Assistive Technology News Blog

By John M. Williams
I was in Washington, DC on August 28, 1963 when Martin Luther King gave his immortal I Have a Dream speech. I was visiting a great aunt and uncle who lived on Connecticut Avenue in Northwest. My uncle Tommy O’Toole had retired on June 30, 1963 from the police force serving the White House. President John F. Kennedy attended his retirement party. My uncle and aunt had invited me to visit them before I started college the following week. I had arrived on August 25 and was leaving on the 30th.
My uncle was not feeling well and declined to attend the March, but he had a retired police officer friend of his accompany me to the march. It was warm that day, and very cloudy. My aunt insisted that I take an umbrella. I did.
We arrived at the Reflecting Pool mid-morning. I can’t tell you how w got to the Reflecting Pool from my uncle’s place. I remember we parked in a lot on 14th and walked to the Reflecting Pool. My uncle’s friend used his connections with the police to get us a standing room only place about 200 yards from the Lincoln Memorial. Tens of thousands of people were all ready there and tens of thousands of people were arriving throughout the day. I saw about 20 African-Americans for every Caucasian. There were Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans, though they were in smaller numbers than the 20-to-1 ratio. I had a powerful pair of binoculars. My uncle loaned them to me. I could me more than a mile. During the day I spotted such notables, besides Martin Luther King, as Charlton Heston, Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul and Mary, maybe Paul Newman and others. The binoculars were nearly glued to my eyes throughout most of the day.
Even though I was 18, I understood the gravity of the goals behind the march. African Americans wanted full citizenship. They wanted better schools. They wanted better jobs. They wanted voting rights. They wanted an end to segregation. They wanted an end to the killings, beatings and lynchings. They wanted decent housings. They wanted an end to apartheid. They wanted to be Americans. I supported their goals.
I was overwhelmed by the numbers of people. I was overwhelmed by the peacefulness of the cloud. I was overwhelmed by the integration of myself into the crowd. I was accepted by the African-Americans as a brother. I was not an enemy. Neither was my companion.
I joined hands with the people to sing a number of Negro spirituals, including We Shall Overcome. I did my best to follow the words.
I was there for hours before the speeches started. Except for Martin Luther King’s speech, I do not remember anything any of the speakers said. The most famous pat of his speech appears below.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; “and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.”2
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day — this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my father’s died, land of the Pilgrim’s pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
I was thunder struck by the speech. Everybody there was. The crowd roared and clapped, shouted and shouted and clapped. They loved his message. I knew this was an historic moment that I would always remember.
During supper, I discussed the day’s events with my aunt and uncle. They were glad I attended. So was I. I still am glad I was there!

By John M. Williams

Twenty years ago Monday (July 26, 1990), around 11:00 a.m., I was sitting on the South Lawn at the White House between then Senator George Mitchell (D-ME) and Senator Bob Dole (R-KS. I was one of thousands of people attending the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (http://www.ada.gov/.) . The signing was an historic moment for the country, for people with disabilities and me.

The ADA is intended to eradicate discrimination against certain protected groups, to “level the playing field” so that everyone has the same access and opportunity, unhindered by prejudice. This anti-discrimination law is a civil rights act, not an entitlement program,

I had never seen so many people with different disabilities assembled in one place. The South Lawn had been invaded by an army of people with disabilities who had worked tirelessly for decades for this triumphant event. There was plenty of euphoria in the air. Surely this law would change their lives and the lives of future generations of people with disabilities. I heard many people with disabilities proclaim the event and the day their independence day.

Two decades later, I believe the ADA has had limited success. It has not in my opinion been the success people had heralded. There are still far, far too many unemployed people with disabilities. There are too many under employed people with disabilities. There aren’t enough students with disabilities attending community colleges and higher learning institutions. There aren’t enough people with disabilities in jobs’ training programs. Etcetera.

The ADA offers enormous potential for people with disabilities. For the law to be effective it must be enforced continuously regardless of the political party controlling the White House and even Congress, ThePeople with disabilities and other advocates must hold Congress and the White House responsible when employment laws are not enforced.

People with disabilities must hold public and private sector employers accountable if they fail to hire qualified people with disabilities. If it is true that nearly 1/5 of the U.S. population has a disability then why aren’t more people with disabilities visible in politics, law, the arts, business, education, information technology. journalism, medicine, science, construction, research and other fields.

