Disability and the Workplace Community

The modern political landscape encompasses an ever-morphing progression of issue-related events, with both positive and negative interpretations—and reactions to—various difficulties brought to light in efforts to redress grievances or quality of life. Among these concerns are the implications of disability.

Disability occurs in many forms, with the condition that one has a "reality to be accommodated", or possesses "a form of human variation", and there exists a long history of persons with disability, who have undergone life-affecting struggles to coexist in within their communities. This includes a relatively recent foray into the politics of bringing about significant change that positively impacts the lives of those who would benefit from improvements in the approach of whole communities.

While perceptions of (and treatments for) disability have continuously improved over the years, it's important to realize the reason for the shift: the activism of those with, and who care for those with, disabilities. There are several key references to historic political activities designed to bring needs of the disabled to light, from which we can begin to learn more about the process. 

Recent progress includes the primary benefit of social media: its capacity to assist in reaching the public with pertinent information designed to boost and forward such efforts. For example, the National Association of Democratic Disability Caucuses works through its Facebook page to enlighten activists as to the breadth of options available in developing and sustaining both organized and individual efforts for the cause.

There are a number of things anyone can do in the interest of creating a continually civilized culture that is not only accepting of, but as favorable to the environmentally disabled as anyone. One of the most effective strategies to change the landscape for the better rests on our ability to communicate effectively in a manner that does not diminish the disabled through ableist language.

ableism - discrimination in favor of able-bodied people

A person can use damaging ableist language in a couple of ways. When subconsciously used, ableist language is a learned habit that inhibits our capacity for complete understanding. When consciously used, ableist language is designed to inhibit progress that might be considered costly to detractors. 

Perhaps one of the most critical environments for the importance of language use is the workplace. When working with, or speaking about, a person with a disability for any reason, we can effect communication that equalizes the environment that person must navigate in order to meet their needs. By putting the person first in our perceptions and interpretations of circumstances, we avoid becoming the dreaded ableist in the lives of those with circumstantial disabilities. 

Avoiding ableist language in regard to wheelchair users

In order to better understand the relationship between ableism and language, dedicate some time to learn about all the intricacies involved in disability awareness communication. Resources today are many.

How one copyright disagreement in comics helped establish fair use in publishing practice

Copyright and fair use are each ideas with long support among people, as well as frequent lines crossed—roots of 'behavior' exhibited on either side we might consider planted so as to retain utmost creative freedoms while securing proper credits for work done.

When we recognize the significance of economic and social opportunities in the relay of creativity and social learning, it stands to reason—especially during an era which was comparably challenged in its mass communications reach—that there would be a drive to emulate that which was successful in one city, and as such apply it in another.

Who was "Karls" (aka Ralph Hershberger) and how does his doppelganger experience in the publishing industry inform modern copyright practices? 

The "Ask the Archivist" column at Comics Kingdom touches on this idea that untended market creates space for creative offerings of the kind that are a known success yet unavailable to those in overlooked or economically-barred markets. Of note, "Karls"—aka Ralph A. Hershberger—the professionally successful cartoonist who made his start at a city daily newspaper. 

The rub? Hershberger's artistic work was based largely on the successful project of another artist. 

However, it wasn't to be considered copyright thievery. As reported in the CK Archivist article, a settlement between two parties (involved in a lawsuit that did not involve Hershberger) determined that "law allowed a doppelganger version, with minor adjustments". 

So it remains, constant line in the sand at which creatives collect like ants on a trail . . . because in isolation, only minor discovery is found. 

PD Image via Bing

Vaccination Talk Peaks in August: Debate Continues

Have you noticed an increasingly urgent banter about vaccines over the last week?

August is observed as National Immunization Awareness Month, and greater-than-usual attention is given in media to issues of disease prevention and inoculation, especially due to the re-emergence of a number of vaccine-preventable diseases ranging in severity from bubonic plague to flu.

Why Vaccinate?

