Knowledge and Valor

More College Sports Inanity

2007-05-27T01:21:00.000-07:00

While I'm on the topic of stupidity in the ranks of college sports, the story about the live tiger mascot at LSU made my stomach turn. This animal was put in a cage and rolled into noisy stadiums and noisy basketball arenas for the sick pleasure of the fans. The president of the university thinks that's just dandy. In fact, he tries to present it as an act of wildlife protection! See, if the animal is locked in LSU's little cage, the poachers can't get at it! Ain't that swell?

The university thinks it's being humane by providing the animal with an enclosure of 15,000 square feet. These are large cats that live in jungles and roam huge tracts of land. As PETA says, their habitats should be measured in acres, not feet. Nonetheless, these dumb-assed Southern bumpkins are hell-bent on getting another cat to torture. And they wonder why everyone thinks Southerners are boorish, cruel, uneducated jackasses!

Scoring a 10 on the WTF Meter

2007-05-27T01:02:00.000-07:00

My love of sports is something I grew up with. From football to basketball, baseball, softball, tennis--pretty much anything but golf or car racing (not sports)--I basically love 'em all. I'm especially a big fan of college sports. Nonetheless, I haven't been paying much attention to any sport for the better part of six months. I've simply been preoccupied. So, when I decided to peruse ESPN.com the other day, Iwas shocked to find an article concerning the NCAA rules on scholarship loss by female athletes.
The article talks about how the NCAA is considering revising its policy on pregnant athletes. At present, schools are allowed to yank the scholarships of female athletes if they become pregnant. I honestly could not believe it. If I ever needed evidence that (A) Title IX is not properly enforced, and (B) Title IX does not go far enough in its protection of females' rights to equal education, I've found it.
A large segment of the population is ignorant about what Title IX is all about. While it's commonly written off as a school sports law, it is actually focused on education, in general. It requires that females be given equal access to education. Once upon a time, girls who became pregnant or got married were forced out of school. My mother, for example, went to school in the heavily Mormon White Mountains of Arizona. At her school, pregnant and married girls were thought to be corrupting influences who had to be kept away from "good" girls. They were not allowed to complete their educations. Title IX put a stop to that. So, I wonder, how are schools allowed to threaten students with loss of scholarships for getting pregnant?
The old double standard rears its hideous head on this one. The number of male athletes who have at least one out-of-wedlock child is staggering. None are threatened with losing their scholarships. Anyone who has seen the movie Hoop Dreams has seen how some coaches even encourage their young male charges to basically dump their child completely on the mother. They need to be "boys," out playing sports--not worrying about being home to watch a kid. Of course, the fact that the young girl's life is made that much harder by such behavior isn't the coaches worry.
So, why is the male athlete/young father encouraged to continue school and his athletic pursuits, while the female athlete/young mother is threatened with the loss of scholarships? Because she's a "bad" girl? Because she needs to be punished for her "mistake," her "irresponsibility"?
I can already hear the claims that it's about time taken off to give birth. Why, then, are male athletes not threatened with loss of scholarship if they are injured or get sick? One of the players on the University of Arizona men's basketball team missed the entire season this past year with a case of mono. He was not threatened with the loss of his scholarship. Players who have debilitating injuries, even career-ending injuries are usually allowed to keep their scholarships, even if they never step on the playing field or court again. What is the difference?
The fact is that the loss of a scholarship at such a time in a young woman's life is likely to end her future and that of her child. At the exact time when money and time are going to dwindle, her ability to pay for college can be taken away? How can anyone who does such a thing live with themselves?

More on Reality TV, Race and Class

2007-05-16T08:22:00.000-07:00

Of course, one go-'round on an issue is never enough for me, so I'm revisiting the topic of the great Survivor "controversy" and what it says about race and class issues in this country. Specifically, this issue lays bare the hypocrisy of white, middle-class America. The fact is that most white Americans step on people for their own personal gain every single day. In fact, the tenets of capitalism allow for exploitation of others, and white Americans celebrate the glory of that particular economic system constantly. When the white CEO gets a huge bonus for "downsizing," he's just doing business, looking out for investors--and that's a good thing, if you ask white America. When someone screws someone else's spouse or significant other, they may not get a pat on the back, but they certainly don't get throngs of people fueled by a mob mentality attacking them in cyberspace. When someone talks behind a friends back, s/he tries to justify it by explaining away the behavior, making herself or himself the actual victim. When someone scrabbles up the corporate ladder on the backs of others, they are "just getting ahead"--and corporate culture encourages said behavior. All of these things are done by "good," "honest" white Americans every last day in real life. Nonetheless, when a black man makes a self-interested decision on a game show that is rooted in manipulation and betrayal, he is pilloried. The racist condemnation of all African-Americans runs rampant. The usual hatred of the poor shows its face. The hypocrisy oozes from the pores of all those fools posting vile nonsense on Internet message boards. The last time I was this motivated to get the hell out of this country was after the last presidential elections. Americans deserve the contempt they get from the rest of the world. They just proved it again.

Reality TV Reveals an Ugly Reality: Dreamz, Class and Race in America

2007-05-15T23:22:00.000-07:00

Anyone with even the slightest interest in reality TV is aware of the brouhaha over the latest season of Survivor. A great ugliness has been revealed in the 14th season of the show, and it isn't the decision made by one young African-American man to renege on a promise he made. Instead, it's the nasty face of racism and classism that is running rampant across the Internet.

