WHAT HAVE REPUBLICANS DONE FOR US? (revisited)

We all hear Republican candidates claiming they want to “Make America Great again,” and before that "Take America back again."  They seem to want to return our nation to some mythical time when things were better.  I can’t help but wonder, better for whom. 

If we look at what Republicans have done in the past few decades, it is not clear what that mythical time looks like to them.  It certainly is not a place most Americans would like to live in.

I have been trying to think of one thing the Republicans have done for America in, let's say, the past 40 years.  That should be long enough for a party to do something positive for the nation.  It is true they have made the rich richer, given tax breaks to the wealthiest, started a few wars, tortured a lot of prisoners, vastly increased the prison population of the country, ran a completely incompetent "war on drugs," but what was gained by  any but the top 1%?

I have only considered contributions by Republicans to American society since 1980 or so.  Going back further would have been too painful.  Check out these important categories that touch the lives of most Americans and Republican contributions.

Education:  Republican education reformers came up with vouchers which take tax payer money and give it to private and religious schools while neglecting the public schools as much as possible.  Charter schools were introduced, a vehicle for giving public money to private companies and individuals to provide educational services, whether or not those people or companies are competent.  The current Secretary of Education is totally behind these measures and contributes part of her fortune to promote them. 

Health care:  Republicans tore down every attempt to introduce programs that could assure each American of affordable medical services.  They convinced many Americans that “Obamacare/socialized medicine” would be terrible for Americans when what they meant was it would be terrible for the wealthy medical insurance companies who sponsor their campaigns. (It actually  did not.)    Even extending insurance to poor children involved a fight.  They are still working hard to get rid of the Affordable Care Act that provides many millions with coverage they can afford, through sneaky underhanded means, tucked in bills passed at midnight.

Jobs:  Republicans say they create jobs, but they are not too interested in the quality of those jobs and whether or not those jobs provide a living wage.  They work constantly to break unions and to fight raising the minimum wage.  Most Republicans barely blink when a presidential candidate tells poor people that their kids should be hired as janitors so they can learn to “show up on Monday,” as Mitt Romney did in 2012.  The unemployment rate is going down, but wages are barely rising. 

Family Values:  Republicans would have us believe they have a lock on what it means to be family while ignoring their own principles.  It is OK, though since they ask forgiveness after they are caught and are immediately assumed to be repentant.  Some of the most prominent among Republicans speak of the sacredness of marriage while not honoring it very well themselves.  Their hatred of immigrants allows them to break up well established stable families so one or some of the members can be deported.

Women's Rights:  I know this is not really a Republican issue, but since nearly 50% of Republicans are women, it automatically becomes one.  Many of not most Republicans want to prohibit use of all birth control as well as abortion but do not want to provide assistance after the baby is born. "That would foster dependence on social programs."  The Republican  position should accurately be called “Right to Birth,” not “Right to life.”  It is not sufficient that they choose not to use these family planning techniques themselves, they want to dictate what everyone else is allowed to do. Republican state legislatures work very hard to criminalize abortion and the women who choose to have one.  At midnight they pass laws that outlaw abortion before most women are even aware they are pregnant.  They would prefer that abortions never be granted, that is, of course unless their life or their wife's life is at risk.  

Government Programs:  Republicans don’t want to have Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security or other Government programs, yet these are often the only safety nets that stand between citizens, even Republican citizens, and disaster.  Republicans do not create better programs, they just put barriers in front of people who need what currently exists.  Why, In their minds, of course there should be work requirements for those receiving Medicaid, the poorest, most struggling people among us.
  
Civil Rights:  Most bills that have come before Republican Congresses and presidents related to civil rights have been either ignored or watered down to mean essentially nothing.  Police are being militarized and that equipment is often used against people of color.  Segregation in our communities, schools, and other public places is nearly as strong as ever.

Size of Government:  Republicans claim Government is too large, and should be "drowned in a bathtub."  But under every Republican administration, our government grew significantly, particularly in the areas of the military, the war on drugs, homeland security.  Growth is good as long as the right people benefit.

Tax Reform:  Republicans HATE taxes.  They want all the benefits of having decent roads, police, fire, and deportation services, safe bridges, airports, sports stadiums but they don't want to have to pay for, and will work hard to avoid paying for them.  Companies are permitted to take profits off-shore, and for quite a while, companies were given tax breaks for moving abroad.  Any tax breaks go mostly to the wealthiest 1%.  Republicans think that's fair.

