The Great Beatles Blast Disaster...

I am in great physical pain as I write this. It has to do with the picture at left. Remember it well, for it will become important later on.

Before I get to the cause of this incredible agony, I must make it quite clear just how tough and resilient I normally am, just to give you some sort of idea as to just how bad the events of this evening had to have been in order to get me to complain about physical pain.

As an 8-year old, I  suffered with an inflamed, on-the-point-of-bursting appendix for a week, and barely whimpered.

As a teenager, I was involved in a fistfight that was so vicious that it resulted in a nose so bloodied that it actually soaked through my clothes to cake upon my skin, and a severe concussion from which I passed out....but only AFTER I had kicked the bejesus out of the other kid, breaking his arm in two places, and fracturing one of his ribs.

Call It What It Is: Child Abuse...

...and poor parenting skills.

An article on the so-called Autism Epidemic.

This is exactly what happens when someone manages to evoke political action, and get excessive taxpayer funding, and mobilize it in the "fight" against a perceived-but-not-all-that-prevalent a problem: you suddenly get more of it.

The Word...

It was Saturday evening, and we're all sitting around the Lunatic's Sister's kitchen table. The cake has just been served, this day being her birthday (Happy Birthday, Dear Sister!). One of my nephews has just called another "retarded", as kids are wont to do.

What happened next was something that sent douchechills down my spine, and produced a violent urge to vomit.

"You know", The Lunatic's Sister says to her child, "you're not supposed to say 'retarded' to people, because it's hurtful. What did they tell you at school about that?"

"Why not?" asks the Lunatic, innocently, wishing he hadn't asked just as soon as the words are uttered, because it has just dawned upon him at that very second that he's about to listen to an explanation of why that word has become verboten that will be long, pointless, and...well...umm....rather retarded.

The Lunatics Sister, after all, is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, he asked for it, the Moron ( I wonder: Am I allowed to use that word, if I apply it only to myself?), and by God, he's gonna hear it -- if only because My Sister sometimes behaves as if she's my Mother, as well. This pisses me off because:

a) I already have a Mother who lectures me (still) while having nothing intelligent or positive to say, and

b) Nothing pisses me off more than being lectured to in that annoying and condescending tone which both Mother and Sister adopt, as if they're talking to a wayward child, with that irritating habit they have of being unable to explain themselves without a lengthy pre-amble, a diversion to a parable which might only be tangentially related to the subject at hand, and that slow and deliberate diction that would make one believe that I'm a retard, too, if you'd ever heard it.

I can hardly wait.

It turns out that a child at my nephew's school is what they now refer to as "mentally-challenged". I happen to know the child in question; he's autistic, and is given to unpredictable outbursts. I disagree, strongly, with the label "mentally-challenged" when applied to the Autistic because of my experiences with several autistic people. I know autistics that would put the greatest mathematicians of history to shame, who hold down important and complicated jobs, or who are capable of doing anything most people could do, infinitely better, and with a level of precision that would give a German engineer a permanent hard-on.

I'm a fanatical believer in the theory that we, the Human Race, would not live in the world we do if it hadn't been for some autistic dude sitting in the back of a cave, spending hours and days flaking away at a pierce of flint to form the perfect spearhead. I believe that some of the greatest scientific, literary and artistic minds in human history were probably autistic, or at least possessed some of the same qualities that we ascribe to autistic people. Autism does not mean"challenged", nor does it mean"stupid". Anyways, back to our story.

So, The School recently had another of it's fund-raiser evenings -- why a public school, supported by tax dollars, requires an almost-continuous series of fundraising drives is a question that no one can adequately answer for me. It seems that while the City and State of New York see fit to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,000 per student per academic year, it does so without buying supplies for the classroom. The money raised, I'm told, often goes to buy the Basics: from art supplies to toilet paper -- and this particular child caused a commotion during the festivities.

This kerfufle caused the parent of another child to remark "I think that kid's retarded" , apparently whispered to another, but still within earshot of the autistic boy's mother. This observation, made by an ignorant clod with no social graces, apparently troubled her to no end because within days there was a PTA meeting where the subject of the word "Retarded" -- and the evil and incorrect applications and connotations connected with it  -- became the main subject of intense debate.

