RAB

Rhetorical Annotated Bibliography entry reading responses.

Beyond These Walls

DellFrog1 Comment

“We Can’t Go Back” by Ricardo T. Thornton Sr.

Summary: Thornton begins with introductions and starts his speech with his early history of living in an institution for people with intellectual disabilities. He talks about how knowledge of his family who lived in the same institution were kept from him and the death of his sister. He talks about leaving the institution and society’s perception of him living in a group home, then to how he started his own family. He continues speaking about how people with disabilities deserve opportunities to learn and grow and his family’s work experiences. Thornton talks about the necessity for community and support, and how people with disabilities have great potential when they are supported. Thornton implores his audience to support people with disabilities and help them learn and grow. He concludes by arguing against segregation and institutions, and says that we need to move forward with our communities, not backward.

Quotes:

“People need to have high expectations for people with disabilities because then they’ll give them opportunities to learn and grow” (87).

“I believe that people can do anything if they’re given the opportunity and support” (88).

Reflection:

I think Thornton uses a really concise speech that works well to ask an audience to support and care for people. It is tragic that as a society for so many decades we had (and continue) to segregate people in many different ways. The institution is just one way of segregating the disabled community from the non-disabled community. I was happy to hear Thornton’s story of success but I know that the reality is so many people in institutions don’t get the chances that he did. Society has collectively decided that the best way to “support” people with disabilities is to put them in special places with people who work to support them. And on paper, that sounds great. But in reality, it creates even more barriers to the human experience by making disabled people feel inhuman. Having all choice and opportunity stripped from you because of your ability or lack thereof is inhumane. I agree with Thornton’s plea to end institutional living and instead focus on community support. I think one of the best ways to do that is through education and the sharing of stories. We cannot move forward as a community until we hear the voices of everyone in the community. And it is equally as important for us to work together to create a better opportunity for the people around us, giving them support and breaking down barriers, choosing to lift each other up instead.

The New Joy

DellFrogLeave a comment

“Nurturing Black Disabled Joy” by Keah Brown

Summary: First Brown talks about how disabled communities are typically barred from experiencing joy or hope. Brown is unapologetic about her joy and proceeds to talk about the aftermath of publishing her first book. Brown counters the arguments against her book through realizing that the reason the readers were upset was because the book was not centered on their experience. She talks about starting her movement #DisabledAndCute and how it enabled her to start living life unapologetically. Brown continues to talk about how she searches for joy and hope and ends with sharing her joy with the world and commitment to living her life fully.

Quotes: “So I live as unapologetically as I can each day- for myself, of course, but also for those who will come up after me, who will walk through the doors I hope to break down” (118).

“On those days, it’s important not to mourn the lack of joy but to remember how it feels, to remember that to feel at all is one of the greatest gifts we have in life” (119).

Reflection:

I think that Brown’s essay is a great example of how transformative joy and hope can be. I think for a lot of people, disabled people especially, there can be a compulsion to cling to the dreary. As someone with mental illness, I know that there were plenty of times in my life when I said, “I am too depressed to be happy”. And the moments that I did feel happiness later became twisted because my brain inserted facts that did not exist, marring my perception of whatever had just made me happy. But the moment that joy is sought after and accepted is transformative. Not only can it help your own mental health, but it can help the mental health around others too. It is important to pursue joy in your own life, not only because you deserve it but also because you deserve to share your joy with others. Joy and hope are contagious, and recognizing joy in others creates a sense of belonging and hope for a positive future. You can recognize when things are difficult or painful, you can validate those feelings as they come. But it is important to train yourself to understand that those feelings won’t last forever. That it is okay, even desirable, to have hope for the joy that is to come. I know that the concept helped pull me out of some dark spaces, and I have also used my search for joy to help fuel others, recognizing that living is a community process, and we all help each other one step at a time.

