While reading Blue's post about the incredibly ignorant decision of the 11th Circuit District Court, I ended up clicking my way to Bullshit on Wheels (via Disability Law), an episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" that critiques the ADA.
The bullshit is incredible. Sam Bagenstos is right when he says, "I've seen lots of folks make libertarian arguments sound appealing, but these guys seem incapable of doing anything other than preaching to the converted." (and I love the neologism 'glibertarian' in that post), but it boggles the mind that this sort of argument still gets made. I got most of the way through the video before I started taking notes, but I want to comment on a few things.
First, the usual invisible-hand-free-market-economics argument is a lousy one, and I'm amazed that it's still being made, given that, y'know, if market incentives were enough to cause real change, people wouldn't have pushed for the ADA (and related legislation) and its enforcement so hard. Just because they found a disabled person to speak to those points doesn't make them legit. And while the "my disability is worse than your disability" point tends to be a cheap shot, I would suggest that arguing against curb cuts and lift buses is not so compelling when it comes from a reasonably strong and fit crutch user whose major disability is that he has one leg and is missing some fingers.
Second, the "ADA hurts disabled people because it invites litigation that creates resentment" argument is an old and tired saw. "The Case Against the ADA" explains pretty clearly why, and I won't repeat that here (google the title if you want a synopsis), but I will point out that a lot of those feelings are created by this sort of negative publicity.
Third, the sequence where Penn shows excerpts from the ADA and the implementation guidelines, and complains that they're dense, obscure, and confusing, is just ridiculous. That's how the law is written; that's what building codes look like. To suggest anything else doesn't do anything but suggest that you don't have a decent argument to make.
Fourth, the fact that there are more people who have accessible parking placards than need them is not a reason to not have accessible parking. I would suggest that maybe doctors should stop handing them out to people with minor injuries, or that maybe a shorter-term placard wouldn't be a bad idea ... but quite frankly, I don't think it's a huge issue compared with the benefit of having accessible parking. (Which, Penn, is not about "convenience", dammit.) Even if it were, why throw the baby out with the bath water?
Fifth, if you're going to try to find problems with the ADA, please try to figure out why it was written as it was, rather than assuming that things that don't make sense at first glance are simply nonsensical. Things like Braille ATMs, or lever doorknobs.
Sixth, and I know this has been said before, but if you work for a group that is cited or interviewed (in this case, the Cato Institute), it's generally considered unethical not to disclose that relationship.
Seventh, lawsuit abuse is a problem, though it's not specific to the ADA (I'm looking at you, SCO, and you, RIAA), but it's not a reason, in and of itself, to throw out a law, and frivolous litigation can get a lawyer disbarred (I believe).
Eighth ... post hoc ergo propter hoc? You know better than that. And for that matter, "people are afraid to hire the handicapped these days. That wasn't true before the ADA was signed into law" is flat-out wrong.
Ninth, the guy was talking about the lack of wheelchair accessible taxis, and Penn starts off on a rant about how in many large cities, all the buses are accessible. Which is a change in topic, and doesn't actually address the issue of whether or not drivers will stop for you, be willing to put out the ramp, and so on. (Penn also ignores the fact that those buses are accessible *because of* the ADA.)
Anyway, the basic argument seems to be that people are basically compassionate, and compassion can't be legislated. While that may be true, it doesn't explain why I can't get into my university's newly-built multi-million dollar cognitive science research building without help for the lack of a few simple choices that would have cost very little - if anything at all. Nor does it explain why changes made by the local subway system in the name of accessibility have actually worsened the situation for many of us.
This started out as a pretty awesome weekend (minus the fact that final exams start next week), so I'm going to stop now and try to forget about these guys' ignorance and bigotry - if only until the next battle starts.
The bullshit is incredible. Sam Bagenstos is right when he says, "I've seen lots of folks make libertarian arguments sound appealing, but these guys seem incapable of doing anything other than preaching to the converted." (and I love the neologism 'glibertarian' in that post), but it boggles the mind that this sort of argument still gets made. I got most of the way through the video before I started taking notes, but I want to comment on a few things.
First, the usual invisible-hand-free-market-economics argument is a lousy one, and I'm amazed that it's still being made, given that, y'know, if market incentives were enough to cause real change, people wouldn't have pushed for the ADA (and related legislation) and its enforcement so hard. Just because they found a disabled person to speak to those points doesn't make them legit. And while the "my disability is worse than your disability" point tends to be a cheap shot, I would suggest that arguing against curb cuts and lift buses is not so compelling when it comes from a reasonably strong and fit crutch user whose major disability is that he has one leg and is missing some fingers.
