JUST OUT OF REACH...

Tense, nervous, headache?  Tired and worn out from the cares of the day?  Then what you need is a mental massage to soothe and relax you, and nothing does that better than the velvet-voiced musical marvel that was - that is - JIM REEVES!

So, plug in your headphones, click the above link, then sit back and feel all your worries melt away.

GOOD OR BAD? YOU DECIDE...

MARK EVANIER, one-time assistant to the legendary JACK KIRBY, recently embedded a video (on his mostly excellent blog) which has turned out to be quite controversial.  No fault of Mr. Evanier it has to be said, but a disabled person who calls himself BAD CRIPPLE has taken against it.  The video is an ad by a company called PURPLE FEATHER, and Bad Cripple (I don't even like typing the name, so let's call him by the other one he uses, WILLIAM PEACE) claims that it shows disabled people (in this case, a blind man, or perhaps an actor playing blind) in a negative light.  Watch the video and see what you think.

(Incidentally, the ad was filmed at the back steps of the premises which once housed BORDERS, behind The Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow, for those of you who may be interested in such things.)

I left a comment on the man's site (as did numerous others), politely stating that he was perhaps over-reacting, and asking him if he would've had a problem if the beggar hadn't been blind, but merely homeless, and the woman had changed his sign to 'It's a beautiful day, but it'll be a cold night on the street'.  (You'll understand what I'm alluding to if you watch the ad.)  Mr. Peace then changed tack, and said that he was offended by anyone having to beg, "disabled or not".  I politely pointed out that this was a different argument, as his original stated objection had been to the depiction (in his view) of disabled people in a stereotypical, negative way, not people ("disabled or not") who had (or chose) to beg.

I also observed that perhaps the man was begging not because he was blind, but for some other reason(s), and that maybe his blindness was unconnected to his current situation.  Sure, his sign said "I'm blind - please help", but this could merely be due to matters of expediency.  After all, "I'm an alcoholic junkie- please help"  (or whatever) is hardly likely to produce the desired result.  Mr. Peace decided  not to respond to my points (which he's perfectly entitled to do - it's his blog after all), but he deleted my second comment, which, I feel, demonstrates his inability to deal with what I feel were pertinent points contained therein.

However, it raises an interesting question.  Whenever disaster strikes anywhere on the planet, should aid agencies and charities refrain from showing us the effects it has on people's lives for fear of portraying them in a disadvantaged way, in need of assistance from the global community?  And the same goes in the case of disabled people.  Surely the best way to solicit help - when it is needed - is to show (within reason) the ugly realities that  people in such situations have to deal with.

While it's true that the ad is designed to draw attentiom to the company that produced it rather than the plight of disadvantaged or disabled people, it is surely treating them in exactly the same manner as it treats the able-bodied (as players in a story) - which is surely the aim of every disabled person everywhere?  That is, to be treated exactly the same as everybody else.  So, what's Mr. Peace's problem?

(It's interesting, though, that it's not the beggar who wears the shades, but the 'insightful' woman who rewrites his sign.  Was it intended as some kind of irony perhaps?  At least they avoided the stereotype of non-sighted people always wearing dark glasses.) 

Do you think the ad is a good or a bad thing?  Take a look, and then say what you think in the comments section.