The event in question, of course, was the decision by Dreamz not to honor a deal he made with fan-favorite Yau Man. The deal in question happened during the regular "car give-away" reward challenge. Just before the challenge, Dreamz asked the others if there was any chance to give him a car, please do it. This is not unprecedented, as a previous car winner was offered the chance to give away her car. She chose not to at that time and was promptly voted off. Dreamz talked in his confessional about how he was the only one of the remaining players who didn't own a car. Dreamz has talked about his past of homelessness and drug-addicted family members. He was certainly not the kind of person who usually gets cast on American reality shows. The others--especially the very smart, strategic Yau Man--knew that this past was his Achilles heel. So, when Yau Man won the new truck, he decided to make a deal with Dreamz. He started by saying, "Dreamz, how much do you need that truck?" Clearly, he was playing off the need of a man who had grown up in severe poverty. When Dreamz reiterated that he was the only one there without a vehicle, Yau Man offered a deal: if the two of them made it to the final 4 and Dreamz won immunity, he would give it to Yau Man. It was made clear that Yau Man had no way to enforce said deal, and he agreed to that. Dreamz took the deal. Yau Man immediately admitted that, although it was nice to be able to give such a gift, it was a strategic decision. Dreamz quickly realized what this meant for him: Yau Man wanted to take immunity and vote Dreamz out at final 4. And Dreamz was right, Yau Man did want to get rid of him--before the final 4, in fact, as he had explicitly stated to others.

Well, the two of them did end up in the final 4. What's more--surprise, surprise--the challenge was tailor-made for Dreamz to excel. He did. He won. The kid fought himself over the decision. He said he wanted his son to know he was a man of his word, but he also knew that the money would make a huge difference in the lives of his family. He had to decide which one would mean more to his kid. When the time came, he decided the chance at the cash would mean more to his son. He kept his immunity and Yau Man was voted off.

So, now comes the backlash, and it has been hideous. In the blog of former Survivor contestant, BobDawg, he writes of some of the hideous posts on the CBS message boards. Here's some of what he had to say:

"**'Young Black America has no future if Dreamz-like people are their role model!... The only thing he taught me: there isn’t much honor, honesty, faith or self respect left in Black community as long as a "difficult life" is an acceptable excuse for becoming scum!'

"BobDawg sez: I had no idea the entire black community was counting on Dreamz to save us. Now I know what that ‘lost’ feeling I’ve been having is, because now I’m found. Too bad Dreamz dropped the ball. It’s all over for us now. Thanks a lot, ‘brother’…"

Even worse, he writes about this poster:

"And my favorite…

** 'I have nothing at all against the asians. I think they are extremely intelligent people and generally are friendly and good citizens. Let me also say, I am the first to notice a wonderful black person. May I remind you all I said I liked Earl (although he should've voted Cassandra in the end but I'm not at all suprised they all stick together LOL), and some of the others on this season, whose names aren't coming to me at the time. I also have a couple black friends that I hold in the highest regard. Do I still believe they are the exception?? Absolutely! But they are also people that don't speak ebonics, don't celebrate a made up holiday such as Kwanza, don't wear their pants down below their butt and sideways hat and repeatedly talk extremely loud in public with foul language, don't give extremely rude attitude along with dirty looks to people they don't even know, etc etc etc. The list could go on and on. I'm sure you get my point. And I'm also sure if you were honest with yourself you would maybe admit a lot of those thing, if not all, bother you too and are completely unnecessary for the human race. Back to Dreamz though.. that was not the usual lie on Survivor as many would agree with. This was a $60,000 gift given in exchange for a man's word and a handshake and swearing to God on national television.'

"BobDawg Sez: Wow. I have to admit, this one actually made me laugh. 'That’s not the usual lie people would agree with'???? Pray tell, which lies are the ones we agree with? Where’s the morality compass pointing on that one? And in a game full of lies that are apparently ok, Dre’s was so far and away worse that it deserves 300 thread pages and all this vicious name calling? And I had no idea people actually still say out loud stuff like 'the Asians are smart' and 'the blacks are lazy' and 'I’m not racist. I have black friends.' That’s so… 90s. It sounds like something from one of those ‘lesson’ episodes on Diff’rent Strokes... "

On the message boards at Televison Without Pity, one poster uses very poor spelling to write about Dre's "crokidile tears" and how he surely sheds them when he "beats women and robs convenience stores." This for a guy who did what all successful contestants on Survivor have done--tell a lie and renege on a deal?

Of course, we have the former TV actor and short-film producer (not to mention former contestant) Jonathan writing on the Survivor blogs about Dre's lack of integrity and how it makes him sick for society. Mind you, Jonathan was demonized in his own season for a lack of integrity and made the sarcastic quip about how these people seemed to think no one had ever lied on Survivor before. I guess he's just glad to get to piss on someone else. (Besides, a guy who actually did a TV episode of a Fran Drescher series should really still be hiding his face in absolute shame.)

However, Jonathan does at least have the ability to recognize something that most people are overlooking in this entire matter: living on the street forces one to adopt a different ethic. Middle-class, educated white people have never had to live that way and have no idea how they would react. The fact is that Jonathan's lecture about "longterm consequences" means fuck all to someone on the street. You take what you can get now because there may not be a "longterm." What's more, you don't allow yourself to look like a mark to potential exploiters or you will become one. Finally, you don't develop a deep bond with or trust in people outside your circle because they may or may not stick around. Once you've lived that way long enough, it is difficult to shake.

