Editorial #39: Observation #2

Autism Politico is letting its readers know that like the Quotes, these Observations will be a regular, if unpredictably posted feature.

Autism Politico has observed that in many school systems, a teacher who has taken a few classes or seminars in autism spectrum disorders is considered qualified to teach those with ASDs.  Autism Politico has also observed that people seem bent on getting their kids into “top notch” universities because the professors are thought to be better there. So why are parents of autistics willing to settle for poorly trained teachers for their autistic kids, and why do school districts insist that these teachers have sufficient training?

Autism Politico is interested in hearing from parents and teachers in particular.

Just an observation.

Replies to this editorial are welcome.

Editorial #38: Observation #1

Autism Politico observes that in social situations, people hold their tongues when their sensibilities are offended by a rude or boorish person, but they have no problem being rude and boorish to autistics in ANY situation.

Would anyone care to offer an opinion about why that is?

Autism Politico would be especially interested in hearing from people who HAVE been rude and boorish to autistics.

Just an observation.

Replies to this editorial are welcome.

Editorial #37: Forget the oxytocin

Autism Politico feels the need to address the latest study on oxytocin.

A new study was done on 13 autistics in two separate experiments. The results suggested that those autistics who were given oxytocin, showed slight increases in favorable social behavior in comparison with those who were given a placebo.

Aside from the fact that the sample is too small to draw any conclusions, the study apparently fails to address another study done published last year which suggests that oxytocin plays a role in jealousy and gloating as well as love and positive social interaction.

In the article reporting on the study, it was mentioned that… 

“When the person’s association is positive, oxytocin bolsters pro-social behaviors; when the association is negative, the hormone increases negative sentiments,” Israeli researcher Simone Shamay-Tsoory, of the University of Haifa, said in a news release from the university.

Thus what appears to be happening is that oxytocin will in essence increase both positive and negative emotions in autistics should parents choose to adopt this therapy for their autistic children. Does any parent who has ever witnessed a meltdown want to INTENSIFY that meltdown via the use of oxytocin?

And given the fact that there are distinct neurological differences between autistics and neurotypicals, does anyone want to be giving autistics oxytocin when the long-term effects of doing so have not been studied?

Autism Politico sends the following message out to all parents: Before dispensing the latest fad drug to your autistic child or children, ask yourself if you would subject yourself to any drug that has not been tested longitudinally. If you feel safe in treating your own child like a guinea pig, then ask yourself what kind of parent you are and whether or not you really love your autistic child.

Autism Politico respectfully suggests that perhaps everyone in the world who is NOT autistic be subjected to an anti-oxytocin regimen to quell their lopsided and over-active emotive states. Emotional equilibrium would prevent snap decisions, snap judgments, emotional outbursts, and a plethora of other emotion-based problems that plague mankind. 

Replies to this editorial are welcome.

Editorial #36: Tiger Woods

Autism Politico noticed that Tiger Woods publicly apologized for his infidelity.

Autism Politico agrees that public figures have a responsibility to be role models. Tiger Woods was  successful at being one up until he was caught.

What Tiger Woods did, however, cannot be made up for with an apology.

Autism Politico would make this statement even if Woods was nothing more than a weekend golfer, however.

• Every single time a person is confronted with temptation, a person can think twice.
• Every single time a person is confronted with temptation, a person can ask themselves how much they stand to lose by doing what they are about to do.
• Every single time a person is confronted with temptation, a person can ask themselves what the moral and ethical implications of giving in to those temptations are.

No man or woman is an island, but everything we do causes ripples around us.

Who do we become when we give in to our temptations?

Slaves.

Hostages to our own weaknesses.

Autism Politico thinks that it would be a good thing for autistics to look at our own little worlds from outside of ourselves and see whether or not we are becoming prisoners within the confines of our own private sins.

Replies to this editorial are welcome.

Editorial #35: Nigeria. Why we should care.

Autism Politico thinks autistics need to take more of an interest in what is going on around the world.

Recently, there was a coup de etat in Nigeria in which the president of that country was deposed.

