Results 41-60 of 173
Prev
As one who knows the people in the film, I have an understanding of all the discussion that has been submitted by the author and others. I wish all of the doubters could have been in a group discussion I participated in some years ago with about 15-20 people, of whom 3 were men who used FC. During the discussion, suddenly one individual (who uses FC) jumped into action and started furiously typing to react to someone else's statement - and then a second person sprang into action and started typing another very appropriate remark. The doubts vanished! It was clear that this was real communication.
We must allow any possibility of communication for people who cannot speak and work to improve the techniques instead of working to deny this most elemental aspect of our lives. There is much we still have to learn in the area of disability. As has been quoted by several people, "Absence of evidence is not Evidence of Absence."
The class is actually on Nov. 10th for this particular month.
All Beginner's Classes occur on the 1st Tuesday of each month and start at 7pm. They are $25 each and they include a binder of information, a brewing demonstration, a beer tasting, and coupons to purchase your first items.
First of all --Lincoln knew keeping the Union together, while limiting slavery to the slave states, was going to make the slave owners choke on their own slave vomit. As the Florida Declaration of Causes made clear (and other documents) the South was awash with slaves to the point of absurdity. The prices of slaves went from 2,000 dollars per buck, to 150 dollars.
So many slave infants were been bred by the breeding states ( Virginia, North Carolina), and so many more (over a million) were brought in illegally in smuggling ships, that a massive glut resulted. This is confirmed by numerous Southern leader.
Just stopping the spred of slavery to the Western states, said the Governor of Florida, was going to destroy the South.
Plus - Northern Congressmen who supported slavery, were calling for the literal arrest and exectution of anyone who said slavery had to end, for the war to end. Let me repeat that-- speeches on the floor of COngreess in 1863, were calling for the exectution of anyone who said slavery had to end. You better speak in terms of Union -- or literally your life was in danger.
Do you think Lincoln was not aware of this sentiment?
Vidal knows this -- everyone who really knows what Lincoln was up aginst, knows this.
So Lincoln was going to end slavery - by keeping it bottle up. And he wasn't going to be arrested and executed for proclaiming that slavery was what he was fighting for too.
Remember - all this while, LIncoln is working to end slavery. First with the EP -- and then with the 13th Amendment.
Mr. Maximov was given one of the most unenviable journalistic assignments I can imagine with this piece: reviewing a documentary whose central subject matter is the disabled and an arts group advocating for them. How on earth does one give an honest critique of such of a film without risking being called insensitive to the theater group, the cause, the disabled population, or all of the above? Well, I guess you better hedge your bets on loving the film start to finish, so you can go to sleep feeling like a good guy, with your journalistic principles intact to boot.
The backlash of letters in response to Mr. Maximov's review more than makes my point. In this 30 + sentence article, about 5 sentences are devoted to discussion about the FC controvery. The rest of the article from the first sentence to the last, reinforces the work of the theater group and the need for the disabled to be able to express themselves. No journalist writing anything about FC should leave out reference to the well-documented controversy surrounding the subject - it's called balanced reporting. And I find it hard to believe that anyone involved with the theater group, the film, or the practice of FC itself is ignorant to the questions surrounding the legitimacy of FC. But those involved with this film have been so quick to criticize Mr. Maximov's raising of perfectly legitimate issues while largely ignoring the complimentary tone of 80% of his article that one has to question why they are so defensive. If FC should be cleared of all controversy, then simply point to the facts that show it. There would be no need to be so defensive if the overwhelming bulk of evidence supported the claims of FC's proponents.
Incidentally, my only criticism of Mr. Maximov's article is that it is diplomatic to a fault. His praise of the film is so careful and measured that I get the sense that this is not so much a review as it is a nod to a local filmmaker. As a film goer, I'm glad to know there are people making films on these topics, but I also want to know whether the reviewer thought it was a quality film - and I don't really get a clear sense of that in this review. Perhaps Mr. Maximov was, understandably, concerned about criticizing a film covering this subject matter. Ironically, those involved with the film have no problem criticizing him.
