Apt. 11D

Question of the Day

What TV shows have you been watching?

TV Treats

I'm in a good mood. I'm in a bra-matches-the-panties-matches-the-shirt sort of good mood, if you know what I mean.

OK, maybe half of my readers got that reference. The other half got a cheap thrill. Uh, yeah. What I meant was that things are going smoothly here. Got the kids off to school on time and without a scream. Got in a run around the perfectly circular pond with the power walking seniors. Then breakfast on the porch with my new print edition of the Times.

The stupid Times Select policy didn't push me into getting home delivery. I was planning on doing it anyway, because I can read print faster than online text and because I would rather read on the porch than in the office. So, I read the top secret, unbloggable op-eds, had a shower, and here we are.

It's Friday, so let's talk TV. Poo-pooh to Tom DeLay, Karen Hughes, and Judith Miller and other political topics of the day. What's worth watching this fall?

We don't answer the phone during Lost and House -- the two best shows on TV. Hugh Laurie is still fantastic as the curmudgeonly forensic doctor. And Lost has a plane full of interesting characters, as well as the scary non-plane characters like the Carpenters-loving Desmond in the hole.

On Sunday nights, we watch Rome, which is all blood and orgies -- a winning combination.

I will watch the occasional reality show. We watch Survivor, of course, because of all the little life lessons that they like to throw out. For example, "Don't dump the old people, because they bring wisdom. A team full of youngsters is bound to have a hormone induced meltdown." Another favorite is "Don't underestimate the girls with the fake boobs. They do very well in the swimming events. Buoyant."

Is ER still on? Why is that show still on? Who is watching it? The same sad person who still watches Trading Spaces?

And I've been sampling the new Fall line-up. I'm liking Kitchen Confidential. It's not like the book -- the lead character doesn't chain smoke or head off to a methadone clinic after lunch service. Still it's okay. It also has the advantage of including Zander from Buffy is in the cast. Alyson Hannigan, also an ex-Scooby, is on a sitcom on CBS at the same time. You can hit mute and flip back and forth between the two channels remembering the old days.

You're Cramping My Style, Dude

That G-D D-mned Times Select! Rude gesture! Rude gesture!

The Times's new policy of holding back certain columns from the freeloading Internet hoards is interfering with my God given right to blog about the Times op-ed writers. David Brooks and Maureen Dowd need me. They do. We bloggers bring them readers, and they are such yummy blog fodder.

You mean I should PAY for the paper? No way, dude.

And then I wanted to blog about an Atlantic Monthly Review of Our Bodies, Ourselves, which the reviewer says is hopelessly dated. Our Bodies states that "the main reason that women try to "improve our appearance' is to attract and win the approval of men." Nonsense says the reviewer. Women get fake boobs to impress other women.

There were other juicy points in the review that would have made a fun blog post, but Atlantic Monthly only lets their subscribers read the whole article on line. Now, I have the magazine in front of me. Why would I need to look at it on-line, as well, except to spread the word to others?

This is foolish, foolish policy, Mainstream Media. 'Ya listening to me? You need the online buzz to drive readership. Online buzz has made the editorial writers into stars. Even if all readers aren't paying, it is still readership which is means that you can charge advertisers more. You might make me pay $4 a week for my subscription, but you lost thousands of other readers and then millions of advertising bucks.

It's bad business to restrict online access to printed material. The Times stock tanked this week partially as a result of this new policy.

And the Dude says that it is totally fascist.

Not a Neat and Tidy World

When I wrote about my son's disability yesterday, I didn't mean to write a "poor me" post. I adore my kid so much that it is not really that hard to take him to his therapy or to bust the bureaucracy. And I know that I'm lucky that his disability can be managed, that we are seeing progress, and that he has a future full of promise. We really don't have it so bad.

My point for getting all the other bloggers together yesterday was to tell folks that there are kids out there who have to work harder than others. They have to learn to overcome obstacles in order to do the basic things that we all take for granted -- talking (in our case), running, coloring, sitting, and singing. And they are still great kids. Children with disabilities are often pushed into the corners of society and disappear behind institutional walls and private homes. Every once in a while, they have to say "we are here. we are here. we are here."

I think it is also important to understand the parents better. On top of the bureaucracy busting, therapy schedules, and screaming fits, parents of disabled kids also have to deal with the frowns of neighbors who don't understand why little Janey has knocked over a pile of cans in the supermarket. In the mad scramble for limited education funds, they have to feel guilty for taking resources away from other children. In a world that increasingly treasures the neat and the tidy, they live in a world that is anything but that.

We received a lot of traffic yesterday, but I could have done a better job pulling people into this project. Still, those that participated excelled at their job -- they wrote about the fear, the worry, the work, the politics, and the love. It's the collective stories that are important here.

The blogosphere excels at telling the personal story. Collecting these stories together can be as effective politically as randomized survey results or regressional analysis.

If you are late to this project and wish to contribute, send me a link and I'll post it.

September 26th: Blogging For Kids With Disabilities

We're blogging about nothing but kids with disabilities today. Blog about it, and I will link to you. (Please e-mail me and the other bloggers in this group with the link.)

