Note to self: The connection of cognitive disabilities in education spheres is one that has heavily impacted my family. My father and I have the same cognitive disability but his school disregarded him as "unable to learn" which led to him leaving school in 7th grade and being left largely illiterate. Whereas now I have been able to gain the access points and support I need to be able to get all the way to college, it shows what a different social and educational support has on cognitively disabled children and their subsequent futures.

Note to world: Similar to a common sentiment brought up by many current disability rights activists. The idea that there are so many technological advances and updates to society that are constantly being created and dispersed that make able-bodied peoples lives easier, however disability access is seen as a expensive, difficult, and not as much as a priority.

How does the way that social contract theorists think about citizens exclude people with disabilities?: In Rawls definition here, he is explicating disabled people as non-citizens given their "inability" to play part in society and provide equal cooperation and their need for more aid than what he defines as citizens.

note to text: connected to the concept of the minority model which we have read about this course and any other course related to disability. The idea that disability is a minority is a false concept used to marginalize disabled people and normalize not providing access under the pretense that being a minority, needs of the majority should be put first. In reality we understand that disability is actually a majority and most people will become disabled as some point in their life.

Note to world: I've seen many articles and online videos of those who work as caretakers giving insight into their job and how little they make, many of them detailing how they work extra retail jobs, custodial night jobs, or even two caretaking jobs at one during the day and another at night to make a living wage.

Note to self: This sentiment is important to me because I recently watched my aunt who is the primary caretaker of my disabled cousin, have to juggle going back to work and caring for him. He needs a in-school aide to help him and the school and government refuse to pay him a salary, so now in order be able to pay the aide and keep my cousin in school and succeeding, she has to effectively work 2 full time jobs; being a caretaker and what would be considered her 'real job.'

Note to text: The objectivity of this sentence reminds me of a reading I read in my class surrounding disability and the arts, that spoke about how important what language you use and how you phrase that language when speaking about any person who exists outside of the normative. While as you read it becomes clear this is not the authors perspective, I think the use of quotations to clarify why these words are being used or a clarifying sentence of why this phrase is harmful. without it this sentence feels too objective or accepting of using descriptors as such for disabled people.

This raises the question of 'what is fair treatment?,' fair treatment is not when access is after thought. Fair treatment would be considering all types of citizens from the first steps of creating a space. This also connects to the problematic social contract based on reciprocity, because disabled citizens are left as an after thought because they are thought to not be able to "provide anything" and therefore as the understanding of the social contract goes, you are then not owed anything.