My Last Autism Awareness Post.

Aspie Kid T-Shirt
by

webcarve

Get this custom shirt
at Zazzle

Yep. The whole thing fits on that t-shirt.

"Thank you for your input. Your interaction with my parent has added significantly to the body of my thesis."

My parents are dead - but speaking as an AS person and as step-parent to an AS person, I'm so down with that.

The Life of a Free Range Aspie

Autism, Aspergers, PDD, PDDNOS are all conditions that exist on the Autistic Spectrum. All are classed as "disorders" in the DSMIV. That means they represent a billing code - and the world is filled with "cures" and advocates of "cures" for the whole range.

Inasmuch as there seems to be no serious consensus on what causes autism, or whether, in isolation, it's a problem outside of the extreme, (and those extremes do have protocols associated with them), the faint aroma of bubbling snake oil ought to be tickling your sinuses at this moment.

Some of us who are unquestionably on the spectrum do not see it as a "disorder" so much as a distinct difference with inherent communications difficulties - at least, when it's not in it's extreme forms. In many ways, it's social and personal impacts are similar to more obvious things, like blindness or deafness. And, as is well understood, any sensory deficit brings with it compensations that are arguably advantageous if the differently abled person finds a niche where they can bring that enhanced ability to bear.

(You know, I believe that's the first time I've ever used that PC phrase in a literally meaningful way.)

But I will say that "differently abled" is a much more useful way of thinking about aspergers, autism, and indeed almost all "disabilities." For the most point, the fact that such a person is unable to cope in the way almost everyone would requires they develop abilities that are comparatively rare by definition. And that - especially when those abilities are guided and developed with that idea in mind - is a valuable thing.

Unfortunately, groups like "Autism Speaks" are unwilling to comprehend that. Indeed, they are unwilling to even admit that autistics capable of communicating their preference to not be spoken for exist. As for aspies - well, there's nothing wrong with us that a few months in a skinner box couldn't fix. It's merely demoniacally inspired willfulness. It should not be particularly surprising that Autism Speaks and allied organizations are composed almost entirely of social conservatives; people for whom "not fitting in" is considered a crime of willful disobedience, or a disability of such crippling extent that any "cure" up to and including lobotomy or abortion is better than the "disease."

If you have stumbled across this almost unavoidable (and odious) viewpoint in a search for autism information, you might wish to trundle on over to autistics.org for the autie point of view, or you can drop by wampi.org for a mother's perspective on successfully raising a "free range aspie," without the "benefit" of most interventions and no aversives at all.

Todd is now in high school - and not a particularly aspie-aware one, despite our best efforts. And yet, while being more aspie than I am in many ways, he has friends, he's well liked, he's respected by his peers and his teachers, and this is all despite behavioral issues that one could easily label as "annoying."

Charitably.

The fact is, when everyone involved knows what's going on, it's a lot easier to avoid tripping the xenophobe circuits that lurk in our hindbrains. Our reptilian bits are convinced that what is concealed is potentially deadly dangerous - and there's been nothing in my conscious history that could argue with that first presumption all that effectively. Once we know that an annoyance is merely that - an inevitable and understandable consequence of a person being who they are, it's a lot easier on everyone involved. Particularly the aspie or autie who is no more immune to seeing themselves as being dangerously different than anyone else.

But of course, before you can be upfront about what you are, you have to understand it yourself. Alas, I had no words for what I was before my early forties - while Todd's mom knew from very very early on.

And, I should add with a proud grin, didn't much care. Nor did his dad (not I) - I will say with equally proud smugness. As a result, he's had appropriate accommodations his entire life - with no expectations whatsoever along the line of "fitting in to the world around him." That's an excellent thing, both philosophically and practically - if there's one thing a person on the AS spectrum is unlikely to be able to do effectively, it's "fit in" - and efforts in that direction will trigger pink monkey syndrome.

Trust me on that - my entire primary and secondary education was an exercise in tossing a pink monkey into the primate cage to see if he'll be able to pass THIS time.

It's hard on the pink monkey - and trust me when I tell you, it can end up with rather scuffed "normal" chimplets and primate attendants.

Of course, living in an area with larger catchment is a great thing; Todd was lucky in that he nearly immediately found his pink monkey posse and we-all just gutted it out as he geeked it up with his strange little friends.

I never, EVER want to hear the word "Pokemon" again.

And at the same time, I realized that with a shift in time, there I was geeking it up with MY strange little friends with the equally baffling Dungeons and Dragons - a bootleg first edition, actually. No, paperback.