[UPDATE: This is my summary of yesterday's event.

My two posts.

Sam Crane starts off the day talking about the money problem. Sam says, In school districts all around the country, SPED spending is increasing and it is taking funds away from regular ed, creating all sorts of bad feelings and underfunded programs all around. He argues that special education money should come from a different pot from regular education and the federal government should do a larger share.

Jeannette writes a lovely post about how she's dealing with her the three month son's deafness.

Liz Ditz is blogging her heart out about her pet topic, dyslexia.

Sarah Knipper Ramowski of the Human Services Research Institute points me to some excellent resources that are aimed at helping parents navigate the system. Thanks, Sarah!

Elisabeth Carnell writes about her beautiful daughter with ADHD.

Yay! I roped in Flea and she tells us about the wonders of Ritalin, moshing in the salad bar, and ham flavored jello.

Mrs. Coulter says that you never know if your child will become disabled, so it is in everyone's interest to fund it properly. She also thinks that the federal government should play a larger role in order to divert the tug of war for limited resources between regular parents and the special education parents.

Lisa Fischler puts herself in the shoes of her students.

Ancarett's fairy-daughter writes about being autistic and her love of garlic cheese bread.

Camera Obscura explains how a program called "First Steps" was so helpful for her autistic and how it is endangered of being cut by the state.

Liz from Blogging Baby writes about our project and her son with Asperger's Syndrome.

Mrs. Darling writes a very emotional post about her daughter's disabilities. Read with a tissue.

Kelly tells the story of her daughter, who has a rare form of epilepsy. This is her latest post about coming to terms with her daughter's mental retardation.

Who Pays?

The recommended treatment for children with apraxia is five days of speech therapy, 1/2 an hour per day. The speech therapist must drill the child on their sounds and strengthen the muscles of the mouth by tooting horns and blowing bubbles.

I'm not a hundred percent gung-ho therapy person, but at the same time, I am not willing to gamble with my kid's future. If the experts recommend all that therapy, then we'll do it, but exercising some common sense over the process. When therapy starts to interfere with the social development of the kid or to make the entire family crazy, then it is time to step back a bit.

Getting services for children with disabilities is expensive business. Ian's speech therapy alone would cost $500 per week. Other kids also need therapy for their fine and gross motor skills. Who pays for all this help?

No Words

My son is Ian is three and has severe verbal apraxia. Until about a month ago, he said basically nothing. On his third birthday, he couldn't pronounce his own name properly. He just called himself "eee".

Apraxia is a short circuit between the brain and the mouth that affects all motor activities, including speech. Ian also can't blow bubbles or candles on a cake. We had to teach him how to kiss. Even smiling was difficult. The bottom part of his face is a foreign land, and Ian doesn't have a passport.

The Internet and Activism

The Internet is an enormously powerful tool for politics.  It has the potential to connect up people with unique views spread out over the country.  Ideas and interests that were divided up by location can be united via a cable modem.  It also has the potential to bring in new voices into politics through the ease and low cost of the communication.  There are a thousands new ways to organize and protest --blogs, listservs, on-line petitions, pay pal donation sites, congressional e-mail.

But not much has happened on that front.  Examples of successful activism engineered through the blogs are few and far between. 

Glenn Reynolds and NZ Bear are working to stamp out congressional pork.  She smiles.  That's nice, guys.  Good luck with that.  When you're done, please stop global warming, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the mean girls in eighth grade. 

Their intentions are admirable.  I guess Reynolds got all fired up about pork after Tierney wrote an op-ed on the subject a few weeks ago.  Their intentions are admirable, but, but, but... Everybody hates other people's pork, but they sure love their own.  Senator Pork got elected by his home district because he put in a nice rec center in their town and built that army post that employs just about everybody.  Because congress is elected by the voters in the home towns and not by their party, then it is absolutely in the interest of every congressman to keep adding on fluff to every major bill and to get the most for their constituency.  (Dan Drezner channels Jack Nicholson and responds to Reynolds)

Even though Reynolds is misguided, I do like a nice futile project and am keeping an eye on how this all works out. 

Speaking of yelling into the wind, I am going to blog on Monday on the topic of Special Education.  I've got a little group of other bloggers also blogging on this topic.  Let's see how our minor effort at internet activism works out.

Question of the Day

About ten years ago, I was sitting in a coffee shop with graduate student friends.  One was black and one was Latina.  As we sipped coffee,  the two friends started talking about a white guy's research on minority populations.  I was quiet, just listening to them, and then they said, "white guys should not be talking about race."  They said it was a knowing smile as if people said this quite often.

I was shocked.  Did this include open minded types like myself?  Why would they want to limit the number of voices who agreed with them?  Were they upset that whites were taking over another academic discipline?  Or did they think we just get it all wrong?

A couple of months ago, Katha Pollitt pointed out the problems with men talking about feminism.  She said that it always comes out a bit icky when men talk about abortion.

My question of the day.  Can men talk about feminism? 

Spreading Love

Dan Drezner has a great, link-filled post rounding up the conservative blogosphere's recent criticism of the administration.