Aspies For Freedom

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...n-ent.html

I've kind of stopped posting for a while because I've got a dissertation to write. Will return soon. When I came across this newsbit by accident, though, I felt I had to check if someone posted it here. They hadn't so I did.

Anyway back to work I go

Ooh, he may be asking for it!

Arctoris Wrote:

Lac90 Wrote:

I don't think it's worth leaving the US for. I still would rather be in the US or Canada if I had a choice. 4-8 years of Hillary, Obama or McCain can't completely destroy the country. Maybe it'll be like when Carter was in there. Heck he made it hard for me to like the US. The US need's a candidate with a spine, someone that can know what to do and do it properly. And obviously it's been that way in the past so maybe it can be that way today once we get past these people.
--
And to be quite honest I didn't dislike Huckabee. He's not as bad as people make him out to be. I mean being religious and committed to your beliefs isn't a reason to hate someone. Although I don't really know much else about him or his stance on aspies. Pardon me, conservative coming through.

Huckabee is just as bad as people make him out to be and worse. He is a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, theocratic, anti-intellectual, delusional, raving lunatic.

Here is just one of many scary quotes by him:

Quote:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_A..._0115.html

He wants to amend the Constitution to make it more Biblical. I cannot imagine a scarier sentiment coming from a politician. He would be worse than Bush.

I'm free to do a bit of political assasination! Tongue

GuessWho Wrote:

Or, if 20 or 30 years from now, if fresh water, oil, and/or food are scarce, maybe we need a military to annihilate everyone else on Earth to keep them from taking our dwindling crop yields, oil drilling, and aquafers from us?[/b]

Some of the resources on dieoff.com suggest with groundsoil and aquafer depletion we could only feed 200 of our 300 million people.

I am not looking forward to life without McDonalds (although my doctor would consider it a gift from God).
In fact I am leaving the office now for McD.

All right, outside North America and Europe countries include:

New Zealand - like the nuclear weapons ban
Japan - no war constitution
like the way mainland China tolerantly handled the Hong Kong integration
possibly Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, mainland China

GuessWho Wrote:

Or, if 20 or 30 years from now, if fresh water, oil, and/or food are scarce, maybe we need a military to annihilate everyone else on Earth to keep them from taking our dwindling crop yields, oil drilling, and aquafers from us?[/b]

Some of the resources on dieoff.com suggest with groundsoil and aquafer depletion we could only feed 200 of our 300 million people.

Dieoff.com are a bunch of pessimistic apocalypsists. Peak Oil can be soved with electric/hybrid vehicles, more high-speed rail, and biofuel. aquifer depletion can be overcome with desalination.

Chimera Wrote:

we can feed way more vegans than carnivoirs (8lbs grain = 1 lb beef), and the depletion of our resources would be slowed (not to mention the level of cruelty would be reduced.

It is much better enviromentally and economically to use the more arid plains regions like the high plains of the American West for rasing livestock then for agriculture. Free-grazing cattle just mimic the impact of bison in pre-settlement times.

TaylorS Wrote:

GuessWho Wrote:

Or, if 20 or 30 years from now, if fresh water, oil, and/or food are scarce, maybe we need a military to annihilate everyone else on Earth to keep them from taking our dwindling crop yields, oil drilling, and aquafers from us?[/b]

Some of the resources on dieoff.com suggest with groundsoil and aquafer depletion we could only feed 200 of our 300 million people.

Dieoff.com are a bunch of pessimistic apocalypsists. Peak Oil can be soved with electric/hybrid vehicles, more high-speed rail, and biofuel. aquifer depletion can be overcome with desalination.

Solar or nuclear desalinization could work.

It is also possible to create petroleum from coal, where petroleum is necessary and unavoidable for petrochemicals: couldn't nuclear power provide the input energy?

Nuclear, solar, or wind could also split water into hydrogen, or create electricity.

The important thing is get started.

Timelord Wrote:

From what I understand she doesn't support the bad side of Autism Speaks - only the good side (the research). I have a feeling that if she gets into the Whitehouse she'll make sure the donations that go to Autism Speaks are used for the RIGHT sort of research.

The research is the bad side of Autism Speaks - or at least, the worst of many bad sides.

The "right sort of research" would be research into training programs, support services, etc - none of which Autism Speaks actually does. When Autism Speaks talks about research, they are generally talking about genetic research - i.e. pre-natal testing or "cure" research.

The bottom line is that Autism Speaks was set up to fund research into an autism cure, as, in their own words, "other autism related charities are solely focused on support services".

There is nothing salvageable about them, and no way to encourage their nonexistent "good qualities". The only ethical thing a politician could do with Autism Speaks is denounce them, or ignore them.

