I watched. Perhaps I too am a closet royalist too but I love the fact that the Brits have a sense of tradition/occasion and a moment. A unifying force
Possibly Related Posts:
This is a photo of this evening’s labour. My first attempt at baking in this kitchen, with this oven since the move but more importantly for me it’s shortbread complete with my grandmother’s pricking technique.
It may not have been so evenly spread but for a first batch in several years it smells amazing.
Possibly Related Posts:
Interesting take on “assisted suicide” as a care prevention option.
This couple were apparently in good health but precisely because they were in good health now was the time of their choosing;
“Mr and Mrs Milner’s daughter Chrissy said her parents had been in good health but did not want to get to a stage where they would be too ill to care for themselves. She said they felt they had to pre-empt any possible serious deterioration in their health.”
And this from the letter signed by both Mr and Mrs Milner;
“I have made many visits to friends and relatives in care homes. They cannot wash, dress, feed or toilet themselves. They cannot get out of the chair or walk. This can go on for a long time – years.
Long before we reach this stage of degeneration the quality of life for us would be unacceptable, cruel and inhumane.”
This is probably the main area of public commentary and thought where I come over as, dare I suggest, my most conservative. My biggest issue is the Milners objection to living a less than perfect life.The danger seems to be in leaving people with the impression that unless everything is just the way it always was, or the way you want it life is “not good enough” to live. That may or may not be appropriate for the Milners’ or the late Christopher Reeves who made similar comments following his injury. But as someone who occasionally needs help with all the things that letter listed, I’d like to think I contribute and have added value even at those times my health was at a low point and I needed to adapt.
Advocates of this position have told me that it isn’t personal: that they make no judgement about those of us who choose to live and hopefully contribute in spite of our challenges. They often heroise us; collectively for living.
If I had a dollar for every time someone told me they couldn’t live with my disability…. And there have been times when I thought they were right.
Each person will make their own decisions about end of life. I have no issue with the decision they have taken. I take issue with the publicity they sought by seeking to have the letter published.
He said his first letter was published 60 years ago and asked that this, his last letter, would also be published.
My quams are about the social responsibility of turning your choice into a headline and the impact that has on the rest of us
At the point that you write to the newspaper, or post to a blog claiming that you want to get out while you’re ahead you add to the debate and the value of choice that you advocate is compromised. You are in a position to place value and the associated judgment on all life, not just your own. On the recent paraplegic who is trying to piece it together on his way to physiotherapy; on the teenager whose parents have just divorced for whom just the way it was seems a long way away. Either of these folks could be flicking through the paper and read your assertions about maintaining control and “the good life”
Inclusion of the rest of us who just get on with it also gets much harder. The fact is none of us know what we will be capable of till we are there. To publisize a decision like this either way makes it harder for the rest of us to make our own choices.
Possibly Related Posts:
Not that long ago, the origin of the fruit and veggies in our supermarkets was a lot less important to the general populous than it is now. Barring the scandals of oil spills and contamination reports we supermarket shoppers were largely content to believe that the fruit and vegetables that were being presented to us aisle after aisle were the best that the growers and producers could provide us with. We believed quite rightly in most cases that the produce was good for us.
There was however a small group of consumers who sought a better way, they were concerned that the pesticides being used on the fruit and vegetables found in our supermarkets might or did cause harm. They sought out organic fruit and vegetables” claiming that at least for them these products were better. These brave individuals were prepared to make choices, difficult choices at times about what they bought, from where and indeed how much they paid. They were prepared to make sacrifices to ensure that they got the products they needed. They spread the word.
Slowly one or two became a few more. Friends cooking for these organic sensitive individuals started choosing organic too and finding it better for them as well. As a result, behaviours were changed with people being prepared to make the choice, pay the price and look a little harder for the right products. These friends may have initially made these sacrifices out of altruism but eventually “switched” out of interest for themselves and their families and the word spread.
As the word spread demand rose and broadened from the eco-conscious hippies or allergy prone individuals to a more mainstream audience. The economics of supply and demand resulted in a price drop and more suppliers. The early adopters and those that made choices to include them were rewarded with more change left in their pockets as producers scrambled to change their practices and their image to maintain a market share in this new “conscious” economy.
Now we have reached a point were producers, marketers and suppliers of more than just our fruit and veggies clamor to convince us; the everyday consumer of the ecological sensitivity of their products. Everything from toilet paper to coffee, department stores and shopping bags, to cans of tuna labeling everywhere strives to convince us that it too is conscious of the planet, good for us as well as being good for the bottom line. We walk into the supermarket more aware of our environmental footprint and the calorie count and preservative level of the products we buy as we walk up and down the aisles. We walk out of the supermarket or department store a little more aware of not just the change in our pocket but the change to our bodies and the footprint we leave. We leave the supermarket determined to recycle the plastic bags we are carrying or with an armful of green bags determined to reuse them again and again.