RAB response to Keyword chapter: “Ability” by Kumari Campbell

Isabelle SLeave a comment

Campbell gives a detailed account of how the term “ability” came to be what we now know it as today. It seemed to start as a measurement of what a person was able to do, and usually was legally used to benefit men who owned property. To not be able was to be disabled, and to have less value socially. This disabled term was applied to pretty much everyone other than property owning men. The term would only really be applied directly to people in the late 14th century, where people would be identified as able or disabled. Ability was focused much more on “perfectionability”. Philosophy and science around this time was really focused on the contemplation of what made us human. In the next 200 years or so, we see the expansion of the global market, where ability is now seen as how much a person is able to work, how efficient is the human body and how it could be used for profit. In the 1980’s, we see ability and disability being connected to each other even more, mostly in a negative way. With the development of modern medicine and technology, the definition of ablebodidness grows narrower and narrower, especially as the idea of the able body becomes more compulsory and unattainable (its pretty cool that we see McRuer here too). Campbell finished this off with explaining how the two main parts of ableism are the concept of the normative and the division of the perfected body and the “aberrant” or underdeveloped, the unhuman. She argues that the idea of ableism is important to look at in terms of disability, as well as other marginalized identities seeing as they often also face being categorized under the term “less human”.

Quotations:

“‘Ability’ in the Anglo-Norman world was a legal term tied to capacity to enter into contracts or inherent property” (Kumari Campbell 12).

“Throughout much of pre modern Western history, ability and able-bodiedness referred to a person’s role in the community rather than to a fixed condition”(Campbell 12).

(14th and 15th century) “‘Abled’ as an adjective, described a ‘capable, vigorous and thriving’ person or object”(Campbell 12).

“Key to a system of ableism are two elements: the concept of the normative (and the normal individual); and the enforcement of a divide between a ‘perfected’ or developed humanity and the aberrant, unthinkable, underdeveloped, and therefore not really human” (Campbell 13-14)

Analysis:

When I first read Campbell’s analysis of what able bodiedness is today, where hyperproductivity, physical and mental perfection and constant availability are key factors of the “abled body”, I couldn’t help but think of machines. I found it really ironic when Campbell explained how often the humanity of disabled people would be debated, when meanwhile the definition of what makes an able bodied person was not of a person, but of a profit, or dollar sign; a living factory. The movement towards nondisabled people being valuable only in their ability to work and never fail to come in to work really disturbs me, it makes me think a lot too about universal healthcare and welfare and how retirement works as well. I think that the mentality behind a body being made for labor and hyperproductivity is really damaging to society as a whole, our very views of bodies are being warped and given values based on what they are able to provide labor-wise. It just feels so wrong. Bodies are a rhetoric, they embody rhetoric, they give us the opportunity to experience the world around us. They are vessels for our beings that allow us to perceive the world around us and to be perceived by others, they’re tools for interaction, not tools for someone else to use, for someone else to pass judgement and value upon. This sort of mindset is not only dehumanizing but extremely damaging to humanity as a whole. Not everyone’s bodies are the same, not everyone experiences the world in the same way, so saying disabled bodies are less valuable because they are visibly different has been and will continue to chip away at our perceptions of others. 

I found it really fascinating to see how the term “abled” has changed throughout history. Campbell does a wonderful job at showing both negative and positive definitions of disability throughout the ages, and you could really see how our present day perception of ability and disability has come from. One thing that really stood out to me was how originally ability was not always in reference to a person, let alone a person’s body. I think that this is where the term started and to now see where it has wound up is really daunting, I hope to learn more in this class about how terminology evolved throughout the ages both within general society and academic circles of the past, and to see how these changes have influenced our present.

Don’t Mourn For Us – Jim Sinclair – RAB Response

Djellibeybi2 Comments

Summary:

“Don’t Mourn For Us” by Jim Sinclair, was an article that was published in the Autism Network International Newsletter, Our Voice, Volume 1, Number 3, 1993. The article was original presented as a speech at the 1993 International Conference on Autism in Toronto. The primary audience for the article are the parents of those with Autism, particularly, those parents who have just found out their child or children have autism. The points Sinclair makes in the article are as follows: 1. Autism is not an appendage – it is not something that the child can shrug off like a piece of clothing, but an essential part of their character. Removing the autism from the child would fundamentally change who that child is. 2. Autism is not an impenetrable wall – children with autism have difficulty connecting to people without autism, and visa versa, but if you give a concerted effort to understand your child with autism, they may let you in, in time. 3. Autism is not death – the autistic child is what the parent’s got. They can grieve for “their dreams” of a child just like them, and except that they will have to connect with the child they have, someone who – in sinclair’s words – is an alien in a strange land, and the parents’ job is to represent the child to the normal world.