Some observations on the 'debate', as it was explained to me;

1. The child in question is NOT retarded, he's autistic. Most people do not make the distinction, or even know the difference. Mother-with-a-Stick-up-Her-Ass wants everyone to know that her son is Autistic and NOT Retarded. In the often-confusing world of politically-correct causes, Autism somehow rates higher than simple Mental Retardation. Angry Mother is offended that someone may have used a word that somehow downgrades her son's condition. Like being Retarded is akin to living in the ghetto to Autism's Gated Community? Autism is to Mercedes what Retarded is to Ford Pinto? By what standard we say that this particular affliction is more worthy or honorable than another is beyond me, and I think my head exploded when I heard this ridiculous 'argument' about a distinction most people are incapable of making without conscious effort.

It all probably has to do with some sort of competition between "Special Needs" childrens' parents for state aid, I'll bet.

2. The word 'retarded' is hurtful, mean-spirited, and damages an already-fragile child's self-esteem, and shouldn't even be used to describe a child who is, you know, actually retarded. Unless, of course, you -- as the parent of a retarded child -- choose to wear your genetic failure as a badge of courage, shout "RETARDED!" at the top of your lungs in order to get to the head of the line at Disneyland, or use your child's affliction to get yourself some charity money, taxpayer funds, special consideration, sympathy, or fake affirmations of your 'courage'. Life, and the vagaries of Genetics, have handed you a veritable Lemon; make Lemonade. Love your child, by all means, but don't expect that others should have to give you a medal or some special accommodation because of his/her condition.

That Society often does so is a matter of courtesy; you don't get to elevate that into a special set of extra-constitutional rights.

3. Henceforth, sayeth the School, the word "retarded" is hereby banned from the vocabulary of all the Inmates..errr...Students...and there will be a 'Zero-Tolerance' policy regarding the use of the word. Penalties are not specifically discussed, but promises are made by the Gods of Education that they will, indeed, be harsh. Just what 'harsh' means in the context of children between the ages of 5 and 10 is an open question. I rather doubt flogging is going to make a comeback, and quite frankly, expulsion would probably do some of the students more benefit than real harm. After all, this is a school which has a janitor with a huge yearly budget, but somehow he's not allowed to spend any of it on cleaning supplies, because parents are constantly being asked to send the children to school with all sorts of anti-bacterial products.

'Zero-Tolerance' policies, mind you, often trip over their own self-defeating logic; if the original argument was over context (as in this case), then the application of the policy must, by it's very nature, also trip all over context. Since no one feels capable, or willing, to make a decision regarding context the easist thing to do is to simply avoid the discussion altogether. One hopes. This is not an enlightened policy: it is an abrogation of responsibility. In the context of educators guiding and shaping young minds, it is a surrender of the intellectual to the emotional, and ultimately serves no one well. This should have served as one of them 'teaching moments' I keep hearing about; why not take the time to instruct the children on the differences between retarded and autistic, stress a little understanding, patience and courtesy, and then tell Mommy-Run-Amok to shut the fuck up and deal, like an adult?

Anyways, I listened to my Sister relate the whole sordid tale, and wanted to reach across the table and strangle the life out of her, because she swallowed the whole 'Zero-Tolerance' nonsense completely, and was determined to enforce it within her own home.

Okay, fine. It's your house and they are your kids, so do what you like, but you have, Dear Sister, missed the Bigger Point (this is, indeed, my Sister's greatest talent, so I'm not entirely surprised). Actually, she's missed a bunch of points.

The first is that a greater mass of people are being punished for the thoughtlessness of another. Some asshole with no class mutters something he shouldn't, and gives offense. In the Old Days when people simply sucked things up and soldiered on -- or just got into a fistfight and solved their problems Mano-a-Mano -- this would have been taken care of immediately, and would not have required a public meeting and a censorship regime.

The Second is that it's kind of ridiculous that one person should be allowed to impose this sort of censorship over hundreds simply because she was offended. How it came to be that we, as a society, began to empower those with often-petty axes to grind is something I often wonder about, and then fervently wish we could reverse with a carefully-planned program of street executions. Unfortunately, there are some people who haven't learned the very simple lesson that Life Sucks, and that on any given day, you will probably be offended at least once, and then there are other people who haven't learned the lesson that once you allow a petty grievance to become a Federal Case -- and then crafted an all-encompassing policy to address that specific grievance -- you've opened the floodgates to all sorts of stupidity.