Environment:  President Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Agency into law in the early 1970's, but despite the amazing clean-up it has overseen, current Republicans are working very hard to dismantle the regulations that protect our air and water, so even the one really positive thing Republicans have done is being corrupted.  Make as much money as you can and to hell with the destruction caused.  Someone will clean it up later. 

So, what do Republicans have to offer America?  It is certainly not anything to benefit average Americans.  If the past is any indication, unless we can get some Republicans out of office, our nation will continue on this destructive course, and the rich will get richer and the rest of us poorer.

CLIMATE LIARS

The Environmental Protection Agency was founded shortly after the first Earth Day back in the early 1970's.  It's mission was to clean up and protect our air and water.  This was a tough mission since air pollution at the time was horrific as were our waterways.  Ohio got to watch one of its rivers burning and citizens of New York City and Los Angeles often could not see a blue sky.

Over the years, the EPA has worked hard and fought to clean up  our air and water.  There is still a lot to do, but until recently, the Agency was moving in the right direction.

We now face an even more critical period in our nation, and the world as a whole.  We face the possible collapse of the environmental systems that support the entire planet.  The cause, global warming.  It is called "climate change."  It is a change in the climate, but the truth is, the change is global warming.  The warming began with the Industrial Revolution a couple hundred years ago and is continuing, even increasing. 

In short, nearly all environmental scientists know global warming is caused by human activity.  What activity?  The burning of fossil fuels:  coal, oil, natural gas, releasing into the air, gasses known to act as a warming blanket, creating a planetary greenhouse.  Animal farming and leaky natural gas wells also contribute large amounts of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas.
  
The current head of EPA, Scott Prewitt is what some call a climate denier.  This means he does not publicly acknowledge any change in the world's climate.  Besides, if there were any change, it could not be caused by the actions of people, Right?

Mr. Prewitt is a lawyer.  This means he attended at least 7 years of college.  Unless Mr. Prewitt attended a school like Trump University, he had basic science and math classes which teach reasoning and logic.  He would have learned about the scientific method and the ways scientists investigate an issue, testing and retesting.  As a law student, he would have learned how arguments are structured and that each position needs to be backed up with facts.

Mr. Prewitt, Mr. Trump, and all the other folks dubbed "Climate deniers" know global warming is happening.  They have seen or heard the evidence.  They know that 100-year storms are occurring every few years.  Sea levels are rising, droughts and floods are happening more frequently than at any other time in recent history. 

It is easy to see these "climate deniers" as quaint, stupid, foolish, or any of a variety of appropriate adjectives.  However, they are, in addition, really, climate liars.  They are lying to their constituents, the American people.  They know what is occurring. 

Why would people like Mr. Prewitt knowingly put all our lives at risk by weakening or eliminating regulations that have served to lower human impact on the environment?  Why would they want the United States to drop out of a climate agreement signed by every country in the world but one (Syria), and now us?

The only word I can think of is GREED.  They are hoping to make a few quick bucks before there will be no choice about the use of fossil fuels.  I suppose they think they can accumulate enough money to cushion the blow that is coming. 

The media is partially to blame for the prominence of climate liars.  In some kind of "search for different viewpoints" they think they must put up a climate liar every time an environmentalist is interviewed.  This lets people think the viewpoints are of equal weight.  They are not!  

The climate is changing.  The change is being accelerated by human activity.  We, as a global community, need to act now.  That's it.  Everyone knows it or at least suspects it.  Those in power who publicly deny these truths are lying to themselves and to everyone else.  They are CLIMATE LIARS!  Done!

GO TEACHERS !

Teachers have been maligned in many ways over the past 2 decades.  We have been blamed for our students' poverty, their inability to focus, their negative behavior (when they exhibit such), students' lack of progress, and so many other things.  We are given more and more work every year.  Our ability to teach is infringed every day by administrators and politicians who could not do what we do.  And, we are told "You have off every summer, what are you complaining about!" 

Funding for our schools is cut over and over.  Important programs like libraries, music, and art are cut.  Those who do the cutting do not send their children to the schools without these programs.  But, they do institute charter schools in the poorest communities.  charter schools and their private owners are paid top dollar for doing less with more, while public schools must constantly do more with less. 

