Patterico's Pontifications

4/21/2011

A Declaration of Independence: “I have firearms and I’m willing to use them if necessary”

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 1:46 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Okay, strap yourselves in because this is going to be a long one talking about stuff I have literally thought about my entire life.

Let me start by confessing my biases.  I am a disabled person, with learning disabilities, who has personally faced discrimination in his life.  I like to think that this gives me an education on issues related to the subject of disabilities and discrimination that you couldn’t acquire in a classroom, but you might reasonably wonder if instead I am biased in favor of my “group” or something like that.  I report, you decide.

And let me also write a long preface about my big picture view of how disabled people should fit into society.  I mean it is a daily reality I have to face, and if you guys haven’t noticed I try to think about things pretty deeply (or I think too much as some commenters have said) and so it’s only natural I have a lot to say after almost forty years (!!!) of dealing with this.  You might believe that there is a contradiction between my being a semi-libertarian conservative and being a staunch supporter of laws like the ADA.  But I have long felt that there was a powerful, underappreciated conservative argument for laws such as the ADA that goes something like this.

There are only three ways of dealing with those who are disabled.

The first is extermination–to either kill them or let them die. “Kill all cripples,” Adolf Hitler said, calling them “useless eaters” before a “cripple” (FDR) smote him.*  I don’t say that to go all Godwin’s law on you, but I mention it because logically this is one of the options, and because conservatives themselves recognize that this really isn’t an option they would ever consider.  This is why conservatives habitually highlight stories like this:

Fifteen-month-old Joseph Maraachli (Muh-RAHSH’-lee) left Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center in St. Louis on Thursday and flew with his family to their home in Ontario, exactly one month after the child received a tracheotomy aimed at extending his life.

Joseph suffers from the progressive neurological disease Leigh Syndrome. Doctors in Canada refused to perform the tracheotomy, saying it was futile because the child’s disease is terminal, and an Ontario court decided doctors could remove the child’s breathing tube.

His family sought help from American hospitals, and Cardinal Glennon agreed to treat Joseph.

(Emphasis added).  So that is not an option, but then there are only two other options remaining.

The second option is dependency—which might be dependency on the government or dependency on private charity, such as a church or just the charity of a family giving you free room and board well beyond the age of emancipation.  It is a life of consuming goods but contributing little to the society.

And the third option is independence.  And that means going out and getting a job and living on that salary.  But very often that requires a regime of accessibility and even accommodation of disability, so that the disabled person can go out into the workforce and be a producer and not just a consumer—giving lie to the Hitlerian claim that we are just “useless eaters.”  Reagan once famously quoted the proverb that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a day, but if you teach him how to fish he’ll eat forever.  I would mangle that phrase as follows: if you give a paraplegic man a fish he will eat for a day, but if you make the docks wheelchair accessible he will eat forever.

Yes, that does imply government intrusion in the form of accessibility requirements and lawsuits when people refuse to provide reasonable accommodations or engage in outright discrimination.  And I am sure that this well-intentioned law, like all well-intentioned laws, can be abused from time to time (I would categorically exclude prisons from the ADA).  And those are both features that go against the grain of conservative thought.  But it also isn’t terribly conservative to have a significant portion of our population who is capable of working being forced into dependency.  Accommodations and accessibility is not only economically efficient, but it grants to those disabled persons the simple dignity that many of us take for granted: of living independently, based on the money you made working for a living.

And that move from dependence to independence is quintessentially conservative.

So that is where I am coming from when I look at how disabled people should fit into society.  Now truthfully some people will not be able to be independent even with accommodations.  Although even in cases where you might not imagine a person living independently, I have seen it done.  I had a friend in law school, for instance, who had a full-body disability so severe he couldn’t even turn the pages of a book without assistance.  I never asked, but I assumed he needed help with every physical task, including bathing and using the restroom, too.  Now it is true that he will probably never enjoy the independence of handling those everyday tasks without help.  But he makes so much money, that he pays for that help.  But at the same time, that is because he also happens to be a genius.  If a person has the same physical disabilities as he does, and then Down’s Syndrome on top of it all, I have a hard time believing that this person could ever live independently, by the sweat of his or her own brow.

But I believe most handicapped persons can in fact earn a living if only given a square chance.  So I believe in a regime of yes, coerced accommodation and accessibility, so that the maximum number of handicapped will be able to earn a living and pay their own way.  So with all that background in mind, I turn to this story:

Disabled in the Bullseye

Disabled Americans are substantially more likely to be victims of crime than able-bodied people.

By Bob Boyd

In 2008, people with disabilities were victims of 40,000 rapes or sexual assaults, 116,000 robberies, 115,000 aggravated assaults and nearly 459,000 simple assaults. In 20 percent of these cases, the perpetrator used a weapon. People with disabilities between 12 to 24 and 35 to 49 years of age were nearly twice as likely to be targeted when compared to other people in those age groups. Females with disabilities experienced higher rates of violent crime than males with disabilities. Nearly 15 percent of those victims suspected they were targeted because of their disability.

Criminals apparently know disabled people are less likely to be able to defend themselves during a violent crime, or at least perceive them to be an easy target. The 2007 numbers add emphasis to the urgency of the situation. That year, nearly 47,000 rapes, 79,000 robberies, 114,000 aggravated assaults and 476,000 simple assaults were reported with disabled victims, who were targeted 1.5 times more often than persons without disabilities.

Mr. Boyd says much more on the severity of the problem and it is worth reading the whole thing, but he sums it up by saying:

The ongoing epidemic of crime perpetrated against people with disabilities has remained largely unnoticed by the American people—disabled and non-disabled alike—and ignored by the media.

And it makes perfect sense.  If you are going to rob someone, you are going to target someone who you think can’t fight back.  And it even makes sense that they might be ashamed to highlight the significance of the problem.  So, you might think that this is going to be another plea for a government program or something like that, right?

Well, not quite.  Instead the author declares his independence:

In the coming months, I’ll be writing a series of articles that address self-defense for the physically disabled. Topics will include awareness, mindset, coping with physical disability as it pertains to concealed carry and defensive-handgun training, things to consider when selecting a handgun for self-defense and concealed carry and more. So if you’re physically disabled, know someone who is or are concerned about an aging family member living alone, spread the word.

