In Memoriam

Graphic by fourseastars. Used with permission.

Drew Howell. Owen Black. Mikaela Lynch.

In the past week three children with autism have gone missing, later to be found dead in a body of water. Mikaela Lynch was 9 years old and was missing for 5 days before her body was found in the creek behind her house. Owen Black was 8 and slipped out of the vacation house he was staying in with his parents while they slept. Drew Howell was 2. They were all autistic and nonverbal.

Three children now dead. These are unimaginable tragedies; I can't even comprehend it, it's so huge. I can't put myself into the heads of the families who are now so devastated by these losses, it's too big for me to understand. Even saying that I'm sorry for their losses just seems banal. I can't imagine their pain. I can't. 

When things like this happen, it's human nature to want to have a reason, an explanation. It's natural to ask questions like "how could this happen?" and I'll try to explain what I can: Professionals call it "elopement behavior," or "wandering," and studies have shown "49% of children (with autism) have wandered away from safe environments, such as homes, schools, public places, day camps, and other non-home settings." This means that they will just take off running at the drop of a hat. It means they will be there one second and gone the next. It means their parents have to keep a hand on them at all times; at all times: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because they will be gone in an instant. So many families I know have special deadbolts or alarms on their doors, just so they can sleep at night without worrying that their child will leave the house while they sleep. 

In addition, autistic children who "wander" have no understanding of their personal safety, and they are very commonly attracted to water. Sadly, The National Autism Association reports that "in 2009, 2010, and 2011, accidental drowning accounted for 91% total U.S. deaths reported in children with an ASD ages 14 and younger subsequent to wandering/elopement."

I know how much one might want to say "their parents should have been watching them," because, like I said, it's natural to want to find an explanation, but it's just not that easy. You can't keep your eyes open and on your child 24/7, you just can't. What happens if you're in a shopping center and you drop your wallet? You have to bend down and pick it up and then you look up and she's gone. Yes, it happens that fast. And I can promise you that this was the biggest fear of the parents of these children. I would bet all the money in the world that they would lie awake at night in a panic, worrying about their child running from them and having something horrible happen. This is, literally, these families' worst nightmares.

These events are unspeakable tragedies but they are not the fault of the parents. These children's parents are not to blame for this. Nobody is to blame for this, it's just a horrible, unimaginable thing that has happened. That said, there are still some people out there who will use these tragedies to advance their own careers and personal agendas, in particular one pink haired hack who "writes" for the Examiner (I put the word "writes" in quotes because having the ability to bang your fist into a keyboard doesn't automatically make you a writer.) These people will try to take advantage of the pain these parents are feeling and make some money by having you click on the link to their inflammatory "articles." These people not just willfully violate journalistic ethics and should be fired from whatever writing jobs they have but are also the scum of the earth.

If you actually want to help, don't point fingers and don't place blame. Educate yourself about autism and wandering. Join in efforts to help support families who lie awake at night worrying. But most importantly, don't judge. Don't say "those parents should have done a better job," because until it's YOU lying in your bed at night in a panic, you have no idea what it's really like. And the truth is that Child 1 is not a runner and this isn't part of my experience with autism. I lie awake nights worrying about different things and therefore I, too, have no idea what it's really like. But that doesn't stop me from being educated on the issue, and education is what prevents judgment. If you don't understand this pain, that's okay, you don't have to. Just don't judge what you don't know.

---

New study shows autism linked to moms who breathe during pregnancy

Is this woman's breathing causing her child's autism?

Submitted by jillsmo, Bullshit Staff Writer, May 24, 2012

Mothers who breathe while pregnant are more likely to have a child diagnosed with autism, according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control.

Autism, a complex neurological disorder characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior, is increasing at a rate so alarming, fear has been struck in the hearts of humans across the globe. In this latest study, researchers have discovered that up to 100% of children who are later diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder had mothers who breathed during pregnancy.

Breathing is an involuntary movement of the lungs which allows oxygen to circulate through the bloodstream, and has also been linked with other deadly diseases such as asthma, lung cancer and emphysema. The high statistical rate has alarmed researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland: "if every single child with autism was born to a mother who alternatively inhaled and exhaled air in the act of respiration, it stands to reason that there is a connection between the two," says Dr. Jennifer McCarthy, Professor of Hyperbole and Disinformation at Johns Hopkins University, who led the study.