Adversarial relationships are developed between parents and community members and teachers by conservative media that would love all public schools to be taken over by dogmatic thought-control institutions that can steer our children's minds to a place where they will question nothing. 

We force students to take standardized, "gotcha" tests that don't measure what they know, but the level of stress and frustration they will tolerate while "proving" they are ignorant fools. 

In many states, teacher salaries are insufficient to cover daily expenses while financial guys who don't work nearly as hard are paid millions.  How is this right?

Enough!

We teachers are sick of it.  Sometimes, striking is the only weapon we have when the situation becomes so bad we can no longer function in any meaningful way.  It is interesting the states where teachers face the harshest conditions and lowest salaries are the most conservative?  Hmmm!  These are also the states that have vilified unions, which in most places are the only protection teachers have.  It's time the public learns that unions are the only force in our country that has truly championed workers over time. 

I am 100% behind the teachers all over the country who are walking out for their rights and the rights of their students to have the resources they need to succeed!  This is a start, but we have a long way to go to bring our schools to a place where schools are seen as essential, charter schools are held accountable, teachers are respected as professionals, and students are given more options related to their education.  Schools must have sufficient resources to select and teach a curriculum that emphasizes critical and creative thinking and problem-solving.

This is asking a lot, but it can be done.  In 1957 when the Russian satellite Sputnik was launched, America stepped up and enhanced its educational programs to prepare students for a challenging science-centered future.  We need another similar program to develop well-informed, thoughtful, creative citizens prepared to face a changing world where global warming will impact everything. 

So, pay teachers a professional salary.  Evaluate curricula and select those that are strongest related to truth, critical and creative thinking, and problem-solving in the real world.  Re-instate music, the arts in general, and libraries in the schools.  Incorporate technology in ways that will allow students to broadly explore their world through guided inquiry.  Truly embrace diversity and provide resources to shape each students education to actual needs.  Employ sufficient staff to support the work of the teachers. 

Then, here is the inexpensive part.  Encourage media outlets to promote the teaching profession as exciting, challenging, and essential for the future of our country. 

OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTION

by Ruth A. Sheets

Last week I read a book written about 20 years ago, The Least of These My Brethren by Dr. Daniel Baxter.  It is a memoir of a doctor who served on an AIDS ward among the poor and homeless of New York City in the 1990's.  The book took me back to my time working with people with HIV and AIDS in Nashville a few years earlier.  The illnesses from which Dr. Baxter's patients suffered were similar to those experienced by the people I worked with.  I heard again the names of the diseases and had flashbacks to the late 1980s and the suffering I witnessed. 

The diseases people with AIDS suffer from are referred to as opportunistic infections because they arise from the destruction of a person's immune system.  HIV, however,  is the actual underlying cause. 

A flash of insight came to me.  Donald Trump's election to the American presidency is an opportunistic infection in the American system.  The underlying cause is as insidious to our country as HIV is to the human body.

Our nation's HIV is inequality.  At some level, pure equality is not possible.  Many factors help to determine each person's starting point in life.  Where were you born?  Who were your parents?  What genetic contributions did your family make?  What environmental contributions did your family and community make?

Clearly people have different abilities, different gifts, different likes and dislikes which may or may not come from birth.  The shaping of these into the person each of us will be is steady and ongoing. For many, our birth circumstances provide advantages which generally only increase over time.  Others' disadvantages are so overwhelming any improvement is nearly miraculous.

Probably, if you asked anyone  living in America, the response would be that equality is a goal toward which we should strive.  Everyone should have the same rights.  Everyone should be able to vote, have a job, worship as they wish, be able to speak freely, and pursue happiness.

The problem with equality has been identified often, most recently for me by my sister who reminded me that to someone who has privilege, equality seems like oppression.

Privileged Americans do not actually want equal opportunity.  They want their advantage (which of course, they see as equal opportunity).  Since people of privilege, in their own eyes, work harder, create more, in short, deserve everything they have and earned it "fair and square."  They achieved it entirely on their own. 

Their belief structure says poor people are poor because they are lazy.  They don't work very hard.  They don't care about their homes or neighborhoods, or anything else for that matter.  So, "if they worked as hard as I work, they would have the same opportunities I have." 

Privileged Americans have a similar set of beliefs about every group that is not their own.  Women aren't as dedicated to their work and besides, belong in the house taking care of the children they must have.  People of color just aren't as good.  God made them to be less, so they should be grateful and happy with what they are given.  Refugees and immigrants in general are going to take my job and wreck my neighborhood, so we can't let them in. 