Having cerebral palsy since birth, I realize my disability makes me a tempting prospect for those cowardly, less productive members of our society who prey upon those they surmise are easy targets. Unlike most though, I work for Shooting Illustrated and have attended a variety of training courses. Moreover, I have firearms and I’m willing to use them if necessary.

So perhaps I need to amend my mangled metaphor.  Give a paraplegic man a fish, he will eat for a day.  Make the docks wheelchair accessible so he can gather his own fish and a gun to ensure that he can keep what he gathers, and he’ll eat forever.

And gun ownership by the handicapped also taps into another big philosophical belief I have about the handicapped.  In a very real way, humanity is the disabled species.  Think about it.  Compared to other species, we are slow, weak, blind and deaf; we have little sense of smell, our teeth and “claws” are weak, etc.  If left naked in the wild we would be easy supper for the other animals out there.  And yet we dominate the planet for one simple reason: our brains.  And those brains have allowed us to create tools that in turn makes up for our deficiencies.  So we can’t run as fast as a cheetah, but we invented motor cars that allowed us to move even faster and for long periods of time.  We can’t see like an eagle, so we invented the telescope and can see things no other creature can.  Our brains haven’t just leveled the playing field between animal and man, but in fact gave us a critical advantage over them which is why we rule this planet and no longer have any natural predator (except ourselves).

And in no area has our brains been more critical in making up for our psychical deficiencies than in combat.  Now we might suspect a few tough souls like Chuck Norris or Todd Palin** could take on a grizzly bear with their bare hands, but for most of us, if we don’t have a gun we are SOL (and from my understanding, even with a gun they are hard to kill).  Our only option is to run.

So to tell a disabled person that they can’t use artificial help goes directly against the grain of what we have done as humans.  For instance, I have difficulty writing by hand.  But it only affects my ability to write by hand, so I buy a computer and I am rendered “normal.”

Likewise, Mr. Boyd has cerebral palsy.  I have known people with that condition and it almost certainly impairs his ability to win a fistfight.  I’m not saying he can’t do it, but it’s almost certainly harder.  Now, the anti-gun approach would tell him tough and that he would just have to remain defenseless and hope that if someone attacks him that he cops get there in time.  But the second amendment allows him to say, “screw that,” and defend his own life and safety as need be.

Now yes, obviously there are some disabilities that make it unacceptably dangerous to carry a gun. We should at all times be reasonable about this and I expect as Mr. Boyd writes about this as promised, he will describe how he and others can safely operate a gun.  And I would be surprised if a blind man can ever safely operate a gun.  But at the same time we shouldn’t be too quick to assume a person should not own a gun..

For instance I don’t believe the modern military would ever consider letting a deaf man serve.  But a history lesson shows that this might be an unwise position.  As you might know, for a brief window of time, Texas was its own country, with its own currency and everything.  Here’s what their five dollar bill looked like.

That portrait on the right is of Erastus “Deaf” Smith, who was also honored by being given a state funeral and having a county named him.  He was one of the heroes of the Battle of San Jacinto where Texas won its independence and received this eulogy in The Globe (a Washington paper):

This singular individual was one of the few men whose names alone bear with them more respect than sounding titles. Major, colonel, general, sink into significance before the simple, ordinary name of Deaf Smith. That name is identified with the battlefields of Texas; his eulogy is inseparably interwoven with the most thrilling annals of our country, and will long yield to our traditionary [sic] narratives a peculiar interest.

Disabled people have real deficiencies that they struggle to overcome.  That shouldn’t be ignored or swept under the rug.  But at the same time we must be careful not to overestimate their effects, either, or underestimate the quintessentially human ability to devise ways to overcome those shortcomings.  For instance, one cardinal rule I teach others is never to assume a thing cannot be done by a handicapped person until you talk to a person with that handicap who has had some time to put some thought into it.  If I am typical (and in my experience, I am), disabled people think about how to get around their disabilities all the time, habitually, and we become much better at forming solutions than a person with no disabilities.

Hopefully as he writes about the subject of handicapped people and firearms, Mr. Boyd will share some of the surprising ways he has overcome his disabilities.

So in this article you see something of a conservative ideal.  The left likes to call anyone who is poor “less fortunate” as though it was a matter of pure luck that they ended up where they were.  Well, when Mr. Boyd was born he really was less fortunate.  And yet if his life is threatened, he will not be dependant solely on the government to save his life.  His ability to keep his life, liberty and property will not solely be a function of governmental largesse.  Instead, he declared his independence.

And good for him for it.

—————————–

* I do think FDR’s disability is relevant, there.  I look at what FDR did prior to WWII, and I think bluntly he understood Hitler’s evil better than most Americans and was doing his best to get us into WWII by stretching the concept of neutrality to the outer limit.  And I think he understood that evil primary as a function of recognizing his mortal enemy.

** Yes, I am joking, riffing the “Chuck Norris Facts” meme.  I even saw a version of that with Sarah Palin substituted for Norris, the hilarious part being that every now and then they mixed in a true fact that was almost as outrageous as the silly ones, particularly citing how Todd Palin famously broke his leg in a dog race and still finished fourth (if memory serves), which is why I mentioned him.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

53 Responses to “A Declaration of Independence: “I have firearms and I’m willing to use them if necessary””

  1. Not all disabled are…well, equal. My son, my only child, whom I love very much, is going to be a dependent on someone for his entire life. Severe autism and leukomalacia will do that. But the problem NOT addressed by the universal gun ownership crowd, and believe me, I was constantly asking on other sites before I just gave up with the unreasonableness of it all, is, what do you do with a person who does not/will not/can not own a gun? Are they defended by society? Or do they just take their chances with the criminal subclass?

    MunDane (54a83b)

  2. mundane

    imho, you have to have society defend him in that case. i am not a radical who believes in no cops. i just don’t believe they will always get there in time.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  3. mundane, I think a society where 99% of law abiding people have guns will be a lot safer for the 1%.

    It’s like someone who has a medical condition where they can’t get the smallpox vaccine. If they live in a society where everyone else has it, they probably are also protected by smallpox (until John Edwards convinces enough people to drop protection).

    But of course, some people can’t be given a tool to remedy their problems. Though guns are the most democratic invention I can think of.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  4. Yes, that does imply government intrusion in the form of accessibility requirements and lawsuits when people refuse to provide reasonable accommodations or engage in outright discrimination.