The part that really takes the cake, though, is that Yau Man is being hailed as some kind of saint. Look, I liked the guy a lot. I was rooting for Earl, but I dug the hell out of Yau Man for reasons very similar to the ones that made me like Rupert Boneham back in his first season. They both came in as underdogs. Rupert was selected the most likely to be voted off first by the viewers leading up to his season, and promptly came out and blew the doors off. Yau Man was an older, frail-looking guy who turned out to be not only smart, but also quite the immunity threat. That made him beloved.

However, the idea that he did something for Dre out of the goodness of his heart and Dre is scum for betraying him is bullshit. Yau Man said as much when he said that it was strategy. Furthermore, he had previously told others that he wanted Dre out sooner rather than later despite the fact that they were supposedly allies. And, y'know what? That was smart of Yau Man. He was playing a game that rewards that kind of behavior. Dre, too, was smart for turning it on its head and breaking his word. Would that be admirable in real life? No. However, they all enter this game with the agreement that they will be lied to, manipulated and betrayed. This show has been going on for a while. Nobody should be surprised by how it is played at this point. What's more, Yau Man specifically tried to exploit Dre's poverty to his own advantage--and that, I guess, is an admirable act in the eyes of America.

Dre is a young man. He was playing a game that is based on lying, deceiving, betraying. Anyone who doesn't see that is lying to themselves. What's more, anyone who decries that fact and still watches the show is a hypocrite. After all, if they don't like the way the game rewards betrayal, manipulation and exploitation, then they shouldn't be watching. The abuse he is taking is what really concerns me. How do people--apparently morally unblemished and upright, if they are to be believed--pile on in a mob frenzy and live with themselves? After all, they are not playing a game. They are, in fact, doing this in the real world. They are truly showing the dankness in their own souls by attacking Dreamz in the vile, racist, self-righteous way that they are.

More insanity on the Internet

2007-04-17T03:57:00.000-07:00

Continuing on the topic of the complete and utter lack of humanity that has cast a wide net over online society, I've come across several discussions of the targeting of female bloggers with online threats and harassment. While the vast majority of this truly pathological behavior is the work of straight males, women are not immune from attacking other women or targeting them for ridicule. That's obvious when one explores sites dedicated to "snark" and celebrity gossip. However, the world of politics does not provide a woman refuge from attacks by other women. Hell, if women can be vilely targeted for writing about computer software, there is no safety anywhere...

I'm not going to re-hash the Kathy Sierra thing, but I have to echo and expand upon some of the sentiments expressed by Joan Walsh at salon.com. The thing that struck me the most as I perused the comments at the Sierra blog, as well as entries about it at feministing.com and various other places, was the insistence by a considerable number of commenters that online attacks and misogyny--up to and including sexual threats against women on the web--has to be expected, accepted and tolerated. It's just one more bomb in the war of assholes. They don't need to control their stupidity or the hate rotting their souls. They have the absolute goddamned right to threaten women, and those women better just shut up and take it. If they don't, if they dare speak out against it, then they're "drama queens," as one commenter on Sierra's blog called her.

The whole thing reminds me of something that happened to me when I first started going online in the mid-90s. At the time, I was using AOL simply because it was the easiest way to get online without a credit card at that time. Not long after I started going online, this creep started contacting me via IM. Every message from him was sexual in nature. What's more, he lived in my own city. (Does it surprise anyone that he was also employed in the "corrections" industry--specifically, as a probation officer?)

At first, I would simply try to steer the conversation to something more appropriate. I made it clear that I was very happily married and in no way interested in cybersex. He wouldn't take the polite request to knock it off. So, finally, I flat out told him to stop contacting me. I told him I found his constant sexual badgering to be obnoxious, and I blocked him from contacting me further.

That should have been that. After all, I had not initiated any of the contact with this man. I had made it clear that I wasn't interested in his sexual needs. I had tried to be nice about it. Unfortunately, he wasn't going to let it go. In retaliation, he contacted AOL and reported me for posting "offensive content." I still have no idea what "offensive content" I might have posted, but the idea that this creep would try to have me booted from my ISP because I refused to take part in his demands for sexual response infuriates me to this day.

The fact that this guy lived in the same city as I do still gives me the creeps. Fortunately, his attempts to "punish" me for refusing to make myself available to his demands were not physically threatening. However, the very fact that he made any such attempt at all is indicative of a twisted mind.

Another interesting link...

2007-04-15T01:56:00.000-07:00

The state of American journalism is something that I've grown so accustomed to that having someone comment on its toothlessness doesn't really make much of an impression on me anymore. What does make an impression, though, is hypocrisy. As such, I just had to laugh at Dan Rather's rant about how American journalists allow politicians to use them, and how they're too bound by the idea of patriotism to question politicians during wartime. After all, this was the guy who made the ballsy statement: "George Bush is the president," Rather said, "he makes the decisions." Speaking as "one American," the newsman added: "Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he'll make the call.". Um, yeah, Dan. You keep on givin' 'em hell!

An interesting link...

2007-04-15T00:57:00.000-07:00

More on the Age of Assholism:
Here's an interesting article that made some of the same points (about some of the same targets) that I did in my last couple of posts. It quotes a professor at Johns Hopkins University about the cause of what I call Assholism. His term for it is the "disinhibition effect," which allows people to act, well, inhuman to each other online. He also speaks about cultural narcissism, which refers to the tendency to think that one's own feelings and opinions are valid or important. Sounds just like an average forum post on a well-known television site...hmmm....

