I see that President Obama has made nominations for some new administration positions these include a nomination for Ari Ne'eman's appointment to the National Council on disabilities. So, now we have someone who has stated the position that certain people think autism speaks is morally complicit with murder and seems to have given this statement credibility. We also have the appointment of a 21-year-old who has never been employed in any capacity who gives input on employment. Most stupefying of all is that Ne'eman is being appointed to a council on disabilities even though he himself does not believe that autism is a disability. Ne'eman has written:
We see the world in a different way than our neurotypical peers (neurotypical is a word in the autistic community meaning those of the majority neurology). This does not imply a defect, but merely a difference — one that we have just the same right to as those of a different race, nationality or religion.The belief was that anyone society labeled "disabled" could only go so far. Sadly, these misconceptions had the potential to become self-fulfilling prophecies. When the expectation is that people of a certain type can only reach so far, they are not provided with the same challenges and opportunities that educators give mainstreamed students....
In the last paragraph Ne'eman writes:
We should recognize what diversity of neurology has contributed to the human race and what it can bring to the future. Difference is not disability and someday, I hope, the world will recognize that those who think in different ways should be welcomed.
Of course if anyone wants to argue semantics, Ne'eman does say in that essay that disability comes from society's attitudes, so in essence he could be claiming the old Larry Arnold argument that he considers himself disabled from the social model rather than the medical model. However, still this shows to me that he has a different definition of disability than the mainstream, including what I suspect is the federal government's.
This appointment of an inexperienced 21-year-old who has these views that I regard as harmful is of concern to me. I am not sure if these nominations have to be confirmed by congress or not. I would consider writing my congressman though he never responded to my question of the legality of allowing Ne'eman and Katie Miller to testify before the IACC so seems pointless to write him again. I may write a letter to President Obama telling him how much this appointment concerns me.
Addendum: I decided to call my congressman's office. I was told that these appointments are confirmed by the senate and not by the house. I have written (by email) both senators Boxer and Feinstein, urging them to reject Ne'eman's confirmation to the council. I also left a phone message with Boxer's office. I got a message from Feinstein's office saying the lines were busy, but I guess the email may be enough. Of course, these appointments are probably routinely confirmed in most cases, so there is little chance enough people would complain and we could get the senate to reject Ne'eman's confirmation. But I urge anyone who feels as I do who is an American citizen to contact their senators and urge them not to confirm Ne'eman's appointment.
I have also contacted the white house and left a message for president Obama that I disapproved of this nomination and felt he should reconsider.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
James Delorey disputes neurodiversity's propaganda
I see that a nonverbal autistic 7-year-old boy who was lost in the snow in Canada for a couple of days has passed away. Once again the ND line that autism does not kill anyone has been disproved by this innocent young child's untimely demise. It always saddens me to read these things.
I realize there won't be a cure in the foreseeable future, but if one could be found at some point of time, senseless deaths like these could be prevented. So, the ND movement once again with their trying to stifle scientific research that could lead to a cure for autism does not seem to care about preventing tragedies such as these.
Once again, there will be outrage and fury by the ND's anytime a child with autism is senselessly murdered by their parents. I and anyone else who desires a cure for autism will be blamed for that murder by these people. I doubt James' death will be posted on any ND blogs, nor will any tears be shed for his death. Though I have no actual statistics, it would seem anecdotaly far more children with autism die from tragedies such as these than are murdered by parents, caretakers or others. Harold Doherty has posted it on his blog, I don't think I need to provide a link.
I wonder when Ari Ne'eman and ASAN will lobby congress for funding of GDS devices for parents of nonverbal autistic children who can't afford them.
I wonder what James' parents would think if they read Morton Gernsbacher's, Michelle Dawson's and Laurent Mottron's piece, autism: common, heritable, but not harmful.
I realize there won't be a cure in the foreseeable future, but if one could be found at some point of time, senseless deaths like these could be prevented. So, the ND movement once again with their trying to stifle scientific research that could lead to a cure for autism does not seem to care about preventing tragedies such as these.