Notable Quotes:

“This is important, so take a moment to consider it: Autism is a way of being. It is not possible to separate the person from the autism.” Pg. 1

“Some amount of grief is natural as parents adjust to the fact that an even and a relationship they’ve been looking forward to isn’t going to materialize. But this grief over a fantasized normal child needs to be separated from the parents’ perceptions of the child they do have: the autistic child who needs the support of adult caretakers and who can form very meaningful relationships with those caretakers if given the opportunity.” Pg. 1

“Each of us who does learn to talk to you, each of us who manages to function at all in your society, each of us who manages to reach out and make a connection with you, is operating in alien territory, making contact with alien beings.” Pg. 2

“You didn’t lose a child to autism. You lost a child because the child you waited for never came into existence.” Pg. 3

Reflections:

I can understand the feeling of these parents and what the author, Jim Sinclair, is trying to communicate. I have a brother with high-functioning autism. Though he can talk and communicate and is physically capable, he has the mental aptitude of a young child, so he needs constant surveillance and care to ensure he doesn’t get into trouble. I have had those feelings where I wished he wasn’t autistic and that I didn’t have to worry about what he would get into or where he’d run off to when I’m not looking. But I do love my brother and I have to admit that my brother would not be the same without that part of his character, even though I may find it annoying or troublesome, I can’t think of him in any other way.

Don’t Mourn for Them, Learn for Them

unsureunderwaterobot5 Comments

Don’t Mourn for Us // Jim Sinclair

Summary:

Don’t Mourn for Us is an essay written by Jim Sinclair about the complexities of birthing and raising an autistic child. The author explores the processing period for parents who have autistic children; they break down the misconceptions and reframe thinking from mourning, to learning. Autism is described as foreign-ing. By this, I mean that autism is not a dismissible characteristic, but rather a way of being outside of our preconceived notion of “normal”. Sinclair gives tips as to how to refashion perspectives in a way that honors autism.

Quotes/Analysis: 

“I urge parents to make radical changes in their perceptions of what autism means” (Sinclair pg. 2).

I believe this quote gets to the heart of the essay. This is what the author is requesting. 

“Autism isn’t something a person has, or a “shell” that a person is trapped inside. There’s no normal child hidden behind the autism. Autism is a way of being. It is pervasive; it colors every experience, every sensation, perception, thought, emotion, and encounter, very aspect of existence. It is not possible to separate the autism from the person, and if it were possible, the person you’d have left would not be the same person you started with” (Sinclair pg. 2). 

I believe this quote is why the author feels so strongly about training parents of autistic children. This quote explains the true meaning of autism, which is often misunderstood and then poorly approached. 

“Grieve if you must, for your own lost dreams. But don’t mourn for us. We are alive. We are real. And we’re here waiting for you” (Sinclair pg. 4).

This quote is part of the authors recommendations for moving forward. 

Reflection: 

There are aspects of the language used that made me uncomfortable, but maybe that’t the reality of having an autistic child? I was surprised the way the author closed with a scenario of an alien child, referring to them as “it”. But overall I think this was a very insightful read. I think it would/will take so much unlearning to think in the way the author is recommending. The framework they are coming from is so foreign for so many people, but it is worth sharing. 

The Philosopher’s Dilemma: Why Different Bodyminds Deserve The Right To Live

LimboLeave a comment

Summary: 

In the piece, “Unspeakable Conversations” author Harriet McBryde Johnson recounts her experience with meeting infamous philosopher and professor at Princeton University, Peter Singer. Johnson is a disabled rights activist a part of the organization Not Dead Yet and lives with a neuromuscular disease herself. Familiar with his ideologies relating to infanticide and mirroring beliefs in modern-day eugenics, Johnson was intrigued yet reluctant to meet Singer. Their first interaction is intriguing because Johnson sees some of her own peers chatting with Singer, the man that believes anyone with a disability should not be born/be able to live. They get introduced and suddenly start exchanging emails for a while until Johnson is invited to speak at his university to a group of students with a follow-up Q and A. Upon arrival Johnson notes the attentive audience nodding along to the illogical, quite frankly horrid arguments Singer presents to them. He is professional, respectful, and calm. When Johnson speaks, she adds more of a personal touch while keeping the same professionalism. Afterwards, the two end up going on a walk as they also say their goodbyes and it seems Johnson’s opinion of his character has changed a bit. The chapter closes with thoughts running through Johnson’s head about Singer, about how ignorant people can be when it comes to disability in general. She feels content with concluding that Singer is extremely misguided but truly believes he is doing something helpful. She cannot hate him or violently argue because the world is filled with Singer’s unfortunately, but she was able to make some important dialogue with him that could alter others’ minds.  