Why should we care?

Some would say it is important that we care because we get a lot of our oil from there.

While it is certainly important that some of the oil we buy may be in jeopardy, that concern is minor. It is important for people not to view other countries besides our own as a shopping center where we pick up what we need and leave someone else to clean up the aisles if we spill something.  To think of other countries in this way is arrogant and rude. No one is entitled to anything in this world, and the sooner we all realize this the better.

But that is not the main focus of this blog entry.

What’s important is that there are people in Nigeria. The are repressed. Like many people on the spectrum, their incomes are poor. Some people in Nigeria are making the equivalent of one US dollar per day.

It is easy for us to turn a blind eye on the plight of these people. It is as easy as switching the channel when commercials comes on asking for donations for starving children.

Whether or not we like to admit it, the people who live over there are humans too, and so that makes them our brothers.

We should care because we have no idea whether or not the people who overthrew the government will truly install a democracy over there as they say, or if they will repress Nigeria’s citizens even more.

Turning things around a little, when was the last time you suffered because someone turned a blind eye on your needs? Did you not get the IEP you needed in school? Did you not get a quiet room to calm down in when things got rough? Did your parents not understand your sensitivities to food or smells, or touch? Did people turn their backs on you when you were getting bullied?

Autism Politico reminds you that if you want to have your needs met, then you cannot ignore the needs of others for the simple reason that selfishness does n0t trump need. Everyone in the world needs something, but some need things more than others. Putting your needs first means someone else’s needs may go unmet in the meantime.  So figure out the difference between want and need and ask for only what you need, then see to the needs of others before seeking what you want.

Replies to this editorial are welcome.

Editorial #34: Iran

Autism Politico notices that the US is ramping up the rhetoric against Iran, accusing Iran of evolving into a military dictatorship. Interestingly, the US has kept mum about Venezuela’s militaristic government, and it hasn’t raised a stink over the existing and emerging military dictatorships in Africa. Also, it has never seriously regarded North Korea’s military dictatorship as a significant threat either. 

But for some reason, Iran, a virtual twin of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, is a huge threat. 

Usually the singling-out of countries in this manner is a prequel to a military attack or war. 

Ostensibly, it is a presage to sanctions, and we are all inclined to believe it of course because Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. No one who won the Nobel Peace Prize would declare war on yet ANOTHER nation right? 

We would do well to remember that Obama has never pledged himself to the people who awarded him his medal, nor has he ever claimed that he would refrain from using the military as a solution to international problems.

Iran seems to be on a course which will end in the development of nuclear weapons. Bush -the branded warmonger- indicated this during his presidency, and Obama has now used “weapons of mass destruction” in relation  to Iran. We can no longer claim that Bush was a warmonger if we believe Obama’s virtually identical war-like statements. Either both are warmongers, or neither are, or both were telling the truth about Iran. 

With all that said, what is to be done now? 

If the American people are going to demand anything, what they should demand is honesty from our government officials. Our government needs to say upfront that they simply do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and they will destroy any country who they don’t want to have nuclear weapons henceforth. It is probably illegal in terms of international law for one country to go to war with another for the reason cited. But honesty is the best policy, even if the motivation for something is wrong. 

We have to admit that ours is a dishonest government. 

• We have no problem with Israelis building walls on Palestinian property.
• We have no problem with Israelis building settlements on Palestinian land.
• We have no problem with Israelis putting an economic blockade on Palestinians.
• We have no problem giving Israel military aid.
• We have no problem with Israel threatening to respond measure for measure if Iran uses nuclear weapons on Israel. 
• But we have a BIG problem when an equally radical middle eastern government (allegedly) develops nuclear weapons. 

Our government should state these things openly,  and if it cannot, then voters should  vote out these beaters-around-the-bush. 

Why? 

Because at least we will know that the government we elect is prepared to assume the consequences for whatever actions it takes. 

Autism Politico believes that autistics should care about politics. Seldom do people who know what is going on in the world get swindled. If there is ever a draft, if you have read Autism Politico, at least you will know why you are being drafted and going to war.  