Once again, there will be outrage and fury by the ND's anytime a child with autism is senselessly murdered by their parents. I and anyone else who desires a cure for autism will be blamed for that murder by these people. I doubt James' death will be posted on any ND blogs, nor will any tears be shed for his death. Though I have no actual statistics, it would seem anecdotaly far more children with autism die from tragedies such as these than are murdered by parents, caretakers or others. Harold Doherty has posted it on his blog, I don't think I need to provide a link.
I wonder when Ari Ne'eman and ASAN will lobby congress for funding of GDS devices for parents of nonverbal autistic children who can't afford them.
I wonder what James' parents would think if they read Morton Gernsbacher's, Michelle Dawson's and Laurent Mottron's piece, autism: common, heritable, but not harmful.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Ari Ne'eman testifies before the EEOC
I see the never employed 21-year-old Ari Ne'eman is at it again. Ari Ne'eman seems to once again offer his expertise on the subject of employment, something he knows of not one iota, never having been employed in his life. I've previously written about Ne'eman's trying to make himself out to be an expert in this subject of which he does not know from shoe polish. The media exposure happy Ne'eman gave an interview to a New Jersey newspaper in which he offered his own input on the workplace. Not as anything more than an ivory tower observer, let alone someone (myself) who has had many years of experience in the workplace experiencing these problems first hand that happens to those on the spectrum. Now, Mr. Ne'eman is offering his $.02 worth (and even this price tag is being exceedingly generous to Ne'eman) by giving testimony before the EEOC.
Ne'eman starts off by stating that all autism spectrum disorders should be included under the EEOC's rubric. This is not surprising in that Ne'eman having had speech at age 2-3 and knowing the names of various dinosaurs, would have never had an autism diagnosis based on criteria which was not extant until about 1994. He would still have to say he had Attention deficit disorder and be a crusader for the rights of this group instead.
He also talks about a clause in the law that is a 'regarded from' aspect of the disability and states that things like a data entry person being dismissed from their job for not looking the person in the eye be something that is inclusive among autistics. What Ne'eman in his youthful naivete' fails to grasp is that an employer is not going to outright admit to terminating a person's employment because they did not look the employer in the eye. They will come up with an excuse that no matter how bogus will basically be impossible to prove in a court of law or the EEOC or anywhere else where a terminated autistic employee will desire to redress a grievance against a discriminating employer. I know this for a fact because I was fired from a data entry job where a productivity study was falsified against me. Naturally this individual would not come right out and say that he was firing me for being a peculiar person. It would have been certainly infeasible if not impossible for me to disprove this contention and claim that I was being discriminated against.
Secondly Ne'eman claims that 30% of companies are offering these personality tests which are irrelevant to performance of a job in question and that due to a person with autism giving undesirable answers they are screened out from a job from which they are qualified. Interestingly, I have had hundreds of job interviews (as opposed to Ari's likely zero) and I can't recall one instance in which I was administered one of these so-called personality tests. I suppose it is possible things could have changed drastically from where 0 to 30% of companies would give these tests in the few years that I have been out of the job market but that seems unlikely to me. What Ne'eman won't acknowledge is the fact that though discrimination exists and is indeed a factor in autistic employment, impairment is a much more poignant issue. The fact that a person with autism actually has a disability that incapacitates their ability to learn and do a job certainly does not jibe with Ne'eman's "being anti-cure isn't being anti-progress" mantra. However, Ne'eman wishes to deny me and others the cure that would enable us to be employable. If I had been an extremely good medical transcriptionist, plumber, computer programmer, etc, I would have had no problem keeping a job. It is true I would have faced some discrimination but I would not have been forced out of the workplace at a relatively young age. This is likely true for most if not all persons on the autistic spectrum.
I personally have little faith in the ADA or the EEOC in being able to do anything to help autistics secure employment. But Ne'eman's big government intervention policies help him conveniently avoid the issues of an autistic person actually not being able to work aside from discrimination. I do not believe that these federal laws that supposedly protect disabled individuals in the workplace are enforceable. This goes along with my nearly 28 years of experience of having actually worked with this handicap, being fired from multiple jobs and having applied for many many more.
Ari Ne'eman I know you read this blog and I would appreciate it if you and ASAN would do us all a favor and not try to talk about work related issues until you have actually gone out into the world and worked as an employee yourself.