Today, it's the use of the adjective 'retard' in an offensive context; tomorrow, it'll be wearing a cross or yarmulke to school, wearing certain colors on certain days, a particular item in a bagged lunch, or a student's superior fashion sense which will make someone, somewhere, groan about 'unfairness' and 'offense'.

The simple truth is that the majority of people who inhabit this Blue Marble are dumber than dogshit; addressing their petty concerns in such a sweeping manner only leads to a coarsening and constriction of Life for the rest of us.

The final problem I have with this is that a word, which is perfectly valid and has a meaning outside the context of handicapped children, is being taken away from other children at a point in their educational lives where they are forming the primary abilities they will need to express themselves later in life. They are learning to expand their vocabulary, they are learning the lessons of context and contrast within language. The word 'Retarded', in and of itself, is not offensive; it's an adjective. The only power it has to offend is the power that people choose to give it.

Banning it's use may make Mother-Mind-Everyone-Else's-Business happy, but she has done, I think.a great disservice to the other children in the school. What, for example, would happen if it should turn out that Shakespeare, or perhaps a Great Poet, happened to use the word 'Retarded' in their works? Should we ban Shakespeare? Should we rewrite the entire literature of the Western World so as to remove all the words that are personally offensive to her? What if the word appeared in a scientific treatise? Should we develop a new way to teach sciences with an entirely new and non-offensive terminology?

No sooner did I hear this sorry tale then I went right home and broke out my copy of George Orwell's 1984.

In that tale of Political Correctness run amok, the Protagonist, Winston Smith, is a newspaper reporter (in a sense; what he actually 'reports' is not 'news', but rather Politically Correct lies and a continuous rewriting of history for political puposes) is having a conversation with a colleage who is involved in the recrafting of the English language (called Newspeak in the book).

This collegaue is openly bragging about his work, which is the destruction of words;  especially words that have political signifigance. These words must be purged from the lexicon because they can be used to express discontent, to foment counter-revolution, or because they would expose some politically-inconvenient truths that The Party would rather keep hidden or obscured. This colleague postulates that in the future, the English Language will eventually contain but ONE word, and it's meanings and context would be rigidly defined and no other meaning or context could ever be permitted.

The ultimate purpose of the destruction of words was to deprive the people of the ability to communicate with one another, or to express dissent and discontent, as a means of keeping the directing brains of society (The Inner Party, i.e. The Government) in power forever.

Perhaps it is a great leap to make -- from the banning of a word in order to soothe one person's ruffled sensibilities to the loss of ability to express Political Dissent -- but the effect is the same. With each banning of a word, with each narrowing of the scope of thought, with each attack on the individual's right of free expression, we're one step closer to tyranny. Whether it's the tyranny of a panty-bunched school board, a hyper-sensitive Mother, or an overbearing Government, matters not: we're slowly being trained to avoid saying what we feel. When you forbid people from speaking freely -- even inartfully or meanly -- you no longer have the most basic of freedoms.

I can understand why a Mother with a difficult child might be offended by the insensitive comment of a total dipshit; I don't understand why it was that someone gave her the power to remove a word from the vocabulary of hundreds of children -- and though she may not have intended to do this -- given an unelected, and largely unaccountable,  school administration the power to limit the way in which people might choose to express themselves.

I also don't understand how it is that my Sister swallowed this dangerous precedent whole without thinking about it's implications. She's not THAT dumb, after all, but perhaps she's just been trained better than I have.

Before I get a flood of e-mail accusing me of being indifferent to the plight of 'challenged' children and harried parents, let me make it clear that I am not without sympathy. Let me also make it clear that your Autistic child's 'limitations' are mostly of your own making, and ultimately speak more about YOU than about HIM. The child in question is a sweet, loving, beautiful little boy -- I know him personally -- and I'm convinced that if you (his Mother) didn't dote on him, and try so hard to 'protect' him, he'd find himself a nice little niche in this society and be far more useful, productive and relevant than a goodly number of so-called 'normal' people.

The first obstacle that you -- as a parent -- have put in his way is to hide the truth from him; that this world is inhabited by thoughtless morons who learned how to whisper in a sawmill, and who have no manners, and now that you've taught him that to get ahead all he has to scream louder and brandish his 'disability' like a club, don't be surprised when he starts doing the same to YOU.