The range of assistive technology products today give even the most severely disabled person an opportunity to work. For the ADA to work, employers’ attitudes regarding the abilities of people with disabilities must change. Employers must learn more about assistive technology products and they can do this by visiting www.atia.org.

Also employers should learn about the contributions of John Milton, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Christi Brown, Stephen Hawking, Harrison Ford, Cher, Agatha Christie, Hans Christian Anderson, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Branson, Jay Leno, Daniel Inouye, Max Cleland, Ludwig Van Beethoven and Theodore Roosevelt. These individuals had and have disabilities.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Minds are being wasted when the ADA is not enforced.

By John M. Williams

I confess that in recent conversations with three individuals (who asked me not to use their last names) who call themselves independents, I would call them conservatives. In conversations with Jack. Alan and Patricia, (all college graduates), I learned they detest all levels of government involvement in every facet of American life.

What is it that they oppose? On a national level, they enumerated their staunch opposition to me on the government bailouts for Wall Street and General Motors, the passage of healthcare reform, the passage of bank reform, the President’s Afghanistan policy, the war in Iraq, immigration reform and not allowing British Petroleum to clean up its own mess.

People with disabilities should know that Jack, Alan and Patricia oppose the Americans with Disabilities Act, even though they could not discuss any of the titles in the law, nor could they discuss the reasons the law was passed. None of them had read the law. If you oppose legislation, you should have solid reasons for opposing it.

Not one of them knew anything about assistive technology. They opposed tax credits to companies who employ people with disabilities.

When I asked all three, “What would be the economic consequences of a Wall Street failure?”

Jack, a lawyer, said cynically, “There would be many, many fewer super rich people in the world.”

Restaurant manager Patricia said, “While massive unemployment would have resulted, the country would survive.”

Software distributor Alan said, “Life is not a bed of roses.” He added, “Let’s face it. Voters were stupid in 2004 to elect George Bush. The economic crisis is the result of their votes.”

There was no remorse in their voices as they criticize the president and the Democrats for saving the U.S. auto industry. They believe bad decisions by chief executivess have bad consequences. They believe the U.S. auto industry will fail and that the bailout money is a band aid applied to a major wound.

They want BP to clean up the oil spill and get the government out of the cleanup operations. Unanimously, they believe the government demanding that BP put aside $20 billion to help businesses in the gulf area is bad policy. Their solution is BP work out individual claims, even if the claims reach 100,000 plus. Patricia and Alan believe guilty BP officials should go to prison. Jack wants to learn if any BP official is guilty of wrong doing before commenting..

The three people want the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Japan, South Korea , Pakistan and more than 30 other countries. They believe we should not be involved in their internal struggles and bringing U.S. soldiers and materials will reduce federal spending dramatically.

I would like to see the U.S. pull out of Afghanistan. I do not believe our nation building policy will work.

On disability, they believe families should bear the financial responsibility, and other caring responsibilities .

They want Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Labor, Housing, Transportation, Education and Health and Human Services abolished. They also want their taxes reduced and an end to federal deficit spending.

They support mandatory term limits of 12 years for both Houses of Congress.

They oppose segregation but are willing to allow segregation to come back if local communities allow it.

They support Congressman Ron Paul’s (R-TX) assertion that Abraham Lincoln caused the Civil War.

When I asked the three people, “Can you trust businesses to police themselves when it comes to protecting the environment, manufacturing safe foods and other products, and to end employment discrimination?” The three said no. Then Jack added, “Irate public opinion always brings businesses into line.”

“Really!” I said.

Even if Sarah Palin runs against him, they don’t want President Barack Obama to be re-elected. They voted for him in 2008.

When I asked, “Where is Palin’s intellectual strength?” Patricia pointed to Ronald Reagan and George Bush Junior as two presidents without much of an intellect who were successful.

The three of them believe the Tea partiers are extreme right wing conservatives who lack cohesiveness and are leaderless.

I do not understand independents. While I support their concerns about having over bloated levels of government. they do not offer remedies to correct wrongs caused by business and an ineffective government. They certainly do not see any evil when businesses willfully break the law, If they don’t see any evil, does it mean they believe no one does any evil? If the political future of this country is in the votes of independents, then what is our future?