Ne'eman starts off by stating that all autism spectrum disorders should be included under the EEOC's rubric. This is not surprising in that Ne'eman having had speech at age 2-3 and knowing the names of various dinosaurs, would have never had an autism diagnosis based on criteria which was not extant until about 1994. He would still have to say he had Attention deficit disorder and be a crusader for the rights of this group instead.
He also talks about a clause in the law that is a 'regarded from' aspect of the disability and states that things like a data entry person being dismissed from their job for not looking the person in the eye be something that is inclusive among autistics. What Ne'eman in his youthful naivete' fails to grasp is that an employer is not going to outright admit to terminating a person's employment because they did not look the employer in the eye. They will come up with an excuse that no matter how bogus will basically be impossible to prove in a court of law or the EEOC or anywhere else where a terminated autistic employee will desire to redress a grievance against a discriminating employer. I know this for a fact because I was fired from a data entry job where a productivity study was falsified against me. Naturally this individual would not come right out and say that he was firing me for being a peculiar person. It would have been certainly infeasible if not impossible for me to disprove this contention and claim that I was being discriminated against.
Secondly Ne'eman claims that 30% of companies are offering these personality tests which are irrelevant to performance of a job in question and that due to a person with autism giving undesirable answers they are screened out from a job from which they are qualified. Interestingly, I have had hundreds of job interviews (as opposed to Ari's likely zero) and I can't recall one instance in which I was administered one of these so-called personality tests. I suppose it is possible things could have changed drastically from where 0 to 30% of companies would give these tests in the few years that I have been out of the job market but that seems unlikely to me. What Ne'eman won't acknowledge is the fact that though discrimination exists and is indeed a factor in autistic employment, impairment is a much more poignant issue. The fact that a person with autism actually has a disability that incapacitates their ability to learn and do a job certainly does not jibe with Ne'eman's "being anti-cure isn't being anti-progress" mantra. However, Ne'eman wishes to deny me and others the cure that would enable us to be employable. If I had been an extremely good medical transcriptionist, plumber, computer programmer, etc, I would have had no problem keeping a job. It is true I would have faced some discrimination but I would not have been forced out of the workplace at a relatively young age. This is likely true for most if not all persons on the autistic spectrum.
I personally have little faith in the ADA or the EEOC in being able to do anything to help autistics secure employment. But Ne'eman's big government intervention policies help him conveniently avoid the issues of an autistic person actually not being able to work aside from discrimination. I do not believe that these federal laws that supposedly protect disabled individuals in the workplace are enforceable. This goes along with my nearly 28 years of experience of having actually worked with this handicap, being fired from multiple jobs and having applied for many many more.
Ari Ne'eman I know you read this blog and I would appreciate it if you and ASAN would do us all a favor and not try to talk about work related issues until you have actually gone out into the world and worked as an employee yourself.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Stephanie Lynn Keil missed by ND pollsters
I see that Stephanie Lynn Keil of the grand illusion blog has written a new post about how she disagrees with neurodiversity and believes that a cure for autism would be a good thing. I applaud Stephanie for doing this because as we find a growing number of persons on the spectrum who say they desire a cure we are disputing the neurodiversity contention espoused by Mike Carley, Dawn Prince-Hughes, Harry Williams (Socrates), Alex Plank and others that "most autistics don't want to be cured". Stephanie also shows great courage in signing (what I am pretty certain at least) her real name to a post stating that she wishes there could be a cure for autism. From my own personal experience (and I suspect Stephanie can attest to this also) anyone on the spectrum who is both high functioning and courageous enough to refute the ND line is vilified, bullied and harassed. Neurodiversity also has a "psychologist" (masters degree level) David Andrews who will start swearing at anyone who refutes the ND line in a blog comment. He delights in calling them "shite" or "tosspot" or any of the other vulgar names he can think of. It is quite frightening to me that this individual is allowed to work with autistic persons in any sort of clinical setup.