Vaccines are substances that introduce an antigen, aka toxin, into an individual's immune system in order to develop an adaptive immunity intended to protect not only their health, but that of their entire community from graver sickness. Generally, vaccinations offer significantly greater odds of avoiding death and disability by serious illness.

To avoid dangerous negative impacts on entire communities or large swaths, it's necessary that a certain ratio of inhabitants be immunized against disease. Community immunity protects everyone, but before that's possible, everyone who medically can must be treated. Opting out in large numbers puts the larger community at risk, especially any who are of infirm health already, even temporarily. This risk includes those close to us—friends and family!

Learn more about community immunity.

Due to a relatively small number of complications (allergy, rarely) resisters have ignited a firestorm of controversy around immunization.

More, negative attention to vaccines is heightened in light of additional, unsubstantiated suspicions among subjects regarding links between immunization and autism, when there are none verified; although, it's easy to understand any frustration and fear. Rates of autism are only increasing, despite an increased incidence of declined immunization.

Unfortunately, between religious and personal-belief exemptions, most states allow a significant number of opt-outs: roughly half of states allow "medical and religious" vaccine exemptions.

Adding to the problem, in reference to the map linked above, the other half of states allow "medical and personal belief" exemptions. This latter option would seem to enlarge the pool of those who may opt out of community immunity measures by a consequential landslide, and prompts one to reconsider exemptions of religious privilege–the veracity of which contain the assumptions of any mythology, making the only veritably-reasonable exemption the medical exemption.

Thankfully, personal belief exemptions are being recognized as risky to community health by more people every day and countermeasures are helping to educate many. One avenue of discovery that makes an impact, known as Put Kids First, needs and welcomes vaccine supporters in their efforts to assist the educational and legislative efforts in their home state to support vaccines.

Vaccination/Immunization History

Cowpox circa 2000, Finland

Immunization, or vaccination (previously known as variolation and then vaccination) are general terms for the practice, which has a long history stemming from China and India. "Variolation" [variolae vaccinae = smallpox of the cow] was first used—rather successfully—in England and North America during the 1720s to combat cowpox, a less-severe but zoonotic disease that transferred from cows to humans at milking time. 

In contrast, the closely-related smallpox disease was much more than an unsightly, uncomfortable burden. Smallpox often resulted in death and disablement.

Ultimately, after the discovery of a vaccine for smallpox in 1786, the specifically applicable term vaccination [vaccinae] came to be known generically, addressing the action needed to avoid a growing number of diseases. Today, the terms immunization and vaccination are used interchangeably.

Help stop the spread of misinformation about vaccination . . .

So, don't be caught off guard by all the immunization talk happening this month. Various groups, some of which promote vaccination and others which warn against the practice, work to spread their points of view as far as possible, across as many fields of interest as they're able.


RELATED READING

Reemergence of 5 Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
Common Immunization Questions 
Not Up For Debate: The Science Behind Vaccination

Trust in Journalism: Headed to Tech Giants?

Historically, manuscript titles have been a function of convenience (sorting, picking, etc.) in writing and weren't necessarily given by authors. Titles were applied by organizers, or subject to change by organizers, in order to suit categorization and presentation needs.

Similarly, titles in modern media such as electronic news headlines are often adjusted, not by authors but by media managers and personnel, in order to attract readers. Thus, titles are sometimes manipulated and used for organization and targeting.

The challenge that we as readers are presented with, in any title, is in the ability to decipher what our attention is being directed to, and why. Many times we find that the why holds much more weight, and we should always be cognizant of that aspect of our information intake.

To read, or not to read, is the question. The answer is often exhibited in negative ways. So-called "click-bait" titles and blurbs are an unfortunate reality that drive the tendency to absorb inauthentic sentiments and played-up blurbs and intros, with no commitment to the main content . . . which is the entirety of information behind the face of the presentation (often from a juxtaposed perspective).

