Today we learn about abuse that occurred in a state-run school for people with disabilities in Corpus Christi, Texas.  Among other things, employees of the facility forced residents to join a fight club and filmed the fights.  In one particularly gruesome moment described in a CBS article, "one resident is seen on the video trying to run away from his attacker and a large group of employees and residents tracking him through the halls. When cornered, he wails and moans and tells the employees, 'I will behave.'"

This story is tragic.  It also has public policy implications because care for adults with disabilities remains severely underfunded and the abuse of people with disabilities remains commonplace.  Today, Patricia E. Bauer reports on some particularly horrendous treatment of a woman with disabilities in Pennsylvania.  Simple Google searches reveal that the problem is systemic.  (Washington, D.C., in particular, has a difficult time in this regard.)  I am frequently disheartened, however, to find stories about cases of neglect and abuse in group homes for people with disabilities in the back pages of the third section in my hometown newspaper.  Understandably, not every human tragedy can be on the front page all the time, but I feel that insufficient attention is paid to what happens, from a public policy angle, when people with disabilities turn 21 and school districts have finished financing their "free and fair" public education.  Who takes care of them?  How?  With what funding?  With what supervision?  For many people, families become caretakers and do a good job.  For others, families are unwilling or unable to provide adequate food, shelter, and services.  It would be criminally negligent of the government to abandon people with disabilities who don't have the luxury of a loving and financially stable family.  Unfortunately, this is often what happens. 

The CBS article highlights Texas Governor Rick Perry's spending reductions for health and human services in Texas.  I would call on Rick Perry to adjust his funding priorities.  (Perhaps he could institute a state income tax, for instance?)  I would also call on public policy makers in other parts of the country to use what happened in Corpus Christi as a reminder to be vigilant about the rights of adults with disabilities, because underfunding and failing to oversee group homes and other services for people with disabilities can have dangerous consequences.

As part of an ongoing quest to keep myself intellectually honest, I make a point to stay abreast of what is going on in the conservative media.  I regularly consult Hot Air, Michelle Malkin's blog, and Rush Limbaugh's website.  One thing I notice about each of these three websites is that they spend a significant amount of time attacking ideas or entities that don't actually exist. 

For example, on March 27, Rush Limbaugh explained to his listeners that:

"This is nothing more than a giant, global redistribution-of-wealth scheme. Man-made global warming, the hoax that it is, has always been nothing but that -- with the accompanying gigantic growth-of-government from nation to nation occurring at the same time -- and the loss of individual liberty and freedom.  Tell the people in Denver! Tell the people in Fargo! I woke up the other day looked at the weather, and it was 35 degrees in New York!" 

In a mere five sentences, Limbaugh manages to explain that: (1) global warming does not exist because, sometimes, it gets cold outside - clearly a false argument since no theory surrounding global warming states unequivocally that it will never get cold again; (2) global warming is not only nonexistent, but an actual "hoax," implying that those who believe in global warming are actively trying to deceive; (3) people who claim that global warming exists have a nefarious scheme to "redistribute wealth" - I'm not sure what the link is here; (4) people who claim global warming exists want "gigantic growth-of-government from nation to nation," which is a highly undocumented claim at best; and (5) acknowledging the existence of global warming is equivalent to the loss of individual liberty and freedom. 

Essentially, Limbaugh creates a series of false enemies and false arguments to scare people into thinking that documented scientific fact is the equivalent of having your personal liberties taken away by people who scheme to redistribute your wealth around the world.

The same kind of deconstruction could be done at Hot Air or on Michelle Malkin's blog, where the active use of fallacies and the caricaturization and demonization of the political left create an illogical environment in which readers develop the idea that Democrats actually are out to kill babies, worship Obama as the second coming of Christ, and increase taxes to extents not seen since the U.S.S.R. was a major world superpower. 

I would argue, however, that rightwing blogs, however ill informed and silly they may be, are part of the strange and beautiful American fabric of free speech.  Let people rant, whatever their convictions are.  People can choose to read or not read and they can choose to believe or not believe.  So, as much as these websites fluster and offend my academic sensibilities, I don't find them particularly dangerous. 