Neurodiversity not only operates by abusive name-calling but by disingenuous spin as well. It is understandable that any pro-cure autistic might be frightened of incurring the wrath of these vicious hatemongers and would not dare publicly state on the internet that they wish to be cured of this condition. One other problem is that many of persons afflicted are too impaired to blog and refute neurodiversity's nonsense. For example, Jon Shestack, father of Dov Shestack states that his son wants to be cured. However, Dov is nonverbal and probably incapable of refuting NDs nonsense or participating in their skewed polls. The same is true of John Belmonte, brother of autism brain researcher Matthew Belmonte. John B. in his 40s, has never spoken, but he has a limited ability to communicate using either FC or some sort of augmented communication or both. He has stated to his brother that he wishes to be cured of his autism.
What of the ND pollsters who state that their "scientific polls" prove that most autistics don't want to be cured. That autism speaks and other procure organizations wish to force a cure on those who don't want one (let alone the phony arguments about eugenic abortions)?
I could have gone to Wasilla, Alaska and taken a poll there on who the American people wished to be president of the United States in the 2008 election. I could have additionally gone to Biloxi, Mississippi and gotten additional poll numbers. It is likely that at least 99% of the poll participants would have stated they supported the McCain-Palin ticket (which lost). My poll would have been as scientific as neurodiversity's poll on whether or not autistics desire a cure.
Thank you, Stephanie, for publicly stating your convictions and not allowing ND to get away with their disingenuous spin. However, be prepared for a barrage of insults including the term "house autistic". Also, a few profane words from David Andrews may come your way.
Neurodiversity not only operates by abusive name-calling but by disingenuous spin as well. It is understandable that any pro-cure autistic might be frightened of incurring the wrath of these vicious hatemongers and would not dare publicly state on the internet that they wish to be cured of this condition. One other problem is that many of persons afflicted are too impaired to blog and refute neurodiversity's nonsense. For example, Jon Shestack, father of Dov Shestack states that his son wants to be cured. However, Dov is nonverbal and probably incapable of refuting NDs nonsense or participating in their skewed polls. The same is true of John Belmonte, brother of autism brain researcher Matthew Belmonte. John B. in his 40s, has never spoken, but he has a limited ability to communicate using either FC or some sort of augmented communication or both. He has stated to his brother that he wishes to be cured of his autism.
What of the ND pollsters who state that their "scientific polls" prove that most autistics don't want to be cured. That autism speaks and other procure organizations wish to force a cure on those who don't want one (let alone the phony arguments about eugenic abortions)?
I could have gone to Wasilla, Alaska and taken a poll there on who the American people wished to be president of the United States in the 2008 election. I could have additionally gone to Biloxi, Mississippi and gotten additional poll numbers. It is likely that at least 99% of the poll participants would have stated they supported the McCain-Palin ticket (which lost). My poll would have been as scientific as neurodiversity's poll on whether or not autistics desire a cure.
Thank you, Stephanie, for publicly stating your convictions and not allowing ND to get away with their disingenuous spin. However, be prepared for a barrage of insults including the term "house autistic". Also, a few profane words from David Andrews may come your way.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Do Autism Speaks' assets belong to neurodiversity or ASAN?
As regular readers of this blog know, in my last post before this I wrote about ASAN's latest protest against Autism Speaks latest fundraiser in NYC, questioning on what impact they may or may n0t have had on AS. I also wrote about Marc Rosen's interesting take that ASAN's demonstration was a success. I commented on the inconsistencies of neurodiversity's claiming that no one should support autism speaks by donating money to them or in Jerry Seinfeld's case, performing as an entertainer for them to help them raise funds, yet having no problem at all accepting the half a million dollar grant that their scientific representative Laurent Mottron and his factotum Michelle Dawson received. Michelle Dawson's response to why she continued to work with the Mottron group and other AS funded researchers was "science isn't politics". I thought this was an absurd response. However, now, it seems quite sane compared to a response some character named "Charles" made on Marc Rosen's comments section in his blog or examiner article or whatever it was. Charles responds to my query as follows:
We condemn Autism Speaks because of its overall position and actions. We -- neurodiversity/autistic rights advocates, or whatever you want to call us -- do not condemn 100% of what Autism Speaks does. To do so would be very difficult to defend and indicative of prejudice. No organization, not even the worst of them, is 100% bad. Acknowledging such is not hypocrisy or a conflict of interests. Any monies channeled through Autism Speaks never belonged to them in the first place. It's charity, grants, etc., raised on the backs of Autistic people, and as such, it is rightfully OURS to direct as we see fit. If Autism Speaks sometimes happens to direct some of that money to the right places, (which places are right is a separate issue), our position against Autism Speaks does not require that we condemn that. If Autism Speaks did not exist, those who deserve funding would still get it. Autism Speaks does not create money; they merely GATHER it.