First of all, I’d like to thank the letter writers and commenters for adding their thoughts and perspectives on my article. The subject of facilitated communication (FC) turns out to need much greater attention than the 750 words I wrote in my review of A New Kind of Listening.
I appreciate Kenny Dalsheimer and Alison Latimer’s setting the record straight on the reasons for the disclaimer at the end of the film. In talking to Dalsheimer, I was told that the Institute had been shown a rough cut, and that a decision was made to add the disclaimer. But I misunderstood his explanation and thought the Institute had requested it. I apologize for the error.
Like Dalsheimer, who didn’t want FC to be the focus of his film, I didn’t want it to be the focus of my review—the film tells the story of an inclusive theater group, and the FC question is tangential to its main points. But I felt that to leave unmentioned the serious doubts I felt on seeing the communication depicted in it would betray my responsibility as a reviewer, would amount to an act of willful ignorance along the lines of “the emperor’s new clothes.” I watched the video very carefully, repeatedly pausing and rewinding. It seems clear that at times Chris Mueller-Medlicott is typing without looking at the keyboard. This was the cause of my initial suspicions.
As far as the accusation of lazy journalism and of failing to do proper research before writing my article, I acknowledge that I could have contacted more sources. But again, the credibility of FC was not the focus of my article. And, in fact, I did research the issue rather extensively before I wrote about it.
There is a vast wealth of material on FC on the Internet. The disclaimer at the end of the film states, “For training guidelines and research validating facilitated communication please visit: www.inclusioninstitutes.org.” I visited the site, and read the better part of the information posted there. I found much other relevant information at the Web site for DEAL (Dignity, Education and Learning: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealcc/), an Australian organization directed by Rosemary Crossley, the inventor of facilitated communication, and at numerous other sites.
I also came across a documentary that appeared on the PBS series Frontline in 1993. The film, Prisoners of Silence, echoed many of the doubts I experienced while watching A New Kind of Listening (a transcript of the show is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1202.html. It has also been posted to Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3439467496200920717 &ei=Yl_ySoKDIY3uqQKH0ow9 &hl=en#).
The Frontline documentary, and much other research available or referred to online, presents overwhelming evidence against facilitated communication. Study after study has revealed messages typed using FC that originated from the facilitator, not the client. In 1994, the American Psychological Association resolved that “Peer reviewed, scientifically based studies have found that the typed language output (represented through computers, letter boards, etc.) attributed to the clients was directed or systematically determined by the paraprofessional/professional therapists who provided facilitated assistance… . Consequently, specific activities [involving FC] contribute immediate threats to the individual civil and human rights of the person with autism or severe mental retardation.”
The FC community’s responses to specific criticism do not seem credible. In the face of the accumulated evidence, they accuse their critics of professional bias, poor study design, and a desire to “silence” people who are disabled. They point to a few cases in which clients using FC have gone on to communicate independently. This is a marvelous outcome for those individuals, but it doesn’t diminish the grave danger to the rights of other FC clients, for whom the evidence indicates that in the majority of cases, someone else is essentially speaking for them.
The issues surrounding FC inspire intense emotions that can cloud rational judgment. It’s not surprising that many therapists, family members and advocates would prefer to ignore evidence that it doesn’t work. To be sure, in the specific case of Chris Mueller-Medlicott, I’m not prepared to make any definitive claim about the validity of his communication. His family and others around him were in a better position to judge than a critic who watched an hour-long film in which he appeared.
I do, however, want to share with Indy readers the results of my research on facilitated communication. I invite those who are interested to look into the matter for themselves and decide which arguments they find most persuasive.
However, it's pretty clear that all y'all are DUDES with a dude perspective on local (and non-local) music. Of course, one of the Chrisses could be a lovely lady, but I doubt it.
A good percentage of the bands in Troika are woman-led or women-backed, and a lesser number are woman-driven. Not to mention Troika itself, put together by the fantastic ladies at 307 Knox and friends.
It would be really f'in nice to have -- out of 11 reviewers in the primary entertainment weekly for the area -- have at least one or two be women who add a different perspective on things, and broaden the discussion.
Thanks!
919 286 1972 •
919 286 4274 •