Quotes: 

“But I have trouble with basing life-and-death decisions on market considerations when the market is structured by prejudice” (Pg. 10) 

“Within the strange limits of this strange assignment, it seems Singer is doing all he can to make me comfortable” (Pg. 18) 

“If I define Singer’s kind of disability prejudice as an ultimate evil, and him as a monster, then I must so define all who believe disabled lives are inherently worse off or that a life without a certain kind of consciousness lacks value.” (Pg. 26) 

Reflection: 

This reading wasn’t one of my favorites, but I think the writing got away from me towards the end. The theme that stuck out to me the most and seemed one of the most important was the power of rhetoric here. Since Singer had a professional, calm tone about him he would/will always have an attentive audience. Not to mention his status as a professor and famous philosopher. Singer has the privilege of painting his atrocious beliefs as something admirable because not only does he believe he is coming up with a real solution, but his status and demeanor demand interest and respect. If Johnson or anyone with Not Dead Yet were to speak out against Singer in a “aggressive” way that would be completely rational, an audience would see it as irrational depleting the other sides view immediately. Johnson knew for that reason she must remain calm but still added her personal touches in and also was professional. As we are all aware, many people similar to Singer exist in our world and they exist through their usage of rhetoric.  

Sinclair, Jim. “Don’t Mourn for Us”

TuesdayLeave a comment

Summary:

Sinclair begins by addressing the way Autism is typically viewed, as a tragedy. This is how Sinclair sets up the scene for the rest of xyr message. Sinclair focuses upon the fact that many parents view and treat autism as an illness that is hindering their child from being ‘normal’.  This is not the case. Autism is part of their child and by mourning the child’s condition, the parents are alienating their child. Sinclair argues that it is the parents’ treatment of the child that prevents them from connecting and bonding with them. It is the parents inhibiting the relationship. Having a child is not something parents typically expect but it is something they need to be willing to work with. This is their child, still. Sinclair closes xyr letter by inviting the reader, parents of autistic children, to accept, support and join in their children’s life,

“I wish the autistic child I have did not exist, and I had a different (non-autistic) child instead.” Pp.1

“You didn’t lose a child to autism. You lost a child because the child you waited for never came into existence.” Pp.3

“But I know it’s a child, stranded in an alien world, without parents of its own kind to care for it. It needs someone to care for it, to teach it, to interpret and to advocate for it.” Pp.4

Reflection:

This will be fairly short. I do not much to say about Sinclair’s writings, except xe is right. I think what was said in Don’t Mourn for Us goes for all parents. You should never enter parenthood expecting your child to be just like you. They are a person. They will have different opinions, likes, dislikes, and way of thinking, their own personality. They are all ‘alien’. Autistic children are not that different from non-autistic children, they all need to be supported and guided by parents who accept them for who they are. I think I would personally change the audience of this letter to include the autistic child’s peers, because at the end of the day we are not just raised by our parents.

Adults ruin a lot of things…this is one of them.

To Grieving Parents: “Don’t Mourn for Us”

DellFrogLeave a comment

“Don’t Mourn for Us” by Jim Sinclair

Sinclair begins their letter to parents by calling out the “trauma” that parents feel upon receiving a diagnosis that their child is autistic. They define autism as a way of being, and wishing for your child to not be autistic is akin to wishing for a different child. Then they talk about parents learning a new way to communicate with their children that is often outside of their expectations. Sinclair then talks about the grieving process that parents go through upon diagnosis, relating the grieving not to the loss of their child to autism, but the loss of their dreams of a neurotypical child. They tell parents instead of being sad at their child’s condition, they should be sad about the world that fights against their existence. Sinclair ends the letter with telling parents to look at their children and assist them in the world around them, help them where they can and fight for better living conditions for people with autism.

Quotes:

“What it comes down to is that you expected something that was tremendously important to you, and you
looked forward to it with great joy and excitement, and maybe for a while you thought you actually had it–
and then, perhaps gradually, perhaps abruptly, you had to recognize that the thing you looked forward to
hasn’t happened. It isn’t going to happen. No matter how many other, normal children you have, nothing will
change the fact that this time, the child you waited and hoped and planned and dreamed for didn’t arrive” (4).