    But is government intrusion the best way to meet situations where people discriminate against the disabled? Is a (nearly) one size fits all law like the ADA the best way, even if you agree that government interference is needed? Isn’t education of the public at large and advocacy aimed at changing mindsets better? I’d argue that, for instance, beyond federal involvement in ensuring the right to vote and equal education, the civil rights laws did little to break down bigotry against blacks and other racial minorities, which of course still exists–but the bigots form smaller groups and find less and less acceptance of their bigotry by the rest of society–and that’s because the culture, and how people think, have changed over the years, not because of any government action.

    And with some disabilities, what governmental action could really solve the accessibility issue? Should we expect the government to mandate that every place of business have electronic writing gadgets available, to make up for your inability to write manually and my inability to sustain a conversation for more than three or four sentences?*

    Where governmental action might be important is in education–not so much in educating non-disabled to accept the disabled but in helping the disabled find ways to function as independently as possible–and this again can hardly be a one size fits all situation, but needs to be individualized for each person and his or her family and support system.

    [Aaron--actually, this was a very good post; I'm just picking on the only weak spot I see in it.]

    *It’s come up before, but probably some people don’t know/have not needed to remember I’m autistic.

    kishnevi (827a72)

  5. , the civil rights laws did little to break down bigotry against blacks and other racial minorities,

    I agree. It was a shortcut that has proven extremely counterproductive. I see a lot of people think blacks need some kind of special assistance, when in all reality, it would be plain ineffective
    to discriminate against them.

    The ADA is a little different. You can rely on the disabled and society is more productive and happy, but only with something like infrastructure of everyone being required to treat them to certain amenities like access and aid. With everyone doing that, society is more productive, but without the requirement, we have a tragedy of commons situation. I don’t need to make a ramp and a bathroom stall that is large, etc.

    Since blacks really are not inherently different from whites, especially from the HR perspective, no such infrastructure change is needed. Those who discriminate against them should be able to be penalized simply be reality.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  6. While I want to see appropriate accommodation for the disabled, I cannot agree to the central planningn one-size-fits-all approach of the ADA. It is simply not a proper role for the Federal government, and it would be better done even at the state level as nudges than as coercion.

    The evidence abounds, but I will address only one thing here: abuse of the system. Any system of special privileges results in abuse, of course.

    One example, and one anecdote: Example: we now see the handicap parking spaces filling up, mostly it seems with people using Granny’s handicap permit. Abuse.

    Anecdote: My wife was using the restroom, and was using the large stall. When she finished, a woman in a wheel chair told her that the stall was exclusively for the handicapped and was generally abusive. She had a nasty sense of entitlement.

    The ADA has created other monsters, too, but I don’t have time to address them.

    Conservatarian (8b4e21)

  7. , a woman in a wheel chair told her that the stall was exclusively for the handicapped and was generally abusive.

    What a jerk and dumbass.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  8. Aaron will be shocked – SHOCKED! to learn of the existence of ADA filing mills. Ask Walter Olson.
    “Can” be abused?
    Are being abused, constantly.

    jdub (ccb1c7)

  9. I don’t need to make a ramp and a bathroom stall that is large, etc.

    You would if you want to attract disabled customers/employees.

    It used to be, for instance, that non-smoking areas were a marketing feature used by restaurants and other public places to attract customers. Carnival at one point had a completely smoke-free ship (the Carnival Paradise)–I took a cruise on it during its first few years. Of course, the ninny state came along and made non smoking mandatory. And Carnival decided that smoke free ships attracted fares but worked against on board revenue, so gave up that marketing angle. (Though the Paradise is still a nice ship; runs, IIRC, 3/4 cruises to Mexico from LA.)

    kishnevi (cfb699)

  10. Of course, the ninny state came along and made non smoking mandatory.
    Should have been clearer there:

    For restaurants, office, and everywhere in public on land. Carnival gave up “smoke free cruising” of its own accord.

    kishnevi (cfb699)

  11. OK, regarding the ADA.

    I tenant remodeled a 15 foot by 50 space to put in a kitchen to make a catering store. 95% of their business is delivered food, 5% is eat in. They have room for 6 people to sit.

    They had to install a wheel chair accessible bathroom. There is no parking, except what is on the street. Anyone who works there must be able to walk. (It’s a small kitchen.)

    The wheel chair accessible bath room required another 10 square feet, which meant that room for storage had to be eliminated. They have been in business for 12 years.

    No one in a wheel chair has ever used that bathroom.

    In fact, they don’t even let the customers they do get use it. Like a lot of Duncan Donuts in Connecticut and New York.

    But the tenant is paying for it, and so is the landlord. I am not happy about it, nor am I happy about the regulations that required it.

    Jack (f9fe53)

  12. I think a person with CP – as with a lot of other physical impairments – would also have difficulty firing a gun.

    My nephew has Down’s; I don’t expect he’d ever be able to handle a gun safely. Neither, I expect, would my autistic son.

    If a person can demonstrate they can handle a gun and they’re mentally competent, then they deserve the right to carry just like anybody else.

    But most disabled lack the ability to defend themselves. Either the good, decent people help protect them, or nobody does.

    JEA (bf1e52)

  13. I wish there was a way to shut down the ADA mills, or have the ALJ’s get some spine and start punishing them. They get in the way of the positive aspects.

    JD (85b089)

  14. You have a problem with your initial premise.

    You state that there are three “options” for dealing with the disabled.

    This is false.
    Those are not the “options”, but the “possibilities”:
    1. Some people are so disabled to the point that they will die within a “short” period of time no matter what you do, so the only “options” are how far to go in providing palliatives or whether you skip directly to euthanasia.
    2. Some people are so disabled that with non-palliative support they will leave for a “full” lifespan, but they will never be self-sufficient.
    3. Some people have disabilities that merely limit their capabilities, and become partially or wholly self-sufficient with sufficient opportunities.

    The “options” regarding the disabled come down to the degree of government interference in the above categories:
    1. For the short-term terminal, can the government force to, or prohibit the family from, providing a particular level support? To what extent is the community forced to support the person?
    2. The same for the long-term fully disabled.
    3. For those simply handicapped, can the government mandate additional accommodations?