This is all great and important progress to not only our health and longevity but also the health and longevity of the planet. It didn’t start with legislation. It started with people. Not just the few who needed the organic vegetables, fruit or low allergen soap, but with those who cared for them. Supply only increased when it was more than just those in the immediate circle of those most affected who were demanding it. Not just with their voices. Also in a much more telling gesture, they told us all with their wallets. As a result they, and we are better off.
It might still be easier to grow with pesticides but its not enough for us anymore
Within the disability sector here in Australia we have waited 10 years for the much anticipated Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards. The intention of these Standards was to bring the various bits of paper (the Australian Standards for Access and Mobility, the various building codes and the Disability Discrimination Act) into alignment saving the confusion that might have prevented some of the intended implementation. Clearly a step in the right direction will be made with the adoption of these Standards, although when and how much is a question as well. With an aging population who are used to being included and involved I wonder if these steps will be enough to manage the current demand, much less anticipate future demand.
So what of the connection between organic vegetables and the provision of access? They are both about sustainability. They both need to be a matter of broad public interest, opinion and action before any significant change will occur. A range of people need to choose differently and with their wallets. Once it becomes a matter of money in the banks, businesses will see the value in changing the access to their building.
As several of my high school teachers pointed out legislation must move slower than public opinion to prevent knee-jerk laws and a less stable judiciary. That makes sense. The aging of an active population is however not a question of public opinion. Nor is the intention to provide inclusion and equity a new concept, or a newly embraced one. They are both well recognised, well researched and established understandings.
My friends often have difficulty finding venues to have events they want me at. The assumption that in 2009 no one is allowed to build an inaccessible building or run a discriminatory service is soon dispelled. Unfortunately; as well as being rare, the accessible venues also tend to be the more expensive and more sterile options because it is the larger organisations that are under greater pressure to provide access.
Even when a level of access is said to be provided, equity, independence and dignity may still be unavailable in any of several given moments. A platform lift that may or may not work and requires the cooperation of another simply because they have the key they use to prevent vandalism or independent use (ironic given the intention of the lift). A single step requiring help every time. Having to seek out a manager — usually male – to get access to the locked accessible toilet. Waiting an hour for a services that others wait 15 minutes for, like a bus ride. This stuff is all common and recent. Its all roughly bearable too. The experience is also better than it was 15 years ago. But its not equitable either. It’s not as it was intended, and it is still hard.
Change is happening and that is great. The Standards are going to come into effect, and people are understanding the dilemmas and the issues, and are generally more conscious if not more responsive. But without the commercial impetus the changes needed will not come fast enough. It may indeed be too easy for small businesses, schools and other organisations to get granted an exemption to the requirement to provide access. Perhaps though it is also too easy for them to want it. There are very few reasons to want to provide access.
Like with the organic fruit, this is going to take a few brave souls who have no obvious need for ramps, rails, AusLan or Easy English to make some of their lifestyle choices on the basis of these things, and joining those of us who have to make those choices in rewarding those businesses that do provide access and equity with a little commercial stimulus. We also need to say why we are making the choices, both to show the old businesses we used that there is a cost and the new choice that we make that there is indeed a reward for equity. This may cost us a little more initially but when whole parties get moved because of a single step businesses will slowly seek out venues that will work for them too and once again legislation will follow demand and we will be ready for those active baby boomers.
Possibly Related Posts:
As a follow up from yesterday’s post comes this outlining some of the fall out from “Dancing with the Stars”; including comment from Gerrard and his wife, Heather.
It includes some advice from Gerrard for the judges:
“I know I make a lot of mistakes as a dancer, and I’m happy for Todd and the judges to give me low scores – but offer me and those I’m trying to inspire some hope and guidance as well,” he said.
The article also reveals:
Gosens approached the three judges, Helen Richey, Mark Wilson and McKenney, after the show.
Oh to be a fly on the wall in that discussion.
To be fair, I must point out that the article also links to this article by a Tory Maquire which defends McKenney pointing out again that as we all have recognised, Gerrard can’t really dance. She goes on:
Since when have prime time reality television/light entertainment programs been about self-improvement and and passion?
There are such programs of course. Surely no-one would propose that a program such as MasterChef isn’t designed to improve interest in cooking (all those masterclasses and recipies on the website) or The Biggest Loser franchise with all sorts of fitness videos from the trainers and The Biggest Loser Club and food.
So he can’t dance in your opinion. Most can’t.
Possibly Related Posts:
When Sol Trujillo accused Australians of being racist; we told him “Adios’ and proceeded to have a debate amongst ourselves nationally about whether we are in fact racist.
When The Chaser aired the skit attempting to humourise the plight of kids with cancer and the charities supporting them; healthy debate (whatever the result) flared up about the use of black humor or humor generally in mainstream media.
Both these debates rightfully got media attention. Both of these debates, rightfully got attention and comment from the public and political and social leaders of the country. Both of these incidents, which perhaps started as silly playground-like antics, led to national discussions, of our character as a country. A healthy self-examination important for a mature and maturing nation-state. A process by which we ask ourselves how tolerant or welcoming we really are of diversity.