Behavioral Shortcomings in Media

Our behavior is closely related to the information we receive. It is therefore tantamount to reason and logic that we maintain our ability to decode the multitude of messages completely into a form of data that we can then use to make responsible decisions in our relay of information and actions. 

• Too often, we choose not to read the content, and who can blame us. It didn't take us long to learn that a hyperbolic title or lead didn't necessarily culminate in any news, so we stopped clicking through nearly as often as we once did.
• We sometimes share what we haven't read, because we agree with an intro or cannot resist sharing a funny image. This space is where a lot of neglect occurs. The reality is that there may be more work beyond this immediate, facing content (for the responsible reader and accountable community). Social media titles, blurbs and commentary can be bad indications of content, and often have been completely changed from an author's intended messaging.
• Compounding these above, social media blurbs are sometimes written to 'wrap up' content for readers in ways that indicate a completion of sentiment, which can encourage readers (especially of distinct groups) to move on without inspecting actual content or source. This is especially prevalent in social communication and politics.

These are steps back that put us farther behind where we would be if our only neglect had been an absence of confirmation research beyond the presented content.

The Constant Challenge of Truth

This scenario isn't much different from any historical dissemination of information to the public—a process long fraught with deluders. The vessel, or platform, is an encasement, adorned with the impressions of a producer's intent in sending messages. At this stage, there may or may not have been a bevy of editorial attention to the message.

As in works of art, such as paintings, the audience sees a surface but usually must decipher any meaning that may apply to them, the artist, or to others. This has become more evident in modern journalism's many iterations and multitude of access points. In reading, watching and listening . . . whether to social media content, news or commentary publications and programs . . . published books . . . we're at our most accountable when we evaluate the content, the source, and other factors of presentation.

A free public shouldn't need a governing entity (state, tech giants) to do this kind of evaluation for them. Powerful tech giants like Facebook and Google should refrain from attempts to govern civic journalism and communication under the auspice of guardianship of the truth, or 'stopping fake news'-- all risks inherent in both traditional and AI applications of the information business.

Beyond any particular publication, it is the public's privilege, in a free society, to have access to information and freedom to distribute it. It is much better to do the work, as they say: each person with their individual instinct to root out the wrongful propagandists and fake news outlets. In fact, there are resources—new and old—designed to help us do just that, one prime example being Media Bias/Fact Check.

Facebook and the like are each distinct business models, and constantly evolving. In a sense, under new demands of accountability, they must go beyond their original intent of free and open platform provision in order to retain profit, trust and survival. Currently, such platforms are threatening to become the publishers, in a sense, in the interest of not only profit but also national security. Our Tech Giants are well on their way to becoming our new Giants of Journalism.

Another apt prediction might be that we'll find the new top-paid research editors working for the these new tech/journalism giants more often than for any traditional publication. It's already begun. 


RELATED READING:

America's Dirty, Global War on Journalists, by David Sirota (2013)

People and Bees: A Natural Partnership

In current events, a half-million honey bees were killed in a vandalism spree that occurred at a beekeeper's enterprise in Sioux City, Iowa.  This incredible number might amount to around 14 bee hives at certain times of the year; but, because we're in winter, the damage could be more horrifying.

The winter bee hive naturally drops in population by about 30,000 bees each year, which  means that vandals in this case may have been responsible for the killings of what would be equal to approximately 100 productive bee hives. Shamefully, this amount of damage reflects only one aspect of the immediate violation and cumulative effect of the loss.

Short Primer on Bees

Bees are a productive, regenerative, necessity of our food chain on Earth-- when people aren't in their way. Bees "pollinate 80 percent of our flowering crops, which constitute one-third of everything we eat".

Bees' lives are short, relatively. Worker bees get about 40 days, during warm high-productivity summer months, to do their jobs, whereas a queen bee has a comparatively-long lifespan of 3-5 years. There is one  queen per hive.

Born sporadically in their hives, each bee has a first duty of cleaning their "cell". As the young bees age, their responsibilities change several times.

