SACRAMENTO - In recent weeks, there have been protests about a movie, "Tropic Thunder" starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr, Jack Black and others. The movie was released August 15th and subsequently became the #1 box hit last week, garnering extremely favorable reviews in many major publications and newspapers. On one level, the movie is meant to be a parody or farce making fun of actors and the filmmakers. And it makes fun of many people (Robert Downey, Jr. is in blackface in the movie for instance).
It uses the "R-word", which many advocates for people with disabilities and others, including myself, find offensive.
Beyond the movie, some people also think it is okay to use the "R-word" to use it to describe some foolish action as in "that's retarded...." or "what a retard", similar to other expressions that are just as offensive but describe similar things, such as "that's gay" and of course, the "N-word". All those words are bad. Any expression that is derogatory is terrible - and I am writing out the words here, as bad as it looks on paper and sounds - for those who may not understand or know what the "R-word" is.
The recent protests organized against the movie focused solely on how the movie depicted or referred to people with developmental disabilities - people like my sister Alana. Real people like Simone DuMong and Kevin Hosseni in Santa Barbara, or Vera Dove in Ventura, or Christal Hopkins and Alex Brown in Fresno, or Jody Barker and Kathy Farrar in San Luis Obispo, or Robert Jacques in Monterey, or Michael and Benaye Cooke in Red Bluff or David Engberg in Sacramento.
Our friends, our children, our brothers and sisters, our spouses, our families - our community.
I cringe even now when I remember how cruel people could be in taunting me, my sister and others in her special education class. But I also remember otherwise good people, who stood by and let the taunting happen, or said or did things just as bad by disguising their words.
Crystal Hopkins gives Maria Shriver an article about living with disabilities in California to call attention to those in need Friday in Fresno.Tim Shriver, the brother in law of the Governor and his sister, Maria Shriver, California's First Lady. both have spoken out strongly against the movie and its use of words that are disrespectful and harmful
[Writer's Note: Crystal Hopkins, a close friend of mine - virtually my sister, is pictured (left) with California First Lady Maria Shriver . She is giving Shriver a copy of my commentary "The Other California" (written March 2005) during a visit to Fresno on March 26, 2006. "The Other California" commentary is on the CDCAN wesbite under "Marty Omoto Commentary" . The First Lady promised Crystal Hopkins - who is a strong part of CDCAN - that she would read the commentary.].
Tim Shriver, who heads the Special Olympics founded by his mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver (the Governor's mother-in-law), helped to organize, lead and be a spokesperson for the protests against the movie, including a boycott, along with other advocacy groups and organizations in California and across the nation.
Maria Shriver's stand on the issue was made public in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece she wrote against the movie's use of the "R-word", and how that impacts people with developmental disabilities and she was widely praised for doing that.
But there is something profoundly missing from the protests and objections to thea movie, that is an important lesson for us to learn and remember as advocates.
Yes, words in a movie do matter.
But so do words and action in Sacramento - and in Washington.
And those words and actions impact real people as much as any movie does.
One can argue that words in a movie are unrelated to words and action in Sacramento and Washington. One could say that the harm caused by words in a movie, or newspaper or radio are different than the harm caused by words and action in Sacramento and Washington.
That is an argument that some policymakers would like us to make - and lose.
When our advocacy is divided not only in its approach in Sacramento, but in its response to harmful attacks elsewhere, then we lose - the communities of people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors.
In Sacramento, unpleasant or bad news to our communities are masked with other words to describe proposals and actions that cut services or reduce spending that are needed.
Words like "pressures on the General Fund," "cost savings," "cost containment," "cost avoidance," "controlling costs", suspending the cost of living," and "delaying pass through of the SSI COLA", "rate freezes", "budget stabilization", "temporary measures" to name a few.
