Part II: Speed
Photo by Huntstock/Thinkstock
What Is It Like to Use a Wheelchair? Posted on Jan 24 2014
[Time 2]
This question originally appeared on Quora.
Answer by Kimberly Domangue, communication grad student and psychology buff:
What's it like being in a wheelchair? It's a mixed bag.
Seeing someone in a wheelchair often brings out the best in people. People want to be helpful and accommodating. Of course, this is not a universal and works best if the wheelchair user is nearby in plain view. I have been pumping gas and have had strangers stop me and say that I inspired them. I've been given gifts by strangers.
Tons more people remember me than I remember them. It's like a low level of fame. It also becomes your defining characteristic.
"You know Kimberly?"
"No, I don't think so."
"She's the one in a wheelchair ... "
"Oh, yeah!"
Little kids find your wheelchair incredibly interesting. It makes you smile, because kids are just awesome.
There are still places for which the Americans With Disabilities Act, or ADA, is just something a baby might say. (Some interesting stories there.)
Before I used a wheelchair, I walked with a limp most places. (I was born with spina bifida.) My mother was angry when I began using a wheelchair in high school, because to her it was like I "gave up." Really, I was just happy to be able to go anywhere I wanted and not worry about getting out of breath too quickly, falling, or being utterly exhausted. My plans became the center focus, not my muscles and aching body.
[248 words]
[Time 3]
When you're an adult in a wheelchair, with the life of a competitive graduate student and breaking into the workforce, you have a different worry when the rough patches come: when your dating prospects are slim to none; when you're unable to find something for a boss while you have the flu, and he sets you up to work elsewhere saying that perhaps you just need a less strenuous job; when you have excellent conversations with classmates you see every day in class, and they plan some fun event in front of you and never ask you to come along ...
You wonder sometimes. You wonder how many opportunities you might have missed out on because some people didn't want to bother. You wonder if people just see you as a bit too much trouble, or an inconvenience, to their ways of doing things. If they see you as someone they admire but not enough to be on the same par as they are. You wonder if it's instead just awkwardness and not knowing what to do with someone a bit different that pulls them away. You wonder if it's there at all, because everyone was so nice to you, so you're just overreacting.
And as visible as you might be in some ways, to some people, the truth is that not a lot of people know what it's really like to be you, in that chair, with all the extra things you have to think about and do. Some people probably do resist offering you an opportunity, asking you on a date, including you in their social circle because of the extra baggage you carry.
But I guess that's true of a lot of other people, too.
[288 words]
Source: Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2014/01/24/what_is_it_like_to_use_a_wheelchair.html
Photo by Reuters/Chip East
Being Gay Can No Longer Get You out of Jury Duty Jan. 21 2014 | Mark Joseph Stern
[Time 4]
On Tuesday, the 9th Circuit ruled in no uncertain terms that gay people cannot be bumped from a jury due exclusively to their sexual orientation. The case arose after a prospective juror was dismissed from GlaxoSmithKline’s suit against Abbott Laboratories for allegedly overpricing its HIV drugs. According to Glaxo, Abbott’s attorneys struck an openly gay man from the jury for fear that his orientation would bias his opinion. Now the 9th Circuit has ruled the action unconstitutional, and Abbott will face a retrial.
In one sense, the court’s ruling was inevitable. In 1986, the Supreme Court found that attorneys couldn’t dismiss jurors based exclusively on race, holding that both defendants and jurors themselves have a right to a racism-free voir dire. Ten years later, the court extended that principle to female jurors, adding a new justification to the mix: Justice Harry Blackmun proclaimed that gender stereotypes are “rooted in and reflective of historical prejudice” and thus serve no valid purpose in jury selection. Anti-gay stereotypes are, of course, rooted in similar “historical prejudice”—a “deplorable tradition of treating gays and lesbians as undeserving of participation in our nation’s most cherished rites and rituals,” in the words of the 9th Circuit. The court, then, had no choice but to shield the jury box from these irrational prejudices.
