- Ordem de exibiçãoPadrão
Título da foto, A → Z
Título da foto,Z → A
Data de abertura, recente → antiga
✔ Data de abertura, antiga → nova
Data de publicação, recente → antiga
Data de publicação, antiga → recente
Nível de avaliação, elevado → baixo
Nível de avaliação, baixo → elevado
Visitas, elevadas → parcas
Visitas, parcas → elevadas - Tamanhos da fotografiaQuadrado
Miniatura
XXS - Pequenissimo
XS - Pequena
✔ S - Pequeno
M - Médio
L - Grande - IdiomaAfrikaans Argentina AzÉrbaycanca
á¥áá áá£áá Äesky Ãslenska
áá¶áá¶ááááá à¤à¥à¤à¤à¤£à¥ বাà¦à¦²à¦¾
தமிழ௠à²à²¨à³à²¨à²¡ ภาษาà¹à¸à¸¢
ä¸æ (ç¹é«) ä¸æ (é¦æ¸¯) Bahasa Indonesia
Brasil Brezhoneg CatalÃ
ç®ä½ä¸æ Dansk Deutsch
Dhivehi English English
English Español Esperanto
Estonian Finnish Français
Français Gaeilge Galego
Hrvatski Italiano Îλληνικά
íêµì´ LatvieÅ¡u Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuviu Magyar Malay
Nederlands Norwegian nynorsk Norwegian
Polski Português RomânÄ
Slovenšcina Slovensky Srpski
Svenska Türkçe Tiếng Viá»t
Ù¾Ø§Ø±Ø³Û æ¥æ¬èª ÐÑлгаÑÑки
ÐакедонÑки Ðонгол Ð ÑÑÑкий
СÑпÑки УкÑаÑнÑÑка ×¢×ר×ת
اÙعربÙØ© اÙعربÙØ©
Início / Albuns / Etiqueta editorial 4
Data de Publicação
ADAPT (269)
The Cincinnati Post Tuesday, May 20, 1986 Lighthouse logo of Scripps Howard and the motto: "Give light and the people will find their own way." Editor Paul F. Knue, Editorial Page Editor Claudia Winkler, Managing Editor J. Stephen Fagan, Associate Editor James L. Adams 125 East Court Street, Cincinnati. OH 45202 (513)352-2000 Editorials Title: Buses and the disabled Shades of the civil rights movement returned to Cincinnati yesterday when members of ADAPT, which stands for American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation, interfered with the operation of Queen City Metro buses. One latched onto a wheel well, and two others boarded and refused to leave. The protesters say members of the American Public Transit Association, who are meeting here this week, are moving slowly or not at all toward making all buses and trains fully accessible for the handicapped. They point to Metro, which has many buses without wheelchair lifts and 87 with lifts that it refuses to operate, as a microcosm of the problem nationwide. Some may condemn the protesters’ tactics of interrupting normal transit service, albeit by relatively non-violent means. The larger question, however, is whether the transit systems are going out of their way to leave the handicapped at curbside. That's certainly not the case with Metro. Metro has contracted with a private company to provide door-to-door (more accurately, curb-to-curb) service for the handicapped within Cincinnati. The system isn't perfect, but it is growing. Complaints abounds that scheduling the Access vans is difficult, and Metro has failed to meet a five-year goal of providing van service to all of Hamilton County, says general manager Tony Kouneski. The problem, here and elsewhere, is one of money. ADAPT wants the lifts as well as the door-to-door service. It’s tough to have it both ways, especially since federal dollars for mass transit have been cut almost 25 percent by the Reagan administration. States have been hard-pressed to fill that gap, and a sales tax increase for Metro failed miserably in 1980. Kouneski says if Metro did, indeed, have an extra $350,000 for operating and maintaining the 87 wheelchair lifts, the money would be better spent on door-to-door service. That's a decision that groups such as the Greater Cincinnati Coalition of People With Disabilities and Metro's own advisory council for the handicapped should help make and implement. Members of national groups such as ADAPT, meanwhile, have made their point. They should now turn their efforts to such things as legal parades and peaceful picketing. Instead of continuing their Cincinnati protest, they should devote their energies to lobbying Washington and the legislatures to fund their full-access plan before someone is seriously injured.
ADAPT (330)
[The first part of this photo is a continuation of the story that starts on ADAPT 131 and the full text of that article is included there for easier reading. Below is a second article that is included here.] Non-violent civil disobedience effectively promotes change By Verna Spayth Power is not inherently violent, however, in governmental form it is often expressed in a violent manner. Governmental power is maintained through the agreement of the oppressed and the tacit compliance of the majority of the governed. Any significant withdrawal of that compliance seriously restricts, or even removes, governmental control. Apathy in the face of injustice is a form of violence. Struggle and conflict are often necessary to correct injustice. Our struggle is not an easy one. We must not think of nonviolent civil disobedience as a safe and easy way to fight our oppression. The strength comes from our willingness to take personal risk without threatening others. When a compliant majority sees us risking our personal safety and health for our cause, they will be forced — perhaps for the first time — to confront their stereotypical images of people with disabilities and to begin to change those images. However, it is essential that we separate the individual from the role played. Non-disabled people are not the enemy. The “enemy” is the system that forces people into the roles of oppressed and oppressor. A nonviolent campaign must focus on the issues and the system, rather than on the personalities involved. Nonviolent direct action is an attempt to produce change. It should be treated like a conversation where one is communicating a particular message. We should always be willing to listen and learn from the other side. If we treat our opponents with honesty and respect, our truth will be easier for them to hear. Avot d’Rabbi Nathan has suggested that the “strongest of the mighty” is the one who “makes a friend out of an adversary.” We must begin to confront and move beyond our own personal fears. There is true strength and power to be found when we come together. Pandit Nehru described the core of Gandhi’s campaign for Indian self-rule this way: “It was against this all-pervading fear [of British repression] that Gandhi’s quiet and determined voice was raised: BE NOT AFRAID.”
