Well I am going to be out of town from Tuesday morning to saturday evening. Going to go to the Autism Society of America annual conference. It is in Orlando Florida. I will be seeing my good friend Adam with autism who lives in Miami whom I have only seen in person once before. Also Temple Grandin is there. Hopefully I can avoid getting into an argument with her if i get to meet her. Probably won't get to meet her though, as i guess she will be pretty much mobbed. She was in Arizona at the conference last year and I saw her in person but we did not talk at all.
Also my friend, Stephen Shore, the fast rising superstar of autism conferences, will be there and I will get to see him again. Not sure who else will be there. Hopefully I will get to have some good social interaction with some people with whom I have a common interest in autism. Hopefully will have a good time. Not sure it will be worth money and time of going there again, so i might not go again, but going this time around.
I will probably write a blog entry which will be a brief summary of my adventures at the conference, after i get back on July 12
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Bashing Autism Speaks: My Turn
It seems that nowadays the chic activity among autism afficianados regardless of their stripes is bashing autism speaks, the microsoft of autism research funding. It does not matter where you lie on the autism political spectrum. If you're a member of the mercury militia you don't like them because they are not devoting enough funding to your pet projects or you feel that they are too dumb to realize autism is not really a genetic condition but rather a man made plague, probably by mercury, but in some cases of people who believe in an environmentally mediated increase in autism prevalence possibly something else. If you are someone who believes in the neurodiversity philosophy you don't like autism speaks because you believe that if they succeed in curing autism the person will be changed and they won't be the same person anymore, they will have a different brain. Or, like the mercury militia, you don't like genetic research, but your reasons are that you believe it will lead to a prenatal test where autistic fetuses will be aborted. Another reason you are unhappy is because they have no autistics who serve on any of the boards or have any position of power in the organization.
But why should I miss out on all the fun, even if due to my beliefs I am totally on the fringe since I have a unique view that does not agree with either camp. Actually I prefer to think I am a metaphorical island where I am one of the few persons interested in autism who is not on the fringe, but that is neither here nor there as my buddy Joseph would say.
I am like the high school kid who wants to join the in crowd or some enviable social clique. I want to join in the fun too, so here it is, surprise surprise to my readers who see I sometimes defend autism speaks because I like the idea of scientific research with the goal of curing or preventing autism. I am now going to come clean, I have some real problems with autism speaks, so I am going to join you in bashing them.
It all goes back to the days of AS's predecessor, CAN, before they were gobbled up by autism speaks in the corporate merger common to both for profit businesses and charitable organizations. In the days of CAN and before I retired when I was employed and had more money to throw around, I used to donate money to CAN, $100 here and there. Also, I donated $100 to CAN's eastcoast counterpart NAAR, another organization that existed before AS existed and was also gobbled up by autism speaks. I have yet to donate money to AS and even if I had it I would not donate a dime to them. But getting back to the topic at hand. I discovered that CAN was not the organization that I envisioned. Sally Bernard, one of the mercury militia's leaders, used her considerable wealth to influence CAN and get them to elect her president of the organization. Then CAN started to fund studies that investigated the possibility that thimerosal caused autism. I knew that thimerosal had nothing to do with autism for reasons I have detailed in an essay that I wrote, http://www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/thimerosal.html where I showed there was a tripling in autism prevelance in the california DDS during a time when the thimerosal an infant received in vaccines was stable. So I was rather appalled that they would appoint Bernard to a position of huge power in their organization and would fund thimerosal. CAN also had bylaws in writing stating that they would only fund medical research. They then violated their own bylaws by funding some work Ivar Lovaas was doing. This is in spite of the fact that Lovaas has not published any adult outcomes from his 1987 study in spite of receiving funding from NIMH to do so. I stopped donating money to CAN after that.
Not much later, CAN became extinct after they and NAAR were gobbled up by autism speaks. I hoped the direction that autism speaks would take would be different from CAN, I hoped they would not make some of the same boneheaded mistakes that CAN made, but they did not fail to disappoint me.
Recently I found out that Luc Keita, a post-doctoral fellow that works in Dr. Laurent Mottron's lab receives funding from an autism speaks grant. Dr. Mottron also has a somewhat cozy relationship with autism speaks and attends their conferences, I know because I met him at one. Dr. Mottron also employs that well known activist in the anti-curebie movement Michelle Dawson. Michelle implies in one of her essays that anyone who would want a cure for a severely autistic boy who scratches his sister, damages the families property and keeps them all awake howling at night is somehow an intolerant bigot. Because I want to cure autism and wrote an essay detailing my suffering from autism she states that I want to deny autistic people, of which I am one, their civil rights. In spite of the fact that autism speaks plainly states they want a cure and prevention for autism, Dawson calls them a credible fund raising organization. Either she is a hypocrite or she believes that autistic people are write-offs who should have no rights whatsoever in spite of her rhetoric. What autism speaks does by funding the Mottron lab is in my opinion the equivalent to promoting a private in the army who makes propaganda broadcasts for the enemy during wartime to rank of general rather than court martialing him and prosecuting him for treason. If anyone feels that statement is inflammatory, so be it. Ms. Dawson seems to tell me that other scientists she has worked with have grants from AS. She encourages other scientists to get grants from AS regardless of whether or not they agree with the pro cure philosophy of AS. Dawson argues that science and politics are not intertwined. I disagree. In the case of autism speaks politics clearly begot scientific funding. Bob and Suzanne Wright worked hard to start this organization so their grandson would have an improbable shot of living a better life and not end up being crippled by autism for the rest of his life. The AS walks, the donations, etc. were all most likely begotten by people desiring a cure for autism, many, whom I suspect never heard of the ND movement and would probably be shocked that something like it could conceivably exist. Dawson's statements remind me of the 32-year-old trophy wife who marries the 67 year old billionaire and states that money and lust are not intertwined.