    The two sets do indeed have near total functional crossover, but they are fundamentally two different things, and it is when you merge them that you force the discussion down the path to justifying Obamacare, which is the beginning of the slippery slope to the Shaw-Hitler “life not worth living” declaration.

    Sam (8d527c)

  15. I think some aspects of the ADA are defensible, such as requiring government owned facilities be accessible. Yes, it has been expensive to retrofit all those existing buildings, but I think we can afford to make City Hall open to all.

    However, when it comes to privately held establishments, I don’t think it is fair to impose this expense, particularly for the federal government to do so. I would be more sympathetic to a state imposing a more gradual change, such as requiring the accessibility in new structures.

    Anon Y. Mous (cb1134)

  16. Sorry, Aaron, you’re 100% wrong. If an accommodation makes sense, then people will make it without a law to force them; if they need a law to force them, that in itself proves that it makes no sense, that its cost is greater than the benefit.

    You may enjoy feeling independent, but are you really? If your employer is forced to make accommodations for you, and their cost, plus the cost of your salary and benefits, is more than what you produce is worth, then you are a net liability to them, i.e. a parasite. Without ADA there would be an easy way to tell: if it wasn’t worth it then they wouldn’t do it. Or they might do it anyway as an act of charity, but that would be their business and nobody else’s. But the moment you (or the government acting on your behalf) points a gun at your boss and tells him to do whatever it takes to hire you, or else, you’ve lost all legitimacy.

    Sorry I’m in a hurry and can’t elaborate, but this will have to do.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  17. Shorter Milhouse: You have no right to be given anything. If not being given food means you starve, that’s sad, but it doesn’t entitle you to mug people; if not being given a ramp means you can’t earn your keep, again it’s sad, but the moment you pull a gun and force someone to build you a ramp you are an evil tyrant and should be strung from the nearest lamppost.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  18. “Doctors in Canada refused to perform the tracheotomy, saying it was futile because the child’s disease is terminal, and an Ontario court decided doctors could remove the child’s breathing tube.”

    Yup.

    And, the same thing is going to happen here, only after it does, you won’t have anywhere to turn to to avoid the decision made by the government Death Panels.

    Dave Surls (004003)

  19. never to assume a thing cannot be done by a handicapped person until you talk to a person with that handicap who has had some time to put some thought into it. If I am typical (and in my experience, I am), disabled people think about how to get around their disabilities all the time, habitually, and we become much better at forming solutions than a person with no disabilities

    I’m trying to teach this to my daughter. Her hand won’t reach all areas of her backside, so I bought a scrub brush for her to use in the bathtub. She has trouble with buttons and laces, so we buy clothes that are easier for her to get into and out of. Instead of doing things for her, we find ways to allow her to do things for herself.

    When she was four or five, she learned to put her socks on. The first time it took 15 or 20 minutes, but I told her we had plenty of time, and when she was finished, she was proud of her accomplishment. Each time she completes a task for the first time, we celebrate.

    There is one word that she knows I do not like to hear. That word is “can’t”. She knows that I will be angry if I hear her say, “I can’t do this!” Instead, she can say, “I need help.”

    aunursa (a2a019)

  20. . If an accommodation makes sense, then people will make it without a law to force them

    No, that’s not true.

    Without government, plenty of things the people collectively want, and would politically agree to, will not exist if we simply rely on individuals to do it. The US Military, for example. Fire departments. Certain levels of infrastructure. Criminal law.

    Sure, to some extent, maybe someone could be rich enough to provide something kinds like that. Maybe they would have their own fire department, and you could have your own provisions for fire safety. You could hire hitmen to replace criminal law. You could try to buy property to build roads, to some extent, but it’s not really feasible to a reasonable point.

    So we need government to deal with some things. It needs to coerce to a certain degree.

    Is society better off with some level of accommodation, allowing the disabled to be productive? Yes. Would that level of accommodation exist if everyone had to act independently? I seriously doubt it. If anyone could avoid ADA, they could use that advantage to save money.

    This is one of those situations where allowing the market to decide does not produce the most efficient result. Merely asserting the opposite of the truth isn’t going to change that. It turns out there are several things we actually need government for.

    The problem is keeping it reasonable. It’s not like Aaron is defending ADA mills.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  21. Aaron,

    I think that the ‘handicapped’ will always be dependent on society, but so will the rest of us. I am a 50ish bookwork with gout and bad teeth. Without modern society, with its effective dentistry, and pharmacopia my life would be a great deal more constrained than it is. In my opinion anyone who is not willing to admit that he is in at least some sense dependent on society is – if he is an adult – a goddamned fool.

    Access for the ‘disabled’ is a matter of societal honor. I may disagree as to details – the ADA strikes me as badly written law with far to many grey areas for the entertainment of Lawyers – but for us to be a decent civilization, access and accommodation are required. Doubtless we will thrash around until some happy jury-rig is devised. My personal preference would be to minimize involvement of any but the most local government, but I am a crank. If a solution works, I will swallow any doctrinal objections.

    I salute the courage of anyone with serious disabilities who makes a serious attempt to make his way in the world.

    C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968)

  22. Comment by Dave Surls — 4/21/2011 @ 3:53 pm

    There will always be the Workers Medical Paradise of Kuber!

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  23. Comment by Dave Surls — 4/21/2011 @ 3:53 pm

    Reading one of the news articles linked on the page Aaron linked to shows that the Canadian doctors were arguing that it was medically futile. The financial cost was not mentioned, which would be the “death panels” parallel. “Baby Joseph” is (according to the article) in permanent vegatative state, and this family has already had one child die from this disease (a girl, nine years ago), plus at least one other living child. The Canadian doctors claimed that it would not really improve Baby Joseph’s state, and could result in further complications. They turned out to be wrong, of course. But this, going by the information in the newspaper article, was not the case of a health system refusing to pay for a procedure that would have palliative results.

    kishnevi (14ed7d)

  24. Milhouse – If an accommodation makes sense, then people will make it without a law to force them

    Dustin – Without government, plenty of things the people collectively want, and would politically agree to, will not exist if we simply rely on individuals to do it. The US Military, for example. Fire departments. Certain levels of infrastructure. Criminal law.