Proposals that advance "quality assurance" or require "quarterly status reports" or impose "family cost participation" or "purchase of services standards" or propose actions to get at "fraud and abuse" make it sound as if policymakers really mean to get at problems and make things better. Sometimes they do - but many times the opposite is true.
Other terms like "budget neutral" or "cost neutrality" make it sound as if budget discussions had something to do with international relations, like Switzerland being neutral during World War II. The word "neutral" gives the impression that it refers to a budget action that has no impact on people's lives. A word disguised doesn't lessen its impact. It just hides it. It is still harmful.
Nationally the same language is often used and for the same reasons. "Deficit Reduction Act" for instance was used to mask massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs, as if one is only cutting a deficit and not cutting services to people in real life. "Rebalancing" is another word used (which assumes I suppose that one fell off of whatever one was balanced on).
Virtually all of those word combinations have something in common: Controlling the numbers of people who are eligible for services by cutting or limiting caseload (another word that is used instead of saying "people") and controlling the number of hours or cost of using services which means cutting or reducing utilization (another word used to describe what services people need or have a right to).
It often has little to do with any outcome of quality, fighting fraud or abuse - though people who propose those words will claim it does, just as those who made the movie "Tropic Thunder" will claim it was not meant to harm or be insulting.
The real outcome of those words in Sacramento is to result in the major reduction of costs to the State that means cutting services for children with special needs and adults with disabilities, mental health needs and seniors who need them and impacting their rights to live in their own communities. Those words result in great harm.
Other words have meaning with impact that is often disguised to mask something as bad as the words used in a movie.
The word "reform" attached to other words - like "budget reform", "system reform", "rate reform", "nursing home reform", "adult day health reform" can often hide some pretty bad outcomes, and be as harmful to people as that "R" word in a movie - if our advocacy and policymakers allow it. We often do.
The very same week the movie opened, the Governor, for instance, released new budget proposals, including budget reforms that use words that call for "spending caps", and use words that call for more spending cuts - $2 billion more.
The word combination of "spending caps" sounds as inoffensive as placing a lid on a frying pan cooking bacon or placing the cap on a bottle of aspirin. Yet that word combination could result in tremendous harm to entire communities of people with disabilities, seniors and others across the State - at least as harmful as any word combination using the "R-word". It could mean permanent suspension of key parts of the only civil rights act in the nation that protects children and adults with developmental disabilities - the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. It could mean suspension of many other important rights for children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs and seniors and others.
These and other word combinations mask or hide some really bad outcomes - words that actually create greater harm, because it is government proposed, reviewed, authorized and certified harm.
Those words and actions harm our children, our brothers and sisters, our grandchildren, foster and adoption assistance children our friends - our community at least as much as words in any movie can.
Maria Shriver wrote:
"Kids will see "Tropic Thunder," no matter the rating, and when they leave the theater and go out to their schools, their homes and their communities, they'll call each other the "R-word" because they think it's funny. They'll do it without any idea or regard to how it makes a person with a disability feel."
She is right.
But what do children - and others - think when they read or hear about what their Governor and legislators have done to their classmates with special needs, to their parents or uncles and aunts or grandparents or friends with disabilities, with mental health needs? To veterans with disabilities and mental health needs? To people with MS, Alzheimer's and other disorders? To people with traumatic brain and other injuries? It was done with words just as bad as any words used in a movie. The issues are connected and linked.
Maria Shriver in her editorial speaks of the movie - and the protests against it, as a "teachable moment".
But here are some other teachable moments that should be learned at the same time because they are connected and linked:
The "R word" is bad, but what about the words used this year to cut State cost of living money owed to the lowest income people with disabilities, the blind and seniors 15 times in the last 19 years that - words are just as bad, harmful and offensive. What about the words used just last week to propose cuts to the money from the federal government for cost of living for SSI/SSP - words that are just as bad, harmful and offensive.
The" R word" is bad and should never be used - but what about the words used to propose cutting supported employment and other employment programs and efforts for people with disabilities, mental health needs - words that are just as bad, harmful and offensive.