The funniest thing, though, is that they actually quote Kathy Griffin on this matter. Wait a minute, isn't this the woman who revels in talking shit about other people? Sorry, but I don't find her amusing. I do, however, find her extremely hypocritical in her comments in this piece.

Regardless, it's not a bad piece. I do find it's insistence that confronting a politician about his policies or actions is somehow tantamount to heckling a comedian bizarre. The only way an average person can confront a politician is in such a manner. More importantly, these are the people who have the power to make life-and-death decisions. They have to expect that they will be confronted by people who find their decisions dangerous and out-of-touch. It's quite another thing to revel in humiliating an actress because she gained 10 pounds.

The Age of Assholism, Part II: Old Media

2007-04-13T10:20:00.000-07:00

To further elaborate on yesterday's topic, I thought I would explore the marriage of cruelty and pseudo-wit in traditional media (i.e. television and radio). While the practice is probably more widespread in the "new" media of the Internet, it is seeping into the traditional media like raw sewage. This is especially true in the arenas of reality television and of cable networks.

Perhaps the worst offender in this area is Bravo. Long gone are the glory days of that network when it was commercial-free and showed independent films and purchased syndication rights for innovative television series like Twin Peaks. No, there are no more noir festivals on Bravo. Since its purchase by the media arm of GE that put it in the same universe as NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc., it has turned to a network of cookie-cutter reality series that thrive on petty bickering and nasty gossip mongers. (Perhaps this explains the recent purchase of Television Without Pity by Bravo. After all, TWoP is the flag ship for shallow, hateful ranting by obsessives who go to ridiculous lengths to prove how "snarky" they are. In other words, the poster child for the Age of Assholism.)

Bravo's downturn started with Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. While the show had its entertaining moments, it was basically a shallow bitchfest about the glories of fashion and home decor. Then came Project Runway. Again, not a horrible show as far as reality TV goes. It was original and had some entertaining moments. However, it also wallowed in the shallow end of the pool with its obsession with fashion. With the horrors inflicted upon women in the name of fashion, it's hardly a topic that I feel needs to be further glorified. The worst part, though, was the fact that more important than real creativity was the drama--the petty gossiping, the in-fighting and backstabbing.

This trend continued as Bravo has trotted out one PR clone after another: Top Chef, Top Design, and (the newest) Shear Genius. All focus on the interests of people with more money than time or heart. Interior decorating, hair styling, gourmet cooking. Infinitely more important than, say, U.S. foreign policy or the position of women in modern society, don't we all agree? Rather than encourage women to tell the fashion industry to go fuck itself, Bravo and its slew of shallow "lifestyle" shows instruct women that nothing is more important than how they look, what's on their walls or how their hair is styled. Why worry about the gender earning gap when you could be looking forward to New York Fashion Week? These values fit perfectly with the Age of Assholism, as do the form the shows take.

Other cable networks have followed the same business model as Bravo. Most notably, the network that formerly touted itself as The Learning Channel long ago decided that teaching people about science and other cultures was so passe. Instead, it was time to focus on interior decorating and fashion. We were given a hundred episodes of Trading Spaces each year (and that's only a slight exaggeration). It's not that Trading Spaces itself was (or is, in its last season) so horrible. It was that it represented a depressing and dramatic shift away from the educational network that The Learning Channel had been to the proponent of conspicuous consumption that TLC is. It also led to the explosion of DIY home "improvement" shows and networks. This trend has resulted in countless series that show people remodeling "out-dated" homes. They dramatically destroy usable cabinets, furniture and other home decor so that they can replace them with newer, more expensive items--usually to the point of environmental insanity. Wood floors are torn up and replaced with new wood floors because the new residents don't like the color or the type of wood used. The wasted resources, the lost trees are glossed over. Cabinets are smashed, twisted and torn off walls because they aren't fashionable enough for the new residents. Again, the environmental impact is rarely (if ever) mentioned. Perfectly usable appliances are carted off to landfills because they aren't made of stainless steel. Counter tops and tiles meet the same fate so that granite and other stones can take their places.

The horror doesn't stop with the glorification of environmental irresponsibility, however. There are also the shows that prey on (and create) female insecurities. Most notably, the hackneyed import of the BBC's What Not to Wear, introduced to the U.S. by TLC. The original BBC version had its faults. Most notably, the two hostesses stressed the importance of fashion in women's lives as if this was a foregone conclusion. Women inherently care about clothes, revel in make-up application, and have orgasms at the thought of buying new shoes, right? However, they also stressed helping women overcome their insecurities. They didn't rail on the guests for carrying a few extra pounds or being on the other side of 40. Instead, they helped them find their best physical traits and show them off. While the hosts used coarse language ("tits" had to be mentioned at least once per episode, it seems), they did not revel in the discomfort or humiliation of these women. The hostesses even went to the women's homes and jobs to see how these women lived their lives on a daily basis.

