The Iowa caucus results didn’t completely surprise me, but I was a little shocked at how badly Dean performed. The more I observe him, the more doubts I have. Did anyone see the speech he gave last night? It was a geography lesson and not much else. We know where the primaries are, Howard. How about some substance? Kerry and Edwards delivered solid speeches outlining their ideas and policies. Dean screamed like a football coach at a pep rally.
I had a friend review my book manuscript and she gave me some great feedback. It’s a relief to know that this story is interesting to someone else besides me.

Looks like Dean is in for a real nail-biter in Iowa. As one commentator has said (can’t remember who), it’s probably a good thing that the race has tightened up. It means that all of the major candidates are still being scrutinized and considered. This is, after all, the race for the Presidential nomination and nothing should be easy. At the same time, the media needs to tone down the make-or-break histrionics. The Iowa caucus has a terrible record when it comes to predicting the eventual nominee. I have a feeling that the race won’t start to shake out until mid-February at the earliest. I’ll be curious to see if Kerry and Edwards can build some momentum. Now that would be an interesting ticket.
I’m off tomorrow because of the MLK holiday. I don’t have any solid plans for the day, but it’s just nice to know that I have some extra free time. I still haven’t seen a couple of the smaller films that were released over the holidays, like House of Sand and Fog.

This article discusses a Dutch sex worker who services men with cognitive disabilities such as Down’s Syndrome. I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m glad this individual recognizes that people with disabilities have sexual desires, but the article makes it sound like some of her clients are so severely disabled that they can’t express any meaningful form of consent. That concerns me. I think consent is a critical aspect of any sexual act. And what if the sex worker was a man and the clients were women? Would that change the dynamics of this transaction?
I’m also a little troubled by this quote from the article:
Obviously, only a small minority of the disabled can find suitable [sexual] partners. The others lack social skills, lack access to potential partners, aren’t intelligent enough to initiate or maintain a relationship, are physically disfigured, or cannot move. Hence the need for services of prostitutes.
Hell, lots of people without disabilities lack social skills and they still seem to find sexual partners. Having a disability shouldn’t automatically imply the need for a prostitute. I don’t have a problem with prostitution per se, but sex is just as much about intimacy as physical release. This article seems to imply that people with disabilities aren’t capable of experiencing intimacy.
Then again, what the hell do I know? The way my own love life has been stagnating, in another year or two I may be planning an extended vacation to Amsterdam.

Ugh. There are some days when the universe says to itself, “I’m bored. I know, let’s fuck with Mark.” Minor annoyances have been piling up in my life, both work-related and personal. Nothing serious, but enough to give me a headache. But I’m looking forward to tomorrow. I’m speaking to a class of freshmen in a social justice class at Hamline University about my personal experiences with disability. A colleague of mine teaches the class and issued the invitation to me and a few other fellow gimps. She said that if we really want to grab their attention, just talk about sex. So I have to figure out a way to weave sex into the discussion. That shouldn’t be too difficult. Heh.
Here’s yet another story about advances in brain-computer interfaces. This technology can’t come soon enough for me. My neck is killing me from all the typing I do.

Yesterday’s NY Times had a great editorial about the Tennessee v. Lane case, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow. Per the Respondent’s (Lane’s) brief, the facts are as follows:
Respondents George Lane and Beverly Jones have paraplegia and use wheelchairs to ambulate. Pet. App. 13. In 1996, petitioner charged Lane with two misdemeanor offenses and summoned him to appear in the Polk County Courthouse to answer the charges. Id. at 15-16. All court proceedings in that courthouse take place on the second floor of a building that, at that time, had no elevator. At his first appearance, Lane crawled up two flights of stairs to get to the courtroom. On his second visit, he was arrested after he “sent word to the court that he would not crawl to the courtroom again” and further declined to be carried by officers. Id. at 15. The court conducted subsequent proceedings with Lane waiting on the ground floor while his attorney shuttled back and forth between Lane and the second-floor courtroom.

Beverly Jones, another party to the case, is a court reporter who uses a wheelchair. She has been forced to decline several job assignments because many of Tennessee’s courthouses are inaccessible. Lane and Jones sued the State of Tennessee for failing to comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title II requires public services and programs to be accessible to people with disabilities.
Tennessee is arguing that it cannot be sued under the ADA because the 11th Amendment of the Constitution grants it immunity from such suits. Once an obscure and often-ignored Constitutional provision, the 11th Amendment has become the weapon of choice for states’ rights advocates and so-called federalists determined to strike down what they deem as intrusive and burdensome federal laws. This tactic has met with much success in the Supreme Court. In a previous Supreme Court decision, Alabama v. Garrett, the Court ruled that state employees cannot sue the state under another provision of the ADA, Title I. States are also protected from suits under other federal anti-discrimination and environmental laws.
When I was a year or so out of law school, i interviewed for a judicial clerkship position in this little town called Mora, Minnesota. When I got to the interview, I discovered that the courtroom was inaccessible. The judge still interviewed me, but he and I both knew I wasn’t getting the job. I did get another clerkship a couple months later, but what if I lived in Mora and wanted apply for a marriage certificate? What if I was being sued? What if I was called for jury duty?
What if I wanted to vote?
In 2004, people with disabilities shouldn’t have to be litigating issues of access anymore. We shouldn’t have to keep explaining to courts how decades of discrimination and bias made a federal law like the ADA necessary. We shouldn’t have to plead for the right to be allowed into a courtroom without crawling up the steps. We shouldn’t have to ask for the opportunity to enjoy the liberties, both trivial and profound, that everyone else takes for granted.
But we do have to ask. And sometimes it makes me want to weep.