By John M. Williams
Watching chief executive officers testify before Congressional committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate can be nauseating and informative. It is nauseating to watch people from Goldman Sachs, British Petroleum, Transocean, Halliburton and Massey Energy place the blame for catastrophic failures on others. Their appearances should be mandatory viewing in classrooms (fifth grade through graduate school) across the country. Viewers could see that these titans of industry, idolatrized by conservative Republicans, are liars, cowards, bullies and conceited. Viewers would learn that these CEOs believe they are above the law.
One reason CEOs blame others for mistakes is they have been lawyered. They have been warned that if they accept responsibility for decisions that cause recessions, accidents and deaths they can be held liable and suffer the consequences – jail time. Obviously they never heard the lines – don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.
By blaming someone else for their mistakes, CEOs show they are cowards, and they are not to be envied. By lying they show they can’t be trusted. By forcing people to work in hazardous environments, they reveal that they are bullies. They show they are conceited by double talking – avoiding answering questions.
Profits determine the survival of businesses. Excessive profits drive CEOs and their boards to take dangerous risks without concern for the consequences – even if it ruins peoples’ lives. Unchecked businesses have always operated that way. And politicians have always supported them, which is why politicians, mostly Republicans, are silent about condemning Wall Street for the recession, BP and others for the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Massey Energy for the deaths of 30 miners, and for other calamities. Silence can be interpreted as consent.
Federal employees, particularly people appointed by former President George Bush, will undoubtedly say “I’m not responsible for not regulating Wall Street; for regulating mines; and for regulating the oil industry.” They will not be punished for the disasters they helped cause by their willful decisions not to regulate. They knew their positions would protect them.
Some years ago, seven CEOs from the tobacco industry under oath before a Congressional committee swore that tobacco was not addictive despite knowing evidence to the contrary. None of them were cited for perjury. They believed they were above the law. They showed their contempt for truth because they knew the government would not prosecute them. They set the example for future CEOs to follow.
Until we start sending business leaders and their supporters to prison for crimes, businesses will continue to operate unchecked and disasters will continue to happen and lives will continue to be ruined. And culprits will continue to blame others.

By John M. Williams

Since my last blog, I have been dismayed by the actions of conservatives worldwide. In fact, I am more than dismayed. I have been angry and puzzled, but not surprised, by their actions.
I am a Catholic. I was an altar boy for 12 years. During my years as an altar boy, I was good friends with at least a dozen priests, maybe even more. I went to movies, baseball games, Broadway plays, dinner, and played games with them. I showered with them. Never did anyone of these priests make any sexual offer or advances to me.
I have been a strong supporter on transparency by the pastors, bishops, cardinals and the papacy when it comes to crimes committed by clergy, especially sexual abuse crimes. The church’s reluctance to deal honestly and openly on this matter fiercely irritates me. The conservative approach to hide the crimes, shield the perpetrators and ignore the required healing among the victims tells me the leaders do not understand the seriousness of the crime and the depth of the wounds. Had the priests who covered up these crimes been parents, they would have understood the pain the parents felt when they learned of the crime against their children and their hunger for justice.
Sexual abuse is a serious crime. Church leaders, who ignored the crime and protected the criminal, should be prosecuted. To protect the criminals is being anti-Christian. The Catholic Church needs enlightened leaders and not conservative leaders who can’t accept the idea that clergy are not above the law when they break it. By hiding crimes, conservative Church leaders drive people away from the Church. What are they thinking? They are not. As a result, the Catholic Church has lost moral authority that it may never recover.
Political Woes
The Republican controlled Arizona state legislature passed laws that allow police to stop people they suspect of being illegal aliens and asked them for identification that shows they are here legally. Other Arizona laws require presidential candidates running in 2012 to show a U.S. birth certificate and denying health care to poor children.
Such craziness is not limited to Arizona. Georgia Republican legislators are considering passing a law requiring presidential candidates to show their U.S. birthdates. A Texas Republican legislator wants to introduce legislation also allowing police to stop anyone they suspect of being here illegally and demand they show they are here legally.
The Arizona alien legislation has produced national protests from Hispanics, civil rights groups, legislators and church groups. It should. The state should be boycotted. Arizonians supporting the legislation should turn their anger on the businesses employing illegal aliens for their cheap labor, as well as their neighbors and themselves, if they use drugs.
In April, Virginia Republican governor Bob McDonnell honored confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War but omitting that slavery was a major cause of the war. His omission produced a major backlash and the governor had to come out and apologize for the omission.
The passed and proposed legislation and proclamation mentioned above are racist. Pale, stale female and male conservatives are showing their prejudices against non-Caucasians. They probably yearn for the time when Caucasians dominated every sector of American life. Extreme far-right wing Conservatives should read U.S. history. If they did they would know that Spaniards and Africans played a significant role in building America. Extreme far-right wing Conservatives have to accept a changing world or leave the country. They are not Americans.