Of course, the U.S. version couldn't stick to the caring, if crass, tone of the original. Instead, we got the glorification of cattiness. That is, we got the "snarky" version. Now, the hosts were a straight woman and a gay man, both of whom had been plucked from the ranks of "professional stylists." (What the fuck is a professional stylist? Who actually pays for that shit?) Unlike the British hosts, who would point to their own physical flaws to show women that even "imperfect" bodies can be beautiful, the American hosts portray themselves as the arbiters of all that is fashionable and acceptable. They relish the humiliation they inflict on these women. They toss out "witty" one-liners at the women's expense left and right. The only praise we ever hear is after they have suitably broken a woman down and forced her to submit to their ideals of female beauty. Their message is always one of conformity. "Style" is not about what a woman likes or what she thinks is valuable, it's about what other people think. It's about looking the part. It's about beating out anything original or thoughtful in a woman, and making her into a carbon copy of the woman beside her.

Sadly, it looks as though the British version is going the way of the U.S. version. The original hosts have left, and the new hosts leave something to be desired if their first episode is any indication. In this episode, they styled two women who had recently had mastectomies. One of them was lectured to forget about that "feminist stuff." She was instructed that she already had a good job, so she didn't need to worry about standing up for women's position world anymore. Because we all know that fashion is more important than principle. Besides, isn't feminism all about what we can get for ourselves, fuck everyone else? It is if you ask these two rejects. If anything, they are prime examples that the Age of Assholism isn't merely an American phenomenon.

That's unfortunate...

The Age of Assholism

2007-04-12T11:15:00.000-07:00

And, now, for something completely different...

After a couple of posts of venting about the insane factions within the community of those affected by autism, I'm going to move onto something else that's been occupying my thoughts: the emergence of the age of "snark," or, more appropriately, the age of assholism.

What is the epitome of "cool"? In the world spawned by Internet message boards and obsession with pop culture, hatefulness is the very embodiment of all things hip and stylish. Mocking appearance, dress, socioeconomic status...all of these are the badges of cool worn by the soulless denizens that flock to websites and blogs devoted to television and celebrities. Shallowness is the hallmark of this crowd, largely made up of a segment of upper-middle-class, college-educated straight women and gay men. (Update: Here, I meant to add another link. The most unfortunate feature of this site is that when they attack a woman, they frequently call her a "cunt." At least these gay men can find comfort in the fact that they've joined their straight brethren in associating vileness with females and their genitalia. After all, there's nothing more repulsive and offensive than female genitals, right? Keep it up, boys! You're doing a fine job of establishing the same kind of hypocrisy exercised by black men who decry racism while calling their own women "bitches" and "hos".) Their straight male counterparts bring the same sense of cool--y'know, that combination of hatefulness and and undeserved sense of superiority--to sports-related blogs.

The targets of the televison-and celebrity-obsessed crowd consist primarily of other women. Putting a woman down for the way she dresses or because she isn't a size 2 is great fun! Who needs patriarchy, right? There are women out there willing to belittle and degrade other women for the sense of superiority it affords them.

Nearly as worthy of their derision is anyone who is actually committed to doing something to improve the world. Commitment, integrity and the drive to devote yourself to improving the lives of others is so passe. Isn't it more fun to talk about how you decorated your house or your newest designer frock? Or, even better, why your neighbor's home or wardrobe is so hopelessly out-of-style--the ultimate badge of shame? They wear their shallowness as a badge of honor, taking the position that this very shallowness is actually a sign of depth. Their derision is turned on those who exhibit some actual individuality, whom they accuse of pretense. Revel in that '80s love of greed or vapid top 40 pop--it's a sign that you're cool enough to adopt a total lack of taste and be adored for it!

I don't know how or when this became the mark of intellect and style. Perhaps it's due to the very nature of the Internet. The anonymous forums allow these individuals to behave in a way that would get them labelled assholes in real life. They can hide behind their screen-names and IP addresses that change with regularity, spewing their shallow, mean-spirited tripe. Instead of getting off their asses and doing something to help someone else, they can sit in their houses and heap their ridicule on anyone who does get off his or her ass, anyone who is passionate about things that affect the lives of real people.

What's it going to take for these losers to crawl back into the holes from whence they came? I guess we can hope that enough of them lose their Internet connections or their servers die. If I never heard the imbecilic word "snarky" again in my life, it would be too soon.

The Autism "Epidemic": More Neurodiversity vs. Cure

2007-04-12T08:07:00.000-07:00

The fight between the neurodiversity devotees and the cure devotees is not likely to end any time soon. It has reached the point where it is purely about rhetoric and self-righteous condemnations of the other side. Charges of child abuse are thrown back and forth. Each side pronounces itself the holders of pure scientific evidence. The other side is dependent on junk science, of course. Neither will admit that they fall back on anecdotal evidence far too often.

Last night, I spent some time perusing neurodiversity.com, a site with an obvious viewpoint. The owner of the site, Katherine Seidel, inspires slavish devotion from the neurodiversity proponents. They trumpet her recent efforts to get a scientific study removed from a journal. Apparently, censorship is something to be applauded. They accuse the men who did the study of junk science and bias. These particular men are the regular targets of their hatred. They use this success as an opportunity to bash those who believe in the possibility of curing autism. Again, the devolve into name-calling and self-righteous pontificating. Whatever the "misrepresentations" of these two men, the tendency of the neurodiversity crowd to consistently take part in ad hominem attacks and accusations of bigotry weakens any credibility they might have. Both sides of this argument behave like children on the playground.