Probably even more bizarre I found out that autism speaks includes on its advisory committees Morton Gernsbacher. A psychology professor in Wisconsin who has an autistic child and does research in autism and wrote an essay entitled autistics need acceptance not cure. Ironically enough she was on some review committees for CAN when it existed also. I am mystified by why Dr. Gernsbacher who believes that autism should be accepted rather than cured would serve on scientific advisory boards of organizations whose philosophies I would think would be anathema to her own. But the more important question is why would autism speaks have a relationship with someone like that. After all, we don't hire John Dillinger and Al Capone to be police officers or FBI agents. So yes, autism speaks is not a terribly bright organization given the fact they would have an affiliation with such people who undermine the efforts and desires of those of us who view autism as a horrific affliction and wish that it could be cured and prevented (not abortions of autistic fetuses but prevented by altering the genetic mutation so the child won't have to grow up as a cripple).
Also, I agree with my pals in the neurodiversity movement. Autism Speaks should have autistic people on their boards or in positions of power, this is another reason I am not terribly fond of them. If a pro-cure autistic such as myself were on the board, they would not make the slip shod decisions of the NTs that run AS do that would actually fund a lab that employs michelle dawson, someone who gives aide and comfort to our enemy, autism The pro-cure autistics would have the intelligence not to allow an anti-cure person like Morton Gernsbacher to sit on their advisory committees. That is why they should not only put me on the board but allow me to run the whole show there. Anti-cure people would not be allowed to be involved with autism speaks, their funding would be discontinued as would the funding of any lab such as the Mottron lab who would employ such a person. anti-cure people would not be allowed to sit on scientific and advisory committees on an organization that has plainly said their main purpose is to seek a cure for autism. It would seem that these would be common sense decisions but apparently all common sense has been thrown out the window as far as the people who run AS are concerned.
But I don't think the neurodiversity affcianados would be happy with pro-cure autistics serving on the board. They would just call us token autistics or house autistics or say we were on the take. There are some who would say, that the majority of autistics don't want to be cured so we are not truly representative. To the neurodiversity people I have this to say, autism speaks is a pro-cure organization, the people who started it, acquired charitable donations, who donated their money to this organization walked the 5 kilometers for autism etc. all likely want a cure. They don't agree with you. So why should they allow you to serve on the board of autism speaks? If you want, start your own charitable organization and raise money to help your own cause. Don't expect to be a trophy wife who marries a much older man out of convenience because there is ready made capital to be had. Do your own work. Or is it that your movement is really so impotent, that you really have no alternative to latching onto autism speaks and try to use their money to promote your misguided agenda?
Zach Lassiter who has gained some celebrity through the t-shirt controversy absolutely had the right idea. I agree with his message that autism speaks does not speak for him and many other persons on the spectrum. These people have asperger's and not autism. They are speaking for people much more severely afflicted than you, so if autism speaks should go away, you should go away too. Go away neurodiversity asperger's people, you don't speak for me and you don't speak for autism speaks and there is no reason why you should. Zach if you happen to read this, thank you very much for your message that you printed on your t-shirt. If you want to make some money, Zach, maybe you could make another t-shirt and sell it to some pro cure people, particularly those involved with autism speaks and have the message on it:
"You don't speak for autism speaks, autism speaks speaks for itself, go away neurodiversity."
In the same vein, Sally Bernard and her minions don't need to serve on the boards of autism speaks or CAN. Sally and Tom's net worth is 15 times larger than autism speaks' assets if I am not mistaken. Clearly they can afford to start their own organization, they already have with SAFE MINDS. They can acquire all the capital they need to pursue their misguided agenda.
Well that is my bash of autism speaks and my take on things, I am glad I did not get left out of the party and I hope that all of those people who thought I was the only person left on the planet who liked autism speaks are happy.
But why should I miss out on all the fun, even if due to my beliefs I am totally on the fringe since I have a unique view that does not agree with either camp. Actually I prefer to think I am a metaphorical island where I am one of the few persons interested in autism who is not on the fringe, but that is neither here nor there as my buddy Joseph would say.
I am like the high school kid who wants to join the in crowd or some enviable social clique. I want to join in the fun too, so here it is, surprise surprise to my readers who see I sometimes defend autism speaks because I like the idea of scientific research with the goal of curing or preventing autism. I am now going to come clean, I have some real problems with autism speaks, so I am going to join you in bashing them.