ADAPT (535)
USA Today Friday March 16, 1990 USA Today USA TODAY hopes to serve as a forum for better understanding and unity to help make the USA truly one nation." —Allen H. Nouharth, Founder, Sept.15,1982 Peter S. Prichard, Editor John Seigenthaler, Editorial Director Cathleen Black, Publisher Thomas Curley, President DEBATE The USA's disabled deserve simple justice Jennifer Keelan is an 8-year-old who knows how to get where she wants to go. Afflicted with cerebral palsy, Jennifer has trouble moving around. But Monday afternoon in Washington, she crawled hand-over-hand up the 83 steps leading to the U.S. Capitol, eventually reaching the top. No members of Congress threw obstacles in her path. None stood in her way. But in the eyes of Jennifer and about 60 others who abandoned their wheelchairs to make the Capitol climb, they might just as well have. By failing to protect the disabled from discrimination, they say, Congress is allowing others to throw obstacles in their path every day. They want Congress to stop yakking and start voting on the Americans with Disabilities Act, sweeping legislation that would do for the disabled what the civil rights legislation of the 1960s did for minorities and women. The legislation passed the Senate last year. It has the support of the president. But the House of Representatives, lobbied hard by business interests that fear the bill's costs, just can't seem to get its part of the job done. Justice demands that the stalling end. Today, people in wheelchairs lose job opportunities because they can’t get to work on public transportation. The deaf are often shut off from society because telephones aren't properly equipped. People with mental disabilities are denied jobs by employers who wrongly assume they can't do them. Too often, the only response is: What do they expect? Society can't make them well again. The disabilities act has a better, more sensitive response: * lt bans discrimination against both the mentally and physically disabled. * It requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations" for the handicapped. * It ensures access to bus and rail systems. * It mandates full telephone access for the deaf. * It demands that public accommodations, ranging from hotels to coffee shops to bowling alleys, try to provide equal access for the disabled. Those goals cannot be achieved easily or cheaply. As you can read across this page, they will mean new costs and inconveniences for businesses. New equipment may be needed. Structural alterations may be required. Plans for new building may be altered. Those concerns deserve consideration. But they are not adequate reasons to delay any longer. The legislation specifies that employers not be forced to endure undue hardship. It says the only changes that are required are those that are readily achievable. It affords time to make changes — as long as 30 years in some cases. Every day that Congress delays is another day that obstacles can be thrown in Jennifer Keelan's path. And she, just like the rest of us, deserves every opportunity to reach the top. CARTOON (by David Seavey, USA Today): Little person in an old manual wheelchair on a long scroll of paper with "Access Laws" written on it. Scroll makes a kind of ramp up a set of stairs to a large fancy building that looks like a government building. QUOTELINES "What am l required to do if I have three employees with different disabilities and six customers come into my business who are hearing-impaired, all of whom need sign-language interpreters?" -- Kenneth Lewis, disabled accounting-firm owner "What we did for civil rights in the '60s. we forgot to do for people with disabilities." -- Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colo. "Yes. there are costs associated with this bill, but these costs are manageable." — Rep. Norman Mineta, D-Calif. “lt will reach the floor, we will have a conference with the Senate, and it will become law." -— House Speaker Thomas Foley, D-Wash.
ADAPT (714)
Chicago Defender, Vol. LXXXVII [87] No. 7 Wednesday May 13, 1992 (40¢ outside Chicago and suburbs) Editorial Listen to disabled on in-home funds A group of "disabled rights activists, who on Tuesday continued their protest against the federal government's failure to allocate more funds for handicapped individuals, should be taken seriously. They are protesting for the right to remain at home, rather than being warehoused in nursing homes. “Six times the (amount of) money goes to nursing homes and other institutions,” compared to the sums going “to community-based services. We want 25 percent of that nursing home budget to go to home care,” said Diane Coleman, an organizer for the group. There are various reasons why authorities should lend an ear to the protesters’ demands. Some of them are: * Disabled people would rather live at home than in an institutionalized environment, just like anyone else would. Many physically challenged individuals are wheelchair-bound but would have no trouble at home turning on a computer and working on it; going to the refrigerator to get their own food; operating their own TV, radio, or CD player; reading books, teaching younger members of the family, making their own bed and doing countless other constructive things to make them feel useful and relatively independent. * Additional money for home-based and community-based assistance would permit thousands of disabled individuals to receive help from part-time home attendants or nurses. The tab to the taxpayers might, in many instances, be smaller than the current cost for such services. * Many disabled protesters argue that being housed in a nursing home may actually prohibit some physically challenged people from developing into more productive citizens. These pundits stress that some of the disabled individuals being cared for in nursing homes could, if given home-based fund support, live a life with more quality to it and a few of them could even participate in home-based employment or other legal business. The bottom line is that disabled individuals deserve to be treated with as much respect as any other group in society. Other protesters have been given serious consideration by the federal government on various causes. The current cause espoused by many of America’s physically challenged individuals deserves equal attention from government authorities.