For all their claims of the scientific basis of their claims versus the pseudo-science and misrepresentations of the cure proponents, the neurodiversity group commonly resorts to the same tactics they find so objectionable when used by the opposing side. While accusing the other side of relying on anecdotes, they trot out their own anecdotal "proof" of a genetic cause for autism: they have seen evidence of it in other family members or themselves. Does that constitute proof? Would it if the other side placed their faith in such personal testimonials? That's highly doubtful. While I personally believe that the primary cause of autism is genetic, the behavior and tactics of this group does nothing to advance that theory. Their hysterical screeching, finger-pointing and name-calling does little to back up the idea that they are the rational parties in this debate.

Underlying this debate is the question of an autism "epidemic" over the past several decades. Of course, proponents of the cure blame this on environmental factors, specifically vaccines. The neurodiversity crowd, quite logically, point to the change in diagnostic criteria and practices. They have proof of liberalization of the diagnostic criteria. What they don't have, however, is proof that diagnostic practice has changed--and they don't seem to think they need to produce any. If they are to stake their claims to the consecrated ground of scientific proof, then they do, in fact, need to produce such proof.

There is certainly anecdotal evidence that current diagnostic practice includes a certain amount of intentional misdiagnoses. This can best be summed up by the oft-quoted statement of National Institute of Mental Health psychiatrist Judith Rapoport that she would "call a kid a zebra if it will get him the educational services [she] think[s] he needs." In fact, I have personal knowledge of such practice. A child that shares a therapist with my own son was given the diagnosis of autism despite the reservations of the psychiatrist involved and her therapist. The grandmother insisted that the child had Asperger's Syndrome (also doubtful), which the psychiatrist said he'd be more comfortable diagnosing. However, the state of Arizona does not provide services for those with AS diagnoses as it does for those with diagnoses of autism. The psychiatrist agreed to give the child the diagnosis so she could continue to receive her services.

While I do not blame the family for working to get the child services at all costs, and I understand the actions of the psychiatrist, this kind of behavior does a lot to undermine the legitimacy of claims of "epidemic." If this kind of misdiagnosis is at all common, it could account for a significant portion of the increase in autism in the U.S. The U.S. health care system is squarely to blame in this case. Our practice of care for the wealthy and neglect for the poor and middle class forces desperate families to take desperate measures.

There is already evidence that a significant portion of the increase is a result of liberalized diagnostic criteria, specifically the creation of the PDD-NOS (pervasive developmental delay, not otherwise specified) diagnosis and the increase in Asperger's Syndrome diagnoses. AS was not added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM) until 1994. PDD-NOS was added seven years before that. There are indications that as many as three-quarters of the increase in Austism Spectrum Disorder diagnoses has occurred in these two categories.

Finally, the very claim that autism has genetic causes is as unproven an assertion as the claim that mercury in vaccines has led to an "epidemic" of autism. Several studies have found various genes that are present in some people with autism. However, there has never been any study that has linked autism to a specific gene definitively. In most cases, these genetic indicators are present in some individuals, but not others. What conclusions are we to derive from that? That only those with these markers are "real" autistics? That the genetic markers are coincidental? That there is a confluence of genetic and environmental factors that cause autism? It could be any of these three possibilities or it could be none of them. The fact remains, however, that the neurodiversity crowd has hitched its wagon to a star that is just as questionable as the one the cure crowd is following. It is not that I disagree with all of the assertions of the neurodiversity devotees. It is that I disagree with their claims that their position is based on pure science, while the other side is based purely upon emotionally-charged pseudo-science worthy of ridicule and disdain.

It is tragic that these warring groups of "concerned" parents can't realize that their behavior is far from helpful. Both sides are doing more harm than good to the welfare of people with autism. The insistence that autism is just "different," and we should all celebrate it is foolish. My son's autism is not just a matter of difference. It is an impairment. If he is unable to deal with the world around him, he will be in continuous danger throughout his life. This will keep him from ever being able to live an independent life. This inability to cope with the environment without significant help is an evolutionary dead-end. Organisms that cannot adapt to their environment are prone to dying out--on the individual and group levels. That is not what I want for my son. Anyone who is so in love with "diversity" that they think the inability to adapt is something to be celebrated really needs a remedial course in evolution.

On the other side, the proponents of cure are willing to put their children through one medical procedure after another, whether there is evidence to support the efficacy of these procedures or not. Like the parent of a terminal cancer patient who inflicts painful procedures on the dying child in desperate, unrealistic hope of cure, these parents forget about the child they have; instead, they form tunnel-vision focused on the child they wish they had. They are willing to put their children in schools were "aversive" treatments--including electrical shock--are inflicted on their children. In essence, they are willing to forego all semblance of scientific method or ethical behavior in hopes of a cure that probably doesn't exist. Individuals with autism can be helped to deal with their environment. It is unlikely that their fundamental autistic nature can be changed, however. Focusing on helping them integrate their autism into the world around them is the best thing we can do for these kids. Neither of these militant factions seems interested in that. They are too busy trying to prove their own rational and moral superiority.

"Neurodiversity" vs. "Cure"

2007-04-10T07:31:00.000-07:00

The other night was typical for me: I went to bed around 10 p.m., then began waking up promptly an hour later. Try as I might, I couldn't get back to sleep and stay that way. So, as usual, I eventually gave up. While times like this cry out for staying in bed, maybe reading a book or watching TV until I can fall back asleep, those options don't work so well for my husband, who doesn't face the insomnia that haunts me. The only option was to move out to the living room. But what to do once I was there? Get online, of course.