It all goes back to the days of AS's predecessor, CAN, before they were gobbled up by autism speaks in the corporate merger common to both for profit businesses and charitable organizations. In the days of CAN and before I retired when I was employed and had more money to throw around, I used to donate money to CAN, $100 here and there. Also, I donated $100 to CAN's eastcoast counterpart NAAR, another organization that existed before AS existed and was also gobbled up by autism speaks. I have yet to donate money to AS and even if I had it I would not donate a dime to them. But getting back to the topic at hand. I discovered that CAN was not the organization that I envisioned. Sally Bernard, one of the mercury militia's leaders, used her considerable wealth to influence CAN and get them to elect her president of the organization. Then CAN started to fund studies that investigated the possibility that thimerosal caused autism. I knew that thimerosal had nothing to do with autism for reasons I have detailed in an essay that I wrote, http://www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/thimerosal.html where I showed there was a tripling in autism prevelance in the california DDS during a time when the thimerosal an infant received in vaccines was stable. So I was rather appalled that they would appoint Bernard to a position of huge power in their organization and would fund thimerosal. CAN also had bylaws in writing stating that they would only fund medical research. They then violated their own bylaws by funding some work Ivar Lovaas was doing. This is in spite of the fact that Lovaas has not published any adult outcomes from his 1987 study in spite of receiving funding from NIMH to do so. I stopped donating money to CAN after that.
Not much later, CAN became extinct after they and NAAR were gobbled up by autism speaks. I hoped the direction that autism speaks would take would be different from CAN, I hoped they would not make some of the same boneheaded mistakes that CAN made, but they did not fail to disappoint me.
Recently I found out that Luc Keita, a post-doctoral fellow that works in Dr. Laurent Mottron's lab receives funding from an autism speaks grant. Dr. Mottron also has a somewhat cozy relationship with autism speaks and attends their conferences, I know because I met him at one. Dr. Mottron also employs that well known activist in the anti-curebie movement Michelle Dawson. Michelle implies in one of her essays that anyone who would want a cure for a severely autistic boy who scratches his sister, damages the families property and keeps them all awake howling at night is somehow an intolerant bigot. Because I want to cure autism and wrote an essay detailing my suffering from autism she states that I want to deny autistic people, of which I am one, their civil rights. In spite of the fact that autism speaks plainly states they want a cure and prevention for autism, Dawson calls them a credible fund raising organization. Either she is a hypocrite or she believes that autistic people are write-offs who should have no rights whatsoever in spite of her rhetoric. What autism speaks does by funding the Mottron lab is in my opinion the equivalent to promoting a private in the army who makes propaganda broadcasts for the enemy during wartime to rank of general rather than court martialing him and prosecuting him for treason. If anyone feels that statement is inflammatory, so be it. Ms. Dawson seems to tell me that other scientists she has worked with have grants from AS. She encourages other scientists to get grants from AS regardless of whether or not they agree with the pro cure philosophy of AS. Dawson argues that science and politics are not intertwined. I disagree. In the case of autism speaks politics clearly begot scientific funding. Bob and Suzanne Wright worked hard to start this organization so their grandson would have an improbable shot of living a better life and not end up being crippled by autism for the rest of his life. The AS walks, the donations, etc. were all most likely begotten by people desiring a cure for autism, many, whom I suspect never heard of the ND movement and would probably be shocked that something like it could conceivably exist. Dawson's statements remind me of the 32-year-old trophy wife who marries the 67 year old billionaire and states that money and lust are not intertwined.
Probably even more bizarre I found out that autism speaks includes on its advisory committees Morton Gernsbacher. A psychology professor in Wisconsin who has an autistic child and does research in autism and wrote an essay entitled autistics need acceptance not cure. Ironically enough she was on some review committees for CAN when it existed also. I am mystified by why Dr. Gernsbacher who believes that autism should be accepted rather than cured would serve on scientific advisory boards of organizations whose philosophies I would think would be anathema to her own. But the more important question is why would autism speaks have a relationship with someone like that. After all, we don't hire John Dillinger and Al Capone to be police officers or FBI agents. So yes, autism speaks is not a terribly bright organization given the fact they would have an affiliation with such people who undermine the efforts and desires of those of us who view autism as a horrific affliction and wish that it could be cured and prevented (not abortions of autistic fetuses but prevented by altering the genetic mutation so the child won't have to grow up as a cripple).
Also, I agree with my pals in the neurodiversity movement. Autism Speaks should have autistic people on their boards or in positions of power, this is another reason I am not terribly fond of them. If a pro-cure autistic such as myself were on the board, they would not make the slip shod decisions of the NTs that run AS do that would actually fund a lab that employs michelle dawson, someone who gives aide and comfort to our enemy, autism The pro-cure autistics would have the intelligence not to allow an anti-cure person like Morton Gernsbacher to sit on their advisory committees. That is why they should not only put me on the board but allow me to run the whole show there. Anti-cure people would not be allowed to be involved with autism speaks, their funding would be discontinued as would the funding of any lab such as the Mottron lab who would employ such a person. anti-cure people would not be allowed to sit on scientific and advisory committees on an organization that has plainly said their main purpose is to seek a cure for autism. It would seem that these would be common sense decisions but apparently all common sense has been thrown out the window as far as the people who run AS are concerned.
