Blogger's Note: Correction to my last blog entry. Oscar Pistorius was not the only paralympic athelete to be in London's Olympics this year. Meet Natalia Partka.
I wanted to start by saying thank you to everyone who commented on the last blog entry. The stories and positive emotion behind universally designed opportunities melted my heart and brought back many memories. The names may be different but the heart of the matter is united.
As I enjoy the lull in Olympics coverage I was very disheartened to learn that we as a society may not have made the advances in the world of inclusion and universal design as originally hoped. Over the summer I made light hearted comments when people would bring their children to our summer program that they did not have to look for the back door, our students are welcomed through the front door. You see, in the history of special education those students with disabilities found themselves either going in to school through a separate entrance or being educated in rooms which were in the far reaches of the school community. I still remember fellow students in 8th grade going to the trailer during certain classes (yet at the time I didn't know where they went or why).
What are we as a nation saying to our atheletes and children when they just finished watching non-stop coverage of the Olympics on NBC and they find out that the "other" Olympics are not on TV in the United States, let me clarify they are on for 1 hour a day. These athletes worked just as hard and have stories which are just as heart wrenching and empowering as those we saw each night on television. I write this in hopes that television executives learn to take a similar approach to ours when it comes to programming for children with special needs. If 20% of America has a diagnosed disability than 20% of your organization's programs should be made available to those with disabilities, if you don't have the capacity to make 100% of your programs available to everyone. In the case of the Paralympics, especially since they are taped, don't these athletes and families deserve the opportunity of being on 20% of the network programming schedule from August 29th through September 9th? I believe both the athletes leaving London and those traveling to London wish each other's athletic competitions to be on a stage for all the world to marvel. Instead we are left up to our eyeballs in fake reality TV shows. A very sad commentary for the mainstream that claims to be empathetic and accepting of minorities.
If you would like to follow the Paralympics with me go to: http://www2.teamusa.org/US-Paralympics.aspx
You can also follow them on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/usparalympics
Lets hope for more Paralympians breaking into the Olympics in Rio and appropriate television coverage in 2016.
Who am I and what do I do?
I am the father of three children, husband to a very special woman, and work as a Social entrepeneur supporting children with disabilities, the families who love them, and professionals who serve them.
I was born and raised in Southeastern CT (Hanover to be exact). Went to Hofstra University and graduated with an interest in developmental psychology. After interning and becoming a certified Special Education teacher I worked as a special education teacher, district behavior consultant, and assistive technology coordinator.
In July of 2009 I left teaching to reach for my dream to be an effective positive influence on familes, school districts, and service providers across the region, something not possible in the classroom.
Early in 2009 Synergy Center was created, followed by Sensations Charitable Foundation as vehicles to support families with social, emotional, and behavioral needs. Since their creation we have made a positive difference in the lives of more than 200 families, teachers, and service providers.
Working with Patch is an opportunity to continue our work and connect people to information and services their families need to be their best, yet may not find in through typical channels. As I say to people who either help our cause or come to us for support - Let's Play!
But with the advent of cable and direct T.V. and, therefore, public access channels the monopoly is gone. Anyone who thinks they can get the victims of American public education to watch something that is for the public good has ample opportunity to do so. It is all crap because, sadly, that is what most people want to watch.
TV (and by that I mean all commercial broadcasting, regardless of the delivery method) is what it is because it's been shaped to sell, sell, sell and nothing else. If everyone realized that television has no other purpose these days - none - the dumps would overflow with discarded babble-boxes. Broadcasters have been immensely successful at shaping the very argument to their own ends. As long as people are distracted by arguments about quality and ratings, they'll be missing the real point: that turning on a TV means "sell me something" and almost nothing else.
On the one hand you seem to agree with me while on the other you are hesitant to throw your own "babble-box" into the dump. Let go, Jim . . . You'll never be one of them.
This of course doesn't include the forced exposure of every restaurant and waiting area, so I get to see just enough to keep me appalled and let me know things haven't gotten magically better. As for the sell-you-crap aspect, it's part of my professional sphere. I've been observing and commenting on the consumerism tide for decades.
Even most documentaries seem to be watered down, vaguely accurate "re-enactments" interspersed with the same talking heads and about five minutes of actual content. I agree that having a TV doesn't put you in an unintelligent class... but it's no asset, either.