"Nobody actually knows what causes autism," Dr. McCarthy continues, "and no single study can explain its causes, but the data we uncovered through this research should be taken very seriously. We're not suggesting that pregnant women be advised to stop breathing during pregnancy, but this study should create enough solid evidence and kneejerk reaction so that mothers everywhere can finally be convinced that their child's autism is their fault. Oh, and more research is clearly indicated, I guess. We'll get to that later."

Images courtesy of stockimages / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

---

The Connecticut tragedy and autism

I sent this letter to every single person I could think of at our district, including the Superintendant and the School Board.  Feel free to grab it and use it as your own, although I did borrow some of the language from the Autism Discussion Page on Facebook.

---

Dear (school) community:

There has been much discussion online and in the news about the connection between the Connecticut school shooting and the fact that the shooter may have been diagnosed with autism. As our families and our community discusses this issue and tries to find a reason for this heartbreaking tragedy, I feel that it is very important to remember the following: There is no connection between planned, violent behavior and an autism spectrum diagnosis of any kind.

Autism is not a mental illness; it is a developmental disability. Many autistic people may have emotional regulation problems, which are impulsive expressions of frustration and anger, that are immediate and disorganized. They may lash out with threatening statements or behaviors, but these behaviors are impulsive reactions, they are not deliberate or organized plans. Once the situation has been diffused, the behaviors will stop. What happened in Connecticut required methodical planning of a deliberate and tremendously violent act; this is not typical behavior of an autistic person.

Right now we are all struggling to find a reason why this kind of atrocity would happen, and we can speculate about the mental state of the shooter; about gun control laws; about the current state of our country’s mental health system, or about whatever else that might help us make some sense out of this. Please know, and please tell your children, that even if the shooter was autistic, autism is not the explanation for this tragedy.

If anybody has any questions about autism, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you very much for your time,

Jill
Mom to (Child 1) in 5th grade, with autism

---

On Autism and the Colorado Shooting: An Open Letter to @JoeNBC and @msnbc

This is a wonderful letter written by my friend Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg in response to Joe Scarborough's remarks about the Colorado shooting and autism which linked autism and mass murderers.

Rachel has also created a very successful Change.org petition, which you can see and sign here.

This letter is reprinted with permission.

---

Dear Mr. Scarborough and MSNBC:

Nearly one week has passed since you, Mr. Scarborough, made the false and unsupportable claim that most people who commit the kind of violence seen in Aurora, Colorado are on the autism spectrum.

Your statement was both prejudicial and factually incorrect. Not a single mass murderer has ever been diagnosed with autism. Not one. Moreover, there is no evidence linking autism to premeditated, criminal violence. Absolutely none.

You have not set the record straight. Your employers as MSNBC have not set the record straight. Why is that? Journalists have an obligation to provide accurate information and to issue a retraction when they are in error. It’s really quite simple. What has gone awry at MSNBC that no such retraction has occurred?

It’s not as though, in the past week, retractions and apologies are without precedent. The president of ABC News has issued an apology for Brian Ross’ irresponsible statement that the Colorado shooter was a member of the Tea Party. Why has MSNBC not followed their lead? Why has MSNBC failed to retract and apologize for an equally incorrect and potentially damaging statement?

Many of us have spent years in the trenches educating people about autism, dispelling myths, working toward acceptance, and advocating for inclusion. Many of us have spent countless hours worrying about what will happen to people on the autism spectrum — the children coming up, the young adults beginning to make their way in the world, the older people dealing with a lifetime of rejection — in a world full of so much negative and false information. Many on the spectrum have borne the brunt of physical violence, bullying, and shunning. Countless family members and friends have watched their loved ones bear it.

And all of us — all of us — have cried bitter, bitter tears over a world that does not see people on the autism spectrum as fully worthy of the rights and protections that most people take for granted.

And yet, through our tears, we keep trying. We keep building. We keep working.

