Zoe ,'Bushwhacked'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
since what we're talking about is government recognition
Tangentially, and maybe I mentioned it here already, but my grandmother only recently got classified as really actually legally blind, even though she hasn't been able to drive for years, and was getting some government services for that -- apparently she wasn't getting the full array of stuff she could have been getting all these years! So now she has a talking clock and phone and other stuff.
(For that matter, legal blindness isn't blindness at all, and has never been -- it's having vision on a level that keeps you from doing certain things.
Yeah, for all the brouhaha about David Paterson being a blind governor, he was all about seeing blood run in the streets this weekend.
The government also won't recognize any disability that resulted from the commission of a felony or the ensuing prison term.
Ugh. The first is simply cruel. The second - given our disgusting attitude towards the safety of prisoners, it goes way beyond that. Sometimes I hate this country.
Wow, the weeping angels would have even more of an advantage then.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
(Don't mind me, I'll just be curled up under my desk with my eyes WIDE OPEN for the next few hours.)
amych expresses what I was thinking -- certainly there are different varieties and sortings, but if we're talking about government definitions, I'm not sure why people whose eyes work poorly are entitled to a deduction that people whose brains work poorly on the information their eyes give them are not.
If that makes sense. Whew!
Also, shame on me for not providing a link. Sorry. Explainer article.
I'm not sure why people whose eyes work poorly are entitled to a deduction that people whose brains work poorly on the information their eyes give them are not.
It does seem ridiculous, since you really do need the whole system working right.
I'm not sure why people whose eyes work poorly are entitled to a deduction that people whose brains work poorly on the information their eyes give them are not.
Societal bias against "mental illness"? (Of course, it's not mental illness, but sometimes people lump mental illness with other brain disorders in their minds?)
I wonder if it dates to an era when there wasn't a reliable way of testing brain function? The law defining blindness was passed in 1960. There weren't CAT scans and stuff yet, I don't think, but there were opthamologists who could look into the eyes and view degeneration and such. So they wanted to prevent people from saying, "I see only dancing hamsters" when in fact their eyes AND brains were fine.
amych expresses what I was thinking -- certainly there are different varieties and sortings, but if we're talking about government definitions, I'm not sure why people whose eyes work poorly are entitled to a deduction that people whose brains work poorly on the information their eyes give them are not.
Because those people might be big faking fakers?
No, seriously. Our system and definitions are inadequate for most things that aren't pure and simple physical ability v. inability. And in the absence of that sort of straightforward proof, our default setting is to assume some kind of treachery on the part of the person needing help.
Because those people might be big faking fakers?
Yeah, American psychiatry back in the '60s was still overreacting to Klinger and all his attempts to get a Section 8.