After all, he's not stupid.

I would wager that he's smarter than any ten people you know combined.

I would, however, hope that one day Mommy Dearest might realize what she has done, and how she has behaved, and come to regret it. Unfortunately, when that day comes it'll only be after someone has dictated how she should live her own life in much the same way that she has just dictated that others should live theirs.

Such is human nature.

That's far a more offensive possibility, to me, than someone misapplying the word 'Retard' in a way that you find irritating.

UPDATE: Edited for spelling and grammar. My apologies!

No Link Between Autism and Vaccines...

Yet another reason to be skeptical of anyone who says "the science is settled". On any subject.

There was a time when scientific endeavor was a noble enterprise, but it's becoming clear with every passing day that this is no longer the case. Whether it's falsifying weather or second-hand smoke data to fit a political agenda, faking test results to obtain grant money, kickbacks, or honorarium, science is no longer about the quest for pure knowledge. It's become a business.

Couple this truth with another one: that we live in a society in which simple morality, the belief in honesty, the strength and power of ethical codes, has been steadily eroded by a"if-it-feels-good-do-it-the-ends-justify-the-means" mindset propagated by liberal thinkers (contradiction in terms). We've created a society where people are often protected and sheltered from the consequences of their actions, because to punish them might be considered "harsh". There is no stigma attached to anything anymore.

In most Western countries, the concept of punishment for crime is watered down by a therapeutic mindset; we separate criminals by category, violent or non-violent, and the non-violent get an ineffective lecture (as if they were merely wayward children) and the violent gets intense therapy and heavy medication, all in the hopes that they may be "rehabilitated", and able to rejoin society. In all of that effort, though, no one ever seems to address the moral issues attendant to bad behavior; the drug dealer and the murderer have a lot in common, putting aside phobias, neuroses and complexes; neither is capable of making a moral decision, even when they know what the consequences of their action will be. More often then not, they make a choice secure in the knowledge that there is no shame in it. That there is no real punishment involved.

So it is with this "Doctor".

He made a conscious decision to lie, and to falsify test results for money (allegedly), knowing full well that his actions were going to produce some of the following consequences:

1. Legitimate businesses making perfectly safe products, were going to be sued under false pretenses, and that he would perosnally profit from the scam.

2. Some people would be so frightened by the prospect of autism-by-injection, that they would deliberately put their children at risk of a preventable disease by withholding perfectly safe vaccines. Perhaps all vaccines, and not just MMR.

3. The way those with for-real autism would be treated by the medical establishment would change. The number of misdiagnoses for autism would balloon. Hospitals, Universities, local School systems and governments would misspend billions of dollars in the quest to "better understand" autism, chase the wild geese brought into being by the study's falsified results, and pharmacologists, chemists and other scientists would be spending further billions more to find an unnecessary alternative to a vaccine that worked perfectly well, and was safe.

What if someone had found this alternative, and it later turned out not to be as safe as what it replaced (and by that, I mean found unsafe by actual science, not some doc getting paid to fake a test result)? What if it killed someone?

Soon, this man will probably face a trial, and when and if he's found guilty, it will be argued that his only crime was one of selfish greed, that he really didn't hurt anyone, and it's not like he murdered a bunch of folks with a chainsaw, so why not show him some leniency? In time, he will receive psychiatric help, and come to terms with his failings as a scientist and doctor, readyto be reintegrated with society.

Fuck that. It's too bad Britain doesn't have the cat-o-nine tails anymore, because this man should be flogged before he's put away in prison, and made an example of.

It's about time someone had the balls to reestablish the concepts of morality, ethics and stigma, and what better place to begin than with a non-violent offender who only did what his sorry-ass code of ethics (the ones they taught him in college, you see) told him was perfectly reasonable, so long as the check cleared, and after all, it was only a big pharmaceutical company that was ripping people off, so what's the deal with ripping them off in return with a bunch of phony lawsuits bolstered by phony science?