And then you come along, Mr. Scarborough, with both the privilege and the responsibility that come with reaching millions of people, and you utter falsehoods that have the potential to undo the progress we have labored for so long to achieve. And you did it at a moment at which the nation was wounded and our hearts were bleeding — a moment at which we were hungry for answers.

And you gave America the wrong answer, Mr. Scarborough. You made a group of innocent people the representatives of the horror wrought by one man.

You can go a long way toward healing the damage. You can take responsibility for yourself and for your words. You can issue a full on-air retraction, one that will reach millions of viewers, and you can clarify that autism does not in any way, shape, or form predispose people toward the kind of heinous violence perpetrated in that movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

And if you don’t take responsibility, Mr. Scarborough, your employers at MSNBC certainly should.

Over 10,000 people have signed a Change.org petition demanding a full retraction, and the numbers are growing. They are outraged, and rightly so. They know an injustice when they see it.

Listen to them. They are telling you what you need to know. Please fulfill your professional and ethical obligations. Set the record straight.

Sincerely,

Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg


© 2012 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

---

20 things that are more important than Kim Kardashian's divorce

1. The oil stain in my driveway

2. The pair of poopy underpants that have been hidden by someone in the back of my bathroom

3. 1 in 110 children in America are living with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, with a 10 to 17 percent annual growth rate (source)

4. America's Funniest Home videos is supposed to be on right now but it isn't

5. I really need to clean those cobwebs off the ceiling in the corner there

6. Approximately 6.1 million children (8.2%) living in the United States don't have health insurance (source)

7. I've never been to an Olive Garden

8. The time changes this weekend

9. 12 million people living in Somalia are currently in need of humanitarian assistance and 750,000 will likely die in the next 4 months (source)

10. I haven't slept through the night for more than 2 consecutive nights for about 7 years now

11. One of my cats keeps shitting on the rug in the bathroom

12. The current unemployment rate is 9.1% nation-wide and 11.9% in California (source)

13. Spam is really annoying

14. Sea turtles can swim up to 35 miles per hour

15. The 17 million dollars that Kimmie and Hubby made from their wedding could pay for approximately 515 people to attend a public college for 4 years (source)

16. I think that one of Child 2's friend's moms doesn't like me, but I don't know why. I assume it was something I said.

17. There's been nothing but crap available for download from the Rock Band store for the last 2 weeks

18. About 46.2 million people in the United States live below the poverty line, with 20.5 million (1 out of every 15) living at 50% or less of the official poverty line (source)

19. I have absolutely no idea what I'm going to make for dinner tonight

20. Fucking anything

---

Amy Winehouse R.I.P.

I'm sad about this; I'm really sad. I thought she was amazingly talented and have been following her career for the past few years, along with the rest of us, and for some reason I kept thinking that she was going to be able to pull it together. It's really no surprise to anybody that she died of an overdose, particularly me, but... I don't know. I didn't think she was going to end up this way. I thought she was going to make it. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I just had a higher opinion of her than anybody else did.

The first song I heard was Rehab, on the radio; I'm no Winehouse hipster or anything, I heard of her at the same time as the rest of you. At first I was confused by it, though, because it sounds so much like a 1960's girl group, but I had never heard it before. Was it a cover? But, no, that was just her style; not necessarily mine, but okay. I read some articles about her and was profoundly struck by something she said once in an interview: "I write songs because I'm fucked in the head and need to get something good out of something bad." She obviously had her demons, who doesn't, really? But there was something about that line that made me take a particular interest.

I saw that video of her fucking up horribly and what struck me most about it wasn't how much of a trainwreck it was, it was to wonder how the people around her could have let that happen? Not that they let her get on stage in that condition, but that they let her even get to that condition. She's on tour, I think that concert was in Serbia, and she's surrounded by people all day long. She also had obviously been drinking and doing drugs all day long, while surrounded by people? Anybody who actually cared about her would have never let that happen, which must mean that she spent her days being surrounded by people who didn't really care about her. Add that to the the demons she already had and it was no wonder she was an addict. She may have been supremely talented, but she was also in obvious pain; a lot of it, and apparently the people in her life weren't willing to help her.