I'm horrible about reading and answering my email, so I decided this was an opportune time to do that. As I opened my email, I found a message from a local listserve. The organization is called P.A.S.S., short for Parents for Autism Support & Services. It's basically a self-help group here in Tucson that puts parents of children with autism in touch with each other. When we need advice on schools or therapists, suggestions about getting the state to provide needed services, or just support, we can contact this source of first-hand information and advice. Most of us face a lot of struggles getting needed services for our children. On top of that, we get tired. Like it or not, taking care of a child with autism is harder than taking care of most neurotypical (NT) children. Just keeping these kids safe is often a 24/7 job.

On this day, however, the email from P.A.S.S. wasn't a parent asking for a recommendation for a speech therapist or school. Instead, the woman who runs P.A.S.S. was letting us all know about a memorial service. She mentioned the service was for a local autistic boy whose mother had murdered him. As I've been caught up in my own son's needs for the past few months, this tragedy was news to me. I had to find out more.

The story is one of horror: a 5-year-old autistic child was given 12 Tylenol PMs by his mother, resulting in his death. I'm assuming his mother was overwhelmed with his behavior and was trying to quiet him. That's the only (twisted) explanation I can determine for the murder. It also turned out that she had been forcing the child's feet and legs into extremely hot water to discipline him. A sheriff's deputy had come the day before the child died and found him with his legs bandaged. The mother explained them as the result of a fall. The deputy thought that was perfectly reasonable. We now know they were covering burns caused by the scaldings inflicted on this child.

It came to light that this was one of the woman's three children. The other two--both teenagers--had been removed by CPS after the oldest attacked the 5-year-old. The youngest was left in the household. The woman was living with two "friends," one of whom apparently helped her "discipline" the child. The father was out of the picture, as the mother was not in contact with him. I'm not thinking he would have been much help, though, as he had been charged with child abuse for choking the middle child--whom also had been diagnosed with autism.

Of course, everyone wants a quick, easy explanation for what happened. The mother is a monster. The father is a monster. It must have been caused by drug use. You name it, someone has claimed they know the whys and wherefores of this case. It couldn't possibly be a complex issue that takes some time to come to grips with. The saddest thing is that this vulnerable child, whose communication was likely stunted enough that he would have been unable to get help, was left behind in a house where violence was not new. At the very least, the state should have been providing extensive respite services for this family. There were clear signs that they lacked the ability to deal with the children. If any of these kids was going to be left behind, the mother needed a lot of help coping with some of the more difficult aspects of raising a child with autism. The mother, in turn, clearly failed to reach out for help that she obviously needed. When the police came, she lied about the injuries she had inflicted on her son. Instead of asking for help from friends, family or the state, she chose to injure and drug her child. The other adults in the home sat on their hands or actively helped her torture this sweet boy. Clearly, jail is where these people belong. Unfortunately, that does not absolve the state of Arizona or Pima County for failing to protect this vulnerable child when there were clear signs that he needed them.

That's not where the story ends, however. In my efforts to research the case, I stumbled upon a site and message board for parents of autistic children. This site is run and frequented by devotees of a philosophy known as "neurodiversity." In essence, they argue that autism (or Autism Spectrum Disorder, which includes autism and several related disorders) isn't "wrong," it's just "different." Parents are expected to celebrate the fact that their children have autism. Anyone who dares suggest that a NT life would be easier or preferable for their child is attacked as a moral monster. Those who seek to make their children's lives safer or easier are reviled as bigots and moral monsters.

As the mother of a six-year-old boy who has autism, these people infuriate me with their tone and sense of moral superiority--not to mention the danger they pose to my son's future. My son is prone to self-injury. He bites himself. He hits himself. He runs and crashes into the furniture. He climbs on things with no concern for his safety. Leaving him alone in a room long enough to go to the bathroom puts his safety at risk. I never know what he will be doing when I come back. When taken outside, I must keep physical contact with him at all times to keep him from injuring himself or wandering off where others may injure him. This is not "normal." This is not merely "different." This is dangerous. This is something that must be treated through therapies. This is something that my son will always need help to cope with. This is not a good thing, as the neurodiversity devotees would claim.

The unfortunate part is that the other side of the debate is equally out-of-touch. These are parents who claim that autism is a new disease, having emerged in the second quarter of the 20th century. Its cause? Mercury-poisoning, primarily from vaccinations. Their rants are equally intolerant and off-base. They have no proof for their claims. They rely on anecdotes. They ignore evidence that doesn't support them.

So, where does the truth lie? The fact is that I agree with the neurodiversity advocates that autism is rooted in genetics. That is not to say that I think it is only genetic. There may be environmental triggers that exacerbate the genetic predisposition. However, I agree that genes play a significant role in the development of autism. That is not to say that autism is just fine and dandy and should not be treated in any way. Unfortunately, that is the position of the neurodiversity crowd. They would leave a child to injure himself because it's simply his way of dealing with the world. He's just "different."

The fact is, many mental disorders are genetic in nature. Schizophrenia appears to have a significant genetic component. That does not mean it is "normal" and should remain untreated. In fact, like autism, it can lead those with the disease to injure themselves or otherwise place themselves at risk. Many medical conditions are genetic in nature. Heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and even some cancers appear to have genetic components. They still pose significant risk to life and to health. They still need to be treated. "Genetic" does not inherently equal "good" or "normal."