But I don't think the neurodiversity affcianados would be happy with pro-cure autistics serving on the board. They would just call us token autistics or house autistics or say we were on the take. There are some who would say, that the majority of autistics don't want to be cured so we are not truly representative. To the neurodiversity people I have this to say, autism speaks is a pro-cure organization, the people who started it, acquired charitable donations, who donated their money to this organization walked the 5 kilometers for autism etc. all likely want a cure. They don't agree with you. So why should they allow you to serve on the board of autism speaks? If you want, start your own charitable organization and raise money to help your own cause. Don't expect to be a trophy wife who marries a much older man out of convenience because there is ready made capital to be had. Do your own work. Or is it that your movement is really so impotent, that you really have no alternative to latching onto autism speaks and try to use their money to promote your misguided agenda?
Zach Lassiter who has gained some celebrity through the t-shirt controversy absolutely had the right idea. I agree with his message that autism speaks does not speak for him and many other persons on the spectrum. These people have asperger's and not autism. They are speaking for people much more severely afflicted than you, so if autism speaks should go away, you should go away too. Go away neurodiversity asperger's people, you don't speak for me and you don't speak for autism speaks and there is no reason why you should. Zach if you happen to read this, thank you very much for your message that you printed on your t-shirt. If you want to make some money, Zach, maybe you could make another t-shirt and sell it to some pro cure people, particularly those involved with autism speaks and have the message on it:
"You don't speak for autism speaks, autism speaks speaks for itself, go away neurodiversity."
In the same vein, Sally Bernard and her minions don't need to serve on the boards of autism speaks or CAN. Sally and Tom's net worth is 15 times larger than autism speaks' assets if I am not mistaken. Clearly they can afford to start their own organization, they already have with SAFE MINDS. They can acquire all the capital they need to pursue their misguided agenda.
Well that is my bash of autism speaks and my take on things, I am glad I did not get left out of the party and I hope that all of those people who thought I was the only person left on the planet who liked autism speaks are happy.
Friday, June 27, 2008
neurodiversity faux pas acknowledged: But will they learn their lesson
Well for those who have been following the Zach t-shirt saga, it seems that once again some neurodiversity proponents have made absolute fools of themselves for doing such a slip shod job of fact checking. Zach, put the following info on his web page:
Zazzle: Well we have recieved letters in the past from um ah Autism Speaks in regards to prodcuts withtrademark violations so when our um content management staff came across this product they believed this shirt was in the um past correspondence with Autism Speaks but uh they did not specifically call on this product, this was a decision by an employee from content managment.[...]
So apparently neurodiversity's latest cause celebre' turns out to be completely bogus. Zach did offer an apology to autism speaks for trying to turn this into a figurative federal case with no evidence whatsoever that autism speaks had anything to do with this. I am glad Zach acknowledged his error and I applaud him for that. However, will Amanda Baggs apologize for using this as an excuse to villify the organization she detests so much? Will autism bitch from hell print a retraction on her web page? Last but not least, will Alex Plank put an update on wrongplanet.net Alex seems to have a tendency to come to erroneous assumptions without doing any fact checking, like his assumption that most autistics are like him and don't want to be cured. I asked him publically how he came to that assumption but he still refuses to answer. I hope that this will teach Alex not to do such a slip shod job of fact checking as his web page gets a considerable amount of traffic. At some point such a shoddy job of managing a web page with thousands of subscribers may put him into legal jeopardy if he continues to engage in such irresponsible behavior.
I wonder if my new found friend, Emily, will write the retraction on her blog as she promised me, I hope so.
We will see if this is a lesson learned for those in the neurodiversity movement who have such an axe to grind?
Some will say that because the content manager of Zazzle sent Zach the letter he had every right to assume that the decision did come from autism speaks. Well it seems in this instance common sense was thrown out the window. It seems that many neurodiversity proponents are so bigoted they would not stop to think that assuming Zach's t-shirt did not violate any copyrights that maybe a huge multimillion dollar corporation would not deliberately threaten a bogus lawsuit against a small t-shirt salesperson. This should seem obvious. Of course I must take some cupability myself because I did not think of this until the following day, so I suppose I might have to put on my dunce cap and sit in the corner for half an hour too. But I did think about it the next day. I don't know if it was my blog entry that prompted Zach to delve further into the situation but I am glad it was resolved.
Somehow, I don't think these neurodiversity proponents have learned their lesson. They will make one too many mistakes like this and will get into some sort of trouble, legally or otherwise somewhere along the line.
I am reminded of the old Oriental proverb: The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on. I don't think most people interested in autism ever took the neurodiversity movement very seriously. Hopefully this new faux pas will make them look all the sillier. The caravan of autism speaks doing research in the hopes of finding a cure for this dreadful disorder will move on, in spite of all the barking dogs. However, it would seem that this new episode in the neurodiversity movement versus autism speaks will prove that it's bark is worse than it's bite.
Zazzle: Well we have recieved letters in the past from um ah Autism Speaks in regards to prodcuts withtrademark violations so when our um content management staff came across this product they believed this shirt was in the um past correspondence with Autism Speaks but uh they did not specifically call on this product, this was a decision by an employee from content managment.[...]