It's that kind of thinking that turned a generation of parents into Autism-phobes, it's that kind of thinking that has doctors who can't find their own ass with both hands diagnosing Autism where none exists, it's that kind of thinking that has led millions of children to needlessly suffer -- maybe even die -- from mumps, measles and whooping cough. It's that kind of thinking that has allowed the bottom-feeders of society -- the Lawyer, the Mental Health Professional and the Activist -- to redirect billions in funding from programs and hospitals where it might have done the most good for people in need.

Prison is too good for this asshole. I'd like to see Parliament reintroduce drawing-and-quartering for just this one time.

Of Bedbugs and Whooping Cough...

The rage these days is bedbugs. They're suddenly everywhere, and a multi-billion-dollar industry is springing up to take care of the problem. For many years, the word "bedbug" was simply a reference made in a polite good-night admonition to not "let the bedbugs bite"; the threat or discomfort of the bedbug was something that was, in a way, made light of. Several generations of Americans have lived life comfortably without the discomfort of bedbugs. I think, in my whole life (43-plus years), I can barely recall of a single person I've known who's house was infested by the little bastards.

The average American home was probably more likely to have mice, hornets or termites than bedbugs.

But now, they're front-and-center. Bedbugs are everywhere, and no one seems to know why.

Well, let's be honest...everyone KNOWS why... they just don't want to say so.

We live in a world of international air travel, where it's not uncommon for people to arrive on these pristine shores from countries where the words "hygiene" and "cleanliness" have no local equivalent in about 1,100 languages. These people stay in our hotels, when they don't disappear altogether. They've more than likely brought bedbugs with them (amongst other things. West Nile Virus wasn't exactly a common phenomenon in New York in year's past, and now the City Spends millions on mosquito control). Legions of illegal immigrants pass through our borders everyday, carrying their clothes and bedding with them, and most likely, the filth of Mexico's barrios. Those immigrants then become the chambermaids in our hotels, the laundry workers, the cleaning staff.

Environmental laws and businesses looking to save a buck, no longer clean hotel sheets in hot water. DDT -- the wonder poison of the 1950's that killed everything from mosquitoes to New England Democrats, was banned because it might kill off some species of migratory birds -- was once used to eradicate bedbugs, too...and it worked. But now, we're told the bugs have developed a resistance to more-modern-and-safer pesticides (Tree Huggers take note: The bedbugs evolved, but the birds didn't!) and using DDT is now unthinkable and illegal.

And the bedbug population explodes. Literally. Now, the Solons of the Upper East Side are infested with bedbugs (probably brought in by the maid and kitchen staff they're not paying Social Security taxes for), and suddenly it's become a major problem. Here in New Yorkistan, we refer to them as Bloombugs, and unflattering reference to our Emperor...errr...Mayor -- a bloodsucking parasite that serves no obvious purpose except to feed upon it's host.

Of course to even suggest that foreigners, and especially illegal immigrants, are responsible -- at least in part -- for the return and spread of bedbugs, is to be branded an insensitive, racist douche. Let's just put it this way: there was hardly any mention of bedbugs in humdrum-work-a-day American life before 12-15 million illegal immigrants showed up on our doorstep, was there?

And if bedbugs aren't your cup of tea, there's always whooping cough...and measles...and polio.

These were diseases that were all-but-eradicated in this country in my lifetime. In fact, we were so good at eliminating these often-deadly childhood diseases that we had to make up a bunch of new ones to take their places, just so we could obsess over our children: food allergies, ADHD, lactose-intolerance, Autism-as-attention-getter. Influenza is a killer again, and not just your run-of-the-mill flu, we're talking killer Chinese flus that came about because someone fucked a chicken in Shanghai or something. We had just pretty much wiped out SARS (also brought by foreigners immigrating/visiting the West) and then they bring us a new version of flu! Reported cases of Malaria are on the rise in this country.

Just yesterday, the news was that the state of California alone was about to report a 50-or-so-year high in the number of children who had contracted Whooping Cough...and who had, subsequently, died from it.

Part of this is due, of course, to all the brouhaha over Autism; some mothers are willing to expose their children to deadly diseases because of unfounded fears about inoculations. These women are flat-out morons, and would probably buy beachfront property in Oklahoma. But, the majority of cases are probably due to the fact that most illegal immigrants -- and especially their children -- are probably not immunized against these diseases AT ALL, and the only time they get any sort of treatment is when they show up in the emergency room and die on the waiting room floor...very expensively...for want of a vaccination back in whatever shithole they climbed out of.