Yeah, THAT old. Hell, I even wrote supplements. Todd's obsession never reached those heights - in regard to THAT topic. But the capacity will serve him well, since he didn't have parents who swatted him every time he wandered off into his head.

And yet, if you are concerned that you are doing the wrong thing as a parent, allow me to reassure you to a degree. I've come to the conclusion that in regard to my own personal configuration and nature, I had the worst parents possible. My mother was neurotic to the point of insanity (borderline, perhaps) and if my father was not a clinical sociopath - it was probably due to him being barely clever enough to avoid any significant attention.

So, aside from the obvious, the problem was that I could never rely on my parents to do the right thing, or even the predictable wrong thing. All I knew was that to bring an "instance" to their attention would raise it to the level of an outright "situation."

But nonetheless I managed to survive and find a niche. I am now fifty and content with my life - a fact that would probably baffle the hell out of an impartial neurotypical, for I have nothing of significance that most people would equate with proof of success. Me, I have all the proof I need.

I look at most of the things I'm supposed to want as "crap I have to dust." It's amazing how starkly different your values are if none of them involve impressing other people and expanding your social network. It's not surprising that many neurotypicals still see us as alien and therefore dangerous; there's absolutely nothing they think of as prime motivators that strike most aspies as being good things. Social dominance. Control of large, complex organizations. Having a full roladex. "Winning."

Todd LOVED t-ball until he discovered that winning meant someone else had to lose. Then he was done. He loved martial arts - as long as it wasn't a "sport." And he's one hell of a good fencer in particular and loves swordplay in general - but not at all interested in scored matches.

Like me, he's only interested in becoming better than he was last week. And like me, at some point, having had to come up for air, he will run head on into the fact that he's objectively as good as anyone else doing what he does - possibly better - and have no freaking idea what to do about it.

Fortunately, it appears that there's already a profession intended to deal with this matter.

We call them "agents." And pragmatically, that's the most significant accommodation needed for any aspie, whether they are literal agents, or simply family, spouses and partners that act in that way.

Pick any aspie of significance - like, say Einstein - and you will find that there was a person who is steering them toward the best applications of what they are, and steering others who need those talents toward them. I would not be horribly surprised to find that a large percentage of those persons have as rare a wetware configuration as our own.

But even left to our own devices, and having to cope with very nearly the worst possible combination of circumstances, I note that as we age, we tend to settle down and, as I said, find our niches. With help, we can probably find more impressive or lucrative niches - but I wonder to what extent that actually matters to us as aspies. It probably matters more to the people to whom we matter, frankly.

I think of myself as well-tested proof of concept.

My writing is distinctly aspie-style communication - something you may come to recognize as you go from place to place, reading what other aspies and auties have to say about themselves and their lives. I have little or no motivation to create other than the act of creation, whether it is writing or artwork. I love electronic media because it eliminates most of the out-of -pocket expense of being an artist or writer.

I've only lately really grasped that sometimes, in order for the effort to be meaningful, there has to be some objective proof of utility. Or, at least, that's my feeling. Lord knows, within the art world, I could point to exceptions. Nonetheless, those exceptions seem to get a lot of attention and attract commissions, so perhaps it's merely a different expression of my view.

Had I had different advantages - such as the upbringing Todd enjoys - I would very probably be ensconced in some comfortable tweed-lined academic niche. I'm not at all sure that I'd be more content than I am, and I'd only be as content as I am if I had people to cope with the things I could not cope with well or at all.

But certainly I would be of greater utility to more people and be making a broader, more lasting and I would hope positive impact on society.

On the other hand, with exactly the wrong set of circumstances - I could have been Karl Rove or Condi Rice. So all things being equal, I'll settle for the angels I have. I was on my way to achieving a niche of that sort when a parental idiocy sent me into a state of clinical depression that left me rather behind the curve.

But seeing as that diversion left me with an expertise and understandings I hope to ghu no more than a handful of other people can match, I am content - for I still have decades to apply it, goddess willing and the sky don't fall.

I think it's reasonable to state that whatever I think about the views parents in some factions of the autism awareness movement, generally parents wish their children to be as happy and as successful as they. And I'm here to say that no matter how badly you think you have screwed that up in your well-meaning way, that's probably still possible.

Whether you understand why they are as happy as they are, and think of themselves as successes when you don't is quite beside the point, really.

But of course it will be ever so much easier on everyone if you accept them for what they are. It could be worse, after all.

You could have a charismatic 89 IQ high-school linebacker with abnormally high testosterone levels and an addictive personality, doomed to a career in door to door appliance sales.