“This is not my child that I expected and planned for. This is an alien child who landed in my life by accident. I don’t
know who this child is or what it will become. But I know it’s a child, stranded in an alien world, without parents
of its own kind to care for it. It needs someone to care for it, to teach it, to interpret and to advocate for it.
And because this alien child happened to drop into my life, that job is mine if I want it” (4-5)

Analysis:

Sinclair is clearly responding to the immense amount of parents who exaggerate the grief over their child with autism, the ones who champion for cures or attend autism support groups because their “lives were ruined by autism”. It seems to me that they drafted this letter as a response to those parents, and to new parents, to let them know that while their grief is real, autism is not a death sentence nor an impenetrable wall. Here they are speaking specifically to parents of children with autism, with the hopes of giving them insight to the autistic experience of their exaggerated grief. Sinclair is speaking within the realm of someone with autism, someone who has worked within the autism community, and someone who likely has been the recipient of this exaggerated grief.

Thinking about this article, I think that they do a great job at calling out parents for their traumatizing behavior, saying that the “trauma” that parents experience for their kids is valid, but they have to be careful not to re-traumatize their own children with their grief. Part of why I am so adamant that they are speaking to exaggerating parents is the heavy emphasis that they put on the idea that the “normal” child never arrived. In the following quote, Sinclair discusses that the parents have a loss of a dream child that they could relate to and that would understand them fully.

“What it comes down to is that you expected something that was tremendously important to you, and you
looked forward to it with great joy and excitement, and maybe for a while you thought you actually had it–
and then, perhaps gradually, perhaps abruptly, you had to recognize that the thing you looked forward to
hasn’t happened. It isn’t going to happen. No matter how many other, normal children you have, nothing will
change the fact that this time, the child you waited and hoped and planned and dreamed for didn’t arrive” (4).

Parents, with reasonable expectations of the birth of their child, should have a level of expecting their child to be different in some way. I know that in my family’s experience, my sister and her husband were fully of the mind that no matter what child resulted from the pregnancy, there would be happiness and joy at the life that they could provide for the child. We talked about the prospect for disability with my nephew, and are still watching as he grows to see what kind of child he will be. But regardless, he is their dream child because he is *theirs*.

That is to say that I do take issue with the following quote toward the end of the letter.

“This is not my child that I expected and planned for. This is an alien child who landed in my life by accident. I don’t
know who this child is or what it will become. But I know it’s a child, stranded in an alien world, without parents
of its own kind to care for it. It needs someone to care for it, to teach it, to interpret and to advocate for it.
And because this alien child happened to drop into my life, that job is mine if I want it” (4-5).

I take issue with this quote because Sinclair is equating children with autism to aliens who just “land in (your) life by accident”. While yes, some pregnancies can be accidents, my nephew included, it is very clear that you are having a child. The child who is born to you is not an accident, regardless of however they experience life. I know that Sinclair was trying to make the point that for a parent, the way that their child will learn and experience the world will be foreign to them, but to me alien provides connotations of “unknowable”. And saying that you don’t know who the child *is*? They’re your child, plain and simple. Sure we don’t know what they will become, but that is true of every child. On top of this, I do not agree with calling a child, autistic or not, with the marker of “it”. Color me from flashbacks of reading “A Child Called It”, but if you must, at the very least name the child with “they/them” pronouns.

Perhaps I just have strong feelings towards parenting and the raising of children, but I definitely struggle to empathize with parents who see their own child as “other” or “alien”. Do you have to adapt to a whole new learning style on behalf of your child? Yes, but a similar notion can be said of every child.

Away from my parenting rant, I do think that this letter would be helpful to parents with children who are autistic. I think it is a validation of their feelings of loss, but also a call to action to not project their grief onto their child. It certainly sends a powerful message that doesn’t use flowery language to distort its purpose.

Peter Singer is Spooky as Hell

unsureunderwaterobot1 Comment
  1. The title and author of the source 

Unspeakable Conversations // Harriet McBryde Johnson 

  1. An objective summary of the reading 

In this reading, the author tells a story of their experience with Peter Singer. Singer is an educator at Princeton University who believes in and fights for assisted suicide and infanticide of disabled peoples. The author is a disabled lawyer, fighting against Singer’s notions, in order to defend their own life.  