By John M. Williams
The Democrats won a major political victory when the majority of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate voted for health care reform last week. It should be noted that not a single Republican in the House and Senate voted yes, therefore proving it is the party of no.
I watched President Barack Obama sign the bill into law. Contrary to the Republicans’ predictions doomsday did not happen during or after the bill became law. Nor will doomsday happen as the law takes effect now and in the coming years.
The legislative victory shows the Democrats truly care about ensuring that financial barriers and destructive insurance policies that prevented people from having access to quality healthcare soon will no longer occur.
The victory shows that Democrats are truly a party that believes that the federal government has a constructive role in the lives of people.
The victory shows that the nation is ready for a change which is why most voters pulled the Obama/Biden lever in November 2008.
The victory shows that the will of the people can triumph over money politics.
The victory shows that people who voted yes knew it was the right decision.
The real winners of the vote are the American people. Why? Because 30 million more people will have access to health insurance. Because bankruptcies resulting from high medical costs will decrease. Because more people will have greater access to quality healthcare. Because the law presents the people the opportunity to become a healthier nation. There are other benefits.
The victory reveals losers. The losers are the Republican Party and the haters who supported the deceit and lies the opponents of healthcare reform espoused hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month for more than a year.
History tells us that when people supporting unpopular causes can’t win their arguments peacefully then they resort to threats and then random acts of violence that includes property destruction, bodily harm and then deaths. We saw these actions before, during and after the civil war. We saw them every time civil rights legislation was debated, passed and implemented. We are experiencing some of these conditions now in the aftermath of passing healthcare reform. Unless the rhetoric is cooled and the truth is told, people may die. Most probably people on the right will originate the violence.
Send any comments to jwilliams@atechnews.com.

By John M. Williams

Except for presidential leadership, this country’s Republican Party and the business community are leaderless and visionless, and as a result the country is decaying from within. As a result, a weakened federal government, a weaken military, and a fragile economy threaten the standard of living for people on main street, but not Wall Street.
Politically, Americans need to think and act like intelligent, responsible adults. We start by admitting that our federal government is underfunded and economic growth will not eliminate the ballooning trillions in deficit spending. Responsible people know we must raise taxes to reduce the deficit and to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who among the Democrats and Republicans has the courage to be honest with the American people and tell them, ‘We need to increase your taxes to provide you the services you need to live free.”
We have political cowards running the country and a brain dead American public who believes the federal government can operate forever on deficits. The American public’s naive attitude about paying taxes can be summed up in this phrase: “Don’t tax me. Don’t tax him. Tax that fellow behind that tree.”
To convince the country that we need to raise taxes, renowned business leaders – Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Paul Volker –should be the point men selling the tax increase. Their words have value. And they can’t be cowered by the opposition.
It would be fun to watch the arguments offered by the opposition to tax increases crumble, crumble, and crumble as they battled Gates, Buffet and Volker on the merits. The fiction espoused by the opposition could result in best selling novels. Fiction writers could earn millions writing the speeches and developing charts. To the opposition truth would become non-essential, as it has in the war for healthcare reform.
If the country is to survive, we need tax reform. The American people must decide what services they want from the federal government and what they will pay. Do they want a strong economy? If they do they have to have a balanced budget. This means they have to pay enough taxes to balance the federal budget.
If they want a strong military, they have to pay taxes.
If they want a national transportation policy that benefits commerce and themselves they have to pay taxes.
If they want consumer product safety they have to pay taxes.
If they want safe medicines, they have to pay.
If they want safe drinking water, clean air to breathe, clean land to walk on, they have to pay taxes.
If they want air safety, they have to pay taxes.
If they want the U.S. to lead in research and job development they have to pay taxes.
If they want to be protected against terrorist they have to pay taxes. \
If they want children with disabilities to be educated they have to pay taxes.
If they want to eat safe meat and other foods, they have to pay taxes.
If they want to see a stronger economy that has banks lending more, then the federal government must balance its budget. This means they have to pay taxes.