What does Charles mean by "ours"? Does he mean all autistic persons on the planet, myself included? Then does he have a right to speak for me? It sort of is reminiscent of Harold Doherty's concept of the royal we. Assuming there has been no increase in prevalence in autism and there are more autistic adults than children, we can still presume that perhaps as many of one-third of autistic persons have not reached their majority and legally their parents can make monetary and other decisions for them. Does this include them? Does this include nonverbal autistic adults such as John Belmonte who are not in a position to communicate how this money is spent, possibly others who may be under a conservatorship? However, since Alex Plank, Dawn Prince-Hughes, Michael John Carley and others have claimed that "most autistics don't want to be cured" when there is no evidence whatsoever to back up that contention, does Charles speak for all or most autistics or is he speaking for neurodiversity? Or perhaps more specifically he is speaking for ASAN. He seems to think that all of the millions of assets of autism speaks. Perhaps even the multimillion dollar fortune of Bob and Suzanne Wright themselves belongs to ND or maybe even just ASAN to spend as they see fit.
One can even delve further into the matter by examining whether just because the word "autistic" is used in fundraising whether or not this even applies to persons like Ari Ne'eman, Marc Rosen or Charles. Before there were changes in the diagnostic criteria for autism Ari Ne'eman would not have been diagnosed as having autism since he had no speech delay and was in fact able to name various types of dinosaurs at age two. Had there been no change. Ne'eman's diagnosis would still be ADHD. Most of the parents and others who are involved with autism speaks have persons whose clinical picture is most likely different from Ne'eman's and other ASAN members. They are persons who are (or were at one time) nonverbal. Can't care for themselves and have problems that are not like probably most ND advocates. In spite of Ne'eman's slogan, nothing about us without us, the things that AS fundraises are probably not about him and other ND's so perhaps an argument could be made that there is nothing wrong with it being done without him and his ilk. So perhaps the collective "ours" does not even apply to Charles and whomever else he is referring to.
I still remember the statement of one of my readers, Roger Kulp, who stated that Neurodiversity wanted to take over autism speaks by infiltration and a smile comes to my face. Is Charles recommending that neurodiversity engage in some sort of 1917 style Bolshevik revolution where there is a communist takeover of AS and they can just take the assets of autism speaks as the communist thugs in Russia did with the Czar's fortune? Does he believe that the federal government has a duty to seize the assets of autism speaks and give it to Ari Ne'eman and himself and others? Sort of like Robin Hood perhaps. The statement certainly smacks of communism and all of the atrocities that have happened in Lenin's or Stalin's Russia or other iron curtain countries, or in Red China, where everything belongs to "the people".
Particularly intriguing is his statement that autism speaks does not create money, they gather it. Then aside from the U.S. government, who else creates money in the U.S. (excluding illegal counterfeiters of course)? This means Microsoft, IBM, Union oil and Bank of America and even the mom and pop grocery store down the street gather money. So, does this money just belong to the people who voluntarily did business with those places?
The Wrights worked hard to obtain their capital and to build autism speaks as well as the mergers with CAN and NAAR. Even though there may have been misleading advertising on autism speaks' part to obtain the funds, as far as I can tell they did nothing illegal. All of the persons who donated money, went on walks or went to the Seinfeld/Springstein event did so voluntarily. Why does not autism speaks have the right to spend the money how they see fit? If anyone does not like how autism speaks spends their money, they don't have to donate or accept services provided by AS funds or a scientist does not have to accept funding from AS either. I doubt that Charles or any of his other collective "ours" whomever that might be has donated a dime to AS.
Where does Charles (and possibly other ASAN members) get the idea that the money somehow belongs to a certain collective of persons, apparently as far as I can tell the ND movement and no one else? I wonder if any readers of autism's gadfly agree with Charles that the assets of autism speaks rightfully belong to neurodiversity or ASAN. In my opinion they do not. However, I welcome others opinion on the matter.