So apparently neurodiversity's latest cause celebre' turns out to be completely bogus. Zach did offer an apology to autism speaks for trying to turn this into a figurative federal case with no evidence whatsoever that autism speaks had anything to do with this. I am glad Zach acknowledged his error and I applaud him for that. However, will Amanda Baggs apologize for using this as an excuse to villify the organization she detests so much? Will autism bitch from hell print a retraction on her web page? Last but not least, will Alex Plank put an update on wrongplanet.net Alex seems to have a tendency to come to erroneous assumptions without doing any fact checking, like his assumption that most autistics are like him and don't want to be cured. I asked him publically how he came to that assumption but he still refuses to answer. I hope that this will teach Alex not to do such a slip shod job of fact checking as his web page gets a considerable amount of traffic. At some point such a shoddy job of managing a web page with thousands of subscribers may put him into legal jeopardy if he continues to engage in such irresponsible behavior.
I wonder if my new found friend, Emily, will write the retraction on her blog as she promised me, I hope so.
We will see if this is a lesson learned for those in the neurodiversity movement who have such an axe to grind?
Some will say that because the content manager of Zazzle sent Zach the letter he had every right to assume that the decision did come from autism speaks. Well it seems in this instance common sense was thrown out the window. It seems that many neurodiversity proponents are so bigoted they would not stop to think that assuming Zach's t-shirt did not violate any copyrights that maybe a huge multimillion dollar corporation would not deliberately threaten a bogus lawsuit against a small t-shirt salesperson. This should seem obvious. Of course I must take some cupability myself because I did not think of this until the following day, so I suppose I might have to put on my dunce cap and sit in the corner for half an hour too. But I did think about it the next day. I don't know if it was my blog entry that prompted Zach to delve further into the situation but I am glad it was resolved.
Somehow, I don't think these neurodiversity proponents have learned their lesson. They will make one too many mistakes like this and will get into some sort of trouble, legally or otherwise somewhere along the line.
I am reminded of the old Oriental proverb: The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on. I don't think most people interested in autism ever took the neurodiversity movement very seriously. Hopefully this new faux pas will make them look all the sillier. The caravan of autism speaks doing research in the hopes of finding a cure for this dreadful disorder will move on, in spite of all the barking dogs. However, it would seem that this new episode in the neurodiversity movement versus autism speaks will prove that it's bark is worse than it's bite.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
house autistics redux department
I have recently come across an interesting video on youtube that was produced by neurodiversity activitist and hub blogger Christschool
The autism hub claims to promote acceptance and tolerance hmmmmm???
The autism hub claims to promote acceptance and tolerance hmmmmm???
Monday, June 23, 2008
The Zach T-shirt saga: Autism speaks' side of the story
As some people in the neurodiversity movement know, an individual named Zach is alleging that autism speaks contacted an internet service provider zazzle.com saying they would no longer allow him to post ads selling the t-shirts on their web site. I posted something about this previously, in my last post about Amanda Baggs' grossly inconsistent behavior in crying "censorship" on zazzle's part when she herself advocates censorship of any comment that does not agree with what she believes in on ANI's mailing lists on some of autistic.org's lists, etc.
Afterwards, I was wondering, could this story be real. Autism speaks was being vilified by all of these neurodiversity afficianados without being allowed to tell their side of the story. They were calling autistic speaks "bullies". The veracity of the story seemed far fetched to me as it would not seem worth the while of autism speaks to actually try to engage in this type of behavior and considering all the bashing they get on the internet all of the time if they would really contact zazzle and give some sort of directive that zach's ads be pulled. Zach claimed to have proof of this but as far as I could tell this "proof" only consisted of a letter he alleges Zazzle wrote him saying that they were contacted by autism speaks. Clearly this guy has an ax to grind against autism speaks it certainly seemed conceivable he could be fabricating the whole thing. Another explanation is that someone at Zazzle had an autistic child who they wanted a cure for their child and was offended by these t-shirts was just trying to get zach's goat and claimed that the directive came from autism speaks when it really did not. Of course I realized it was possible that Zach might be telling the truth, though I had no way of verifying this as no one from autism speaks wanted to come forward and post their side of the story on the internet.
I decided that in all fairness that I should contact autism speaks and find out what their version of the event was. I talked to a woman in their communications department named Dana Marnay. She stated that Zazzle felt that Zach was violating their terms of service policy for some reason and that autism speaks had nothing to do with this THEY IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM CONTACTED ZAZZLE PERIOD! The decision to pull zach's t-shirt ads they said was entirely Zazzle's autism speaks had nothing to do with it whatsoever.
I don't know whether Zach is lying about this or not and I don't know if the letter zazzle sent to him was a fabrication or not. Assuming this letter is not an out and out fabrication on Zach's part, then maybe the representative of zazzle was lying when he told this young man that they were contacted by autism speaks.
I know that I am not lying. Those skeptics can call Dana Marnay at autism speaks at (212) 252-8584 and ask her themselves.
Clearly Wrong Planet, autism bitch from hell, Ballasexistenz (AKA Amanda Baggs) just wanted to assume that this story of Zach's is true.
