Re: The Autism Reform Act of 2009

[Guest guest]

Newland wrote:

> FYI

>

> /Accept and Sign " The Autism Reform Act of 2009 " /

>

> As a country we have watched Autism Spectrum Disorders grow in a

> devastating number. Over the last decade it has spiraled so quickly

> out of control that:

>

> 1.) There must not just be one person but an ENTIRE U.S. OFFICE OF

> COMPLIANCE for Educating Children with Autism.

>

> 2.) The use of Time Out Rooms, Corporal punishments, Restraints, and

> the high amount of Abuse must be monitored with severe penalties to

> states and fines or conviction of those that break such a REFORM Law.

>

> 3.) School Districts/States must each have an " Office of Autism

> Education Compliance or be subject to loss of Federal Funding.

>

> 4.) Due Process Hearing Officers must NOT be employees of the state

> and shall be employed by the Federal Government ONLY.

>

> 5.) Insurance companies MUST provide the Early Interventions such as

> ABA Discreet Trial at no cost to parents.

>

> 6.) Protection and Advocacy MUST be funded properly to allow parents

> that need help get it without any more then a 15 day waiting period.

>

> 7.) Grants for research, education, and non profit organizations for

> those with Autism Spectrum Disorders must be made in the amount of 5

> billion dollars.

>

> 8.) Relief for parents who have paid out of pocket to educate their

> children must be made swiftly with 100% reimbursement.

>

> 9.) Behavior Intervention Plans must accompany all Individual

> Education Plans.

>

> 10.) Insurance companies must make available all resources for

> children and adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders including but not

> limited to any items deemed necessary by the physician for the

> treatment of metal toxicities and any other theraputic orders their

> physician may order.

>

> 11.) The Autism Reform Act shall consider all Autism Spectrum

> Disorders including Aspergers.

>

> 12.) This Reform Act must be 'open' for additions as needed and

> create a 12 parent panel to propose such additions.

>

> - <http://www.change.org/profile/view/143760>

> (Founder The Office of Advocacy), Wahiawa, HI Dec 09 @ 01:40AM PST

>

> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/accept_and_sign_the_autism_reform_act_of_2009

Well-intentioned, certainly. But it's a bad, BAD idea as proposed.

- Bill, 'older', dx AS

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

Agreed.

Merry Christmas to all.

e

From: WD Loughman

Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 3:32 AM

To: aspires-relationships@ya

hoogroups.com

Subject: Re: "The Autism Reform Act of

2009"

Newland wrote:> FYI> > /Accept and Sign " The

Autism Reform Act of 2009"/> > As a country we have watched

Autism

Spectrum Disorders grow in a> devastating number. Over the last

decade it

has spiraled so quickly> out of control that:> > 1.)

There

must not just be one person but an ENTIRE U.S. OFFICE OF> COMPLIANCE

for

Educating Children with Autism.> > 2.) The use of Time Out

Rooms,

Corporal punishments, Restraints, and> the high amount of Abuse must

be

monitored with severe penalties to> states and fines or conviction of

those that break such a REFORM Law.> > 3.) School

Districts/States

must each have an " Office of Autism> Education Compliance or be

subject

to loss of Federal Funding.> > 4.) Due Process Hearing

Officers

must NOT be employees of the state> and shall be employed by the

Federal

Government ONLY.> > 5.) Insurance companies MUST provide the

Early

Interventions such as> ABA Discreet Trial at no cost to

parents.>

> 6.) Protection and Advocacy MUST be funded properly to allow

parents> that need help get it without any more then a 15 day waiting

period.> > 7.) Grants for research, education, and non profit

organizations for> those with Autism Spectrum Disorders must be made

in

the amount of 5> billion dollars.> > 8.) Relief for

parents

who have paid out of pocket to educate their> children must be made

swiftly with 100% reimbursement.> > 9.) Behavior Intervention

Plans must accompany all Individual> Education Plans.>

>

10.) Insurance companies must make available all resources for>

children

and adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders including but not> limited

to

any items deemed necessary by the physician for the> treatment of

metal

toxicities and any other theraputic orders their> physician may

order.> > 11.) The Autism Reform Act shall consider all Autism

Spectrum> Disorders including Aspergers.> > 12.) This

Reform Act must be 'open' for additions as needed and> create a 12

parent

panel to propose such additions.> > - <http://www.change.org/

profile/view/143760>>

(Founder The Office of Advocacy), Wahiawa, HI Dec 09 @ 01:40AM PST >

> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/accept_and_sign_the_autism_reform_act_of_2009Well-intentioned,

certainly. But it's a bad, BAD idea as proposed.- Bill, 'older', dx

AS-- WD "Bill" Loughman - Berkeley, California USAhttp://home.earthl

ink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

> >

> > /Accept and Sign " The Autism Reform Act of 2009 " /

> >

> > As a country we have watched Autism Spectrum Disorders grow in a

> > devastating number.

