Comes The Dawn
By Veronica A. Shoffstall
After a while you learn the subtle difference
between holding a hand and chaining a soul.
You learn that love doesn’t mean leaning
and company doesn’t mean security.
You begin to learn that kisses aren’t contracts
and presents aren’t promises.
You begin to accept your defeats
with your head up and your eyes open…
I’m currently looking at the potential for recognition theory to be used as a mechanism to explain how the discrepancies that continuously occur between the construction of policy and the genuine level of unmet need that those living with disabilities experience as a consequence of policy construction, arises.
So if there are any mega minds out there who are aware of any researchers within the area disability studies who are currently applying recognition theory to their work please, please, please, let me know.
Or even better, post a link.
- UC Davis Disability Studies Blog (historypsychiatry.com)
- Introducing Aspect Australia’s Research Report into the lives and experiences of adults with high functioning autism – “We Belong”. (seventhvoice.wordpress.com)
- Disability Awareness Scholarship (militaryvaloan.com)
Should churches, particularly those that operate like small businesses, (ie buying and selling commodities, real estate or engage in other forms of profit making enterprises) be able to retain their tax free status?
If so why/ why not?
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
Well that’s good to know. Personally I’m still both amazed and thankful that anyone has taken the time to read my posts.
I really didn’t think, when I started blogging in April, that I’d ever have any followers, let alone 600.
I guess I owe this to a mix of posts on parenting a son with Autism, alongside a liberal sprinkling of poetry on autism, philosophy and photography.
So to those of you who are new to my blog, welcome and thank you so very much for taking the time to read this post.
I won’t bore you with an entire review but here are a few links to some of the posts that I’m most fond of:
Autism and parenting specific writing:
Poetry about my son:
Once again thank you all so much for taking the time to read, comment or like any part of my blog.
Cheers and Happy New Year = ) Seventh x
I’ve heard reports that it took only 2 minutes for the shooter involved to steal the lives of 26 human beings.
In Australia, our biggest mass shooting occurred over the space of several hours at a place called Port Arthur in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded.
After this event, Gun Control Laws were signficantly amended leading to restrictions over who could purchase firearms and the types of firearms permitted for sale to civilians. This included allowing only the sale of self-loading firearms which prevented the sale of semi or automatic firearms to civilians.
This to me seems a logical approach and as an Australian, I find it very hard to make sense of America’s commitment to the right to bear any and all kinds of arms, in the face of such a grotesque event.
I can’t help but wonder whether or not the right to bear arms has now somehow become the right to bear harm?
When I look at this logically I can see that yes, in the beginning, during those periods of settlement, and early revolution, way back when, there was a valid need for civilians to carry arms for their own protection.
As such I can understand why it was written into the constitution ( once again all the way back then).
But…… it’s 2012……. American’s don’t have to fight off invaders, or overthrow the British Commonwealth anymore…… Those days are over.
So why are gun lobbyists still calling on such an ancient constitutional right to try to justify the capacity of every American citizen to annihilate others?
To me it seems that, although the civil war in its traditional sense is over, the persistent press by factions within the USA for the right to bare arms in America, is creating a very different kind of civilian war.
The kind of civilian war in which innocent children are too often becoming the victims of the growing army of the disillusioned, disturbed or fanatical factions at play within the USA.
Doesn’t anyone else find it absurd that the same people who call abortion murder and bomb abortion clinics, are also the very same people claiming the constitutional right to bear guns to protect themselves?
But to protect themselves from who?
Other gun-toting fanatics like themselves?
Isn’t this politics gone mad?
When will America finally say enough is enough and stop invoking the right of its citizens to bear arms, especially when that right too often results in the wanton killing of its other citizens ?
In the dusts of time ,I am merely a particle blown away,
from deserts to plains, mountains and vales,
in the weather of the time,in any condition,
I just froze and sometimes got melted...
Where do I lie?what is my place?
within the infinite space,
Are there any co ordinates,
that hold me in their state?
I am just a speck in the whole universe,
The recent spate of media coverage over the online attacks on opinionated Fashionista and social commentator Charlotte Dawson have seen many people speculating on just how far the protection of anonymity should go on-line.
Should people who write death threats to others, under the protection of anonymity on the internet, be allowed to continue on their not so merry way, whilst avoiding any and all consequences for their actions, simply because of the medium through which those threats are made?
In real life, if a person wrote another person a death threat and sent it through the mail to be delivered, regardless of whether or not it was signed, the act of doing so would be considered a crime.
The recipient of the death threat would have the right to call in the police and the police in turn would have the right to try to figure out who the perpetrator of the death threat might be and to treat them accordingly under the law, should they be found.
Yet somehow on the internet, that same act, because it is seen to be carried out anonymously, is not considered a crime. Why?
If an anonymous death threat, sent in hard copy through the mail can be considered actionable, then why aren’t death threats sent anonymously on-line also considered actionable?
Both are anonymous actions yet only one form of action, due specifically to the medium through which it is carried out, is seen to be protected by ‘the right of anonymity’.
Surely if the action itself is wrong, then the ability to identify the perpetrator should make little to no difference as to whether or not the action itself should be pursued as a crime?
After all, we don’t not bother to track down bank robbers simply because they may have been wearing masks while robbing the bank and didn’t conveniently leave their contact details behind for a follow-up Q and A session
Instead we find ways to identify and locate them.
So why can’t we do the same with the internet?
Don’t we all have these little things called internet providers? Don’t we all have to provide them with information? Aren’t cookies and alike attached to users accounts?
How hard can it really be to track and trace anyone on the internet?
Personally I find the distinction that we are being asked to draw between the real world and the virtual world in cases such as these, to be at best little more than smoke and mirrors and at worse an absolutely draconian defense of abusive and bullying behavior.
The simple truth is that whatever happens in the virtual world is first and foremost the consequence of an interaction that is initially being carried out in the real world.
After all, in order to post a death threat on-line, a real person has to first sit at a real computer and type real words with their real fingers and hit send.
Just like writing a letter.
Though the medium may no longer be paper pen, the actions and therefore the consequences, should still be considered the same.
God knows it’s taken long enough for the message that abuse, in any form, is never OK to be acted upon in the real world. So why on earth would we want to foster yet another atmosphere in which the same battle for justice could occur?
Isn’t the idea of wilfully protecting those with bullying or abusive personalities who use their words to harm others something that we are taught to abhor in modern society?
Aren’t such actions now called psychological or emotional abuse?
Why should we now be asked to draw a line in the sand between verbal or written abuse in the real world and verbal or written abuse in the on-line world?
When in essence you can’t access the virtual world unless you first carry out the required actions in the real world to do so.
Therefore wilful intent is clearly involved and the recognition of that wilful intent to cause harm is all that is needed in the real world to persecute an abuser for their actions.
I don’t see why actions of hatred, harm and personal abuse on the internet should be treated any differently.
- Desire for attention and power fuel mob mentality (smh.com.au)
- Diving Into the Abuse Pool (kenanmalik.wordpress.com)
- Star support for Dawson (stuff.co.nz)
- Here be trolls: Hunting down online haters (stuff.co.nz)
You know that song that's been getting stuck in your head over and over for the last year or so, thanks to viral videos and constant radio exposure? Well, if you're not thinking of "Somebody That I Used to Know" - the Gotye original that was recently covered and re-popularized by Walk of the Earth - then we are on two completely different wavelengths!