Aspies For Freedom

I'm not sure who designed it, but it is nice:

And here is another one:

It is a pack of 10 "Autistics for Obama" stickers:
http://www.cafepress.com/autistart.293799441

lol, sorry I know I am missing the point, but the 10 pack thing is making me laugh in hysterics.
yeah, is there something he is doing for auties?

Hillary got unpopular when she supported Autism Speaks and "autism prevention". I bet McCain got unpopular when he supported the vaccine-autism link.

Obama supports the Community Choice Act, which would allow more choice for disabled people to live outside of institutions, whereas McCain does not support it, saying that it would cost too much. While not affecting all autistics, or being directed towards autistics specifically, it would affect a lot of autistic people, and it also shows McCains attitude toward funding programs for people noted as having disabilities - reluctant at best.

I just thought of if they had a sticker saying "underclass autistic lesbian epileptics for Obama" How many people would THAT apply to??!

"...
*  Reduce Risks of Mercury Pollution. More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood, and approximately 630,000 newborns are born at risk every year. Barack Obama has a plan to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.

*  Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.

[source:  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ ]

These were the last two items in a section on Fight for new initiatives.  It's good to note that he doesn't lump the mercury/vaccine and autism issues together, in fact doesn't address the 'vaccines cause autism' brigade at all.  Although no doubt some of them will take comfort from his general stance on mercury.

And nothing in his paper 'Barack Obama: supporting Americans with autism spectrum disorders' jumps out at me as particularly controversial - although I don't know about the detail of the Combating Autism Act that he voted for.  And there's a lot of vague wording about supporting increased funding for research (along with educational support and so on), which might prove a little more controversial if examined in any detail.  But overall I'm glad he *doesn't* seem to come out with any 'we must cure autism and eliminate all autistics off the face of the planet' nonsense.

[Source: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/AutismSpe...orders.pdf ]

He could so easily have jumped on the vaccines bandwagon, especially considering the pressure he must be coming under from lobbyists.

Actually, did a quick Google and came across this article on Huffington Post headed 'Obama climbs on the vaccine research bandwagon' (read it carefully, he actually does nothing of the kind), :

"...And now, yesterday, at a rally in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama had this rather surprising thing to say:

"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
(Note: The Washington Post reports that when Obama said "this person," he pointed to someone who had asked an autism question).

So there you have it, our next President will share the views of such radical fringe crazies as, well, me, Democrat Robert Kennedy, Jr., Republican Joe Scarborough, former NIH and Red Cross chief Bernadine Healy, and several researchers at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the Universities of California and Washington and elsewhere.

All of us agree: Current evidence suggests the need for more reseach into whether vaccines could be a contributing factor in some cases of autism...."

[source: http://www.huffington   post.com/david-kirby/       obama-climbs-on-the-vacci_b_97969.html ]

The writer seems to be putting words in Obama's mouth, seems to be supporting the vaccine damage theory.  Obama, to me, seems to be playing the consummate politician and saying this person in the audience seems to believe it, I don't know the science, but there should be more research into the cause(s) of autism.  Obama doesn't necessarily share the views of the other "radical crazies" at all.  Keeping an open mind and saying more research should be funded is not the same thing as believing vaccines cause autism.  Gosh, I wish Ben Goldacre would do a number on this idiot...

I remember I saw an article by David Kirby, it had this paragraph on top enclosed with squared parentheses where he apologized for inaccuracies. ;-p

I bet that goes for a few other articles of his aswell.

How can $250,000 a year be considered not well off, or on "easy street" as Obama put it? I mean, unless you had a ton of kids, or took out a huge loan or something without reasoning it through or hiring someone to help you figure out what's reasonable. Just because you worry about money issues, doesn't mean you're struggling. Incredibly rich people have lots of money issues to worry about, though they don't risk losing a house or anything.

At least his answer made much more sense than McCain's. I mean, really, someone needs to help me out, what income *generally* qualifies as middle-class? (Obviously things like standard of living can vary based on other factors like where you live, but income should give a general idea.) Is $250,000/year REALLY considered middle class?? Upper middle class then, right?

Yeah, definitely on the high side of middle class, if it would qualify as middle class. I have a hard time conceptualizing the correlations between numbers and wealth anyway, never mind the complicating factors of housing, taxes - and then of course inflation will make it change as time goes on!

He started off as a Congressman.  And then went on to be a Senator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

How does he have the gall to complain about the high pay and long holidays of politicians when he himself is one?

Pot. Kettle.  Black.

You'd be surprised.

Years ago I randomly got chatting to a woman who worked for a company that did repossessions in the UK [= foreclosures in US].

She explained to me that she did a lot more work in the area where I lived at the time then in poorer areas.  

At the time I owned a house with an ex-bf, which is probably now worth in the region of half a million US dollars/quarter of a million UK pounds (and ours was a very modest terraced home for that area, not a huge detached mansion in gated grounds).  We lived in a place called Hale in Cheshire, which is known to be very affluent, a few of the Manchester United football players lived nearby, most of the people drove Porsches, BMWs, Mercedes, with a fair few Ferrari and Lambourghini drivers (a neighbouring district has the only Ferrari dealership outside SE East England).

Initially, to me, her statement about her workload seemed completely upside down.  I would have thought that people living in the inner city estates would have worse debt problems and her company would do more repossessions there*.  She explained that although these people are living in a very affluent area, it's all down to appearances.  These people are mortgaged up to their eyeballs and maxed out on their credit cards.  If the interest rate goes up slightly on their mortgage, they're stuffed.  If they are in a sales related job and with the economic slowdown their commission levels fall and they don't receive the same high levels of bonuses, they're stuffed.

Just because someone is on a 250,000 per annum income that doesn't mean they have a high disposable income and are swimming in cash.  They have higher mortgage payments, they will probably send their children to private school, they will probably have a huge bank loan for their flash car, and max out their credit cards paying for the latest massive plasma screen tv or bang & olufson stereo system or foreign holidays.  

Also, many of the families there were one income families, the husband worked and the wife, the 'Hale housewife', just went out to lunch with friends, spent a lot of money on hairstyles and manicures and tanning and was very high maintenance, and then in the rest of her time shopped, and she bought lots of expensive designer labels.

*In the poorer areas, many families live in local authority or housing association property which they rent at reasonable levels.  Many other people rent from private sector landlords.  Because so many families in the poorer areas are renting they are not at risk of losing their home if they get into debt.  Well, of course, they're at risk of eviction if they miss their rent payments, but local authorities and housing associations are usually more understanding about arrears and will reach an agreement with the tenant to pay off the arrears slowly in smaller amounts.

I forgot to show you this one:

Oh, I actually quite like that (I liked the design of the other one as well).  I like the way it's so colourful.  That appeals to me.  (Apart from the fact it's jigsaw puzzles).