Question by SSA Registered Disabled PWD KING ♕♛: Handicapped Parking Space Markings In Relation To Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements?
I know that a Handicapped Parking Space is required by ADA law to have a blue and white Handicapped Parking Sign in front of a parking space in order for the Handicapped Parking Space to be considered to be an “official” Handicapped Parking Space by ADA law.

Is a Handicapped Parking Space required by ADA law to have the “person in wheelchair” symbol painted on the ground inside the Handicapped Parking Space?

Thank You!
*Both me and my only child are SSA Registered-Certified-Recognized Disabled PWDs.* I am also a Registered-Certified-Recognized Member of the Ectodermal Dysplasias International Registry.* I am also a Registered-Certified-Recognized Member of the National Foundation of Ectodermal Dysplasias* — *I am proud to be a “Gimp”, a “Crip”, a “Cripple”, a “Capper”, a “Wheelie”, a “Wheeler”, a “Freak “, and a “PWD Freak”!* — *AFO WC PMD PHPSSP RCRMEDIR RCRMNFED MLRCRD SSA PD-PWD*—*PWDRHIP*—*Pulling PWD Rank – Pull PWD Rank* *Wowasakeikcupi! * Creator-Originator of the phrases of – “Person With Disabilities Rank Has Its Privileges” and “PWDRHIP”*.

Best answer:

Answer by Teddy & Chiliswoman
No the ADA does not require any specific pavement marking except the line dividing the spaces and the diagonal lines in the access aisle. And the sign does not need to be blue and white – it can be any color – it does not need any symbol on it either. Locally we have several businesses that had red signs, and some that are just black and white — all perfectly legal.

Added: This is not a state dept. issue – it is federal. The state can decide to make the law more stringent than the ADA (the state could require blue lines even though the ADA does not, but it could not say no lines are required.) The ADA is clear about what is and is not required. No wheelchair symbol on the pavement. No blue paint except the diagonal lines.

Give your answer to this question below!

The illegalizing of slavery didn’t immediately make all blacks equal with whites in America. It took numerous subsequent legal actions as well as hundreds of social efforts, big and small, to slowly make the advancement we have seen today. But even in this day and age, in a new century, there’s an ongoing battle against racism. It appears we need leadership to guide society to true equality as much now as ever in our history.

The abolition of slavery merely began the long hard struggle for African American culture to be a real part of what it means to be an American. That’s because even though the legal definition of slavery had been shaken off, the attitudes and cultural systems in place to keep the races apart and to deny black people rights equal with whites had to be addressed one at a time.

Slowly across the decades, we have seen great changes but several came at a great cost. From the legal awarding of the right to vote to African Americans to the civil rights movement to school integration, each step forward was accompanied by resistance, great difficulty and significant sacrifice from leaders and average citizens alike to make every step toward true equality a reality.

Of all the attempts to “level the playing field”, none has been a lot controversial than the Affirmative Action program. In its beginning, it was meant to be a supplement to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Over time it had become clear-cut that despite removal of laws that implemented segregation or discrimination, there seemed to be an instinctive segregation in the work place that was holding African Americans from getting a fair chance at jobs due to the prejudices of an employer, even if that prejudice wasn’t officially recognized in the company charter.

There were two important executive orders that made affirmative action a reality. The first was Executive Order 10925 signed by President Kennedy on March 6, 1965 which was the 1st law to make mention of the phrase. This was accompanied by much more sweeping Civil Rights Act which was signed into law by President Johnson. Together these laws sought to correct by legal means the disparity of opportunity that existed in the workplace for people of color by establishing a system of quotas that employers had to meet to fulfill federal affirmative action minority employment levels.

But all the same, often the case when the authorities attempt to impose right attitudes via legislation, these laws often produced as many problems for minorities as they cured. Nonetheless as the application of the quota systems started out to become widespread, it did open a lot of doors for African Americans that would not have opened due to racial prejudice and silent segregation that was holding back the African American community from reaching its economic potential.

In truth, no one really liked this kind of imposed fairness system. For whites, they felt the sting of an artificial system of judgment that was occasionally called “reverse discrimination”. While there was a few justices that the white community got a taste for what it felt like to loose out on opportunity due to the color of your skin, it didn’t help the country in our goal of growing jointly to be one “color blind” community.

Affirmative Action was a real mixed blessing for the African American community. While it did its task in the short term to opening doors that were closed due to racism, it is not the perfect solution. That is because it didn’t fulfill Dr. King’s vision of a world where a man is judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. We can desire that we will grow to that point as a culture and review on affirmative action as an unfortunate but needed provision to help us grow and mature as a genuinely integrated culture.

Find More Blind Community Articles

Question by equiroz24: Why are americans so nervous about travelling to Mexico?
In a conversation with people about traveling to Mexico I often encounter statements like “I don’t want to go because it’s dangerous” and “I hear they kidnap americans”. I travel often to the country and have never had a problem, then again I travel smart (no flashy things, no expensive equipment on me or anything that makes me a mark).

When I talk to locals about the situation and about the average american response they chuckle. They basically tell me that americans are scaredy cats (not gonna use the “p” word, which would be a better translation for what they say but I don’t want this question to get axed)

I haven’t been living under a rock. I understand the dangers of cartel violence and that more americans are dying in Mexico then in any other country (outside of war zones) but don’t they realize that the majority of people being killed are people who have some connection to the actual conflict (gangsters, hitmen and their friends/family)?

They’re not cruising the streets gunning down random tourists. Why put a bullet into a tourist if you can slip it into your enemy?

I firmly believe that the majority of the the 200 americans killed in Mexico since 2004 had connections to the cartels in some way. The rest were the victims of drug-related violent crime. It does happen unfortunately. Kidnapping for ransom is a problem that happens in all countries. Travelling smart, (not calling attention to yourself, being properly oriented by locals about what places are safe to travel and what times, taking taxis wisely), is a very effective way of keeping oneself safe.

In the Theories of Communications there exists a term called “mean world syndrome”. This happens when people hear/read/watch news (good news is boring news-just a saying) about crime/violence and perceive the world to be more dangerous than it is. Therefore they believe that their chances of being a victim of a crime are much more elevated than in actuality. Keep that in mind.

It’s silly to not be able to enjoy the world outside of the US because of hysteria.

I ask this question first to challenge the opinions of those saturated by the bad news and secondly to start up some real discussion on the topic. What’s your opinion?
My intention wasn’t to generalize when I chose my title but it could’ve been better thought out. Thank you so far for some of the thought out answers. I enjoy the insight.
I don’t judge your answers as right or wrong but “its not uncommon for you to be killed 100 miles past the border” is absolutely ridiculous.

Best answer:

Answer by DethkloK
swine flu

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!