Frankly, I'd take Todd over even an average teenager. Some times Todd screws up, of course, like any other inexperienced human being. But the thing that relieves me is that he always errs on the safe side; he doen't take foolish risks and he does not seek out the company of people who do. I don't think I can think of an instance of him making the same mistake twice. I get to sleep at night, knowing for near certainty that there will be no emergency in his life that cannot wait for daylight - and it will almost certainly be deliberately caused by someone else.

Usually someone who thinks they "know better" and have a right to impose that vision upon us.

On such occasions, with such people. I find myself having no difficulty maintaining eye contact and smiling. None whatsoever. Oddly enough, they find it a lot less reassuring than all their theorizing says it ought to be.

From the Department of I Told You So - Looking back on 9/11

I wrote this @ 2001-09-19 18:11:00 in a LiveJournal group. Every year or so, I go back and re-read it, at times wondering why I've ever bothered writing anything more, considering all I've achieved in writing them. But then someone has to write them. And I haven't had anything better to do.

This time around I realized that it was at least time to revisit, republish, correct a few omitted words, fix grammatical errors, put it into context - and spell check!

I am uncomfortable with the idea of my words having lasting meaning, and given the topic I was writing on, even more uncomfortable with the idea than I might otherwise be. But I'm starting to face the fact that if these particular words do or do not, some words saying something like them must be uttered for any of the crap we have all been through to make sense, and to honor those who didn't make it all the way through.

Still I cannot escape the idea that I was entirely too correct for my comfort, and all the more so by how uncommon that viewpoint was, outside of those opposed to all violence for any reason.

And yet, I go back to this piece, I see what was clear to me a mere eight days after 9/11 - and I wonder where all the professional, paid pundits, where all the trained journalists, where all those we trust to have better trained and more restrained reactions than the ordinary run of persons were.

I'm gratified that out of so many, I was one of the few to be this correct - until I stop to think about what I was correct about, and how little intelligence, moral courage and will on the part of so very many people at so very many different choke-points could have made me seem utterly hysterical in retrospect. It's not at all difficult to see how those who have a better opinion of their fellow man could have been led astray.

How much I wish I could look back on my work and see how utterly wrong I was, and how depressingly ironic it is that those who have been as wrong as I wish I had been - are better paid the more incorrect they have been.

But then, that seeming irony also explains a great deal. We all trust that those who have the smarts, the insight and the access to know better will actually pass on their insights, instead of saying the complete opposite in return for large packages of unmarked bills.

And, lest that be seen as slander, let me say that it's a far more charitable assumption than the presumption that people such as O'Reilly, Malkin, Coulter and Savage are speaking to us out of sincere conviction.

Since, well, when you make provably untrue statements or unprovable statements with the assertion they are factual, you are either lying, or deluded. Don't much matter which, really; though I happen to think that being a knowing, paid liar might just be a little easier to live with than having been a useful, sincerely deluded tool - all untraceable bearer bonds aside.

I'm not complaining. I could conceivably have chosen to roll that way, and it was damn clear at the time there was no profit at all to be had in being reasonable.

But, well, I'm me, and that's how I am. Every once in a while sheer perversity ends up putting you on the right side, in retrospect. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the result of being naturally perverse. It was, and is a tragedy that any sort of perversity could shake out this way at all - much less to this degree.

The Grand Old Flag and all that.
I'm having an aspy moment. In fact, I've been having an aspy moment ever since the rubble of the World Trade Center stopped tumbling.

I'm tying to figure out how posting flags on every available surface and hanging them from every crossbar, antenna and flagpole is supposed to achieve anything.

It sure appears that everyone is convinced it will, and anywhere will do. Around Reno, someone has figured out that you can print flags out with your computer, and someone slapped one on the apartment's dumpster.

I think that's in very surreal taste.

I'm completely baffled by the consensus that I should be emotionally devastated by the deaths of so many people and the blow to our national prestige.

Well I'm an aspy who's spent a lot of time out of the country. I'm not emotionally affected... and I assure you, rumors of our national prestige have been wildly exaggerated!

That shouldn't be a shocking revelation. If we were universally loved and respected, people wouldn't be diving airliners into our landmark architecture.

You don't see people dive-bombing Canada. Of all the aspects of American Culture that the Taliban and other funnymentalist Islamic splinters revile, Canada is every bit as gleefully guilty. Hell, it's not even illegal for women to go topless in public in Canada, in the aftermath of a Charter of Rights ruling. You can just see Ayatollah eyeballs bleeding at that concept. And in terms of enforcing social conformity and family values on the general population - well, Canada is utterly delinquent, much to the impotent frustration of the DEA.