Yet in another sense, Tuesday’s decision is a critical and novel development in the legal battle for gay rights. The Supreme Court protected blacks and women from prejudiced peremptory challenges because they’re both constitutionally protected classes; in other words, any law that discriminates against them is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. But the court has never actually declared gays a protected class. Instead, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s pro-gay opinions revel in opacity, making broad gestures toward the dignity of gay people without actually explaining what constitutional protections are afforded to them.
[329 words]
[Time 5]
This tactic—scorned by Justice Antonin Scalia as “nonspecific handwaving”—has frustrated lower courts for years, with the court’s vague U.S. v. Windsor opinion only exacerbating the problem. But with this decision, the 9th Circuit became the second court to call the Supremes’ bluff, explicitly extending heightened scrutiny to gays while subtly scolding the justices for keeping mum on the biggest constitutional question of our era. Writing for the court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt flatly declares:
In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. … In short, Windsor requires heightened scrutiny.
Under such heightened scrutiny, the conclusion of the case itself is foregone. If blacks and women cannot be excluded from jury duty because of their identity, neither can gay people. According to Judge Reinhardt, allowing strikes based on “preconceived notions of the identities, preferences, and biases” of gay people would only perpetuate the “history of exclusion of gays and lesbians from democratic institutions.” And in the world of Windsor, this exclusion cannot stand.
Given that the 9th Circuit’s decision directly conflicts with an earlier ruling from the 8th Circuit, there’s a decent change the Supreme Court might take it up. (The justices love a good circuit split.) And the case might present a nice baby step for the court, extending more rights to gay people without toppling the whole edifice of codified homophobia. There’s certainly no paucity of gay rights cases jostling to make it onto the court’s docket, but for a cautious court, a complex case about pharmaceuticals and jury duty might be the perfect half-measure the justices are looking for.
[299 words]
Source: Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/01/21/gay_jury_duty_court_holds_that_gay_people_can_t_be_bumped_because_they_re.html
How Londoners Died in One Plague-Ridden Week in 1665 Jan 22 2014 | Rebecca Onion
[Time 6]
In 16th- and 17th-century London, in response to recurrent epidemics of bubonic plague, authorities instituted the tradition of publishing a bill of mortality each week. The “Great Plague of London,” which hit the city in the summer of 1665, is estimated to have killed between 75,000 and 100,000 Londoners (out of a total population of about 460,000). This page represents the death tally of all city parishes for the week of Aug. 15-22, 1665, when the plague had infected 96 of the 130 parishes reporting.
In his book Shakespeare’s Restless World: A Portrait of an Era in Twenty Objects, Neil MacGregor writes that the bills cost about a penny, and were published in large print runs. The other side of the bills contained information on deaths broken down parish by parish.
If medicine was still somewhat uncertain about the causes of death, those in charge of toting up deaths for the bills of mortality were even more so. As the Royal Society of Medicine’s website notes, “[Parish] clerks’ lack of medical training resulted in many peculiar or vague causes of death being recorded.” Hence, the deaths here chalked up to “griping in the guts,” “grief,” “suddenly,” and “stopping of the stomach.”
In addition to the immense toll of the plague, this document shows the high rate of infant mortality. The youngest Londoners died so often, historian Lynda Payne writes, that their deaths were categorized according to their ages, rather than according to the diseases that might have killed them. “Chrisomes” (15 dead) were infants younger than a month old; “teeth” (113 dead) were babies not yet through with teething.
The Wellcome Library in London has just made more than 100,000 of its medical-history images available for hi-res download under a CC-BY license. Among the images now freely available are a handful of bills of mortality from 1664 and 1665. Visit their Images page and search “bills of mortality” to see. And historian Craig Spence runs a blog exploring violent deaths in the bills of mortality, which is a great browse.
(credit to Wellcome Library, London)
[363 words]
Source: Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/01/22/bill_of_mortality_document_shows_death_toll_during_the_great_plague_of_london.html
|