Replies to this editorial are welcome

Editorial #33: Resignations 2

Autism Politico would like to stay on the subject of politics for another blog entry. 

Yesterday Autism Politico talked about how some congressmen are not going to be seeking re-election. Evan Bayh was using partisanship as an excuse for the government’s impotence. Bayh, a Democrat, claims the most leftist Democrats are trying to control the direction of the country saying that seven Democrats who had agreed to support certain legislation, changed their minds when their own self-serving interests were denied.  

Bayh’s replacement may have to be appointed, rather than face off in a primary. This also means that a Republican whose name is known will ultimately wind up facing off against a nameless Democrat. It is likely Democrats will lose a seat in the Senate this November because of Bayh’s resignation. 

At the time of this writing, 5 Democratic seats and 6 Republican seats will be contested in November. 

Before anyone decided to vote one way or another, people need to understand that partisanship is not the issue. It has never been the issue. 

Ideology has always been the issue. 

The problem is that voters are polarized on issues. 

The question always facing voters in every election is essentially the same: Do we want a government that raises the bar for its citizens and encourages them to succeed? Or do we want a government that gives handouts to the populace, thereby encouraging them to ask for more handouts? 

If you are a Republican, you believe the former. If you are a Democrat, you believe the latter. 

There is a limit to how hard people can be made to work, and that limit seems to go down with each successive generation. There was once a time when people worked 10 to 12 hour days six days a week for subsistence wages. While it is certainly a positive development that we now have a five day workweek, adequate labor laws, and minimum wages, worker output is comparatively less per hour than what it was in days past. 

People of the present generation do not realize or care that hard work creates success. If the government can “give” them something for “nothing” they will take it. But if people had any sense, they would try to reduce social programs because people would realize that the money for these social programs is TAKEN from someone else, usually via taxes. 

There is an internet email circulating around the net about this concept. It tells the story of a teacher or professor whose class believes that government should take money from the wealthy and give it to all  in order to create a more economically level society. 

The teacher/professor claims this is socialism, and to demonstrate its effects, he tells the class that henceforth, all individual grades would be combined and averaged across the class for each assignment. 

After the first assignment, everyone received B’s. This bothered the people who got A’s who worked very hard on their assignments, while the people who received D’s and F’s were pleased that they were getting good grades without having to work hard for them.

The second assignment averaged a C. The reason was that the A students didn’t bother to waste their effort working as hard, believing the B, C, D, and F students should work harder to raise the average for all. The D and F students didn’t bother trying, believing they would just live high on the work of others. By the third assignment, the average was a D. And so on. 

Whether this email is “true” or is just another internet fiction does not really matter because it makes the point: Lazy people will never work hard unless they have a vested interest in doing so. Hard workers will only spend so much time working hard to bring other people up before they themselves give up. 

Our government is heading in the direction of the classroom, and the reason for it is that too many people in congress want to give handouts at a time in history when the only solution to this economic problem is to work harder. 

Just like you have to work hard to be an A student, you have to work hard to be rich. And the rich should not have to work any harder than they already are to support lazy people.  They are already overtaxed as it is. 

Just because someone else has lots of money and you have little does not mean that their money should be yours. 

Autism Politico asks you: How hard are YOU working these days?

Autism Politico asks you: How hard are you going to work in the future? 

Autistics, already hamstringed by their own diagnoses, will have to work especially hard if they expect to succeed in the future. Alternatively, they can take the low road and vote people into office who will give them handouts. 

Replies to this editorial are welcome.

Editorial #32: Resignations

Autism Politico notices that many of the US Senators and Representatives are not seeking re-election lately.  Evan Bayh was one of them. Patrick Kennedy another. Christopher Dodd still another. 

This seems to be a collective “no confidence” vote on the part of government officials. It suggests that these congressmen believe that while congress exists in its present form under the present government, no forward progress can be made toward improving the state of the nation and the state of government. 

In some ways, this also comes across as a feeble attempt to get voters to say “No! Don’t resign. You people are our only hope for a brighter future!”