It's an old theme, I know: Immigrants bring disease.

Take a look around you: more bedbugs, more once-eradicated diseases, and every few years a newer-deadlier flu or syndrome comes out of Africa or Asia. Does this sort of unchecked immigration look like it's a good thing to you?

If you suggest a correlation between vermin, disease and The Foreigner, that makes you a racist, right? Those who make that charge usually have to do so in spite of the evidence.

More on Autism...

Okay, so I got a bunch of e-mails yesterday (I can't reproduce many of them) about my post on Autism. Most of the responders were frightened by my stunning ignorance on the subject. How dare I say that some diagnoses of Autism are fake? How dare I say that the recent upsurge in the number of cases are really not indicative of a rise in numbers of actual Autistics? How dare I say that if you have an Autistic child that you are a bad parent?



Hey, slow down. First, I never claimed to be an expert. I'm only telling you what I have seen, witnessed and experienced, personally, and that is;

a) There are people who are truly autistic, they need help and support that comes from loving parents, families and healthcare providers who see them as people first, not guinea pigs for supposed Wonder Cures based on faulty science, and of questionable value. They are people, too, you know.

b) There are far more ignorant people claiming their child is autistic because they are poor parents, or they can't bring themselves to face the (personal) shame and embarrassment of having given birth to a genetic mess (why this should be an embarrassment is beyond me), or, they simply can't face the fact that their child may, indeed, have issues; but correcting those issues requires an effort on their part. They'd rather just spend money, and wear the badge of courage (and get the pass) that having a hopelessly 'afflicted' child is supposed to bring you in our greater society. In the meantime, the children suffer horribly, both the truly autistic and those only deemed slightly-autistic-like.

c) There is a tendency, because the problem is more prevalent than it previously was, to diagnose autism in people who show some symptoms (like late talkers, preference for solitude, in some cases seizures or reactions to light) which might appear to be Autism, but in many cases, are indicative of another illness entirely. Because Autism is front-and-center in every one's mind, when a child displays one or more of these symptoms, they are more likely to be labeled Autistic without a more thorough examination, or without eliminating other possibilities before making that diagnosis.

d) The Medical Establishment has a vested interest in finding autism everywhere...ever since the "Awareness" crowd brought it to the government's attention and there's scads of taxpayer money being thrown at it. That's the one problem I have always had with "Awareness" groups; I can promise you that people who have the affliction are aware of it, their families are aware of it, too. So are the physicians and scientists who treat them. The illnesses you champion are not secrets. All you do with your so-called advocacy is to attract the attention of Congress, and all they ever do is throw money at problems. When that much money is floating around devoted to a specific problem, then guess what? That specific problem turns out to be more widespread than was previously know. Why? Because who wants to work for money when you can just get a federal grant that has no strings attached, no oversight, no enforcement provisions, and with no requirement for an actual result to be achieved?

And in the meantime, people who are in need get shafted, and people who aren't afflicted are treated as if they are, and their lives are often irrevocably fucked up because of it.

No, I'm not an expert on Autism, but I do know what I have read and experienced.

And some of you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Experimenting on Children...

I've just read this over at Ann Althouse's blog concerning treatments for autism.

It's pretty sick. It's bordering on Spanish-Inquisition-sick. Doctor Menegle would approve, I'm sure.

First, a word about autism.

It's a truly debilitating condition...if your parents are convinced that it is. I know a couple of people with autism or Aspberger's Syndrome, and yeah, they are often socially awkward and they can creep you out some if you don't know they have it, and yeah, they can get pretty bad about hurting themselves, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them that a little love and understanding can't help 'fix'. A man I know is a mathematical genius who probably could have been anything he wanted to be -- if he hadn't been treated as if he were 'special'; instead he's spent his life performing low-paying, physical labor. A woman of my (very close) acquaintance was treated by her doctors and parents (and also severely medicated) to the point where she was little more than a bag of skin. Despite the fact that her 'autism' was a misdiagnosis -- that wasn't caught for over 20 years. She, incidentally, is a perfectly-functioning human being who simply needed some encouragement -- and then a personal accomplishment or two -- to figure this out.