We condemn Autism Speaks because of its overall position and actions. We -- neurodiversity/autistic rights advocates, or whatever you want to call us -- do not condemn 100% of what Autism Speaks does. To do so would be very difficult to defend and indicative of prejudice. No organization, not even the worst of them, is 100% bad. Acknowledging such is not hypocrisy or a conflict of interests. Any monies channeled through Autism Speaks never belonged to them in the first place. It's charity, grants, etc., raised on the backs of Autistic people, and as such, it is rightfully OURS to direct as we see fit. If Autism Speaks sometimes happens to direct some of that money to the right places, (which places are right is a separate issue), our position against Autism Speaks does not require that we condemn that. If Autism Speaks did not exist, those who deserve funding would still get it. Autism Speaks does not create money; they merely GATHER it.
What does Charles mean by "ours"? Does he mean all autistic persons on the planet, myself included? Then does he have a right to speak for me? It sort of is reminiscent of Harold Doherty's concept of the royal we. Assuming there has been no increase in prevalence in autism and there are more autistic adults than children, we can still presume that perhaps as many of one-third of autistic persons have not reached their majority and legally their parents can make monetary and other decisions for them. Does this include them? Does this include nonverbal autistic adults such as John Belmonte who are not in a position to communicate how this money is spent, possibly others who may be under a conservatorship? However, since Alex Plank, Dawn Prince-Hughes, Michael John Carley and others have claimed that "most autistics don't want to be cured" when there is no evidence whatsoever to back up that contention, does Charles speak for all or most autistics or is he speaking for neurodiversity? Or perhaps more specifically he is speaking for ASAN. He seems to think that all of the millions of assets of autism speaks. Perhaps even the multimillion dollar fortune of Bob and Suzanne Wright themselves belongs to ND or maybe even just ASAN to spend as they see fit.
One can even delve further into the matter by examining whether just because the word "autistic" is used in fundraising whether or not this even applies to persons like Ari Ne'eman, Marc Rosen or Charles. Before there were changes in the diagnostic criteria for autism Ari Ne'eman would not have been diagnosed as having autism since he had no speech delay and was in fact able to name various types of dinosaurs at age two. Had there been no change. Ne'eman's diagnosis would still be ADHD. Most of the parents and others who are involved with autism speaks have persons whose clinical picture is most likely different from Ne'eman's and other ASAN members. They are persons who are (or were at one time) nonverbal. Can't care for themselves and have problems that are not like probably most ND advocates. In spite of Ne'eman's slogan, nothing about us without us, the things that AS fundraises are probably not about him and other ND's so perhaps an argument could be made that there is nothing wrong with it being done without him and his ilk. So perhaps the collective "ours" does not even apply to Charles and whomever else he is referring to.
I still remember the statement of one of my readers, Roger Kulp, who stated that Neurodiversity wanted to take over autism speaks by infiltration and a smile comes to my face. Is Charles recommending that neurodiversity engage in some sort of 1917 style Bolshevik revolution where there is a communist takeover of AS and they can just take the assets of autism speaks as the communist thugs in Russia did with the Czar's fortune? Does he believe that the federal government has a duty to seize the assets of autism speaks and give it to Ari Ne'eman and himself and others? Sort of like Robin Hood perhaps. The statement certainly smacks of communism and all of the atrocities that have happened in Lenin's or Stalin's Russia or other iron curtain countries, or in Red China, where everything belongs to "the people".
Particularly intriguing is his statement that autism speaks does not create money, they gather it. Then aside from the U.S. government, who else creates money in the U.S. (excluding illegal counterfeiters of course)? This means Microsoft, IBM, Union oil and Bank of America and even the mom and pop grocery store down the street gather money. So, does this money just belong to the people who voluntarily did business with those places?
The Wrights worked hard to obtain their capital and to build autism speaks as well as the mergers with CAN and NAAR. Even though there may have been misleading advertising on autism speaks' part to obtain the funds, as far as I can tell they did nothing illegal. All of the persons who donated money, went on walks or went to the Seinfeld/Springstein event did so voluntarily. Why does not autism speaks have the right to spend the money how they see fit? If anyone does not like how autism speaks spends their money, they don't have to donate or accept services provided by AS funds or a scientist does not have to accept funding from AS either. I doubt that Charles or any of his other collective "ours" whomever that might be has donated a dime to AS.