If Zach or anyone else from the neurodiversity movement has proof that I am making this up or the communications lady at Autism Speaks is lying when she told me that autism speaks never ever contacted Zazzle, I say bring it on!! Seems that now if Autism speaks really wanted to stifle the speech of the autistics who don't like them, they would very possibly have a legal basis for suing Zach for libel, I am pretty sure they won't do this. If this story is also true, then Amanda should have no objection to Zazzle not allowing content on their sites that they don't deem fit just as Amanda feels she has that right.
In the meantime for those old enough to remember the TV show from my youth To Tell The Truth that was on TV during the stone age: Would the real bully please stand up!
Afterwards, I was wondering, could this story be real. Autism speaks was being vilified by all of these neurodiversity afficianados without being allowed to tell their side of the story. They were calling autistic speaks "bullies". The veracity of the story seemed far fetched to me as it would not seem worth the while of autism speaks to actually try to engage in this type of behavior and considering all the bashing they get on the internet all of the time if they would really contact zazzle and give some sort of directive that zach's ads be pulled. Zach claimed to have proof of this but as far as I could tell this "proof" only consisted of a letter he alleges Zazzle wrote him saying that they were contacted by autism speaks. Clearly this guy has an ax to grind against autism speaks it certainly seemed conceivable he could be fabricating the whole thing. Another explanation is that someone at Zazzle had an autistic child who they wanted a cure for their child and was offended by these t-shirts was just trying to get zach's goat and claimed that the directive came from autism speaks when it really did not. Of course I realized it was possible that Zach might be telling the truth, though I had no way of verifying this as no one from autism speaks wanted to come forward and post their side of the story on the internet.
I decided that in all fairness that I should contact autism speaks and find out what their version of the event was. I talked to a woman in their communications department named Dana Marnay. She stated that Zazzle felt that Zach was violating their terms of service policy for some reason and that autism speaks had nothing to do with this THEY IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM CONTACTED ZAZZLE PERIOD! The decision to pull zach's t-shirt ads they said was entirely Zazzle's autism speaks had nothing to do with it whatsoever.
I don't know whether Zach is lying about this or not and I don't know if the letter zazzle sent to him was a fabrication or not. Assuming this letter is not an out and out fabrication on Zach's part, then maybe the representative of zazzle was lying when he told this young man that they were contacted by autism speaks.
I know that I am not lying. Those skeptics can call Dana Marnay at autism speaks at (212) 252-8584 and ask her themselves.
Clearly Wrong Planet, autism bitch from hell, Ballasexistenz (AKA Amanda Baggs) just wanted to assume that this story of Zach's is true.
If Zach or anyone else from the neurodiversity movement has proof that I am making this up or the communications lady at Autism Speaks is lying when she told me that autism speaks never ever contacted Zazzle, I say bring it on!! Seems that now if Autism speaks really wanted to stifle the speech of the autistics who don't like them, they would very possibly have a legal basis for suing Zach for libel, I am pretty sure they won't do this. If this story is also true, then Amanda should have no objection to Zazzle not allowing content on their sites that they don't deem fit just as Amanda feels she has that right.
In the meantime for those old enough to remember the TV show from my youth To Tell The Truth that was on TV during the stone age: Would the real bully please stand up!
Saturday, June 21, 2008
neurodiversity advocates who live in glass houses department
Well that well known neurodiversity activist amanda Baggs is at it again.
You can check out her latest blog entry: http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=542
In this blog entry Amanda is criticizing autism speaks because they seem to want to protect their copyright infringement rights from those in the neurodiversity community who want to parody them. Somehow Amanda and others find this objectionable and claim that this is because Autism speaks wants to stifle points of view of autism self-advocates who disagree with them.
One thing I read that interested me was that Larry Arnold had acquired a domain name with autism speaks in it. Larry, another well known neurodiversity who I understand takes umbrage of controls in autism studies who don't have autism being described as healthy. He seems to think someone with autism is not unhealthy. Why this is so baffles me. He also claims that this site will be used for self-advocacy and not NT bashing. Sometimes, though I wonder what the difference is. From what I have seen of the neurodiversity movement it seems the vast majority of their activities is being abusive to parents who wish a cure for autistics and disagree with them, so I am not sure what the difference between the two is.
More Germane and to the point is that Amanda may not be aware of the fact that autism speaks has a message board www.autismspeaks.org On this message board, they have a very loose comment moderation policy and only restrict people from using profane language. NT parents are constantly bashed in this forum as is autismspeaks itself. They don't seem to mind this. Constantly neurodiversity advocates protest a non-existent cure that autismspeaks wishes to find. The people who moderate the autism speaks message board don't seem to mind these activities by neurodiversity advocates at all. I think Amanda, who David Seidel has said in one of the posts does not read this message board, should be made aware of this. I have sent Amanda an email explaining this. She might find out about this blog entry also. One person who answered her comments is this young man (about 21 I think) named beau who has autism and is a neurodiversity advocate who constantly writes anti-cure rhetoric and other negative things on this board, yet posts on Amanda's comments that Autism speaks stifles opinions from autistics who don't agree with them. Seems very strange that he would say something like this since i dont think any of beau's posts have been censored on the autismspeaks board.