> >

> Well-intentioned, certainly. But it's a bad, BAD idea as proposed.

>

> - Bill, 'older', dx AS

>

> --

> WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

> http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

>

Bill,

I know you are an educated man and I would value your insight on this

proposal. What reforms would you make to it so that it better serves

the people it is supposed to help? What specifically do you not like

about the proposal? Looking forward to your discerning opinion.

Karmyn

[Guest guest]

mynelltx wrote:

>>>

>>> /Accept and Sign " The Autism Reform Act of 2009 " /

>>>

>>> As a country we have watched Autism Spectrum Disorders grow in a

>>> devastating number.

>>>

>> Well-intentioned, certainly. But it's a bad, BAD idea as proposed.

>>

>> - Bill, 'older', dx AS

>>

>> --

>> WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

>> http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

>>

> Bill,

>

> I know you are an educated man and I would value your insight on this

> proposal. What reforms would you make to it so that it better serves

> the people it is supposed to help? What specifically do you not like

> about the proposal? Looking forward to your discerning opinion.

" Discerning " ? Moi?? Thank you kind ma'am.

It's a complex proposal with LOTS of ramifications. As you might

imagine, a decent response will take a little time.

I'm " on deadline " editing a manuscript (for $$), and MUST get it out

before midnight! Still have a few hours work, to finish up.

Patience... I *will* answer.

- Bill, older, dx AS

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

Bill and ,

Please see comments below. thanks, > FYI> > /Accept and Sign " The Autism Reform Act of 2009"/> > As a country we have watched Autism Spectrum Disorders grow in a> devastating number. Over the last decade it has spiraled so quickly> out of control that:> > 1.) There must not just be one person but an ENTIRE U.S. OFFICE OF> COMPLIANCE for Educating Children with Autism. Easy to do.> > 2.) The use of Time Out Rooms, Corporal punishments, Restraints, and> the high amount of Abuse must be monitored with severe penalties to> states and fines or conviction of those that break such a REFORM Law.> I think this is too weak. There should not be aversives at all. The danger is that a Spectrum child will be mis-judged defiant, and in that he or she will not be believed when complaining that the

aveersive is hurting too much, the child will be killed. We hare already seen this. Uneducated NTs often mistake autistic behavior for definace, and then, refuse to listen. Autistic folk are not playing games in an NT manner when they misbehave, and therefore, the whole thing is completely inappropriate anyway. People have died. Let's quit now. Life is more important than good behavior for a moment, or a teacher's peace for one day.> 3.) School Districts/States must each have an " Office of Autism> Education Compliance or be subject to loss of Federal Funding. Easy to do.> > 4.) Due Process Hearing Officers must NOT be employees of the state> and shall be employed by the Federal Government ONLY.> I agree!> 5.) Insurance companies MUST provide the Early Interventions such as> ABA Discreet

Trial at no cost to parents.I agree with the attitude about insurance companies, but there is a whole range of ABA, and while level 1 interventions make sense, aversive things really do not, and are often an excuse for lack of creativity and caring. Yes, I konw that parents sometimes do not know what else to do- but professionals should be trained better. I have taken the professional development to know this, and I am just a teacher and a mathematician. How much more could a social worker or speech pathologist learn? In my state, NH, aversives are illegal. So, this is not just me.> > 6.) Protection and Advocacy MUST be funded properly to allow parents> that need help get it without any more then a 15 day waiting period.This is also the problem with NCLB-- no child left behind- no matter how good it is on paper, it is not

funded.> > 7.) Grants for research, education, and non profit organizations for> those with Autism Spectrum Disorders must be made in the amount of 5> billion dollars. > > 8.) Relief for parents who have paid out of pocket to educate their> children must be made swiftly with 100% reimbursement. See above; not without funding!> > 9.) Behavior Intervention Plans must accompany all Individual> Education Plans. Easy to do. Any list of classroom management techniques would qualify. > > 10.) Insurance companies must make available all resources for> children and adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders including but not> limited to any items deemed necessary by the physician for the> treatment of metal toxicities and any other theraputic orders