Yep, the interdiction of that Demon Weed, Marijuana is not exactly a high priority of Canadian police agencies. And that sort of lax response to moral turpitude is something that convinces the self-righteous that God or Allah will rain retribution upon the offending culture.

But for the most part, they are indeed content to leave such things TO Allah.

On the other hand, Canada doesn't routinely fire cruise missiles at people in the fond belief that it's a solution to a complex foreign policy issue.

The peculiar American delusion that one can rain death from a great height and not gain enemies thereby is somewhat baffling to me; it seems an obvious violation of common sense, however justified such "big stick" actions are.

"Justifiable" does not mean that those ducking the shrapnel are going to be suddenly struck by the irrefutable reason of our diplomatic position. If they were, it wouldn't have been necessary to deliver a stiff diplomatic cruise missile.

But whatever I think of American foreign policy, it doesn't follow that diving airplanes into buildings is a reasonable, appropriate or defensible thing to do.

Anybody who thinks I'm attempting to justify such an act is utterly mistaken. I do, however, think it's wise to at least attempt to understand it; the motivations for it and the context it exists in, just for the sake of self-preservation.

But the national psyche seems to support any number of bizarre and inexplicable assumptions.

Today, a man said on national television that those who are not overwhelmed by grief at the untimely end of thousands of unrelated strangers is emotionally disturbed and should seek treatment. And one is tempted to nod until you realize that no one would suggest that the entire nation should be so paralyzed with grief at the passing of an equal number of Chinese in an earthquake. It would be tragic, it would noted, we'd contribute money and dry socks to the rescue efforts - and then we'd get on with our lives.

More directly and relevantly - where were the candlelight vigils for the civilian victims of the aerial assault on Baghdad? Whatever you thought of it, whether you felt it a justifiable and necessary act, no matter how unavoidable those civilian casualties were - still. Why were we not moved? How can we justify being horrified now, if we were not then?

The fact that the US military moved heaven and earth to avoid civilian casualties and managed to do so up to the limits imposed by physics, intelligence and human perversity is beside the point. If every corpse in the World Trade center is worth a bio on CNN, SO WERE THEY.

And while it was not precisely a terrorist act, certainly the idea that we were "sending a message" was an integral part of the exercise.

Personally, I was not moved at all. And after the sheer, overwhelming surprise wore off, I was not moved by this, even though a distant cousin I'd never met perished in one of the planes.

My response seems to be purely intellectual, and from an intellectual viewpoint, I can see the argument for launching cruise missiles at Baghdad - considering the Scuds raining on the whole region and the Iraqi attack on Kuwait.

The fact that our national motivations were not entirely idealistic doesn't bother me. Our government's JOB is to pursue our national advantage. That includes securing an oil supply. If that happens to mesh with our national ideals, O happy day! And it did, very much so, and that's aside from treaty obligations.

But still, I don't see why a dead US citizen should be regretted more emotionally than the deaths of strangers who have the misfortune of living in an a tyranny with opposing agendas. But it's apparently supposed to be, for "normal" people.

So in order to be "normal," I have to place myself in a disordered, irrational mental state that prohibits me from thinking clearly or doing anything useful about the situation.

Well, I'm not normal, and thank God. I'd think that at times like this, we could profit by having more like me manning vital functions while all the normal people make utter inconveniences of themselves.

I don't see how being paralyzed with grief, racked by irrational fear and plunged into depression is going to help anyone, any more than wearing a red, white and blue jockstrap is going to do one single thing to combat world terrorism.

I would like to see a lot less patriotic posturing and a lot more serious thought about what can be done to prevent such things from occurring while at the same time, how to do that without turning ourselves into a repressive police state.

That's real patriotism. It's an expensive habit, real patriotism. Ask any of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. At the end, those that weren't dead were mostly broke.

Real patriotism takes a deal more commitment than printing out a stack of flags, sticking them up randomly and sighing with contentedness at how much of a Real American you are.

It demands an unemotional determination to do what it takes, while maintaining our Republican principles. (Some would say Democratic principles. That's another cultural myth. This has never been a democracy. It's a republic. That's a significantly different thing.)

Irrational patriotic fervor will not help and will likely lead to yet an exponential increase in the number of our live enemies, instead of what we actually want - a smallish smoking hole filled with thoroughly dead ones, communicating the global impression that a policy of terror against us is not just a bad idea - it's an absolutely fatal bad idea.