The American government is supposed to support these beliefs.  The most recent tax law makes that clear.  Cut taxes on the rich because they earned that money and the folks who need assistance are takers and don't deserve it.  We give them too much already.

The challenge is that some of these thoughts are not conscious. Most privileged Americans do not go around thinking, I'll sue that college for letting that obviously inferior black guy in instead of me (although some have done that).  They don't say to themselves, "I'll sexually harass that woman to make her feel more inferior than I actually think she is."  But privilege allows these beliefs to be manifest on a regular basis.

When challenged that their actions are racist or sexist, privileged folks claim they most certainly are not and that we are all just too PC (politically correct).  When managers are being held to a new, hopefully corrected standard, they whine that they are being picked on  and targeted.

Into this land of privileged advantages came Donald Trump, a bearer of privilege disguised as sympathy for those who could have what he has, if only those horrible other people didn't always get in the way, taking their jobs, moving into neighborhoods where they don't belong, getting handouts, leaving the givers poorer.

Mr. Trump has infected the nation with a cancerous nationalism that can ravage the body if not checked.  His "me first" approach to everything introduces a creeping fear that "maybe I won't get what I am entitled to, since we are giving so much to the undeserving."

Equality does not mean that everyone has exactly the same things, the same amount of money, lives in the same place, etc. etc.  That kind of system will never work, but it does mean that one's color, gender, nationality, educational background, religion, name, or any other factor does not automatically get you anything or deprive you of anything either.  It means we all have access to affordable health care.  We all have the right to choose what happens to our bodies.  It means we all have the same educational opportunities and chances to get meaningful jobs and affordable quality housing. 

If we had this kind of equality, someone like Mr. Trump would have gotten no traction.  He would have been seen as the pathetic human being he is.  He does not care about anyone but himself.  He claims to be a genius, but never reads, makes serious inquiries, or takes time to think through anything.  He throws tantrums like a toddler and bullies like a 3rd grader on the playground.  He is a terrible business man who cheats and lies his way through life, expecting everyone to be OK with that.   

Until we can figure out how to effectively treat our nation's underlying inequality, we will have to treat the opportunistic infections of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, privilege, fear, and so much more.  Let's get going.  It's going to take a lot of us to rid our society of these deadly infections.

The Media and Negativity

by Ruth A. Sheets

Recently, I heard on the radio that Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey is planning to run for a third term.  The news reader had to immediately remind everyone that last year Mr. Menendez had been on trial for bribery.  After she reviewed aspects of the case, she said the prosecution had dismissed all charges.  Wow!  Announce someone running for office, someone who has served his state for more than a decade and the only thing you can say about him is that he had been tried for bribery with dismissed charges?  What about that he supports health care rights for all, stands for voting rights, and has helped numerous New Jersey citizens in a variety of other ways.  A quick personal story would have been effective.

This news item made me realize what media's role is in our politics and it's not good for our democracy.  It is the, Remind everyone of the candidate's negative attributes.  What is gained from this negativism toward certain candidates?   

During the 2016 election, it took months for someone in the mainstream media to call Mr. Trump's prevarications "lies."  I understand it is hard to imagine a presidential candidate lying so openly, but that's what he was doing.  It is interesting that we were not constantly reminded what Mr. Trump was saying was replete with falsehoods.  Why didn't the media do that? 

From reporters, we learned nearly everything we needed to know about Mr. Trump's positions, or at least those at the moment.  We learned very little, if anything about those of any of his opponents, even in the general election, but we sure did learn their negative attributes and what Mr. Trump thought of them.  The mainstream media and others kept us well informed of these.  Why?

We heard over and over that Hillary Clinton had something "not quite right" with her emails and she was chastised by the FBI director Mr. Comey, yet he neglected to report that many others in high government positions were doing the same.  He also neglected to mention that frequent hacking of systems in Government may have meant Ms. Clinton's arrangement was not the worst thing she could have done.  The media covered "the email scandal" word for word, day by day, so everyone was primed when Mr. Comey came back and said he had found new emails, just before the election.  The media covered this, and in shocked tones before anyone found out the emails were ones the FBI had in its possession for months, maybe years. 