Where does Charles (and possibly other ASAN members) get the idea that the money somehow belongs to a certain collective of persons, apparently as far as I can tell the ND movement and no one else? I wonder if any readers of autism's gadfly agree with Charles that the assets of autism speaks rightfully belong to neurodiversity or ASAN. In my opinion they do not. However, I welcome others opinion on the matter.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Jerry Seinfeld and AS: No news is good news
In the no news is good news department an anonymous reader of autism's gadfly was wondering why there was no news about the ASAN protest of autism speaks latest fund raiser which included musician Bruce Springstein and well-known comedian Jerry Seinfeld helping to raise funds. He wrote a comment inquiring about this. He wrote another follow-up comment stating that a whopping 15 persons from ASAN showed up to demonstrate against the fundraiser according apparently to a twitter feed that ASAN has. However in what seems to me to be a strange take on the matter, ASAN member Marc Rosen called the protest a success
We can see one of them being rather antagonistic to Mr. Seinfeld:
We see in a recent update from AS that they managed to raise 1.7 million dollars from this gala event, in spite of the 15 ASAN protestors.
Anyone remember the old philosophical question about if a tree falls in the forest a thousand miles away from anyone does it make a sound?
Addendum: I pointed out to ASAN's Marc Rosen that they were only 15 persons as opposed to the 1.7 million that AS manage to raise from this event and the lack of sound from a tree no one hears being analogous to how effective their protest was, as well as their inconsistencies in supporting Laurent Mottron when he accepted funding from AS, yet instead of protesting Dr. Mottron, they have lauded the research of he and his associates that the organization they protest fundraises. I believe this is an inconsistency. Rosen responded by stating that if I had nothing useful to say that he would delete my comments and that I should save it for my blog and overbearing mother.
So we see, again ASAN is an organization like other ND proponents who are trying to bring back the Bettelheim era, having to stoop to insulting one's mother because they have nothing productive to say and can't refute anything I say. Marc Rosen is so typical of the ND movement, just engaging in censorship of anyone who posts a comment they disagree with. Apparently ASAN loves to dish it out but they can't take it.
We can see one of them being rather antagonistic to Mr. Seinfeld:
We see in a recent update from AS that they managed to raise 1.7 million dollars from this gala event, in spite of the 15 ASAN protestors.
Anyone remember the old philosophical question about if a tree falls in the forest a thousand miles away from anyone does it make a sound?
Addendum: I pointed out to ASAN's Marc Rosen that they were only 15 persons as opposed to the 1.7 million that AS manage to raise from this event and the lack of sound from a tree no one hears being analogous to how effective their protest was, as well as their inconsistencies in supporting Laurent Mottron when he accepted funding from AS, yet instead of protesting Dr. Mottron, they have lauded the research of he and his associates that the organization they protest fundraises. I believe this is an inconsistency. Rosen responded by stating that if I had nothing useful to say that he would delete my comments and that I should save it for my blog and overbearing mother.
So we see, again ASAN is an organization like other ND proponents who are trying to bring back the Bettelheim era, having to stoop to insulting one's mother because they have nothing productive to say and can't refute anything I say. Marc Rosen is so typical of the ND movement, just engaging in censorship of anyone who posts a comment they disagree with. Apparently ASAN loves to dish it out but they can't take it.
Friday, November 13, 2009
autistics bullied: where are ASAN and Neurodiversity?
I see that there is a a new article out that discusses one of the problems of growing up autistic, being bullied. Bullying was a real problem for me as a child. I think most children with a developmental disability will attest to the fact that they had to endure incredible bullying. Of course very little is done about bullying and no one wants to include bullying as a diagnostic category in the DSM as they do autism. There are no segregated special ed schools for bullies and no federal mandate that bullies deserve a free and appropriate education away from handicapped children who are bullied.
Though I have had my differences with Michelle Dawson in the past, one time she did write something about bullying on her TMOB comment board which I agreed with. I wrote an article on my website giving Dawson's ideas a shout out and giving my own take on the matter.
One young angry member of neurodiversity has argued in the past that a cure for autism should not be found because NT children are such bullies and these are the type of persons who should not be emulated.