I refer you to what happened to the terrorists that killed the Israeli Olympic team at the 72 Olympics. The Mossad tracked each of them down and killed every one of them with surgical precision. There have been terrorist acts against Israeli citizens since - but none like that.*

This can only be achieved by a very clear view of the ends and a diamond-hard determination that the means must be both measured, appropriate, and applied with total commitment.

It will take a great deal of time to do this. It's complicated, messy and it will be unavoidably bloody. The world at large is convinced that the United States is willing to do whatever it takes - so long as it doesn't take more than six months, result in any actual casualties, raise their taxes or affect their lifestyle in any way.

So far, I see no evidence this perception is inaccurate to any significant degree.

That is exactly why the terrorists think they can get away with this - they are convinced that the United States simply does not have the attention span to allow any other outcome.

We had best decide to disabuse them, or this will continue. And next time, it might be a building you are in, or even a city.

We also have to face something else - that this particular conflict arises out of an irreconcilable ideological difference. It's not something we can defuse with gifts, bribes, apologies or even the removal of key figures in the terrorist community.

Ultimately, there IS no rational solution to this situation because the fundamental world views of the opposing sites are utterly, starkly and completely incompatible; the two systems cannot co-exist. The means by which western culture will destroy the Islamic Fundamentalist Movement don't involve bombs and guns; they are nonetheless as destructive of that culture as a rain of atomic weapons on us would be.

More so.

And it's a good thing, too, because it's an evil culture that should be eradicated, root and branch.

Those who are aware of the world outside of the Lower 48 have been warning of the increasing threat of religious fundamentalism in general and Islamic fundamentalism in particular.

In ironic illustration of this, Jerry Falwell made a statement that any Ayatollah would agree with.

"RICHMOND, Va., Sept. 18 ? The Rev. Jerry Falwell has apologized for saying God had allowed terrorists to attack America because of the work of civil liberties groups, abortion rights supporters and feminists. Falwell said his comments were ill-timed, insensitive and divisive at a time of national mourning. President Bush had called the minister?s statement inappropriate."

You note that he didn't say he'd changed his mind, he just apologized for bad timing.

While the Ayatollahs and Mullahs may disagree with Jerry about certain abstract theological issues, boy, they sure do agree about the proper fate of faggots and loose women. They certainly agree that religion should have the right to enforce "proper" behavior, even on those who don't share the beliefs that would make sense of those behaviors.
If Jerry had his way - we'd be stoning "harlots" and "apostates" in the street too.

Think on that.

Think on the logical danger of permitting that degree of delusional self-righteousness to take on the form of a government. Realize what sort of threat that is to EVERY person of EVERY belief EVERYWHERE... and then realize what needs doing. It's not something we can afford to tolerate; not a movement that we can allow to spread.

The fundamentalism - stupid and irrational as it is - THAT we must tolerate. It's the idea that it may permissibly be enforced on those who do not share those beliefs is what must be eliminated from the world consciousness.

It's that paradigm that has prevented any widespread outrages against the large Islamic communities in the United States in particular and the West in general. Contrast that against your survival chances as an identifiable Westerner in the general vicinity of whatever happens next, folks.

Maybe you can't do anything personally about middle eastern terrorists - but you can speak against the sort of mindset that exists here that would do the same here and HAS done it, in Oklahoma City, Selma, Alabama and at abortion clinics across the nation. The idea that anyone has the right to enforce a moral standard or ideological belief through terror cannot be tolerated.

It's not an idea that can be combated selectively and conveniently; it's far too fundamental. It has come down to a choice. This is, if you like, Armageddon; The Place of Decision.

So decide.

So the next time you see hate speech, do something. The next time you hear someone advocating violence against others based on their beliefs, sexual orientation or gender, do something.

You think there's any fundamental difference between Operation Rescue, the KKK, Bader-Meinhoff, the Red Brigade or Islamic Jihad? They all believe passionately in their causes; they are all willing to die to further it. Now, that's reasonable. It's even laudable to be willing to die for a belief.

Being willing to kill innocent (or at least, uninvolved) persons in wholesale lots in order to terrify the surviving masses into compliance with an agenda - that's just plain evil.

It must not be allowed EVEN IF YOU AGREE with their goals. No matter HOW urgent, how imperative it is. If your cause is not such that passionate speech and personal example will not serve to sway the majority - it could just be that you are passionately and sincerely wrong.

That's what the marketplace of ideas is for, what freedom of speech and freedom of the press is intended to ensure; that ideas are fully tested before they are implemented as social policy.

We can see what happens in cultures where this doesn't happen. Not only are they generally tyrannies, they are dusty, repressive, broke and BORING tyrannies.