More disturbing, Mr. Comey neglected to talk about Russian interference in the campaign.  Even though the FBI was aware of it, he just couldn't bring himself to mention it.  The media let this pass.  It was hinted they all thought Ms. Clinton would win, so it wouldn't matter.  Uh huh.

What is going on?  We yell at Facebook for its permission giving political organizations access to member data and selling ad space related to the election to Russian trolls.  Yes, Facebook needs to answer for that, but the media at all levels needs to answer for its conduct in the previous election cycles.  Where were they? 

I don't remember a definition of the "free press" including amplifying negativity around some candidates while dismissing real problems of integrity on the part of others. 

Some of the media has jumped on the bandwagon of the Russia investigation, but is that as big an issue as Mr. Trump's next tweet, especially if it is a negative comment about someone whose politics or actions he doesn't like?  Already, NPR is being sustained by corporate sponsors who have their own agendas.  How much is this support determining what is covered on NPR's programs?  There is no way the support of the small listeners can match the money available from corporations.  The negative digs inserted into reports on candidates or public actors can influence citizens' voting response, after all, NPR . . .! 

I use NPR as an example, but it is happening everywhere in media.  Whatever one may think of Senator Menendez, he did not deserve the negative comments delivered at the time of his pre-announcement for running for office again.  Media actors need to examine more carefully where their loyalties lie.  They should be with truth, justice, and the American way, but I suspect these are not always their guiding stars. 

Do we have any indication that things will be different in 2018?  Not that I can tell.  Money is the medium.  We have allowed corporations to become enormous and have told them their money is speech in any capacity they choose, so unless the "free press" reports as a "free press" without the influence of money, we are in big trouble.

I am not commenting on Mr. Menendez's appropriateness for running again for the Senate, but if every time his name is mentioned, we hear the bells of "do you know what he did?" we are diminishing our political process.  I get it that "if it bleeds it leads," but there was no blood in Mr. Menendez's pre-announcement.  Why did NPR or any other medium feel it needed to make some?
 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD VS NRA?

by Ruth A. Sheets

OK, It's happened, one of the most ridiculous things I have read concerning the NRA, probably, ever.  The article, "Planned Parenthood's Absolutism"  came from thefederalist.com, a Conservative website.  The author, Michael Graham compared Planned Parenthood with the NRA as though they were politically equivalent.  He called Planned Parenthood  "the NRA of the Democratic Party, only worse."  He says this proves you don't need a gun to be a bully, implying Planned Parenthood bullies Democratic candidates more than NRA does Republicans.  Ha! 

So, Are these organizations actually comparable?  Well, maybe.  They are both organizations.  Both have lobbyists.  Both have political goals.  Both have  many supporters.  Both claim to stand for people's rights.  Both have . . . I can't think of anything else they have in common.

The NRA is predominantly a male organization that celebrates a perceived macho way of relating to the world involving guns, lots of them, particularly for white men.  The Second Amendment supposedly gives anyone in America the right to "keep and bear arms."  In their eyes, everyone should, well, maybe not exactly everyone.  

Planned Parenthood is predominantly a women's group whose purpose is to assist with women's reproductive health and family planning in all its manifestations.  Alas, women's rights must be implied here, as male-dominated legislatures just couldn't bear to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.  The Action Fund branch of their organization (very much separate), does work to see that women actually do get to have some reproductive rights, choice.

The article claims each group is inextricably tied to a particular party.  Then, each party can only do what the organization wants it to do or lose its support.  I suspect Republicans who have found Planned Parenthood services invaluable and Democratic gun owners might quibble a bit with this assessment, but there is some truth here.

It seems to me there is a deep something more that sets these organizations apart.  That is, their purpose or mission.  The NRA promotes guns, almost any gun.  It tries to stop legislation that would in any way limit gun ownership.  Its phrase of note, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."  However, the NRA member's life will be only tangentially effected if he can't have a particular gun.  There will always be other guns and other opportunities for shooting.  Even if the gun-owner is careful, just having the gun can put himself and others at risk since a gun is designed as an instrument of death.

Planned Parenthood is not a club with members who share an interest like guns.  It is a collection of like-minded health care providers and their supporters who help families navigate the challenges of family planning.  Seeking Planned Parenthood for help could be a life and death occasion.  Life will be different in nearly immeasurable ways based on the choices the woman makes with the help of the people supporting her.  The woman's choice will possibly affect her family, but few beyond that will feel in any real way the impact of the decision.  It is and ought to be private.