In the chapter, the author walks their readers through a series of events—the major ones being: when the author went to one of Singers talks in town, their email exchanges, and the author’s visit to Princeton where they spoke to a class with Singer, toured the campus and had lunch. Each of these events paint a picture of who Singer is, who the author is, and the paradoxical exchange between them. The author brings their own perspective and voice to the writing by inserting further explanation regarding their positionality and beliefs, Singer’s beliefs and actions, and how the two clash/collide. Woven throughout the anecdotal evidence is commentary regarding how the author felt, the thoughts that came up for them, and reflections looking back.  

  1. 3 or more quotations (with page numbers) 

Regarding their differences: 
“To Singer, it’s pretty simple: disability makes a person “worse off”. Are we “worse off”? I don’t think so. Not in any meaningful sense” (McBryde Johnson pg. 10-11). 
“I define Singer’s kind of disability prejudice as an ultimate evil, and him a monster, then I must so define all who believe disabled lives are inherently worse off or that a without a certain kind of consciousness lacks value. That definition would make monsters of many of the people with whom I move on the sidewalks, do business, break bread, swap stories, and share the grunt work of local politics… I can’t live with a definition of ultimate evil that encompasses all of them” (McBryde Johnson pg. 26). 

Regarding non-normalizing:  
“…I have no more reason to kill myself than most people…” (McBryde Johnson pg. 7) 
“…to try to prevent most suicides while facilitating the suicides of the ill and disabled people is disability discrimination” (McBryde Johnson pg. 20) 

  1. A personal reflection naming 2 or 3 take-aways from the reading 

This was such an informative read. I think the way the author spoke about the opposition/togetherness between themselves and Singer was so digestible. They offered complex and deep ways of thinking through a story + analysis lens. I think the story itself was pretty bizarre. It’s one I’ve been sharing with my friends. We’ve been discussing it a bit: how can a person have such specific and seemingly impractical beliefs? How have they not been put in their place? Then again, folks support Trump.  

In reflecting, I am brought back to the idea that Black folks are not responsible for educating nonBlack folks about racism; womxn are not responsible for educating men about sexism. I don’t feel like the author is responsible for putting themselves through that sort of discrimination. But also, they chose that. I don’t know. Lots to think about.  

Unspeakable Conversations – a RAB style review

Djellibeybi20 Comments

Summary:

Unspeakable Conversations, written by Harriet McBryde Johnson, is an essay presented in the book Disability Visibility, edited by Alice Wong. In which she talks about the relationship and correspondence she had with Peter Singer, a professor of philosophy at Princeton. Harriet McBryde Johnson was a lawyer and disability activist with a neuromuscular disease. She talks about the emails she sent to the professor, their debates, and how her views on people like Singer changed when confronted with them face to face.

Reflections:

I must say, I’m surprised at the very cynical nature the author takes with this essay, though I probably shouldn’t be. This woman has a cause to uphold and think of. She is a representative on behalf of her people, going off to a foreign land to debate whether or not they should exist – contentions and misgivings are bound to arise, no matter who you are.

All thoughts, no matter what they come from or how gruesome their content, must be granted an audience at some point, and when we suppress the conversation, it will force it’s way into consciousness. Ideas are hard to kill. Much easier to contain within a few members, but even then you still run the risk of dangerous ideas entering in, the same way we run the risk of getting a disease, though we immunize and mask and regulate. There is no full proof way of escaping ideas, unless by complete isolation which is unsustainable. While I don’t agree with the views of Brian Singer on infanticide and eugenics, and I don’t hold the same views as Harriet Johnson, I will grant them both a seat at the table of ideas.

Notable Quotes:

“Are we “worse off”? I don’t think so. Not in the meaningful sense. There are too many variables.” Pg. 11

“We should not make disabled lives subject to debate.” Pg. 11

“I keep forgetting that even people who know me well don’t know much about my world.” Pg. 14

“But like the protagonist in a classical drama, Singer has his flaw. It is his unexamined assumption that disabled people are inherently “worse off,” that we “suffer,” that we have lesser “prospects of a happy life.” Because of this all-to-common prejudice, and his rare courage in taking it to its logical conclusion, catastrophe looms.