Amanda on the other hand, has been very active in ANI, a neurodiversity organization which promoted internet censorship and would not allow people to make any comment that disagreed with them on their internet mailing list. I seem to remember autistics.org had some sort of similar thing and Amanda said it was not censorship and defined censorship as something else. I also saw that autism hub organizer Steve Dionne was apparently deeply offended that someone would link to my essay, neurodiversity just say no to their signature line in the autism speaks newsgroups and urged them to take it out of their signature line. Also several years ago when I was reading and posting on the usenet newsgroup alt.support.autism, one person wrote that this was "autistic friendly space" and the autistics on the board took offense to anyone saying autism was an affliction that needed to be cured. I realize Amanda may not know about the people allowed to voice their anti-autismspeaks opinions on the autismspeaks.org message board as she may not read it herself as Dave Seidel pointed out. . I wonder what Amanda would think of this.
It seems to me that at least one neurodiversity proponent is throwing stones in a house made of fragile glass.
You can check out her latest blog entry: http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=542
In this blog entry Amanda is criticizing autism speaks because they seem to want to protect their copyright infringement rights from those in the neurodiversity community who want to parody them. Somehow Amanda and others find this objectionable and claim that this is because Autism speaks wants to stifle points of view of autism self-advocates who disagree with them.
One thing I read that interested me was that Larry Arnold had acquired a domain name with autism speaks in it. Larry, another well known neurodiversity who I understand takes umbrage of controls in autism studies who don't have autism being described as healthy. He seems to think someone with autism is not unhealthy. Why this is so baffles me. He also claims that this site will be used for self-advocacy and not NT bashing. Sometimes, though I wonder what the difference is. From what I have seen of the neurodiversity movement it seems the vast majority of their activities is being abusive to parents who wish a cure for autistics and disagree with them, so I am not sure what the difference between the two is.
More Germane and to the point is that Amanda may not be aware of the fact that autism speaks has a message board www.autismspeaks.org On this message board, they have a very loose comment moderation policy and only restrict people from using profane language. NT parents are constantly bashed in this forum as is autismspeaks itself. They don't seem to mind this. Constantly neurodiversity advocates protest a non-existent cure that autismspeaks wishes to find. The people who moderate the autism speaks message board don't seem to mind these activities by neurodiversity advocates at all. I think Amanda, who David Seidel has said in one of the posts does not read this message board, should be made aware of this. I have sent Amanda an email explaining this. She might find out about this blog entry also. One person who answered her comments is this young man (about 21 I think) named beau who has autism and is a neurodiversity advocate who constantly writes anti-cure rhetoric and other negative things on this board, yet posts on Amanda's comments that Autism speaks stifles opinions from autistics who don't agree with them. Seems very strange that he would say something like this since i dont think any of beau's posts have been censored on the autismspeaks board.
Amanda on the other hand, has been very active in ANI, a neurodiversity organization which promoted internet censorship and would not allow people to make any comment that disagreed with them on their internet mailing list. I seem to remember autistics.org had some sort of similar thing and Amanda said it was not censorship and defined censorship as something else. I also saw that autism hub organizer Steve Dionne was apparently deeply offended that someone would link to my essay, neurodiversity just say no to their signature line in the autism speaks newsgroups and urged them to take it out of their signature line. Also several years ago when I was reading and posting on the usenet newsgroup alt.support.autism, one person wrote that this was "autistic friendly space" and the autistics on the board took offense to anyone saying autism was an affliction that needed to be cured. I realize Amanda may not know about the people allowed to voice their anti-autismspeaks opinions on the autismspeaks.org message board as she may not read it herself as Dave Seidel pointed out. . I wonder what Amanda would think of this.
It seems to me that at least one neurodiversity proponent is throwing stones in a house made of fragile glass.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Darius McCollum: Cause Celebre' for neurodiversity?
Joseph of the natural variation blog posed an interesting question to me in my previous post about autistic subway afficianado Darius McCollum. Is the reason the New York transit won't give the man a job due to incompetence or societal prejudice. I explained in my response, which interested readers can read in the comments section of my previous entry, that I believed it was neither.
Joseph's question, however, gave me an incredible inspiration. The Autistic self-advocacy Network and other neurodiversity leaning organizations are always claiming to be promoting a better life for autistic people. How they did this by putting so much energy in the ransom notes campaign is beyond me. I really don't understand what the ransom notes campaign accomplished. It does not seem to me to have benefitted any person with autism in any way, found them a girlfriend or job or made them function better or made their life better in any way. It did nothing to ameliorate bullying of autistic children or give autistics a better image.
What about them engaging in a more constructive activity? The one I have in mind is providing either some sort of legal defense fund for McCollum or finding a lawyer who could do probono work for McCollum in what will soon be his umpteenth criminal trial. Then, assuming an acquital or suspended sentence could be obtained, ASAN and other organizations could convince the New York Metro Authority to give Darius a job and show somehow that this man would be a dedicated worker and the City of New York would not have to worry about liability.