The "R word" is bad and should never be used - but what about the words used this year to cut Medi-Cal rates and words used that proposed permanently eliminating 11 critical optional benefits - including dental, services for glasses and eyes, podiatry (especially for people with diabetes) - words that are just as bad, harmful and offensive.
The "R word" is bad and should never be used - but what about the words used this year to cut critical funding for regional center community-based services for children and adults with developmental disabilities - the people who the "R word" is used against - words that are just as bad, harmful and offensive.
The "R word " is bad and should never be used - but what about the words used this year by the Governor and others that propose cutting further funding and services for thousands of children with special needs and disabilities in foster care, in adoption assistance programs and in special education, seniors and people with disabilities in adult protective services, seniors in senior programs, children and adults in needed mental health community services - words that are just as bad, harmful and offensive.
The "R word" is bad, but what about the words used this year to propose cutting services and supports in the home for children and adults with disabilities, for the blind, for seniors and people with mental health needs - words that are just as bad, harmful and offensive?
The "R word" is bad, but what about the words used this year and in the last two decades by federal, state and local governments that refuse access rights to our community, in restaurants, on sidewalks, in businesses, in schools, housing, transportation and access to programs and services - words that are just as bad, harmful and offensive.
The "R word" is bad, but what about the words this year that are used to not fund critical services for people with traumatic brain and other injuries, for people with MS, for people with Alzheimer's and other disorders - words that are just as bad, harmful and offensive.
Many bad words. Some disguised. Some masked. But still as harmful as any words used in a movie.
Why should our advocacy and protests be limited to only the words said in a movie, and not also, at the same time, protesting the bad words used in real life in Sacramento and elsewhere? We can do both because in reality neither is separate.
Those words remain alive, are being considered by the Governor and other policymakers at the very same time the movie was released.
Those words are contained in outrageous, disrespectful proposals that call for massive cuts to critical programs that serve children and adults with developmental and other disabilities, mental health needs, foster children and children in adoption assistance programs - thousands who have disabilities, people with traumatic brain and other injuries, people with MS and Alzheimer's, low income seniors, low income families with children.
Maria Shriver says in her editorial that use of the "R-word" in the movie is no joke.
She is right.
But none of the other words and actions used in Sacramento (and elsewhere) are jokes to us either.
Each of those words used in Sacramento that actually harm children and adults in the real world, should be offensive to everyone. Including the First Lady, to Tim Shriver, to policymakers who consider and approve them, the Governor who proposes them and advocates who fight it but sometimes separate our fights as if each attack and the harm it can cause is separate and unrelated.
Was Tim Shriver as vocal against the Governor's proposal five years ago to permanently suspend and cap the only civil rights act in the nation that specifically protects children and adults with developmental disabilities, as he is about the words used in a movie? "Suspend" and "cap" as I mentioned earlier are harmful words too, even if disguised.
Did the First Lady of California speak out publicly in an editorial, as she did about the use of bad words in a movie, about bad words used to hurt people (intentionally or not) in budget proposals over the past five years?
That is not to say that their stands now should not be appreciated and praised.
But why is use of bad words not acceptable in a movie - but somehow is acceptable when used in real life in Sacramento and elsewhere?
Maria Shriver further writes in her editorial that the movie's use of the "R word" and depiction of people with developmental disabilities is wrong.
<em>"It's not acceptable in a movie theater; it's not acceptable on a playground. It's not acceptable that college coaches use it to chastise athletes. It's not OK to use it in a classroom or a boardroom."</em>
She is right.
But she and the protests against the movie miss some other places just as important, where different, but just as offensive words are used that actually harm: it is not okay in the Governor's office, it is not okay in the Department of Finance and it is not okay in the State Capitol or in Washington, DC or in county boards of supervisor meeting rooms or city hall chambers in California.