    You are describing things that all require (or virtually require) collective action by their very nature. That doesn’t shed any light on the wisdom or supposed necessity of forcing individual businesses and property owners to accommodate disabled people.

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  25. That doesn’t shed any light on the wisdom or supposed necessity of forcing individual businesses and property owners to accommodate disabled people.

    I think the very nature of coercing everyone enough to allow, say, access to the town via a highway, or access to an education via a few ramps, is relatively similar.

    You’re right, I have certainly not shown the necessity. It’s not necessary to help disabled people. Certainly it’s not necessary like the US military example is.

    I say that to explain the tragedy of the commons. Every individual is going to make choices for their self interest that don’t always work for the most efficient result overall. Sure, this argument can be misused badly for all kinds of evils and government intrusions. Obviously, the argument is the core of most of the problems with progressivism, so we are all inclined against it to some extent.

    I’m am asserting, without evidence, that it is more effecient for society that the disabled have access to working for their own livlihood. I think Aaron’s point that our fundamental strength is mental is important to consider. A person with no legs can be an amazing advancement to mankind anyhow. The inefficiency of such people not earning their own way seems absolutely massive to me. So there’s my claim that it’s wise to coerce everyone.

    However, I don’t have to claim or guess or assert that coercion is necessary for ADA to work. It’s just not the case that individuals will make individual choices with much regard for this greater efficiency I mentioned, any more than people would volunteer enough land for interstate highways. Macro problems just can’t always be solved by letting the market decide.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  26. ADA compliance costs for businesses should be treated as a dollar for dollar refundable tax credit.

    That’s not how it is today. Today…

    You can take a tax credit for 50 percent of eligible expenditures over $250 up to $10,500 a year. So your tax bill can be reduced by up to $5,000.

    That’s all well and good but it should be 100%, and the limits need to realistically cover the costs of compliance. What say we let the Chamber of Commerce do a study on that?

    The tax credit is available only for businesses with gross receipts of $1 million or less, and fewer than 30 employees.

    Gross receipts? That’s not really acceptable. Jeez. Why is the US government such an insistently goddamn free-loading boil on the ass of our planet? People are catching on though.

    It should scale up to $2 million of net receipts and up to 100 employees.

    chop chop

    happyfeet (760ba3)

  27. This is false.
    Those are not the “options”, but the “possibilities”:
    1. Some people are so disabled to the point that they will die within a “short” period of time no matter what you do, so the only “options” are how far to go in providing palliatives or whether you skip directly to euthanasia.
    2. Some people are so disabled that with non-palliative support they will leave for a “full” lifespan, but they will never be self-sufficient.
    3. Some people have disabilities that merely limit their capabilities, and become partially or wholly self-sufficient with sufficient opportunities.

    The “options” regarding the disabled come down to the degree of government interference in the above categories:
    1. For the short-term terminal, can the government force to, or prohibit the family from, providing a particular level support? To what extent is the community forced to support the person?
    2. The same for the long-term fully disabled.
    3. For those simply handicapped, can the government mandate additional accommodations?

    The two sets do indeed have near total functional crossover, but they are fundamentally two different things, and it is when you merge them that you force the discussion down the path to justifying Obamacare, which is the beginning of the slippery slope to the Shaw-Hitler “life not worth living” declaration.

    You forget one factor- the advancement of medical technology.

    Twenty-four years ago, RoboCop type cybernetics was only something that happens in movies. Today, in the twenty-first century…

    To be sure, it is very expensive, which is why the government prefers to pay a lifetime of disability benefits to disabled soldiers rather than rebuild their bodies with cyborg parts. But then again, computers were once very expensive…

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  28. michael

    robocop is not possible yet, but they are getting very very close.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  29. One of the best of the survival writers during the wave of interest in survival topics a couple of decades ago was Mel Tappan.

    Mel was wheel-chair bound. And I assure all here that Mel was fully capable of defending himself and his family.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. “Reading one of the news articles linked on the page Aaron linked to shows that the Canadian doctors were arguing that it was medically futile…”

    Yup. And, that’s exactly what’s going to happen here, once we have full on socialized medicine.

    Their Death Panels will decide who lives and who dies. This one’s life isn’t good enough to be worth saving, that one’s too expensive in monetary terms, that one doesn’t really serve society, that one isn’t REALLY even a human being, etc., etc., etc.

    And, there will be no more America to run to escape their decisions.

    Dave Surls (5c7053)

  31. You forget one factor- the advancement of medical technology.

    . . .

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 4/21/2011 @ 6:50 pm

    Well, to some degree I considered that subsumed within the 1st and 2nd categories – technology that allows the terminal to hang on a bit longer, or what would have been terminal x years ago to be sustainable now.

    You are however correct; within the handicapped but sufficient, there is a sub-group of those for whom technology can partially or wholly compensate for any issues, and so again there is a corresponding question of to what extent government can require individuals or the entire population to provide such support.

    Again though, it remains there is a difference between the potentials of the individuals and the social/government options of dealing with those potentials.

    Sam (8d527c)

  32. However, I don’t have to claim or guess or assert that coercion is necessary for ADA to work. It’s just not the case that individuals will make individual choices with much regard for this greater efficiency I mentioned, any more than people would volunteer enough land for interstate highways. Macro problems just can’t always be solved by letting the market decide.

    first off, if it’s a law, it is coercion. Don’t comply with the ADA and people get to sue you. This may not have the frisson of a policeman giving you orders while pointing his gun in your general direction, but it’s still coercion.

    Second, you’re assuming that advocacy and education won’t work. And I think you’re misapplying the “tragedy of the commons” here. That applies to things that are used in common like roads and police, but not to most of the things the ADA applies to.

    Suppose you own a business, and you observe that people in wheelchairs can’t get into your place of business. You think it’s a good idea for people in wheelchairs to have access. But you can’t expect someone else to build a ramp that will meet your needs at no expense to you, because when other people build their ramps, it will be to their own places of business, which means that your business will still remain inaccessible unless you build a ramp for yourself (or at least get your landlord to build it for you). In fact, other people building ramps will mean you will find yourself at a competitive disadvantage.
    Having an ADA that regulates public buildings–good idea.
    Having an ADA that sets up standards that define what accessible is, so business owners can’t claim to be accessible unless they really are–not a bad idea.
    Having an ADA that requires people to make their locations accessible even when there is no need for it (see comment 11)–bad idea. It’s just another example of the ninny state in action.

    kishnevi (14ed7d)

  33. As far as the firearms aspect, there are various “guns” designed for people with poor hand strength/disabling arthrits, etc. I believe they are often single shot. If you can squeeze your hand into a weak fist, you can fire it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  34. first off, if it’s a law, it is coercion

    ummm, that’s what I said.