The Beekeeper

Beekeepers, aka apiarists, are a type of farmer. They provide edible and usable products (honey, beeswax) to communities through the work of their bees, either as a primary beekeeping commerce or as secondary commerce to another primary product or service goal of beekeeping.

Some beekeepers run a service of hive provision, to clientele in need of seasonal pollination of their crops and farms. This latter exercise has become necessary in the production of food crops that must feed an exponentially increasing number of people, as well as in the maintenance of floral industry crops.

Photo by Michael Gäbler

People and Bees

Some of us may see only a few bees throughout our entire lives, while others may be lucky enough to have a natural hive nearby. Bees may be frequently seen buzzing around wildflowers and gardens during temperate months, their fruitful existence possibly unrealized by them.

Bees can be pests, under either livable or problematic circumstances. Another service of professional beekeeping is to remove hives ethically . . . keeping bees safe and healthy during transit to new locations where they may be left to survive in nature's way, or supported and productive via farming.

Photo by Bob Peterson via Flickr

The relationship between humans and bees has long been one of great service to people, yet over time has become strained for bees. It's well worth our time (as a determining factor of outcome) to share our awareness of this industrious, pollinating creature-- a species that must be in production constantly to keep itself alive, then produces so much more for our benefit.

REF:

"File:Honey Bee on Willow Catkin (5419305106).jpg." Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. 18 Dec 2017, 17:28 UTC. 30 Dec 2017, 21:43 <https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Honey_Bee_on_Willow_Catkin_(5419305106).jpg&oldid=272863936>. 

FURTHER READING:

Beekeeping New Year Resolutions via HoneybeeSuite
Top 60 Beekeeping Blogs via Feedspot
Learn about colony collapse and pollination crisis via PLOS

Free Speech and Actionable Offense

Commonly heard references to a U.S. citizen's First Amendment rights aren't so widely understood as is often purported, especially in social media. Truth is, there is no full right to free speech, although it seems there might as well be.

Obscenity seems to be the primary question of free speech, rather than offense. Yet, one person's obscenity runs the risk of another person's taken offense. When does it matter?

That depends how a person is willing to look at a situation. A beginning point might be to consider whether something is obscene or offensive. Either way, it probably won't matter in any internet age . . . but that doesn't mean one should squash taken offense, necessarily. When offense it taken, consider it heartily.

It can be said that when an obscenity crosses personal lines, it can become terribly offensive. The Miller Test attempts to address such instances, without a lot of success. This is due to the usual trouble of restrictive and often dangerous community standards that would tend to hamper free will and free exercise. As it probably should be, it is of utmost difficulty to have something declared an actionable obscenity.

Mere obscenity is less threatening than directly offensive obscenity

Something that is obscene can exist without any personalized direction of offense to anyone. People and communities have worked to squash perceived obscenities, often to no avail because different people are affected in various ways by unrelated and unequal obscenities. This is why it can be difficult to prove any general offense to a degree of punishment, retribution or trial.

While an obscenity may be "shocking to a person's sense of what is moral or decent", but largely allowable in a free society, an offense can be a more serious matter; yet, equally difficult to answer effectively.


Today, there is the added difficulty of the Internet Age with which to contend. Where before a community might succeed in establishing its dominance over speech and behavior, today it's wholly unrealistic to expect that a community so large as the Internet should be able to level standards of conduct equally onto every worldly community in its realm. So, the Miller Test really doesn't stand much chance of working in a reliable way . . . demanding though it may be with its three-part requirement.

When obscenity is more then generally offensive

Still, obscenity can be a descriptive term as well, for obscene statements or actions that have intended targets (usually ideas, lifestyles and people). Such cases can sometimes be reasonably perceived as too much, especially when they incite negative, damaging behavior. Should it then be so difficult to identify offensive obscenities and have some legal recourse?

This is a question often [lightly] considered in social media. What do you think?