But, not to many Conservatives, particularly members of some religions, women are baby makers.  They have no say in planning their family as even birth control is not "God's will."  When women do get pregnant, they must stay pregnant despite the impact on their health, the family's economy, or any other critical factor.  "Too bad.  God must have wanted you pregnant and if your life is at risk, Oh well, that's just what it is to be a woman."  What utter nonsense!

I am trying to see how anything NRA stands for comes even close to having such an impact.  For most religious people, guns are barely relevant.  They kill, but that's just because some people are mentally ill and  . . .  Yet the NRA men and their token women have more power than Planned Parenthood will probably ever have in influencing legislators.  Why, they have a candidate report card and make sure the media regularly broadcasts the candidates' grades.

I suspect Mr. Graham was trying to get his readers, Conservative white men to see their gun "cause" as justifiable because it involves their rights.  He wants them to think of Planned Parenthood as nothing more than a political lobby that pushes women into abortions they don't want and shouldn't be able to have anyway.  Why this was worth writing is unclear.  But, it's another way to attempt to dismiss the work of Planned Parenthood as unnecessary, another special interest group that tosses its money around.  The NRA cause is about securing Constitutional rights.  Planned Parenthood is about denying rights to the unborn.  Wow!  That's pretty powerful.  Except,  perhaps, this is just another guy who knows nothing of women.  As usual, he is trying to equate a woman's need with a man's want and justify it in the only way he can.  He sets up a caring service organization next to a wealthy, self-serving group of male gun owners, makes political spending comparisons, and calls its actions worse.  

Planned Parenthood leaves a legacy of women they serve having control in their lives.  NRA leaves a legacy of mass shootings, suicides, accidental deaths, and murders by some people who have no business having access to guns.  Hmmm!  I wonder . . . . 

Out of Sight, Out of Mind...Literally

The Philadelphia Eagles just signed a player who ran into and possibly knocked over a 66-year-old woman in a wheelchair last year after the Super Bowl as he ran to join his brother on the field.  This made the news because he has been indicted on the charge of something like "endangering a senior citizen" or "endangering a disabled person." 

I suspect few of us, even those of us who are disabled know such laws even exist. That is, not if we note how our environment is set up to be only marginally friendly to able-bodied let alone disabled  and elderly people, (unless you have a car). Check it out in your town. 

- When it snows, how easy is it for you to navigate on foot if you're a fully able-bodied person? What percentage of the sidewalks are cleared? How easy is it to get to the street from the possibly shoveled sidewalks?

- If you are walking along a sidewalk, how many obstacles do you encounter or rather, would you encounter if you could not nimbly avoid them? (bushes and tree limbs that hang over the walkway, trash cans and toys left in the path, cars parked on sidewalks, etc.)

- How helpful are traffic lights?  If they have a button to push to cross, how long does it take for the light to change, if it changes at all?  How much time do you have to get across?  Can you make it without running or walking very quickly?  If you couldn't see, could you tell when the light actually changed?

- How easy is it for you, able-bodied to navigate public buildings?  Are directions to where you want to go clear?

If we are honest, we will admit we do not do particularly well preparing for and interacting with disabled and older people.  For the most part, members of these groups are not seen.  There are a few tokens in TV shows, even sometimes in significant roles.  But often these roles are played by able-bodied actors or young performers in make-up.  That was true when I was a kid 50 years ago and it is only a little less true today.

It takes a little while for a bus driver to help a wheelchair user to get on and off a bus, so for many these riders are a nuisance.  An automobile  driver sees a blind person or cane or wheelchair user and will either speed up to get past before the person starts to cross or will stop short so the offender knows full well the driver is being inconvenienced.  

I am not totally defending the action of the new Eagles signee, but I can understand.  In his enthusiasm, he didn't see the woman who was already invisible, the recipient of the largess of special parking, seating, and other benefits people are not sure are deserved or needed.

Maybe this case will help disabled and older persons become more visible, but I don't count on it.  Unemployment rates for disabled persons are high.  Many older workers find work only as greeters or baggers.  I've lived with these challenges all my life.  Those I have sympathy for are those who did not know they could be on the receiving end of thoughtless snow plowers, poorly synchronized traffic signals, hazardous sidewalks.  They will feel the blows.  I just hope they are angry enough to get something done for the rest of us whose efforts are generally dismissed as "just call Uber or Lyft."