    Second, you’re assuming that advocacy and education won’t work.

    Yes.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  35. Oh, and I’m not claiming the ADA is ideal. Specific problems with the ADA do not impact my much more generalized notion, with respect.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  36. (me) Second, you’re assuming that advocacy and education won’t work.

    (Dustin) Yes.

    I’d be interested in hearing why you think that way. (But my answer will be delayed until I get home from work tomorrow, which is actually today (Friday) in my time zone. :))

    Oh, and I’m not claiming the ADA is ideal. Specific problems with the ADA do not impact my much more generalized notion, with respect.

    Understood. I think we’re both talking about the Platonic Ideal of an ADA, one without the abusive suits, etc. etc.

    kishnevi (14ed7d)

  37. I don’t think FDR saw his handicap as a strength or even a badge of honor. And I particularly do not believe that he was somehow more motivated to confront Hitler due to a sense of protection over those of his ilk or cousins thereof.- Not unless it turns out Stalin had webbed feet or some other hidden affliction, for I believe it was more a concern of Hitler’s attack on good old “Uncle Joe” that served as the catalyst.

    Steven S. (866f07)

  38. You may enjoy feeling independent, but are you really? If your employer is forced to make accommodations for you, and their cost, plus the cost of your salary and benefits, is more than what you produce is worth, then you are a net liability to them, i.e. a parasite. Without ADA there would be an easy way to tell: if it wasn’t worth it then they wouldn’t do it. Or they might do it anyway as an act of charity, but that would be their business and nobody else’s. But the moment you (or the government acting on your behalf) points a gun at your boss and tells him to do whatever it takes to hire you, or else, you’ve lost all legitimacy.

    Comment by Milhouse — 4/21/2011 @ 3:49 pm

    I’m allergic to the chemical that keeps cigarets lit. Not cigar or pipe smoke, just cigarets. I also have claustrophobia and a shoulder injury. I can’t work around cigaret smoke, need to be in an open area and need ergonomic equipment (now assistance) to work. The last company I worked for through my computer programming they saved at least 35 million dollars and made tons more. Because of the programming I did it enabled them to create departments that made them money and created jobs. Yet despite all that, the bean counters did not even want to provide me with a cubicle near a window. They did not want to give me ergonomic equipment to work with. Some managers managed to make their employees less productive or unproductive because of their bean counting. They made many times more than the small cost they were required to spend so that I could work.

    The problem is that they had to be forced to do it and even then they cut corners. They refused to make accommodations my bosses requested. Because of their lack of vision, I may never be able to work again without assistance. But even with that cost they made and saved much more than it will end up costing them. Now if they hadn’t cut corners, I would still be productive and they would still be making a profit off my work.

    When I worked I supported my family, bought goods, spent money. All those things helped the economy. People who work are more likely to be a benefit to society rather than a drain on society. People on the government dole take from society and are a drain to society.

    Unfortunately, often people have to be coerced to the right thing. The problem is that government bureaucracy is often in-cape-able of getting it right. :)

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  39. If an accommodation makes sense, then people will make it without a law to force them; if they need a law to force them, that in itself proves that it makes no sense, that its cost is greater than the benefit.

    – Milhouse, you’re giving some people WAAAAAY too much credit.

    Icy Texan (82fcef)


  40. And I am sure that this well-intentioned law, like all well-intentioned laws, can be abused from time to time


    The problem, Aaron, is that it’s not just “time to time” and it does get applied in a way that is often just “throwing money at the loudest whiner” because, hey, “Are you gonna be mean to the cripple?”

    Example: There was an elegant solution produced to the problem of handicapped access to bathrooms.

    In many places, a separate, “third” bathroom area, usually nestled between the “men’s and women’s” bathroom entrys, a single-user, unisex bathroom facility which met with the needs of people in wheelchairs, etc., was built.

    “Oh, NO!!!” whined the various groups behind passage of the ADA, “That singles out handicapped people and makes them feel like pariahs!”

    Yeah, like the rest of us were going,
    “Hey, you noticed Joe? I never saw that wheelchair he was in, before, but (gasp!) I just saw him going into the handicapped bathroom! He’s one o’ them cripples! Whoodathunkit?”

    The word coming first to my tongue is “yeesh!”.

    So the end result is now that both the men’s and women’s rooms are typically at least one stall short of the “standard compliment” of stalls that could be fit into a given space, because now there have to be TWO wheel-chair accessible stalls instead of the one. So, instead of three stalls in each bathroom (four in the ladies), there is often only two — or instead of two, there is only one.

    My own response? I ALWAYS use the W-A stall, if it’s not already in use. You’re going to have to wait, sorry, just like we do, thanks to your whining.

    In the same vein, sorry, as a result of the ADA there are now absurd numbers of close-in Handicapped access parking locations, 90% of which are unused 24/7 during any time except perhaps the Christmas season.

    The rational pattern would be to place 2-4 of them close, then 2-4 more a little bit further out, for those rare instances when there ARE that many users who need them to fill up the base allotment. Yeah, you’re having to go a bit farther, though handicapped — welcome to the party, pal, right at this moment now you’re getting to experience what WE get to experience EVERY DAY thanks to the ADA… a long slog to get to where we’re going.

    The problem here isn’t that I don’t believe we should be accommodating to the handicapped. It’s that we cannot — and should not be attempting to — remove all the problems the handicapped have. And all too often, that’s the net effect on libtard minds – “throw money at it” and “we have to do more to make them equal with everyone else”.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)


  41. * I do think FDR’s disability is relevant, there. I look at what FDR did prior to WWII, and I think bluntly he understood Hitler’s evil better than most Americans and was doing his best to get us into WWII by stretching the concept of neutrality to the outer limit. And I think he understood that evil primary as a function of recognizing his mortal enemy.