Is this notion farfetched? After all, if memory serves me correctly Kathleen Seidel found an attorney on a pro bono basis to help her quash the subpoena directed against her (I guess any commenter can correct me if I am wrong about this) An attorney could be found for McCollum also. In one of the articles I read about him his parents were deeply in debt because of all the legal costs his train obsession had incured. Joseph could also do a statistical analysis, which he seems apt at, to show a mathematical model of why the city of New York would not have to worry about liability if McCollum were in their employ. They could engage in the same type of flier campaigns, phone calls, petitions and complaints that occurred during the ransom note campaign. If they would try to advocate on McCollum's behalf, let alone successfully enabling him to land a job rather than return to sing sing the neurodiversity people would earn some respect from me.
I wonder what the probability of them advocating for McCollum is? I suspect they won't do it. Perhaps ASAN and other organizations care less about helping people then they do about their bruised egos. Their feelings are hurt because some people by implying autism needs a cure are saying they are less than perfect people. McCollum presents them with such an incredible opportunity though. It is much easier to engage in a smear campaign against the ransom notes, easier to bash and insult parents who may be misguided but have the best of intentions for their kids. Easier to insult organizations like Autism Speaks and claim they commit genocide, yet flock to Michelle Dawson's comment board and blog like flies to honey in spite of the fact that people in the lab she works in get funding from autism speaks and her boss Laurent Mottron participates in meetings with researchers that autism speaks sponsors and apparently tries to get funding from this organization that neurodiversity hates so much (I know because i met Dr. Mottron at one of those meetings).
To be blunt I think organizations like ASAN and other neurodiversity proponents should put their money (figurative or literal) where their mouths are. Some of them point to the huge success of gay people in advocating for themselves, yet ignore the fact that the gay community is well financed and most persons with autism (a fact these neurodiversity people won't acknowledge) have very little money to offer to a cause. Yet they still believe they can change society to have a more accepting attitude of autistics and they can achieve the same kind of civil rights status.
Well, ASAN members, GRASP members, wrong planet afficianados, ANI members and aspies for freedom and other neurodiversity groups, here's your chance. One of your own fellow aspies needs help. He needs it badly. Are you going to spend some time and money to help him or are you going to just do some more non-productive bellyaching so that I will have to offer you some cheese with your next whine?
Joseph's question, however, gave me an incredible inspiration. The Autistic self-advocacy Network and other neurodiversity leaning organizations are always claiming to be promoting a better life for autistic people. How they did this by putting so much energy in the ransom notes campaign is beyond me. I really don't understand what the ransom notes campaign accomplished. It does not seem to me to have benefitted any person with autism in any way, found them a girlfriend or job or made them function better or made their life better in any way. It did nothing to ameliorate bullying of autistic children or give autistics a better image.
What about them engaging in a more constructive activity? The one I have in mind is providing either some sort of legal defense fund for McCollum or finding a lawyer who could do probono work for McCollum in what will soon be his umpteenth criminal trial. Then, assuming an acquital or suspended sentence could be obtained, ASAN and other organizations could convince the New York Metro Authority to give Darius a job and show somehow that this man would be a dedicated worker and the City of New York would not have to worry about liability.
Is this notion farfetched? After all, if memory serves me correctly Kathleen Seidel found an attorney on a pro bono basis to help her quash the subpoena directed against her (I guess any commenter can correct me if I am wrong about this) An attorney could be found for McCollum also. In one of the articles I read about him his parents were deeply in debt because of all the legal costs his train obsession had incured. Joseph could also do a statistical analysis, which he seems apt at, to show a mathematical model of why the city of New York would not have to worry about liability if McCollum were in their employ. They could engage in the same type of flier campaigns, phone calls, petitions and complaints that occurred during the ransom note campaign. If they would try to advocate on McCollum's behalf, let alone successfully enabling him to land a job rather than return to sing sing the neurodiversity people would earn some respect from me.
I wonder what the probability of them advocating for McCollum is? I suspect they won't do it. Perhaps ASAN and other organizations care less about helping people then they do about their bruised egos. Their feelings are hurt because some people by implying autism needs a cure are saying they are less than perfect people. McCollum presents them with such an incredible opportunity though. It is much easier to engage in a smear campaign against the ransom notes, easier to bash and insult parents who may be misguided but have the best of intentions for their kids. Easier to insult organizations like Autism Speaks and claim they commit genocide, yet flock to Michelle Dawson's comment board and blog like flies to honey in spite of the fact that people in the lab she works in get funding from autism speaks and her boss Laurent Mottron participates in meetings with researchers that autism speaks sponsors and apparently tries to get funding from this organization that neurodiversity hates so much (I know because i met Dr. Mottron at one of those meetings).
To be blunt I think organizations like ASAN and other neurodiversity proponents should put their money (figurative or literal) where their mouths are. Some of them point to the huge success of gay people in advocating for themselves, yet ignore the fact that the gay community is well financed and most persons with autism (a fact these neurodiversity people won't acknowledge) have very little money to offer to a cause. Yet they still believe they can change society to have a more accepting attitude of autistics and they can achieve the same kind of civil rights status.
Well, ASAN members, GRASP members, wrong planet afficianados, ANI members and aspies for freedom and other neurodiversity groups, here's your chance. One of your own fellow aspies needs help. He needs it badly. Are you going to spend some time and money to help him or are you going to just do some more non-productive bellyaching so that I will have to offer you some cheese with your next whine?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