And Jim G., you are right. No one produces that sort of stuff anymore because the schools have so effectively stamped out most people's interest in improving their minds.
sorry, but even the spectacle of 'The Olympics 2012' evaded my interest, and is waning more and more as it become less and less a 'common persons' event. and much like the spectacle of funding that is spent on promotion and the controversy created during the runup to any 'contest', it reeks of special interests seeking to exemplify our differences, rather than our common strengths.
come on, turn on the TV/Movies subtitles, & enjoy the free spelling lessons! ;-))
I have observed that the anonymous poster who presents himself haughtily and with with the "knows all", "has done all" attitude usually suffers from extremely low self-esteem, almost to the point of self-loathing. The result is a plethora of comments intending to puff up the persona. The truths are; you probably own a TV, you are living in your mother's basement, and you never graduated from the public school you seem to loathe. As Jeff Brown so aptly advised, get over yourself! Everyone else has.
I'd agree with the latter. TV is indeed the manipulation of what seems like many 'special interests' but is really only one. However, the medium could be used for something other than showing everyone who's exactly like your neighbors.
2. Doctorate from a university 99%+ of the population has heard of. 3. Didn't go to public schools. 4. Haven't lived at home since before college graduation. 5. Didn't send my kids to public school, either.
either with those slim 'surveys' that pop up or the revenue generated from current programming. niche programs have their place, have targeted audiences and are often limited in scope. as every town has a story teller, with a different story, good ones, bad ones, any number of which will affect people with an interest and time to blow. like a market with goods to sell, there are hawkers and well trained psychological methods applied to gain sales and ultimately, profit, revenue and funding. even these blogs are mined for trends, topic, content and social parameters, that will be sold to the highest buyer for use in deciding what they will sell or do. what you are interested in is actually interesting to them, as they will then know what and how to 'satisfy your every need' LOL ;-))
You did exactly as I expected you to; listed your credentials. Truth is, they are probably false (although YOU are convinced) and bottom line: who cares? If you truly wished to be transparent here, you would use your real name and include a photo. But again, NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL STATS EXCEPT YOU. I have proven my point. I baited the line, you grabbed it and ran. All done here.
People who hold doctorates do not make such mistakes - oh, but it is an inside joke? Please share - I don't have a PhD from an internationally famous institute of higher learning - will a Masters plus a few credits count? Pretty please? Television is a tool that can be used for many purposes. One can watch news and documentaries. One can watch historic events. One can watch political conventions and other affairs of public interest. Your smug, self-serving pretensions of intellectual superiority over not having a television smacks of a person who has some esteem issues. Owning a television no more makes a person stupid than listening to public radio makes one smart.
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that "stluva50s" is raining down the bile on "anonymous posters"? Or is it funnier that others are backing him up?
an ideal program for an ideal world? it would be theoretically astounding content i'm sure. as each book transmits a unique signature of content, a TV or other media production has the same possibility of value, yet each is limited by the recipients desire to want it or find use of it. (do you read/buy books that don't interest you?) recognizing the achievement of others is as much a social strength as is performing any task that requires special talents, effort and a devotion to doing it. assigning one's limited time and strength to a single end, even if the end is of no functional social purpose other than to share the common yearning to belong as a part of the social web requires attention and personal cost. it may be trite, but being there, at an event, is a much richer experience, than a carefully crafted ( & time limited) display we see on TV/media. (& less time is wasted on advertisements, which have become an art unto their own) i guess i'm saying, if you want to support the paralympics, just GO and BE THERE for the performers, rather than contribute to the intermediary greed and exploitation served up by media TV and their mass marketed 'ideals'. ask people who have 'participated' in rallys, Woodstock, social uprisings, town meetings, walks for breast cancer, RNC/DNC conventions or other live events if they went away unchanged or with out some internalized understanding that left them more whole as a person.
But, belatedly, I'll say this: I don't think the US appetite for individual sports is very high. Swimming, track and field, etc. - I think the audience can be measured in droplets. This is true for 99% of the events - amateur, college, and special-entrant ones like Paralymipics or the Gay Games. The only prejudice is against the sports themselves. The Olympics? Not really a counter argument. They are a massively hyped spectacle with decades of built-in interest - using the term "interest" loosely, as the single greatest public facet of the Olympics are the fans who, never watching any other competitions of the type for three years and fifty weeks, spend two weeks as obsessed pseudo-experts on the events, the participants and the moves. (Then can't recall anyone except Michael Phelps a week later.) It's not news that, nor particularly hard to explain why, participants in any but the big 2-1/2 sports struggle for exposure and recognition. Sorry about that...