We must also embrace that ideal as a national policy. The US government has, from time to time, thought it appropriate to "support freedom" by supplying "freedom fighters" in their struggles against... well, usually something that will cost us money or prestige.

We have to stop doing that, if for no other reason than an easily-documented history of this short sighted policy biting us on the butt.

The Taliban is just the LATEST example of "heroic freedom fighters" who suddenly became terrorists when they decided we were legitimate targets. Understand that their motivations and means havn't changed in the slightest - just their point of aim.

The Viet Minh, The Chinese Red Army and the Cuban patriots of the Bay of Pigs have all managed to inconvenience us. And that's just from this century. It's taken the South over a century to live down Quantrell.

You would think someone in Langley, VA might have gotten a clue by now, but since that is apparently not the case, you might wish to write your Congresscritter about your concerns - and suggest that more attention to the long term effects of foreign policy is NOT incompatible with their responsibilities for packing the pork in barrels and shipping it home.

In light of the likely costs of "America's New War," I'd say that a little more attention would have been cheap at nearly any price.

But hell, I'm just an aspy. I obviously don't grasp the damage to the social fabric, or the visceral need to go and kill someone, anyone, whether or not they had anything to do with this. Forgive my impatient foot-tapping as you persist in flapping helplessly, achieving nothing at great length. But if I hear one more person say that this outpouring of patriotism has Strengthened Our Great Nation, I may just puke.

I'm not hanging any damn flag, going to any candlelight vigils or indulging in any other pointless exercises that are intended to promote the sort of emotional solidarity I'm mentally incapable of feeling.

But I do see the utility of meaningful gestures.

Click here and donate to the Red Cross.

In retrospect, I see only two failures of assumption - the idea that given the circumstances, evangelical funnymentalism would lose rather than gain support, and the slightly less embarrassing assumption that the Red Cross was a responsible and charitable organization.

I wish I'd had a few more inaccuracies - and that they were inaccuracies in favor of a more charitable view of human nature and the intelligence of the American People.

At this point in my life, I believe I have achieved a level of wizened cynicism that would have appalled PT Barnum, or even Boss Tweed. I apologize to all of you who relied in any way at my earlier, innocent and touching naiveté.

The Virginia Tech Blame Game

Thanks to Cyinical-C, there is now a comprehensive list of everything to blame for the Virginia Tech Shootings.

In this excerpt, you will note many of the usual suspects, and you are invited to add your own in the comments section.

In case you were wondering who’s to blame for the Virginia Tech massacre, I’ve created a list this morning to keep track. Feel free to send in any that I’ve missed.

Update:

The list keeps on growing and has 45 46 47 49 51 55 56 57 58 different items at the moment. Thanks to everyone who is sending me more links to add to the list.

It’s the fault of violent video games.

It’s the fault of movies.

It’s that no other students were armed.

It’s the cowardly students who didn’t rush the shooter.

It’s the first victim’s fault.

It’s secularism’s fault.

It’s the Muslims’ and/or foreigners’ fault.

It’s the Atheists’ fault.

It’s the fault of the colleges and how they coddle their students.

It’s society’s fault.

It’s the Second Amendment’s fault.

....and so-forth. I even added my own thing to blame, the abuse of power.

Now, many of these ideas, left and right, wackadoodlish and irrelevant though they are, are still mostly sincere. But there are a couple of exceptions, and here's one of them.

Think Progress » AFA blames school shootings on lack of prayer, spankings.: "AFA blames school shootings on lack of prayer, spankings.



In a new video, the the right-wing American Family Association attributes the tragedy at Virginia Tech to: a lack of prayer in school, a lack of the Bible in school, a lack of spanking kids, a lack of physical punishment in school, abortion, condoms, Bill Clinton, Internet pornography, free speech, the entertainment industry, “satanic” music, and liberal culture in general. Watch it:"

I actually couldn't bring myself to watch more than a few seconds. Let me know how far you hurl if you feel brave.

I note they have disabled comments, but just in case they are paying attention,make sure you blog it, stumble it, digg it and bookmark it every way from Sunday, along with your comments. If you don't have anything profound in mind, well, you could respond with this rather eloquent fellow who has a terribly educated accent and quotes Epicurus.



But it is a majestic example of the cynical manipulation of the fearful and ignorant. It's not AFA you have to fear, though. It's the people who are persuaded by this sort of fear mongering.

The fact is, all the things the AFA would like to blame, the lack of proper authoritarian guidance with a steel hand in a steel wool glove are in fact just as likely to cause someone to go postal. The abuse of power tends to do that. And the solution for that is not to crush the souls of the innocent even harder, no matter what the ironically named "American Family Association" would tell you.