Public policymakers may want to divide our advocacy and divide how we respond and we often let them do that - as if each attack, each bad proposal, the use of disrespectful words, in movies, or media or in proposals and action by government are all separate and unrelated.
When we do that, we allow our advocacy efforts to be divided, sliced and diced and largely be ineffective in keeping our eyes on the prize. And when we do that, we let people off the proverbial hook.
When money, time, energy and supports are extremely limited, when people are facing overwhelming and constant challenges and obstacles in their communities, and when children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, seniors, low income families with special needs are the targets for budget cuts every year in the last seven consecutive years, and when we face likely and more devastating cuts in the coming year, then it is critical that we seize every opportunity to focus public attention of harmful words and actions - whether in Sacramento or Washington, DC, or words used in a movie, or radio show or media.
At the very least, it increases public attention on all the issues that harm children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs and seniors and shows how each attack, or bad proposal (using words that are either bad or mask something bad) are connected.
It would at the very least encourage Tim Shriver, as good as his actions may be, to comment and protest the harm of budget cuts proposed by his brother-in-law and how those words used in Sacramento can also cause harm. At the very least, it encourages everyone, including the media and advocates and others to raise important questions on how those words and real action in Sacramento and elsewhere help create an environment that makes others think it is okay to harm and disrespect our communities in movies, in radio and anywhere else.
It would at the very least encourage us to ask respectfully to the First Lady of California her thoughts on the impact of words in a movie that cause harm and how that compares or is linked to words used in a budget proposals and policies that also cause harm to the same people. (or more simply put: if words in a movie can cause harm, then words in a budget proposal can also cause harm)
At the very least, it forces all of us to question our own actions and take personal responsibility about whether we are making an effective difference.
In doing that, it will help us to be aware and seize every opportunity to focus public attention on the suffering, on the harm, the discrimination, and barriers our communities face each and every day.
If we choose to protest a movie that uses words that are bad, let us also seize the opportunity to include in that same protest, our profound opposition to the words used in Sacramento that also cause harm to the same community. In doing that, we can help show the world, and much more importantly ourselves, that we at least as advocates will not make it easy for others to disguise, separate or ignore tremendous and ongoing harm to our community.
We can accuse (fairly and sometimes not) the current Governor acting sometimes in a different reality. He has done in his past before serving in office and even as Governor some good things for children and adults with disabilities, seniors and others. So has Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr. and others in that movie. But what reality are we speaking to in our advocacy when we separate our actions?
As advocates we need to focus attention that the use of words that disrespect our community, that harm our community, that degrades our community are bad whether in a movie, by a radio talk show host or by policymakers and governors in Sacramento (and elsewhere).
Words that propose immense potential and actual budget cuts loom over us now - with more coming next year that harm our children and our communities.
We can and should link those words to the words of any movie that we say harm or disrespect us too.
That is the real teachable moment - that it is not just words that others use - it is words that are disguised with actions that harm that are just as bad, and in many cases - worse.
Edmund Burke once wrote that "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
Sometimes "nothing" can mean action that is, in the last analysis, ineffective because it is divided and separated. Words do matter - not just in a movie, but in legislation and budget proposals.
And what matters at least as much is how we respond.
Let us unify our response so that no one - not a filmmaker, not actors in a movie, not a radio talk show host, not any newspaper or magazine or book, and not presidents or governors or policymakers in Sacramento, in Washington DC, and not us as advocates can get away with using words, disguised or not, that harm or disrespect our children and our communities of people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors and low income families.
They can do better - and so can we in our advocacy. That is the ultimate teachable moment.
[Author's Additional Note: special thanks to my friend Shella DuMong of Santa Barbara, a parent advocate, for her help in reviewing the final draft of this commentary, which was invaluable]
CDCAN Disability Rights News goes out to over 55,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, traumatic brain & other injuries, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, their families, workers, community organizations, including those in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, African American communities, policy makers and others across California.