Yet when an an accomplished, extraordinarily able man who has represented the nation proudly over many years and in many ways is publicly teased and effectively abused on commercial radio, the silence from leaders , and the public was deafening. Perhaps now that that comment has been followed up again by Todd McKenney making that “appalling” comment last night on television that was clearly both cruel and unnecessary, we can enter this debate.
Gerard Gossens, paralymian, adventurer and father is also one of the current batch of “stars” in Channel 7′s “Dancing with the Stars”. Gerard is also congenitally blind.
As I was traveling into my last day at my most recent job working in disability policy, I switched to Mix 106.5 for 10 minutes of music. What I heard was 10 minutes of what might be considered disability- related vilification in the name of humor. Perhaps the most alarming element was that two of the djs that were being quite rude are now heavily involved in the show; one as a judge the other a host. Todd McKenney was heard remarking that he wanted the producers to “dress him up in funny clothes for” the entertainment value.
When I wrote this, the show was in the media spin cycle that precedes most Channel 7 shows. It was a novelty then. It is reality now. And it is clear that the judges are out of their depth, much more than Gerard.
Last night’s dancing by Gerard was probably far from technically correct. None of the dancing was. The objective of the exercise is not to create brilliant professional dancers, otherwise the stars would not be “keeping (their) day job”. I watched all the dancing last night and whatever stooping he might have done, he made more of an effort to dance during his solo than at least 2 of the other male stars (one of whom effectively slid on to the floor and clicked his fingers. It was always going to be hard for the male “stars” to do solos because of their role as partners to the girls.
If the judges are marking and commentating Gerard down because of the dancing then why did Adam Brand’s partner get congratulated last week for incorporating his singing into their performance? Either its about the dancing or its about the performance value.
I’m not a fan of online calls to have a different set of rules for Gerard and for the other contestants. That to me belies the inclusion that Channel 7 showed in inviting a man they knew to be vision impaired to take part in the show as a world first. That’s right they invited him. Then from week one they have consistently dressed him up figuratively and literately (silly glasses one week, chopping vegetables another), to entertain those of us who can see him and once again draw attention through slapstick to his disability perhaps as an explanation to his apparent “poor” dancing. I have my own disability, different from Gerard’s and I and others I know with both disabilities and senses of humor are insulted by the repetitive nature of this slapstick. I might yet take action.
I remember Derryn Hinch on this show one year who had the moves of an ironing board and didn’t seem to improve getting harsh but kind commentary from the same 3 judges about his entertainment value and lasting to the end. The problem this time is that the judges aren’t entertained. They are embarrassed and they are at a loss as to how to respond. They are used to a physical and visual lifestyle and profession. Gerard calls all that into question. Perhaps they can’t imagine his as a lifestyle and aren’t sure if they should. Despite the fact that McKenney was the primary insulter last night, all their marks and comments reflected at least tacit agreement with Todd’s assessment that it was “appalling” and that it was his time to go. The novelty’s clearly worn off the judges if not the public.
Is dance more than just about how it looks and the lines that are drawn by the legs, even on TV? Is it also about the communication between the dancers, between the dancer and the audience, the dancer and the music and even perhaps the dancer and themselves? Is it not about communication and dare I suggest fun?
Gerard has taken what little useful feedback the 3 judges have given him and run with it. He has improved. Even that was noted last night.
No don’t create special critera for him. Respect him without the slapstick. Judge them all on improvement and storytelling. Let their performance speak. Provide them all with feedback they can use. The speed bump feedback was a good effort in that direction.
Maybe the producers want to jazz the format up and can’t swap partners and play silly games until after he is eliminated. Whatever the reason apologies are due. Not just to Gerard and Jessica but to the rest of us who are just trying to get on with life whatever we look like in dancing shoes.
Possibly Related Posts:
I was there yesterday. squeezed into the back of the church for the funeral of one of my inspirations; Matt Laffan That was hard. The fact he was only 7 years older than me and died of complications from his disability is even harder. Continue reading
Possibly Related Posts:
It seems official. Australia has just experienced its first quarter of negative growth in 8 years with a drop of half a percent in the GDP. We are spending less after the aparent boom of the past 17 years. As Peter Hatcher as pointed out this must be exceedingly frustruteding for the Government.
For Rudd Labor, taking power just as a 17-year boom turns to bust is profoundly frustrating
The timing is bad. Just as I suspect the Obama administration inherited problems originating from a careless Bush era, I fear much the same was always bound to happen to this Government. Recessions do not develop overnight and while they have been in power for 18 months now, i think the responsibility needs to be shared.
Australia lost some of its soul in the last 5 or so years. Continue reading
Possibly Related Posts:
Last night watched Kurt Fernley on Enough Rope with Andrew Denton. Kurt is apparently a qualified teacher, a guy a little younger than me who grew up an hour and a half or so from where I did and had three older brothers. He has had two lucky escapes from car-related accidents and eventually wants to teach in the country again.
Oh and he is a Paralympian involved in wheelchair track and road races. Continue reading
Possibly Related Posts:
Book a meeting with me