Second, the "ADA hurts disabled people because it invites litigation that creates resentment" argument is an old and tired saw. "The Case Against the ADA" explains pretty clearly why, and I won't repeat that here (google the title if you want a synopsis), but I will point out that a lot of those feelings are created by this sort of negative publicity.
Third, the sequence where Penn shows excerpts from the ADA and the implementation guidelines, and complains that they're dense, obscure, and confusing, is just ridiculous. That's how the law is written; that's what building codes look like. To suggest anything else doesn't do anything but suggest that you don't have a decent argument to make.
Fourth, the fact that there are more people who have accessible parking placards than need them is not a reason to not have accessible parking. I would suggest that maybe doctors should stop handing them out to people with minor injuries, or that maybe a shorter-term placard wouldn't be a bad idea ... but quite frankly, I don't think it's a huge issue compared with the benefit of having accessible parking. (Which, Penn, is not about "convenience", dammit.) Even if it were, why throw the baby out with the bath water?
Fifth, if you're going to try to find problems with the ADA, please try to figure out why it was written as it was, rather than assuming that things that don't make sense at first glance are simply nonsensical. Things like Braille ATMs, or lever doorknobs.
Sixth, and I know this has been said before, but if you work for a group that is cited or interviewed (in this case, the Cato Institute), it's generally considered unethical not to disclose that relationship.
Seventh, lawsuit abuse is a problem, though it's not specific to the ADA (I'm looking at you, SCO, and you, RIAA), but it's not a reason, in and of itself, to throw out a law, and frivolous litigation can get a lawyer disbarred (I believe).
Eighth ... post hoc ergo propter hoc? You know better than that. And for that matter, "people are afraid to hire the handicapped these days. That wasn't true before the ADA was signed into law" is flat-out wrong.
Ninth, the guy was talking about the lack of wheelchair accessible taxis, and Penn starts off on a rant about how in many large cities, all the buses are accessible. Which is a change in topic, and doesn't actually address the issue of whether or not drivers will stop for you, be willing to put out the ramp, and so on. (Penn also ignores the fact that those buses are accessible *because of* the ADA.)
Anyway, the basic argument seems to be that people are basically compassionate, and compassion can't be legislated. While that may be true, it doesn't explain why I can't get into my university's newly-built multi-million dollar cognitive science research building without help for the lack of a few simple choices that would have cost very little - if anything at all. Nor does it explain why changes made by the local subway system in the name of accessibility have actually worsened the situation for many of us.
This started out as a pretty awesome weekend (minus the fact that final exams start next week), so I'm going to stop now and try to forget about these guys' ignorance and bigotry - if only until the next battle starts.
posted by ismith at 3:02 PM
3 Comments:
I've seen some discussion of this episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit on a couple disability listservs. Lawrence Carter-Long, who appears on the show, said they really cherry-picked his comments. He also said he was hesitant to go on the show to begin with, but I'm glad he and Fred Schotz did or Greg Perry would have been the representative of disabled folks. Perry is like Christina Hoff Sommers discussing women's issues or Clarence Thomas being treated as a spokesperson for black folks -- utterly ridiculous and seriously misleading of the general experiences and beliefs of the group.
Penn & Teller are offensive on so many levels -- purposely offensive -- that I'm not sure it's important that they're also offensive about disability. But the misleading information they provide in defense of their anti-ADA position is enraging.
I figured Carter-Long's comments were cherry-picked. It seemed fairly obvious to me, but I'm familiar with the arguments (and I've been interviewed before, so I know how editing can really distort things), so I wonder how clear it is to someone who isn't. And I agree with you on the balance thing.
Ah, well. Catharsis.
I have an ambivalent relationship with P&T's ouvre. Their expose of "psychics" which was, IIRC, the very first ep of their BS show, was a much needed blow to an old con game.
I put off watching this ep on the ADA, let it sit in my DVR, because I did not think I could stand the Clint Eastwood, neo-libertarian, "no-one-hates-the-TRULY-disabled" crap I anticipated.
Watched it last night and it was even worse than I had imagined. My son, who usually likes P&T as a sort of shorthand intro to skeptical thinking, was appalled. We concluded that, being the smart guys they are, and having access (heh) to Carter-Long and Schotz, P&T DO know the intention of the ADA, they DO know the arguments/facts that have more than adequately answered their tired "free-market is a fluffy bunny" delusion. IMO, P&T lose their skeptical powers when it challenges their religion, which is a particular brand of libertarianism.
It would be fun to list the tenets of their delusional system. Prophets like Milton Friedman, Vatican at the Cato Institute, preachers like Greg Perry...like most religions, there are things of truth and value which do not legitimize the suspension of intellectual honesty neeeded to buy the whole silly package.
Post a Comment
<< Home