Anything less is not acceptable.

Timelord Wrote:

Zakkie, if the genetic research finds the root of the Autistic Spectrum it will destroy the curebie movement. I don't see how that can be a bad thing to be honest.

I know the mercury people are pretty loud and obnoxious, but the majority of curebies still believe that autism is genetic - so the curebie movement will still go on.

Autistic people, however, will be severely decimated by pre-natal testing.

I can understand that it is offensive to be told your personality is due to mercury poisoning - but it's far better for autistic people to be offended than wiped out.

Timelord Wrote:

Although I take your point about how that research would be used - but having said that which political party in the US will approve of DNA fiddling?

I'm not so worried about that side of things - I think the cure is a pipe dream. It's pre-natal testing that concerns me - and none of the parties have a problem with that.

Of the three, as far as autistic rights go, Obama has the best policies, as he talks about funding support services. Granted, he still believes in a cure, but at least by emphasising support services, funding to genetic research will be cut.

Breeze Wrote:

EZ,
Not sure if you know but Autism Speaks is who got Walgreens into hiring those with autism. They are even helping open new stores -which will increase jobs. You can slide that into support services Smile

I have a friend who works for Autism Speaks so I get my info from her. They also have autistic adults on their staff from what she has told me and seen.

True - criticism has led them to do a few token things, but the large majority of their funding goes into research. After all, how much effort does it take to make a few phone calls to the store?

If they decided to abandon the majority of their work to concentrate on support services, then no problem - but their purpose, their reason to be, is to fund research into the cause of autism.

Timelord Wrote:

EvilZakkie Wrote:

Timelord Wrote:

Zakkie, if the genetic research finds the root of the Autistic Spectrum it will destroy the curebie movement. I don't see how that can be a bad thing to be honest.

I know the mercury people are pretty loud and obnoxious, but the majority of curebies still believe that autism is genetic - so the curebie movement will still go on.

Huh? That doesn't make sense. If they believe Autism is genetic the cure argument is dead automatically.

You'd think so, but no. Keep in mind that Autism Speaks are the biggest curebie organisation around, and they still believe it's genetic.

The mercurites and their ilk are annoying, and occasionally damaging - but they're not the biggest threat by any means.

Timelord Wrote:

EvilZakkie Wrote:

Autistic people, however, will be severely decimated by pre-natal testing.

That point I never argued with - it's why whilst I support the research the focus has to be AWAY from that aim, and towards the destruction of the curebie movement because they are the biggest threat to the true understanding of the Spectrum.

Unfortunately, it's the same research - once they've got the genetic causes of autism, they don't have to do much more to get to a pre-natal test.

Timelord Wrote:

EvilZakkie Wrote:

You'd think so, but no. Keep in mind that Autism Speaks are the biggest curebie organisation around, and they still believe it's genetic.

The mercurites and their ilk are annoying, and occasionally damaging - but they're not the biggest threat by any means.

Autism Speaks is a bad example, because any curebie thinking doesn't eminate from them (at the core I mean). It comes from CAN! Who to my knowledge have never supported the genetic root. To be honest, I disagree - the mercury militia are the biggest threat because they are the ones promoting ASD's as a disease. Think of it as us being put over as lepers and you'll get the idea.

Mission statement from their website:

We are dedicated to funding global biomedical research into the causes, prevention, treatments, and cure for autism; to raising public awareness about autism and its effects on individuals, families, and society; and to bringing hope to all who deal with the hardships of this disorder. We are committed to raising the funds necessary to support these goals.

This was their mission statement long before CAN ever entered the scene, and is the reason the two organisations merged so easily.

We're all pretty aware what the "raising public awareness" bit refers to (if not, see the "Autism Everyday" video). Everything else is pure curebie.

Timelord Wrote:

What if (and this is likely in my opinion) the genetic code can't be detected before birth? If the theory I presently hold to is right - it's down to a sensory overload early in life with the genetic code present - even knowing the code isn't a guarentee of an ASD. About the only thing you could guarentee is carraige of the gene, but you get an NT kid. I'm certain this isn't as simple as Downs Syndrome (and the pre natal testing there should be banned anyway).

Entirely possible, but not worth the risk unless you know for sure. It's also possible that the genetics will be too complex for a pre-natal test.

But the consequences for being wrong about this are simply too great. Besides which, if Downs Syndrome is anything to go by, medical authorities are quite happy to use the "maybe=definitely" method of pre-natal testing.

Eoin

Eoin

Dark Shamshir X

flardox

Shrek

Shrek

Shrek

TaylorS

TaylorS

Shrek

EvilZakkie

EvilZakkie

EvilZakkie

EvilZakkie

EvilZakkie