    FDR’s worst error in this vein was to run for his fourth term when his failing health should have made his incapacity sufficient to render a negative even in the face of other desires.

    As a result of this, he pretty much single-handedly gave away the farm to Joe Stalin, and the entirety of Eastern Europe suffered for his error for nearly fifty years.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)


  42. The problem is that they had to be forced to do it and even then they cut corners. They refused to make accommodations my bosses requested. Because of their lack of vision, I may never be able to work again without assistance. But even with that cost they made and saved much more than it will end up costing them. Now if they hadn’t cut corners, I would still be productive and they would still be making a profit off my work.

    When I worked I supported my family, bought goods, spent money. All those things helped the economy. People who work are more likely to be a benefit to society rather than a drain on society. People on the government dole take from society and are a drain to society.

    Unfortunately, often people have to be coerced to the right thing.

    Sorry, Taney, even in this case, if they can’t see the benefits, neither you nor I have any business ramming it down their throats. And you should have been looking for another job with someone more appreciative of your talents, esp. if you were saving that much, and taken such a job before you became unable to work.

    I once saved a company $6000 in one single day, roughly 1/6th of my yearly salary plus benefits, and that was hardly the only money I saved them even as I was upgrading all their equipment. I never saw jack s*** of a sign that they appreciated it at all. One of the firm’s Project Managers had been stuck with one of the worst computers in the place, despite the fact that she was probably one of the main power users there. I pushed for her (and others) to have laptops with about 10x the cpu she had been stuck with for several years. I was successful.

    6 months later, when the yearly raises were handed out, I was one of two people getting the lowest raise in the entire place (I happened to see the spreadsheet detailing everyone’s salaries)… The other person was quitting to move 3000 miles away in a month.

    9 months later, I asked that PM for a job reference, and she turned me down.

    I am still pissed about that almost 10 years after the fact, but telling them they must provide me with a job is ludicrous.

    If they’re too stupid to appreciate me, then they deserve to be out of business. And you know what? They’re getting there. Ten years ago, they had 35 local employees and 15 in a satellite office. Last I heard, they were down to about 10 employees with no satellite office.

    They got, and utterly deserved to be, Fukashima’d.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  43. IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society,

    The problem was never with the people I reported to directly or even management above my manager. When I first started from my manager to the CEO was kind to me. It was when the company went from 10,000 to 62,000 employees and the management chain grew larger that problems appeared. They gave me stock options and nice bonuses. After about six years upper and mid level management changed and they started to get rid of people with vision. By that time my injury was pretty bad and I felt trapped because of it. However my direct management was still very nice and I still received exceeds expectations on my reviews and still received bonuses. I worked for them for 11 1/2 years and never received less than an exceeds expectations on my reviews.

    The company got bought in early 2009. Then it got really bad and I had difficulty typing. In march of 2010 they laid off all the California programmers and management in my division. I didn’t understand this as I was working on a government compliance project that was saving them over $400,000 a year. I started looking for work, then in June the workman’s comp doctor said I wasn’t allowed to go back to work. I’ve been going through the treatment plan ever since, though the I’ve had difficulty getting more than partial treatments from w/c insurance. It did get a little better after the deposition.

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  44. There’s something called a slipgun. Single action. Your gunsmith (if he’s in the same shop you bought it) will not charge a lot to tune the action, wire the trigger back, and take the ridges off the hammer. Then you can hold it with both hands and just slip the hammer with your thumb(s).

    There are also a number of shotguns that can have the trigger wired back and fire when you work the slide. And have you ever seen the TV show The Rifleman? They did the same trick on a lever action rifle (92 Winchester, I believe).

    nk (db4a41)

  45. tanny. did you ever consider purchasing the ergonomic gear yourself so you could keep earning and keep your job?

    SGT Ted (5d10ae)

  46. ADA compliance rules run amuck.

    A company I work with was recently sued because they had no handicapped parking at their manufacturing facility. Never mind that the person who sued was physically fit and had no reason to ever visit this location. The company had no physically handicapped workers, had very limited parking available, have never had a handicapped person visit the facility, etc. No customers are allowed at that facility.

    The building is in a neighborhood where on street parking is almost non-existent. So they had to take almost 40% of their available parking spaces to convert to handicapped parking spaces. Now, employees have to park anywhere from four to eight blocks away from the business and walk to get to their jobs.

    Same business’ offices are on the second floor of the plant with no elevator access. When doing basic remodeling, the bathrooms had to be expanded to comply with wheelchair access policies. The problem was that the hallway leading to the bathrooms wasn’t wide enough to meet the requirements. This meant they had to remodel the offices adjacent to the hallway to allow widening that access. Which now made the office too small so there was not sufficient room for wheelchair access to the offices.

    Never mind that the only way a wheelchair could even get to that floor was to have it collapsed and carried up a steep staircase. The the person who needed the wheelchair would have to be carried up that same steep staircase.

    Thousands of dollars wasted for a business that had never been visited by anyone who needed special access.

    Also, in San Diego, if you have a disabled parking permit, you can park at the parking meters without having to pay. Around the court house and many of the downtown office buildings, there is virtually no meter parking available because otherwise healthy people are getting temporary or sometimes permanent handicapped stickers to avoid having to pay for parking. (This can save as much as $30 per day.)

    Yes, there are abuses and the one size fits all rules are ridiculous.

    On the flip side, many of my customers had already installed handicapped accommodations prior to the ADA being passed because it gave them a competitive advantage over their competitors.

    Jay H Curtis (8f6541)

  47. robocop is not possible yet, but they are getting very very close.

    Maybe it would be possible today had there been a Manhattan-Project-style project to develop a robocop.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  48. Aaron, let’s start with a question abut accommodating disabilities. Have we gone too far? Before answering consider a simple real world example. Disneyland used to have a fun, quiet, and scenic canoe ride. It has been made kiddie safe in that the canoes were not quite standard. They were very hard to tip. The ADA came along and Disney was forced to accommodate wheelchairs on the ride. Since that is impossible on a canoe they had to remove the ride altogether. So every body suffered. Is this right? Should some sanity be coupled with these situations?