Other than these comments as far as I know, ASAN nor any other member of the ND movement has said anything about bullies or complained about bullying. This is surprising in light of the fact that ND proponents have consistently claimed that their movement is about human rights of persons with autism and similar disabilities. I know that they don't consider the right to treatment or the right not to be disabled a human right. However, one wonders why not being bullied is apparently not considered a human right by neurodiversity in general and ASAN in particular.
I see that ASAN spends the bulk of their time protesting autism speaks, claiming that they are only in existence to get rid of autistic persons, to insult them and urging boycotts of autism speaks and organizations such as toys 'r' us or Lindt chocolates who have supported AS in the past. Yet they apparently have no problem with Laurent Mottron's acceptance of half a million bucks from this organization.
Before I read the recent article about bullying, I was sort of curious why they spent so much time on autism speaks and apparently never organized demonstrations against the Judge Rottenberg center and similar organizations. For anyone not in the know, the Judge Rottenberg Center (formerly Behavior Research Institute) is a place where children are physically hit and electric shocked. As far as I know ASAN has never organized a demonstration or protest outside of the JRC the way they have at autism speaks walks. Apparently they don't feel that not being physically abused by these people is one of the human rights neurodiversity crusades for.
Now, it seems strange that Ari Ne'eman and his cronies have never, as far as I know, said one word against bullying. They have never done anything or attempted to address the problem of bullying, I wonder why.
Perhaps one reason is that a good number of members of the ND movement are bullies themselves. They have been abusive to me in the past when my only offense was saying I hate my autism and wish there could be a cure or scientific treatment. They have called me quisling, house autistic, sworn at me and insulted my parents. It is a good bet that they bully other people and parents also. I realize the likely explanation for this is that many of them were bullied themselves as children due to having autism or perhaps for other reasons. They ended up emulating the behaviors of those who victimized them.
Perhaps these are the reasons that ASAN and neurodiversity have been silent on the subject of bullying.
Though I have had my differences with Michelle Dawson in the past, one time she did write something about bullying on her TMOB comment board which I agreed with. I wrote an article on my website giving Dawson's ideas a shout out and giving my own take on the matter.
One young angry member of neurodiversity has argued in the past that a cure for autism should not be found because NT children are such bullies and these are the type of persons who should not be emulated.
Other than these comments as far as I know, ASAN nor any other member of the ND movement has said anything about bullies or complained about bullying. This is surprising in light of the fact that ND proponents have consistently claimed that their movement is about human rights of persons with autism and similar disabilities. I know that they don't consider the right to treatment or the right not to be disabled a human right. However, one wonders why not being bullied is apparently not considered a human right by neurodiversity in general and ASAN in particular.
I see that ASAN spends the bulk of their time protesting autism speaks, claiming that they are only in existence to get rid of autistic persons, to insult them and urging boycotts of autism speaks and organizations such as toys 'r' us or Lindt chocolates who have supported AS in the past. Yet they apparently have no problem with Laurent Mottron's acceptance of half a million bucks from this organization.
Before I read the recent article about bullying, I was sort of curious why they spent so much time on autism speaks and apparently never organized demonstrations against the Judge Rottenberg center and similar organizations. For anyone not in the know, the Judge Rottenberg Center (formerly Behavior Research Institute) is a place where children are physically hit and electric shocked. As far as I know ASAN has never organized a demonstration or protest outside of the JRC the way they have at autism speaks walks. Apparently they don't feel that not being physically abused by these people is one of the human rights neurodiversity crusades for.
Now, it seems strange that Ari Ne'eman and his cronies have never, as far as I know, said one word against bullying. They have never done anything or attempted to address the problem of bullying, I wonder why.
Perhaps one reason is that a good number of members of the ND movement are bullies themselves. They have been abusive to me in the past when my only offense was saying I hate my autism and wish there could be a cure or scientific treatment. They have called me quisling, house autistic, sworn at me and insulted my parents. It is a good bet that they bully other people and parents also. I realize the likely explanation for this is that many of them were bullied themselves as children due to having autism or perhaps for other reasons. They ended up emulating the behaviors of those who victimized them.
Perhaps these are the reasons that ASAN and neurodiversity have been silent on the subject of bullying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