Update: A link from the above source, "It's the bullies" leads to a well-researched and passionate article at Alternet by Mark Ames, who leads gently into a multi -page article with these observations:

Of all the idiotic reactions, so far none tops an article posted on MSNBC.com, written by an "investigative reporter" with the ill-begotten name of "Bill Dedman." His investigation allegedly revealed that Cho Seung-Hui, the shooter, displayed alleged classic warning signs of a rampage shooting. Citing a landmark Secret Service study of schoolyard rampage massacre, Dedman observed, "In more than three out of four school shootings, the attacker had made no threat against the schoolteachers or students. But most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help. The attackers posed a threat even though they hadn't made a threat."

In other words, if you think someone's weird, but he hasn't threatened anyone, he's a threat.

There are two very serious flaws in Dedman's investigation. First, if the profile of a schoolyard rampager is someone who doesn't threaten anyone but who raises suspicions, then America will have to open up a new GULAG archipelago to hold all of the millions of kids who fit this description. But the second flaw is even more serious: the Secret Service study Dedman cites draws exactly the opposite conclusion: There is no way to profile a potential schoolyard killer. That was what was so shocking about the report. Everyone who has studied these rage massacres knows it. Everyone but journalists like Dedman, that is.

What Dedman's article reveals isn't just the sloppy work of a typical mainstream hack but, rather, of a culture desperate for an easy explanation for the massacre -- one that doesn't implicate it in the crime.

It is is far more difficult to deal with the possibility that other factors may have led to the massacre, factors that are still too painful and close to us to consider. For example, how was this nerdy South Korean immigrant treated at his suburban high school and at Virginia Tech? What is the campus life like? What was it about Virginia Tech that made it the setting for the first student-on-student college massacre? And why were there copycat threats at campuses across Middle America over the following days? [emphasis mine]

I suggest you go to the source article and, if you know people who may be usefully influenced by it - school board members, teachers, administrators, politicians - forward it to them. After that, digg it up, stumble it and otherwise generally raise it's profile to the skies.

And thanks, Mark.

UPDATE: I've started a YouTube Vblog with a subcategory of School Shootings, rather than clog this post up even more with videos.

tag: american family association, fearmongers, dominionists, , theoconservatives, theocons, Pandering, Evangelical Meltdown, Republican Values, False Prophets, Ethics., famous liars

Cho Seung-hui - symptom of an ugly social disease.

When Cho Seung-hui fired his last round into his own head, I am personally, morally certain that he did so feeling both a sense of relief and with a sense of having struck a blow for justice.

He was wrong, of course.

But after looking over such information as I've been able to find, I strongly suspect that there was a high barrier to him coming to a more "reasonable and rational" viewpoint - and a great deal that leads me to suspect that - within his own narrow, but probably quite sane perspective - his actions were completely rational and justified.

It's pretty damn clear that within his lifetime, there were few, if any reality checks or positive, useful interventions, nothing to introduce a bit of reasonable doubt regarding the universal malevolence of "normal people."

That would be the distinction between him and me - the realization that as strange as "those others" were, they were not all out to get me - and that from time to time, I was just as able to misinterpret their actions and misunderstand their motives as they were apt to screw up with me. Which leads us to the current spectacle, which is providing me no little morbid amusement, with patches of deja vu as the media and blogoshere attempts to "understand" Cho Seung-hui and his rampage in Blacksburg.

Why, how; everyone wishes to know - so long as they are reassured that there is absolutely no fault to be found with them, the institutions they value or the prejudices and odious assumptions they hold dear. All are concerned with finding a "reason" that will permit society to continue as usual, or at least, find some identifiable group to impose restrictions upon in the name of safety.

As a "person of difference," with many characteristics in common with Cho Seung-hui, I am understandably concerned that I will be so singled out. I'm even more concerned on behalf of my Aspie step-son.

But let's call a spade a spade - seeing that is what I do - all this amounts to is a wish to be "kept safe" from people who may possibly react violently in response to bullying and harassment. So if you want YOUR child to be safe - you should ensure they are not a bully or abuser. And that, of course, requires a reality-check on your part, if for no other reason than this; if you live like that, it's sometimes true that you die like that. More likely, you live to regret that other people are harmed or die as a result of attitudes and behaviors you helped reinforce. Among adolescents with Autistic Spectrum issues, suicide is one of the leading causes of death.

Va. Tech shooter was laughed at - Yahoo! News

BLACKSBURG, Va. - In high school, Cho Seung-Hui almost never opened his mouth. When he finally did, his classmates laughed, pointed at him and said: "Go back to China."