their> physician may order. I have no problem with excluding certain experimental treatments that are really snake oil, but I do belileve that insurance companies are discriminating unfairly, and to a very high degree. > > 11.) The Autism Reform Act shall consider all Autism Spectrum> Disorders including Aspergers. Great! (But, no aversives, please!)> > 12.) This Reform Act must be 'open' for additions as needed and> create a 12 parent panel to propose such additions. Nothing about us, without us! I bvelieve that adult autistic folk should be on that panel as well, in the same capacity as parents. After all, we have been there. Hay, not just one or two tokens, either! We know from the inside out what does not work, why it fails, and how it feels when it

fails! Since NTs want to know how it feels, they should be willing to work with us as equals. We are on the same page.> > - <http://www.change. org/profile/ view/143760>> (Founder The Office of Advocacy), Wahiawa, HI Dec 09 @ 01:40AM PST > > http://www.change. org/ideas/ view/accept_ and_sign_ the_autism_ reform_act_ of_2009Well-intentioned, certainly. But it's a bad, BAD idea as proposed.- Bill, 'older', dx AS-- WD "Bill" Loughman - Berkeley, California USAhttp://home. earthlink. net/~wdloughman/

wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

WD Loughman wrote:

>>

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/accept_and_sign_the_autism_reform_act_of_2009

>

> Well-intentioned, certainly. But it's a bad, BAD idea as proposed.

>

Bad yes, but well intentioned? I doubt it. That perspective will

probably baffle NT or is it they wouldn't want to speak out.

In a way it is the rabid dictatorial manner without basis which gives

the game away. The demands on other people.

Who is he and what is the organisation? Legal details anyone?

For example, ABA seems pretty much discredited yet there is a demand

when the science has not been done. I'm not even sure US science is

currently capable of doing that science, such is the intrusion of

politics into science.

Some of it is garbled. Doesn't even get facts right.

The kind of thing where it is not reasonable to counter it item by item.

Looks like the promoter is trying to pump up a presence when actually he

represents nothing at the moment. He is going around promoting like mad.

Such as here http://hatingautism.blogspot.com/

Ignore him. Can't even be sure it is a genuine identity.

[Guest guest]

mynelltx wrote:

>>>

>>> /Accept and Sign " The Autism Reform Act of 2009 " /

>>>

>>> As a country we have watched Autism Spectrum Disorders grow in a

>>> devastating number.

>>>

>> Well-intentioned, certainly. But it's a bad, BAD idea as proposed.

>>

>> - Bill, 'older', dx AS

>>

>> --

>> WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

>> http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

>>

> Bill,

>

> I know you are an educated man and I would value your insight on this

> proposal. What reforms would you make to it so that it better serves

> the people it is supposed to help? What specifically do you not like

> about the proposal? Looking forward to your discerning opinion.

>

> Karmyn

Almost sorry I promised to respond. Tim's thoughts about it are cogent,

mercifully brief, and *better than what I offer* below. But Karmyn's

request was in good faith, and I *did* promise, sooo.....

From Newland's (12/22/08 06:18 pm) ASPIRES post:

==============================================================

>

> /Accept and Sign " The Autism Reform Act of 2009 " /

>

> As a country we have watched Autism Spectrum Disorders grow in a

> devastating number. Over the last decade it has spiraled so

> quickly out of control that:

This emperor has no clothes.

The *best* evidence shows rates of *diagnosis* are rising, ...not that

" autism " is rising.

Broadened and more inclusive " official " autism criteria, and

" diagnosis " at later and later ages, make it *appear* that " autism " is

increasing.

BAD assumption. SPURIOUS evidence.

>

> 1.) There must not just be one person but an ENTIRE U.S. OFFICE OF

> COMPLIANCE for Educating Children with Autism.

There is *NO objective test* for autism.

Therefore no way to know what's effective in teaching " autists " .

Therefore no way to establish what's in compliance and what isn't.

EXCEPT by establishing " rules " which would have *NO OBJECTIVE BASIS*.

That's bad science, worse law, and establishing such an Office would be

*even worse* government. BAD rule.

>

> 2.) The use of Time Out Rooms, Corporal punishments, Restraints,

> and the high amount of Abuse must be monitored with severe

> penalties to states and fines or conviction of those that break

> such a REFORM Law.

" Monitored " ?? To what effect? Who'll do it? Importantly, who monitors

the monitors?? As important: who pays for all this? BAD rule.

>

> 3.) School Districts/States must each have an " Office of Autism

> Education Compliance or be subject to loss of Federal Funding.

" Each have an office " : Do the math. Cities, counties and States -

that's a LOT of districts!

Each with a staff and infrastructure; all of it costing lots of money

*on top of* already inadequate school budgets. BAD rule.

>

> 4.) Due Process Hearing Officers must NOT be employees of the state

> and shall be employed by the Federal Government ONLY.