To see the danger posed by neurodiversity advocates we only have to look back on the release from institutions of thousands of mentally ill individuals in the last half of the 20th century. In the U.S., the state of institutions was atrocious. People were locked up for life, abused, and left to fester, rot and die. There is no doubt this was deplorable and had to come to an end. However, the method of ending it was simply to open the doors and turn the mentally ill onto the streets. Laws pertaining to involuntary commitment were made stringent. People would be stabilized, then returned to the streets where they soon fell back into their previous ways. They put themselves in danger. Some of them put others in danger. They were easy targets for "normal" people who exploit those who are weaker than themselves. Most of the mentally ill population certainly did not live "better" lives than they had in the institutions. So, they went from the frying pan into the fire. Instead of taking a considered approach--figuring out which individuals truly needed the kind of 'round-the-clock care of an institution, deciding which individuals were likely to flourish on their own or in less restrictive environments, improving the care and conditions in the institutions, and acting accordingly--they simply threw the baby out with the bath-water. The neurodiversity crowd would have us do the same with individuals with autism. Stupid. Foolish. Deadly.

Still, the other side poses dangers, as well. There are so-called treatments and cures out there that are barbaric. I agree with the neurodiversity crowd when they say that ethics often go straight out the window as soon as autism is mentioned. Just a few weeks ago, I watched a television news magazine on ABC that followed the Rotenberg Center, a "treatment" facility in Canton, Massachusetts. The same institution has been investigated by other news outlets, as well. It was founded by Matthew Israel, a student of behaviorist B.F. Skinner. This monster had created a program that involved putting electrodes on the skin of children with autism. Any time the child showed "behaviors," s/he was shocked with a very strong charge of electricity. The reporter allowed herself to be shocked with the device these children are forced to wear. She writhed and jerked in intense pain for quite a long time. The "nurse" administering the shock told her that a child who continued behaving in an undersirable way would receive repeated shocks until s/he stopped. The barbarity of such a practice is nauseating. How such individuals could not be charged with child abuse is unfathomable. Such aversive behavior would never be allowed when dealing with a NT child. In all likelihood, if the diagnoses of autism and mental retardation was not connected to these children, this "doctor" would be in jail, as would his staff. Instead, he receives millions of dollars from school districts to torture some of their exceptional education studets.

The problem is that we can't turn to the opposing camp for answers. They are too busy ranting about mercury poisoning. They climb to the rafters and scream about every new "cure" for autism. They turn their children into guinea pigs. I will not do that. What's more, I don't buy into their mercury-poisoning theories. The first blame placed on a vaccination was levelled at MMR. My own son developed symptoms of autism before he had that vaccination. I had been holding off getting some of his vaccinations for a variety of reasons--one of them, the storm about autism and vaccines. Once he already had the signs of the disease, it seemed foolish to leave him at risk of curable diseases by failing to vaccinate him. Put simply, he was autistic before he ever got that vaccine. So, now do they claim it is all vaccines, not just MMR? What proof do they have? The ability to move from one "cause" to another with such ease just smacks of unscientific grasping at straws.

Like the neurodiversity crowd, the cure crowd feels very self-righteous about the course they've chosen for their children. It's not enough that they think they are doing the right thing; everyone who makes different choices must be convinced to do the same. If that should fail, these obstinate parents must be condemned and vilified. I have experienced this firsthand. Approximately 18 months ago, my son and another boy sat in a therapy room together. My son was getting speech therapy, while the other boy received sensory integration. It wasn't the boy that made the impact, though; it was his mother. She began loudly and forcefully expounding on the benefits of some new injection her son was getting. It made all the difference, she claimed. Every parent should do it. In fact, she flatly told me, I was running out of time. I had to get on the ball and get these injections for my son right now or I was failing him. To do so, I should change doctors, I was informed. She gave me her doctor's name. The fact that I adore my children's doctor, have no desire to change, and must choose doctors approved by my insurance plan didn't phase her. She was so far into her spiel that my comments weren't even heard. Needless to say, my son never got those injections. What he has received is a lot of therapy, a lot of help at home, and a lot of help at school. He has made amazing progress without chelation or any other anti-autism elixir d'jour.

When it comes to our children, it's expected that parents will be passionate. When it involves something as misunderstood as autism, that passion is bound to increase exponentially. However, logic, understanding, and basic decency needs to prevail. There are valid arguments on both sides. Autism is not simply an example of diversity. However, it is also not caused by vaccines. It is life-long. It can be managed, but it cannot be cured. Most importantly, acting like self-important judges and juries of other parents does nothing to help anyone's child. It's time to knock it off.

Setting up housekeeping

2007-04-06T03:11:00.000-07:00

Having become frustrated with the inability to get the new features on my old blog, I've decided to open a new one. At least for the time-being, this will be the new home of What's Left In My World.

As for the name of this blog, it has a dual meaning. First of all, knowledge and valor are vital for those who want to confront the violence, hatred and corruption of the modern world. Those with power depend upon the masses remaining as sheep--stupid and easily led. Those who seek to create a more just world must first resist this by educating themselves about the world in which they live, i.e gaining knowledge. But what does one do after gaining that knowledge? Is simply knowing the nature of the injustice enough? Of course not. After knowledge comes resistance. That's where the scary part begins. It's easier to close your eyes, to turn your head, to accept things as they are. It takes true valor to stand up and fight back.

That being said, this blog is also named for my children: Sophia and Valor. Sophia is Greek for female wisdom. She is the embodiment of Knowledge. Valor is bravery and honor. The drive to resist and stay strong in the face of great odds. My children are the motivation for my own resistance. They are the reminder of why closing my eyes will never be an option.