Guest guest Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 Ken, I haven't heard the tape myself. I am merely reporting what the editor of the Portland Tribune sent to me in writing. -Dave On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, klee102@... wrote: > Dave- > > Unless you heard the tape yourself, you don't know if the reporter has on > tape " I have heard 'anecdotally' that as many as 85% of disabled Americans > are unemployed " (taken from Matt Roloff's previous comments) but is > interpreting this as simply 85% of disabled Americans are unemployed. > > Ken Lee > > > > > > > and on SSDI? " -- > > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: Bradford dbradfor@... > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:11:40 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) > dwarfism , lpa_officers > Subject: 85 percent " misquote " > > > <html><body> > > > <tt> > I just received an email from the Editor of the Portland Tribune, in > which<BR> > he stated that Mr. Roloff was not at all misquoted. Editor <BR> > wrote that ph Gallivan, author of the article, has the quote on > tape.<BR> > <BR> > - Bradford<BR> > <BR> > <BR> > ><BR> > > For the Record:<BR> > ><BR> > > A recent Portland based newspaper mis-quoted me as follows--<BR> > ><BR> > > What Matt said-<BR> > ><BR> > > " We (LPA) do not keep such statistics but you may want to check with > the<BR> > > EEOC or firms such as Bender consulting because I have heard<BR> > > 'anecdotally' that as many as 85% of disabled Americans are unemployed<BR> > > and on SSDI? " --<BR> > ><BR> > > What they printed-<BR> > ><BR> > > " 85% of our members are unemployed " <BR> > > > ************************************************************************<BR> > > *******************************<BR> > ><BR> > > I have since learned that it's about 75% of disabled (NOT 85%)--<BR> > > although I'm still waiting for that report to be sent to me in writing<BR> > > so we can verify how/if it may apply to people of short stature, as<BR> > > opposed to the larger Disability community.<BR> > ><BR> > > The good news, should anyone like to focus on that, District 11 picked<BR> > > up three (3) new members at our regional this past weekend as a direct<BR> > > result of that article-- All three of these individuals stated that<BR> > > they felt positive energy and excitement about LPA merely reading that<BR> > > article and decided it was time to join LPA.<BR> > ><BR> > > Matt Roloff<BR> > ><BR> > > Re: 85% of dwarfs are unemployed?<BR> > ><BR> > > Where did this statistic come from Rose? Is it an accurate percentage?<BR> > > And why are 85% of dwarfs unemployed? If that is the case, this should<BR> > > be looked into. Why is that so? Dwarfs are SHORT, not stupid, or<BR> > > incapable......? Why would SO MANY dwarfs be unemployed? I am hoping<BR> > ><BR> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 Dave- Unless you heard the tape yourself, you don't know if the reporter has on tape " I have heard 'anecdotally' that as many as 85% of disabled Americans are unemployed " (taken from Matt Roloff's previous comments) but is interpreting this as simply 85% of disabled Americans are unemployed. Ken Lee > and on SSDI? " -- Original Message: ----------------- From: Bradford dbradfor@... Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:11:40 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) dwarfism , lpa_officers Subject: 85 percent " misquote " <html><body> <tt> I just received an email from the Editor of the Portland Tribune, in which<BR> he stated that Mr. Roloff was not at all misquoted. Editor <BR> wrote that ph Gallivan, author of the article, has the quote on tape.<BR> <BR> - Bradford<BR> <BR> <BR> ><BR> > For the Record:<BR> ><BR> > A recent Portland based newspaper mis-quoted me as follows--<BR> ><BR> > What Matt said-<BR> ><BR> > " We (LPA) do not keep such statistics but you may want to check with the<BR> > EEOC or firms such as Bender consulting because I have heard<BR> > 'anecdotally' that as many as 85% of disabled Americans are unemployed<BR> > and on SSDI? " --<BR> ><BR> > What they printed-<BR> ><BR> > " 85% of our members are unemployed " <BR> > ************************************************************************<BR> > *******************************<BR> ><BR> > I have since learned that it's about 75% of disabled (NOT 85%)--<BR> > although I'm still waiting for that report to be sent to me in writing<BR> > so we can verify how/if it may apply to people of short stature, as<BR> > opposed to the larger Disability community.