admit that I am very proud of them and I think that their words are important for us all to heed in this upcoming election season. We make things so complicated sometimes, and really the things that matter are the simple truths that we all knew as children: don't fight, say "please" and "thank you", treat everyone fairly, and use your manners…and that’s all I have to say about that.