Leaving Treadmarkz Across the Universe

by Treadmarkz

(I wrote this commentary just before Super Tuesday, but the facts remain the same and hold true)

As I write this, Super Tuesday is one week away and I am doing some final “soul-searching” while researching the candidates. Beginning with the leading Democrats, I noticed something. Each candidate has a drop-down menu titled “Issues” on their homepages. Though Clinton’s covers health care, and she clearly makes it a high priority, nowhere on her list do I see anything about the disabled. Barack Obama has a similar drop-down list and “Disabilities” is the second item on the list. Check out Obama’s campaign video here.
Granted there are much bigger issues to tackle in ‘08. I understand that. The war and the economy are big problems that the new President will need to work hard to sort out, and it is important to know who we want leading us in these endeavors for the next four years. However it bothers me that even though Republicans John McCain, Mitt Romney and Michael Huckabee all have a detailed section on health care, none approach the subject of the disabled, and even health care seems to be slipping down the ladder of importance for these GOP candidates.

The internet is where the candidates should be reaching out to the masses with their entire message. So if the disabled are part of the agendas of these candidates, where is the proof? Health care and Social Security is going to be a big issue for all of us one day. For some it already is. Some disabled people are completely covered by Social Security and hope to remain so. But Obama tackles issues that are the keys to keeping disabled people thriving, successful members of society such as education and employment for the disabled, discrimination against the disabled (contrary to my experience, it IS out there), and independent living.
Give it some thought before you cast your vote on Super Tuesday and in November!

I’m Treadmarkz and I approve this unbiased, factual message.

by Treadmarkz

Ever since the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, there has been occasional debate over the installation of ramps in buildings that are considered to be of “Historic” significance. I majored in history in college so I have a strong feeling about altering historic sites, to make it suitable for the modern age. But I am also in a wheelchair. There are many places that I would love to visit, to commune with the past. But in order to do so, I might have to get out of my wheelchair and have a couple of friends drag my chair up the steps while I drag myself up to the top. Would I rather do that than have the place altered? I thought so, but then there are plenty of historic sites that have had additions made that were not originally there. Electric lights (the Alamo), or roads and parking lots so people can access them by car (Stonehenge). And let’s not forget the gift shops that usually carve out their own little niche nearby or inside the site itself, making it impossible to forget that this place was once the site of a future-changing event, but is now little more than a commercial undertaking. If these places, which are not only historic but in the case of Stonehenge, sacred, can be sullied by modernity in these ways without a second thought, then what is wrong with putting in a ramp in front of a building?