And why is that? Well, that's just the culture we live in, right? She made a lot of people a lot of money by being a huge celebrity trainwreck. Nobody had any incentive to help her get healthy, where is the money in that? All the while the public watches with gleeful abandon as her life completely falls apart, because there's nothing we like more than to watch somebody's spectacular failure happen in the public light. It puts our own lives in perspective. Hey, things might suck for me, but at least I'm not Amy Winehouse, right? And now, of course, we wait eagerly for the results of the toxicological examination so that we can say things like "Oh my god, she had all of that in her system? What a fool! No wonder she died!" and then we can all feel really superior about ourselves; because she's dead, and we're not. She was weak; that would never happen to me.

I'm not saying this tragedy is any worse than any other; I can keep things in perspective, but like I said, it makes me sad. There was a woman with enormous talent, with public demons and very obvious pain, and she's surrounded by enablers who want to keep her like that. What chance did she really have, anyway?








EDIT: I hate having to clarify myself, but I obviously wasn't completely clear the first time. Yes, of course I know that you can't stop an addict who wants to continue to use. Perhaps even one or two of the people in her daily life actually made a half assed attempt to try? Possible, I don't know. I'm not saying that the fault lies with anybody except the addict herself. But it's probably true that most of the people around her 1. had a job to do and 2. were just there so they could party with her. Even if you take away the alcohol in her hotel room, when 10 people show up at the door with heroin, does the lack of alcohol really matter? It's hard enough for an addict to try to quit when they're just a "regular" person, but when you're surrounded by people whose livelihoods depend on you continuing on as you were, or by a huge bunch of "fans" who want to be able to say that they partied with Amy Winehouse in her final days, and then sell the pictures they took for thousands of dollars... she never had a chance. That's what I'm saying.

---

I wish I was in DC today

All of the articles I've been reading about this rally start the same: "It's meant to be a parody of a political rally but it feels like it's a real political rally." And then they go on to interview people in the crowd who all say pretty much the same thing: "I'm tired of the extremists taking over the political discussion.... We need to take the polarization out of politics. Hope is still alive and we are here to signify that."

Fuck yeah, fuck yeah, FUCK YEAH!! I have no other words of wisdom.

---

Quote of the day

"When in doubt, don't be douchey." -Jon Stewart

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally Dos and Don'ts
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

---

Jon Stewart 4tw

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally to Restore Sanity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

---

Jon Stewart speaks for me

This is worth watching through to the end because the very end is very funny.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

"Paid for by citizens who have just given up. Because why bother?"

---

Being a Californian got about 8 times better today

The 9th Circuit will be a breeze; it's the SCOTUS I'm worried about....

Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California

A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.


U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. (emphasis mine because I like that part) … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

[Updated at 2:28 p.m.: Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa praised the judge's decision. "Because a judge had the courage to stand up for the constitution of the United States, prop 8 has been overturned!" the mayor wrote on Twitter.

“This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families,” added Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, minutes after Walker’s ruling was released. “From the start, this has been about basic fairness.”


Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Prop 8 in Walker’s court, vowed to appeal, saying “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.

Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.
Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

---

I heart the Bay Area

Go Oakland, Go!!!

Oakland Authorizes Large-Scale Pot Farms, First Major City To Do So

OAKLAND, Calif. — The City Council gave final approval Tuesday to a plan that makes Oakland the first city in the country to authorize large-scale industrial pot cultivation.

The city intends to license four production plants where marijuana would be grown, packaged and processed for medical use.

Under the plan, which would take effect in January, license recipients would be heavily taxed and regulated. They would have to pay the city $211,000 in annual permit fees, carry $2 million in liability insurance and be prepared to devote up to 8 percent of gross sales to taxes.

The measure also would require bidders to meet certain labor, environmental and product safety standards.

However, there would be no size restrictions on the facilities.

Two of the eight City Council members abstained from the vote.

Supporters of the measure say it will create jobs and bring in much-needed revenue to Oakland. They also say it will give the city an advantage if California voters approve the legalization of recreational marijuana in November.

Opponents argue the urban pot farms would put small medical marijuana growers out of business.

Permits would not be limited to Oakland-based businesses. Councilwoman Desley Brooks said she hoped local business owners and minorities would be encouraged to apply.

---