I have yet another friend who has an autistic child and all she does is fight tooth-and-nail with her local school board to help create the conditions where her son may simply get a decent primary education without the We Care Brigade letting their good (but entirely misguided) intentions inadvertently pave his road to a personal hell.

Yeah, I get it; different people are afflicted to different extents, and not all autistics are capable of such (for lack of a better word) 'normal' lives. But I wonder how many actually are, or rather, would be, if the words 'autism' didn't evoke the kind of fear and stupidity that they do. I also wonder how many children are being diagnosed as autistics simply because they merely display a symptom of two --- without actually being autistic. It's becoming the Designer Illness du jour for parents with little sense and loads of disposable income.

Of course, once the word 'autism' entered the daily lexicon of most people, it's suddenly found everywhere, and every parent who gets upset because their tyke isn't speaking fluent Japanese by her third birthday is, in part, responsible for it. So are the doctors who simply categorize people without first making certain of a diagnosis because it's easier to tell a parent who is already convinced what they want to hear.

For many people nowadays, children are not a responsibility and a labor of love. They aren't tiny human beings who require love and guidance and life lessons to be taught by an attentive parent . They are a fashion accessory. Having kids is simply what you must do when you can't figure out what to do with your weekends anymore, or worse, they are the key to a whole new social world of Little League, the PTA and the Soccer Mom pre-school set. So, when the kid exhibits some sort of behavior which reflects badly on the parent, there simply must be something wrong with the kid, and the parent will take the little guy to every doctor, and subject him to every imaginable test to prove there must be some reason beyond bad genes and poor parenting skills to explain why Little Bobby hasn't built a Super Hadron Collider in the basement -- even though you bought him the kit for Christmas.

There must be something wrong with him, because the alternative is simply too embarrassing. Usually, the first 'hint' for these overly-sensitive parents is that Jenny hasn't talked by age 2, and Timmy would rather watch Power Rangers than engage in conversation with Mommy, tuning her out. It can't be because Jenny hasn't anything to say, or because Timmy's Mommy hasn't bonded with her child, what with him being left with nannies while she resumed her career, and all.

And so they drag their kids from one doctor to another, unwilling to believe that Doctors A-through-Y made a solid diagnosis of gross 'normality' -- until they find Doctor Z who agrees that 3-year old Sam's seeming inability to accept the basic premises of the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming simply must be a sign of autism.

Of course, Doctor Z is a child behavioral expert, but the fact that maybe she graduated last in her class, maybe after repeating her last year of med school and failing her State Licensing Exam twice, means nothing. She's more than happy to help the over-sensitive Parents realize their Worst Nightmare while taking their cash. Sometimes, Doctor Z has a vested interest in telling you what you're already predisposed to believe, whether it's true or not, whether or not she's competent to make that call.

Which begets fear about inoculations, medication, oxygen chambers and blood transfusions for no apparent reason other than the hope that something 'changes'. What changes they're expecting is beyond me. If your kid is a dope, then too bad. However, if your kid is really ill, or really is autistic, then what the hell are you trying to do? The science on these treatments is sketchy, at best, and any doctor who tells you they understand all the vagaries and mysteries of both genetics and the human brain is a flat-out liar.

In the meantime, children who really do need help are either having real treatments denied or delayed by this witchcraft, or the witchcraft is simply a substitute for what many of these kids really need -- parents who love them and who are willing to devote the time, and display the patience, needed to help them out. They aren't 'sick', they aren't 'abnormal', and yes, many have 'special needs', but the first need on that list is a parent with common sense.

Autism can be a scary thing. I've seen it close up at it's worst. I also know from personal experience that a good many doctors of the behavioral sciences sort are full of shit (six years on the couch for me, hence the name of this blog). But this sort of thing, subjecting your children to what, at first glance appears to be torture based on little more than a personal hope generated by your own vanity, strikes me as barbaric.

For those who have children with severe autism, I'm on your side. Really. I would rather pluck out my own eyeballs than see a child suffer, and would gladly give you everything I have if it eased your pain, and helped your child for as much as five minutes. For those of you who simply can't accept that you're really poor parents and look to this sort of 'medicine' to absolve you of this sin, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves...oh, right; you're incapable of shame, which is why you put your kids through hell in the first place -- to prove their 'abnormality' is really not your fault.

The Doctors who do this sort of thing ought to have their own heads examined.