As such details of the Virginia Tech shooter's life come out, and experts pore over his sick and twisted writings and his videotaped rant, it is becoming increasingly clear that Cho was almost a textbook case of a school shooter: a painfully awkward, picked-on young man who lashed out with methodical fury at a world he believed was out to get him.

Hm. Is it delusional to believe the world is out to get you when most or all personal interactions clearly demonstrate the truth of that belief?

There's increasing speculation that he may have been autistic to some degree, as descriptions of personal presentation and behavior emerge. (The first mention may have been here; julietpain.blogspot.com.)

Another possibility is that he was autistic to some degree, and unable to communicate or express himself appropriately; a constant theme amongst those who were acquainted with him is that if he replied at all, it was most usually with a single word, whilst the intensity of some of his attempts at communication were alarming enough to be regarded as stalking.

Katherine Newman, a professor of sociology at Princeton University, said most school shooters are rarely loners, but rather failed joiners.
"People who continuously try to join social groups and are rebuffed," said Newman, the author of "Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings." "And their daily experience is one of rejection and friction." CBS

The room-mates interviewed so far have spoken of their attempts to be friendly towards him, and of how they soon gave up, as he didn't respond or didn't respond well. Initially, though, he had gone out to eat with them, and to parties; at one of these he had revealed the existence of his imaginary supermodel girlfriend, and 'their' nicknames for each other - Jelly and Spanky. That sounds a bit like the sort of thing a somewhat autistic kid says as the exact moment his new friends stop being his friends and start thinking he is weird, and saying, "Watch out, here comes Spanky..."

Not that his family was much help, even given early indications that autism might be a possiblity.

''From the beginning, he wouldn't answer me,'' Kim Yang-soon, Cho's great aunt, said in an interview with AP Television News on Thursday. ''(He) didn't talk. Normally sons and mothers talk. There was none of that for them. He was very cold,'' she added

''When they went to the United States, they told them it was autism,'' said Kim, 85, adding that the family had constant worries about Cho.

Neither school officials, who have Cho's educational records, nor police who have his medical records, have mentioned such a diagnosis this week. Autistic individuals often have difficulty communicating, but the diagnosis would not necessarily explain his violence.

Ah, well, as to that, google "aspie rage." But it seems family concern was limited to being concerned - and prayer.

Meanwhile, the young man, whatever his mental issues, was in a nutcracker, between religious and family pressures at home and reportedly constant bullying in school. Whether or not he had mental issues to begin with, bullying is one of the most common precursors of such events.

Va. Tech shooter was laughed at - Yahoo! News

A 2002 federal study on common characteristics of school shooters found that 71 percent of them "felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the attack."

The report said that "in some of these cases the experience of being bullied seemed to have a significant impact on the attacker and appeared to have been a factor in his decision to mount an attack at the school. In one case, most of the attacker's schoolmates described the attacker as the kid everyone teased."

So this is far from being a unique or unexpected incident. Frankly, those who persist in being surprised are those who do not wish to face the disease that these events symptomize. If you must have something to blame; a pointer toward doing something to truly address the situation, then let us see it for what it is; a reaction toward the casual, routine abuse of power.

Whether it is bullying in school, a toxic work environment or a government that cannot seem to formulate any policy that doesn't involve the use of force, we live in a culture that values having power and the presumption that those who have power deserve to be able to wield it against those they see as weak or "outside the group" with impunity.

But perhaps we need to remember an Old West aphorism - "Sam Colt made all men equal." And there's another very pragmatic observation made by Robert Heinlein: "Never frighten a little man - he'll kill you."

Ultimately - and in no small part due to the typical ending - I tend to view this as "death by natural causes," in a sense. That is to say, a dangerous situation was allowed to persist and fester, a situation that (like living in a trailer in the midwest without access to a storm cellar, or going into Grizzly terratory with neither gun nor bear-bells) can be statistically predicted to have a high potential of ending badly. Getting hung up on the moral or ethical culpability of such persons does nothing to prevent more such outbursts of deadly rage.

In this case, if one lesson is to be derived from it, I would say that it should be summarized as "don't poke the aspie." On rare but very dramatic occasions, you might find yourself pulling back a bloody stump.

Illustration : Don't Poke The Aspie! by webcarve

tag: Don't poke the aspie, aspergers, aspie, ethics, abuse of power, bullying, cultural warfare, bigotry, prejudice, xenophobia, abuse, VA Tech, Blacksburg, Cho Seung-hui