Autism Politico urges people not to fall for any of this. 

If these people are –in essence- resigning their positions, there is no point in keeping them in office. The only ploys that have ever proven effective to actually changing the law and changing the government are passing legislation. Trying to manipulate the voters’ emotions is weak. Trying to manipulate congress by threatening to withdraw  candidacies for re-election is weak. 

Why would we want weak people in government? 

Autism Politico says let them quit. We don’t need them. 

The blame for the state of the nation rests squarely on the shoulders of government officials who have frittered away valuable time trying to pass health insurance legislation that nobody wants while avoiding dealing with this economic crisis directly. 

What’s needed to make the US succeed is tax cuts to corporations to make them competitive with the foreign companies who are able to do exactly what we do for less money. There is a noose around the neck of the American worker and it was placed there by the people who make up laws and tax laws.

The American citizen is hurting because the American citizen cannot find work. 

Make work for the American citizen and it will solve a lot of economic problems. 

The other major problem facing the nation is debt. People  are losing their homes. People have maxed their credit cards. People are defaulting on their car loans. 

The solution? 

Instead of giving the banks money to extend credit and renegotiate mortgages to people who bought houses that were more than they can afford, the government should put a freeze on interest rates the consumer has to pay on any type of credit, while putting limits on how much credit any organization, banks or business, can extend. 

The result is that the people who find themselves teetering on the edge of financial ruin would be forced to live within their means while having one final reasonable way to extricate themselves from debt, and banks and businesses would be less likely to risk folding due to extending too much credit. 

People would argue that this is “price fixing”, but this was done during the second world war, and the government at that time had no qualms about price fixing during that war. The also limited what could be sold, and even BANNED some items from being sold.  Anyone who doubts that such a program could be instituted can do some historical research. There was a period during the war when cars and car tires were not available for purchase. 

This brings up another point: Extreme measures are taken during war time, but seldom during times of economic crisis.  Why not? 

Fodder for another post, perhaps. 

Autism Politico’s final point is that it seems that no matter what the government does, the public does nothing. You’d think that the public would unite and send letters to their congress people telling them in a definitive and straightforward way what they want done. 

Autistics especially don’t seem to care one way or the other how anything that goes on in the world affects them. This holds true no matter what country they live in. Seldom do they protest anything unless they can see a direct connection to their own circumstances, and inevitably, this revolves around how they are portrayed by others. 

When the ransom notes campaign made it out that autistics were “held hostage” by autism, autistics were quick to pick up on that.   

But they didn’t protest the autism registry advocated by ASAN and others. 

Nor did they protest the National Health Insurance Bill. 

Nor did they protest the bank bailouts. 

Nor did they protest the auto-maker bailouts. 

Nor did they protest the threat by the Democrats to RAISE taxes in a time when unemployment is at its highest levels since the great depression. 

Nor did they protest the Democrat’s legislation to help financially irresponsible people retain possession of their houses while doing nothing to increase the ability of fiscally responsible people to get loans. 

This apathy on the part of autistics makes it look like autistics have indeed been “kidnapped” by autism. 

Autism Politico thinks that if anyone is going to respect autistics, autistics need to respect themselves. Respect begins by first believing in something and then standing up for what you believe in. 

Autism Politico wants to know: What do you believe in? Or have you resigned your position as a politically active autistic? 

Replies to this editorial are welcome.

Editorial #31: We need a DSM 6

Autism Politico knows that the DSM V intends to combine all 5 separate autism spectrum disorders (Autism, Asperger Syndrome, Rhett’s Syndrome, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified) into one category called “Autism Spectrum Disorders.”

Autism Politico doesn’t believe that Rainman and Stephen Spielberg are the same person, nor do they have the same form of autism. 

No matter where someone sits on the spectrum, they may need special services, either educational or medical. But those who seem very functional might in the future be  neglected or not seriously considered for services by virtue of them having only a few of the many autistic traits. 