I was disturbed, however, by an RNC ad profiled on my beloved Huffington Post.  (Despite previous criticisms, it really is one of my favorite news sources.)  In it, a false Barack Obama reads his famed teleprompter (because no other politician has ever read a prepared speech) and voices his support for a number of questionable policies that, in point of fact, do not actually exist.

For example, contrary to what this ad claims:

(1) Barack Obama does not advocate that the U.S. Census be run by ACORN.  (Additionally, despite what this ad says, there remains no documented connection between ACORN and election fraud.  This is a famous conservative fallacy; voter registration fraud is not the same as Mickey Mouse showing up to the polls to vote.);

(2) Barack Obama has never equated members of the U.S. military with terrorists;

(3) Barack Obama hardly introduced the financing of American debt by China or the Middle East.  China has been the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury bonds since 2008, and before that it was Japan, but I suppose Japan doesn't appeal to the imagination quite as much;

(4) Barack Obama doesn't keep his thermostat as 80 while recommending that the rest of the country keep its thermostats at 65; and

(5) Countless other things.

Essentially, the RNC has created an ad in which a series of false policies are presented as things Obama actually supports.  This goes beyond normal political distortion and into the realm of outright lies.  This is far more dangerous than anything Michelle Malkin's blog could produce, because this commercial was created by the Republican National Committee, a far more official and respected entity than a known far right blogger.  This is dangerous propaganda and I worry that, should this ad become a point of discussion, it will place Obama on the defensive against arguments that are completely and utterly false. 

(I should point out that the RNC did pull the ad down, but not before they put it up.  Essentially, the RNC can now claim that they aren't behind the ad, even though it's echoing throughout the internet.) 

I have been a volunteer with Special Olympics for nine years and I voted for Barack Obama.  My sister has competed in Special Olympics for 17 years, and she was the first Special Olympics athlete to win the gold medal in the women's 1500 meter freestyle race.  In addition to being a fantastic athlete, she is an avid reader of a variety of daily newspapers.  She keeps up with current events, especially American politics.  She voted for Barack Obama because he stood up for gay rights.  She voted for Obama because he stood up for immigrants.  She voted for Obama because, as the daughter of a retired military officer, she thought he would take better care of men and women in uniform than George Bush did.  She voted for Obama, and I voted for Obama, because we thought he would give voice to so many who are marginalized in the American political process.  Today, when she reads the newspaper as she takes public transportation on her way to work, she will surely read about what Obama said on Jay Leno's show.  For her sake, and for the sake of Special Olympics athletes everywhere, I am angry and ashamed. 

Obama, who ran on championing the cause of the oppressed, has callously made fun of people with disabilities, one of the most marginalized and vulnerable groups in America.  On top of that, he has made fun of Special Olympics athletes, people who work harder than most people can imagine to improve their lot in life.  He has disparaged people whose only crime is wanting a social network, a set of goals they can to accomplish, a place where - for once - they are recognized for their achievements and not their shortfalls.  They are fundamentally seeking, really, what most people take for granted.

The casual cruelty of Obama's comment was bad enough.  What is worse is that many liberal media outlets, including The Huffington Post, are not condemning or even negating the legitimacy of Obama's comment.  Today, The Huffington Post conducted a poll that - in all seriousness - asks its readers if Obama's comment was "a little funny."  Another optional answer is that Obama's question was "light-hearted."  Amazingly, only one of the four possible answers to the poll gives readers the option of calling Obama's comment "tasteless."  The Huffington Post is essentially giving its readers three options indicating that it's okay to, you know, make fun of the handicapped.  Would we have these same poll options if Obama had disparaged any other minority?  Through its poll, The Huffington Post is essentially legitimizing one of America's last acceptable prejudices.

In an age where people with disabilities still struggle for social recognition and equal rights, it is disgusting for our nation's leader to dismiss them and some of their greatest accomplishments so casually.  Our President, and those who choose to ignore his insult, are doing a disservice not only to a community of citizens and voters with disabilities, but also to a nation that should be moving forward, not backward, in embracing social justice for all, including our most vulnerable citizens.