    Fortunately the situation is a little less extreme these days. But, I have seen people in queues for rather turbulent rides who could not hold their necks properly erect when just sitting in their wheelchair. I hope they were shunted around the ride but did get to see the themeing in the queue area, which is often the most interesting part of the ride. I personally have an intermittent inner ear problem and ride such things with extreme caution. Should I complain to the Ada and get them to offer a slowed down version of the ride without the turbulence? It would be nice to get a ride through that way. But, I own my problem and deal with it. “They,” the people in the queues, “for the most part cannot get the ultimate thrill I get when I make a particularly difficult piece of software I am writing to work perfectly. And I’ll be damned if I’d advocate making programming so easy they could get the thrill because if there is no difficulty there is no thrill, and it may not be possible anyway.”

    My partner about 2/3 of a decade ago refitted a house as some small office space. The front yard featured about a 3′ drop to street level on a heavily traveled main street. To the rear there is parking with a half foot rise. But because that is in the dreaded “rear” he had to pour enough concrete to make a convoluted ramp to street level for the front door. Handicapped parking is in the rear. To use the front door the person must walk all the way around the house most of the way down the drive way, and finally ascend the ramp. All he must do for the back door is roll up the shallow ramp and go in the door. Logic does not apply.

    ADA is good. Unfortunately it is applied by idiots. That is a general rule I’ve discovered about almost any “good idea” that the Federal government adopts and tries to implement. The ADA is not something I can completely support for that reason.

    On a different level, hire the “man” for the job. If I am hiring a software engineer am I concerned whether she is a beauty contest winner (one such I helped hire with GREAT success) or is a fellow wheelchair bound since infancy who still has a first class ability to design and code software? Heck no. If ADA gives a small push, in the form of help accommodating the wheelchair if needed, and they are equal then I flip a coin. (I categorically refuse to give one human equally capable to another a preference based on anything other than I seem to be able to get along with one more than the other. Besides, there are people who have what might be called invisible disabilities. How would I guess Joe has Menieres Disease and is going to stagger around like he’s drunk from time to time because his inner ear decides it’s time for a thrill ride? How do I pick out the candidate with Migraine so I could exclude him? So why should I exclude anybody capable of doing the job? And if I consciously help a handicapped person that person may be a more loyal employee than the more healthy employee?)

    You make an excellent argument about “handicapped” being problem solvers. I’d modify that, sadly, to say that “Some handicapped are excellent problem solvers.” Too many buy into the greatest misfeature of the ADA, willing victimhood. The ADA tells you that you are a victim and deserve special accommodation. That stifles the problem solving. It can prevent a soul from growing up and flowering. The ADA is not a pure unalloyed blessing, especially in the hands of a Federal Government. I am waiting for the ADA to go the EPA route and declare an IQ below 140 is a handicap that colleges must accommodate…. Oh, wait, in their greed the colleges already are accepting money from unqualified students.

    For all my ranting I own it took me too many years to figure out my attitude about discrimination, “It makes no economic sense,” extends to the handicapped. Discriminate only on ability and strong (burning) desire to do the job needed. I’d not hire somebody wheelchair bound to be a fireman simply because until I see it done I don’t think that person could cope with the physical problems involved – carry a 200# injured person out of a fire. But that doesn’t stop me from looking to see if he can do something else I need.

    Regarding the Chuck Norris story, there is a story in the Pete Dawkins history not many people know. I was privileged to see it. In High School as a senior he was on the track team. He was running the 440 yard race when about 50 yards from the finish line he tore his Achilles tendon, I believe it was. He managed to hobble across the finish line still ahead of everybody else. I have NEVER seen anything quite so exciting since. It’s not without reason he became the nations youngest General when he got that promotion.

    {^_^}

    JD (bcdcf2)

  49. tanny. did you ever consider purchasing the ergonomic gear yourself so you could keep earning and keep your job?

    Comment by SGT Ted — 4/22/2011 @ 8:11 am

    Actually at first I purchased my own ergonomic keyboard and mouse. Then I asked if I could bring in my own chair and I was told that I could only use one of their pre-approved chairs which of course where the cheapest they could get. When they found out that I had my own keyboard and mouse they went with the only pre-approved computer equipment could be used at the office line and made me take my ergonomic keyboard and mouse home. The bureaucrats finally gave me an ergonomic keyboard and mouse, then ergonomic trackball, but never a proper chair. The people I worked with and did work for where great, it’s the bureaucrats that made life miserable. It’s been my experience that in large corporations, not matter how nice they are, you always have the bean counters and bureaucrats who create deproductivity instead of productivity.

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  50. All the lefty californian jews came out to see and get an orgasm over the sight of Maobama and his amazing multicolor moobs.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  51. All the lefty californian jews came out to see and get an orgasm over the sight of Maobama and his amazing multicolor moobs.

    Comment by DohBiden — 4/22/2011 @ 3:37 pm

    How about just lefty californian’s. I’m sure that they are not all Jewish. Being raised by a Jewish mother and turning to Christianity in 1974, I’m shocked by your statement. Not offended, though maybe I should be, just saddened.

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  52. Kish, I see you mentioned that you are an autie. I saw both Amanda Baggs and Tamara K. listed on your blogroll. They are two of my favorite bloggers. I suspect we might be neighbors, as I too live very near the 26th parallel, in Flarduh. Being at least an half-aspie m’self, I’ll say that I like yer style.

    Justthisguy (d20a67)

  53. My cousin Dennis had CP for decades, and hunted with both rifle and bow all of his life. He has patents on adaptations for both for wheelchair use. He taught firearm (rifle, shotgun and handgun) and bow hunting, and one of my quiet joys at his funeral was the bristling between the VFW (Dennis was a Submariner, Nuclear Machinist), Minnesota Highway Patrol, and Minnesota Sheriff’s Association for providing Honor Guards and Honors Firing Squad.

    ADA would have made my life better in the 1960′s when I was battling epilepsy. I thought I’d understood discrimination; I had not had a clue. I’m not sure if it was the ignorance that led to the discrimination, or vice-versa, and it didn’t matter much.

    It does make life better for some I know now who are properly diagnosed with ADHD (and might have for me if I’d been correctly diagnosed in the 1960′s.)

    Can it be abused? Of course. Any law may be abused. Should it be needed? Of course not.

    Best wishes, Aaron, and the rest of you. Temporarily Full Bodied is what we are for a while.

    htom (412a17)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2878 secs.