By John M. Williams
The health care summit between the Democrats led by President Barack Obama and the Republicans led by Senator Mitch McConnel (R-KY) and John Boehmer (R-OH) showed sharp ideological differences between the parties. The chasm is so deep that political reconciliation on healthcare legislation is not possible.
The forum showed that President Obama has mastered the issues surrounding health care and can speak authoritatively on the contents of the bills passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate and the programs put forth by the Republicans.
The president was clearly the dominant political leader in the meeting. He called senators and congressman by their first names. He was a listener, a compromiser and a stern teacher. He used the bully pulpit to chastise Republicans when they spoke erroneously, and they frequently spoke erroneously.
The health care system in this country is hemorrhaging. Sometimes it is so bad that people die or become permanently disabled. It is so expensive that it is one of the major causes of bankruptcy. Too often, people don’t see a doctor because they can’t afford it. As a result, any sickness they have becomes worse.
The president and his party want to apply a tourniquet, stitching and other procedures to stop the hemorrhaging. The Republicans want to apply hydrogen peroxide and a band aid. Their philosophy is “if people can’t afford health care, let them pay the consequences.” They preach this philosophy while using taxpayers’ money to buy healthcare for themselves.
The Republicans offer tort reform, medical savings accounts, portability and buying insurance across state lines as their major ideas to curbing escalating health costs. These ideas should be included in the final bill as part of a comprehensive plan.
During the six hour meeting, the Republicans were echoing and echoing and echoing this message: “The American people want us to scrap this bill and start all over.” I don’t and neither do any person I know who wants the program scrapped and have Congress all over.
Suppose the program was started again. How would the results be different? If the Republicans did not get their way, they would use every procedural trick to stall progress. They would make sure that a bill was not passed this year.
The Republicans say the health care bill passed by a democratically controlled Congress is a deficit balloon. Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the Republicans have not been right on the budget yet. Deficits have not concerned them when a Republican has been president. Why should their history change?
Most Democrats had a tragic story to tell about the personal devastating impact healthcare battles have had on peoples’ lives and their families. The Republicans would have none of that. No bleeding hearts from them. They were there to protect the status quo of insurance providers.
Universal healthcare for all Americans is a goal for the Democrats. They want to add at least 30 million people to health insurance rolls. The Republicans want to add three million. Who cares more about the most people? Who cares more about reducing the financial burdens of healthcare on more people? Who cares more about the pocketbooks of the middle class? The Democrats care more.
The Democrats must past health care reform before the Easter recess.
Send any comments to jwilliams@atechnews.com.

By John M. Williams

The press’s coverage of the health care battle has been so devoid of thoughtful questions when it comes to politicians that I wonder whether reporters and moderators are thinking or whether they are afraid to ask tough questions.
Making healthcare affordable, portable and universal are absolutely necessary goals to containing escalating medical costs and strengthening our economy. And raising our standard of living. Most of the press recognizes these dire conditions challenging the country.
For months and months, I have heard Republican politicians tear down the health care systems in Canada, Britain and Germany. The medical systems in these countries have been crucified by Republicans for rationing healthcare. And yet, I have never heard a reporter or moderator ask a politician: “Senator or Congressman, have you had any experience or have you ever received any medical care from any of these countries?”
If the answer is yes then you have to ask, “What was your experience? What was it a good experience? Was it unpleasant?”
I am guessing they will say, “I have never had any experience with medical care in those countries?”
If they have not had any experience then how can they call it awful? They are making negative comments on an area they do not know anything about. They should be questioned about their knowledge of the healthcare delivery systems in these countries.
A follow up question to the politician is, “Would you say that the Canadians, English and Germans love freedom and Democracy and despise tyranny?”
If the answer is the Canadians, English and Germans love freedom and Democracy and oppose tyranny, “Then why aren’t they uprising against their socialized medicine programs?”
Why aren’t they upset because a government bureaucrat is working with them and their doctor? Where is the proof from politicians that the private sector offers better medical services than the public sector?
I know people from Canada, England, Germany, Italy and Germany and they do not want the American style healthcare system in their countries. In their countries, people aren’t denied healthcare based on a pre-existing condition. In their countries, people do not have to make a choice between medicine and other life essentials. In their countries, the price of medical care is not capped. In their countries, while you have to wait to see a specialist, we have to wait here to see a specialist. While medical services in their countries may be rationed, we ration medical care hourly here.
Research has shown that 45,000 people die annually in this country because they lack health insurance. If this callousness is not rationing, cruel and murder, then what is?
Reporters and moderators should be grilling CEOs of health insurance companies on why they allow people to die because of lack of insurance, while they have theirs?
Governments should be investigating whether harmful decisions not to insure people who die because of lack of medical treatment constitute murder. If I knowingly hit someone while driving my car and drive away and that person dies, I can be charged with causing that person’s death. On the other hand, if I work for an insurance company and I refuse to cover the medical treatment of a person, or persons, whose life depends on it and the person dies, my company and I profit, and I am not culpable. I am rewarded. Why?
Republicans are excellent at following the party line. They say they do not want socialized medicine, and so I am waiting to hear a reporter ask, “Then why not do away with Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA healthcare?”
A follow up question is, “What would you replace these programs with?”
When I hear politicians say a government bureaucrat should not get between a patient and his doctor, I am waiting to hear this question, “A private sector bureaucrat gets between a doctor and his patient now, and the bureaucrat is concerned not with the health of the patient but with saving money. Why do you want to perpetuate a system of rationing that often denies people medical care and maybe even kills them? A government bureaucrat would probably be more concerned about care then money. Therefore, who is providing the better service?”
Republicans are crying because the Democrats may use the 51 vote majority to pass healthcare reform. They need to be asked, “Why was it okay for Republicans to use 51 votes (reconciliation) to pass tax breaks for the rich and Medicare but not okay for Democrats to use the same process to pass healthcare reform.
When reporters and moderators fail to probe for answers they are not doing their jobs. They are not serving their communities. Rather, they are serving the politicians who are serving the private sector whose only goal is to make all the money they can, even when their policies maim, disabled and kill people.