Additionally, a diagnosis follows one for life. Autism carries a certain stigma with it. A person who falls into this new umbrella diagnosis may be denied work because of an employer’s prejudice even though the person may be perfectly capable of fulfilling the work requirements.  

This change brought on by the DSM V comes at a bad time for other reasons:

 1)      The autism genome has been mapped almost completely. During the mapping it was discovered that not every autistic has all the autism genes activated. Though studies are ongoing, there is already indication that, genetically speaking, “tiers” of autism exist, with the most severe cases having all the autism genes being active, and the lowest tiers having a significantly lesser amount being activated.

2)      There is no treatment for autism, although, in the US, certain prescription drugs may be subscribed to lessen the effects of presentation of autistic traits. Yet people who are higher functioning on the spectrum may not need or want these drugs. Will all of these people be forced to take these meds just because they fall under one diagnosis?

3)      Only recently have specific educational programs for each level of the spectrum come into being. With a pupil’s needs being met in such a targeted fashion, it would work against students to suddenly water down these targeted educational programs into an umbrella program that would work only in part for everyone as a whole. 

Autism Politico can think of lots of reasons why this revision of the DSM V is a bad idea. 

What are your ideas? 

Replies to this editorial are welcome.

Editorial #30: Murder by Bleach

Autism Politico has read the story of the mother who allegedly killed her autistic son by forcing bleach down his throat. 

It makes the editors at Autism Politico shiver to think of what that murder scene must have looked like while it was taking place. 

In a court of law, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. We must remember that though the mom stands accused, it could be that someone else is responsible for this act. What is almost certainly impossible is that the child would have injected a toxic amount of bleach on his own. 

For the purposes of this editorial, we will assume that the accused is guilty, and that the guilty party is a mother who killed her autistic child by pouring bleach into his mouth and forcing him to swallow it. 

It would be purely speculative to think what might have been going into this woman’s mind at the exact moment of the murder. And because we don’t know the details, we don’t know the motive either. Nor do we know if the boy’s autism was the reason the mother snapped. 

What we can theorize though, is that either this mother must have had a lot of hatred or rage or overwhelming emotion which overran any protests her conscience might have been throwing at her, or else she was devoid of emotion at the time of the murder.   

How much hate or rage or fury or determination would you have to have to try and kill the baby you gave birth to? Or how much of a lack of emotion would you have to have to do the same? 

The editors at Autism Politico would not make good jurors in a trial of the accused, because they’d be prejudiced against her. The murder seems so NAKED. There was no thoughts for the comfort of the victim. In other words, nowhere in this murder has the accused done anything which would cause another human being to sympathize with her. 

There is nothing that says to Autism Politico “I loved him, and I couldn’t give him away, but I could take care of him any more either, and so I had to kill him, and so I used the least hurtful method I could think of.” 

Not that such feelings would have caused the editors at Autism Politico to find her anything less than guilty, or to lower her sentence once convicted. But when crimes like these take place, those of us who read about them tend to want to make some sense of them, if only to get them out of our minds so we can try to move on with our own lives. 

But this one circulates in the mind like a song that you cannot get rid of. How could anyone, while they are killing their child in this manner, not think twice and say “You know, despite the fact that this kid is autistic, he’s not pouring bleach into MY mouth is he? Perhaps it might be ME who has the larger psychological problem?” 

Maybe she had these thoughts. Maybe she did not. Maybe she had these thoughts and didn’t care. 

Autism Politico shudders. 

Getting back to reality, we do not have the facts, and so we cannot know if the mother is truly the guilty party here. But it is probable that the boy was murdered, and so whoever killed that boy either had some terrible thoughts while they did it or had no thoughts at all. 

And now Autism Politico will make a statement that people won’t like: It doesn’t matter how you kill another human being, born or unborn; whether it is by plot or spur of the moment…killing is killing, death is death. All killing is equally cruel, and all death is permanent. All motives or lack thereof are irrelevant. And a lifetime of guilt by the murderer cannot hold a candle to the last dying heartbeat of human being who wanted to live.

Replies to this editorial are welcome.