<BR> ><BR> > The good news, should anyone like to focus on that, District 11 picked<BR> > up three (3) new members at our regional this past weekend as a direct<BR> > result of that article-- All three of these individuals stated that<BR> > they felt positive energy and excitement about LPA merely reading that<BR> > article and decided it was time to join LPA.<BR> ><BR> > Matt Roloff<BR> ><BR> > Re: 85% of dwarfs are unemployed?<BR> ><BR> > Where did this statistic come from Rose? Is it an accurate percentage?<BR> > And why are 85% of dwarfs unemployed? If that is the case, this should<BR> > be looked into. Why is that so? Dwarfs are SHORT, not stupid, or<BR> > incapable......? Why would SO MANY dwarfs be unemployed? I am hoping<BR> ><BR> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 Even stated anecdotally, it's still a dangerous statement for the president of LPA to make, because the " anecdotal percentage " is so aggregiously off the mark. Such statements hurt LPA far more than they help. Cara <BR> > ><BR> > > For the Record:<BR> > ><BR> > > A recent Portland based newspaper mis-quoted me as follows--<BR> > ><BR> > > What Matt said-<BR> > ><BR> > > " We (LPA) do not keep such statistics but you may want to check with > the<BR> > > EEOC or firms such as Bender consulting because I have heard<BR> > > 'anecdotally' that as many as 85% of disabled Americans are unemployed<BR> > > and on SSDI? " --<BR> > ><BR> > > What they printed-<BR> > ><BR> > > " 85% of our members are unemployed " <BR> > > > ********************************************************************* ***<BR> > > *******************************<BR> > ><BR> > > I have since learned that it's about 75% of disabled (NOT 85%)-- <BR> > > although I'm still waiting for that report to be sent to me in writing<BR> > > so we can verify how/if it may apply to people of short stature, as<BR> > > opposed to the larger Disability community.<BR> > ><BR> > > The good news, should anyone like to focus on that, District 11 picked<BR> > > up three (3) new members at our regional this past weekend as a direct<BR> > > result of that article-- All three of these individuals stated that<BR> > > they felt positive energy and excitement about LPA merely reading that<BR> > > article and decided it was time to join LPA.<BR> > ><BR> > > Matt Roloff<BR> > ><BR> > > Re: 85% of dwarfs are unemployed?<BR> > ><BR> > > Where did this statistic come from Rose? Is it an accurate percentage?<BR> > > And why are 85% of dwarfs unemployed? If that is the case, this should<BR> > > be looked into. Why is that so? Dwarfs are SHORT, not stupid, or<BR> > > incapable......? Why would SO MANY dwarfs be unemployed? I am hoping<BR> > ><BR> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 Cara & Dave -- May I jump on your bandwagon? Someone in Matt Roloff's position needs to be quite conscientious when they speak to the media. In fact, Matt even brought up that very topic a few months ago when he discussed why he was speaking to FOX news about the Littlest Groom. Whether he was misquoted or not, the statistic was believed. Here is a link to a letter to the editor regarding that very article. http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=23932 And to defend the quote by saying that the actual statistic that Matt gave was " only " 75% unemployment is still dangerous especially since this is incorrect. How can we promote ourselves as capable by announcing our love for SSDI? Rose > Even stated anecdotally, it's still a dangerous statement for the > president of LPA to make, because the " anecdotal percentage " is so > aggregiously off the mark. > > Such statements hurt LPA far more than they help. > > Cara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 Van Etten provides a very insightful commentary about the true statistics of employment for people with disabilities. Check it out at www.lpa4people.org, then click on Commentary. Cara > > Even stated anecdotally, it's still a dangerous statement for the > > president of LPA to make, because the " anecdotal percentage " is so > > aggregiously off the mark. > > > > Such statements hurt LPA far more than they help. > > > > Cara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.