1922-2099
By John M. Williams
Even though he has only been dead a few days, the late Senator Edward Moore Kennedy is all ready a legend. He had that rarest distinction of achieving legend status before his death. Like his brothers Joe Junior, John and Robert, Senator Kennedy’s status will grow and grow in death to well deserved gargantuan .heights,

Ted Kennedy was n unabashed liberal. He was a champion of civil rights, of disability rights, of job rights, of health care rights, of environmental rights, of women’s rights, and of education reform.

Ted Kennedy embraced the three p’s in life. He was a patriarch, patriot and politician-statesman. He excelled at all three.

As a patriarch he was a father to his children and his deceased brothers’ children,

As a patriot, he was a supporter of free speech and his vote against going to war against Iraq was correct and he never waffled on it.

As a politician/statesman, his legislative accomplishments and his ability to be bi-partisan are well documented.

Ted Kennedy was also a humanitarian who saw the federal government as a social instrument and force for positive change. He was right. He viewed the federal government as embracing all Americans and ensuring that every citizen had both equal protections under the law and was given an equal opportunity to succeed.

Ted Kennedy believed in capitalism that was regulated. He saw the harm perpetuated by unbridled capitalism and sought to rein it in through federal regulation and legislation. He was right…
Ted Kennedy’s opponents support a different view of the role of the federal government in the lives of Americans. They want an unbridled capitalism that decries responsibilities. The only times Kennedy’s former opponents want the federal government involved is when business is being awarded huge federal contacts (taxpayers’ money) with few or no restrictions. They are wrong.

I have met Ted Kennedy many times over the 40 years I have worked in the Washington, DC area. Anyone who worked on civil rights issues, disability issues, education issues and health issues was bound to meet him. He was always courteous and welcoming. He was ready to answer questions. He was genuinely committed to advancing opportunities for people with disabilities.

Ted Kennedy, I believe, was the political conscience of his opponents. He was also the political conscience of the country. .

Unfortunately, I do not have any Ted Kennedy stories to relate. I do recall meeting him and his former wife Joan at an Italian restaurant The Roma, in 1976 in Washington, DC. I said hello. We shook hands, but we did not have any conversation.

For decades, whenever I have thought of Ted Kennedy, I have thought of these words associated with the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” from The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus.

When writing The New Colossus I would like to think that Emma Lazarus had a dream about Ted Kennedy when writing those lines.

Ted Kennedy dedicated his life to seeing to it that the poor were fed, that the uneducated were educated, that healthcare was available to everyone, that people earned a livable wage, that unjust wars were stopped and that people with disabilities were assimilated into society.

As a visionary, Ted Kennedy saw his country as a true melting pot. Along with this melting pot Kennedy saw were the riches and strengths that come from assimilating diverse cultures into one nation.

It’s true that Ted Kennedy had flaws. There was no doubt that Ted Kennedy was a giant among his peers. Americans have lost one of its strongest democratic voices.

John Williams has been writing about disability issues since 1978. He can be reached at jmmaw@verizon.net. His web site is www.atechnews.com. .