Meaningless " scatter-gun " proposal. But if implemented anyway, it

*assumes* Federal oversight is better than State (or other) oversight.

That's a " fact " all-too clearly NOT in evidence. BAD rule.

>

> 5.) Insurance companies MUST provide the Early Interventions such as

> ABA Discreet Trial at no cost to parents.

There's no good evidence Early Interventions help autists.

Why? Because we don't really know *who is* an autist. Because

there's *no objective test* for autism.

Early Interventions do sometimes do *something*, yes. But what,

....and to whom? Where's the reality here?

Then again: the money. Insurance companies always take *my* money to

cover *someone else's* risk.

" Autism " , whatever it's decided to be, currently is costing people a

LOT of money. *My* premiums will go up, way up, ...all to pay for

something which has *NO good definition* -- *NO objective test*.

BAD thinking.

>

> 6.) Protection and Advocacy MUST be funded properly to allow parents

> that need help get it without any more then a 15 day waiting period.

Screwball thinking. Exactly *what*, please, is to be funded? What does

it look like? Who's to do it? And again, the money: who's on the hook

to pay for it all? And where's the oversight? Yet another Office?

>

> 7.) Grants for research, education, and non profit organizations for

> those with Autism Spectrum Disorders must be made in the amount of 5

> billion dollars.

Five billion here, 5 billion there... Pretty soon, y'know, we're

talking BIG money. Yet again: exactly *what* is all this going for?

And to whom? And...

>

> 8.) Relief for parents who have paid out of pocket to educate their

> children must be made swiftly with 100% reimbursement.

Oh, *I'm* for that one. Where do I apply? Oh. They meant *autistic*

children? What's that?

>

> 9.) Behavior Intervention Plans must accompany all Individual

> Education Plans.

UH-oh! Some form of brain-washing is to be *mandated*(!!), AND

regardless of its appropriateness. It says right there: *ALL* IEPs.

>

> 10.) Insurance companies must make available all resources for

> children and adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders including but not

> limited to any items deemed necessary by the physician for the

> treatment of metal toxicities and any other theraputic orders their

> physician may order.

Well, there's that $$$ problem again... I guess someone will handle

that; ...not to worry.

The real problem is that " MUST make available all... " What the hell

does that mean? And why is " the physician " empowered to make decisions

about it? Autism isn't a medical thing. BAD thinking.

>

> 11.) The Autism Reform Act shall consider all Autism Spectrum

> Disorders including Aspergers.

??????

>

> 12.) This Reform Act must be 'open' for additions as needed and

> create a 12 parent panel to propose such additions.

Who appoints the panel? What are the " 12 parent " s' qualifications for

serving? Parents of whom? ..Or maybe of what? BAD law.

>

> - <http://www.change.org/profile/view/143760>

> (Founder The Office of Advocacy), Wahiawa, HI Dec 09 @ 01:40AM PST

This guy is a self-aggrandizing ...what?

Obviously more interested in " stirring the pot " than in what are the

pot's contents, he's at least a tease. ...A charlatan? ...con-man?

A rabble-rouser with little interest in reform, and maybe *less*

interest in whatever it is that might deserve reform.

==============================================================

Tim's earlier and more pointedly skeptical comments are RIGHT ON!, and I

endorse them.

Especially Tim's " The kind of thing where it is not reasonable to

counter it item by item. "

- Bill, older, dx AS; ...worried that *any* credence is given this.

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

Bill,I hope I did not offend you with my earlier post on this matter. Here is a bit of what is being referred to in scientific terminology (that is, well-defined):(1) speech/ communication disorders. While the science here is sometimes wimpy, it is sometimes solid, too.(2) IEP: I have taught high school for six years, and seen many IEPs. These really have greeat interventions in them. I can give examples of things that really help. Unfortunately, there are also abuses of that process, so I have no quarrel with your attitude: there is a baby in the bathwater, though, so to speak. One common EIP statement for some students with AS is that they not be required to do group work. Another is that they be permitted to take examinations in quiet rooms, where they will not be

distracted. A third is that they can ask questions to have the meaning of a test queestion explained to them. All three of these are helpful and germain to this discussion. In the case of the meaning of a test question, there is no intent to cheat, but rather there are questions where a bit of social context is assumed, and an AS student may not be aware of the hidden assumption, so may take things wrong. For example""Name three things not on this list: CatDogRat1.2.3.The list could be one of animals in a storybook, or vertibrates studied, or something else relevant. As a child, I might well have answered with,1. Number2. Banana3. Color,since none of those were listed, and then gotten into a major argument with the teacher when I was marked wrong. In fifth grade, I would not have readily understood why this was

incorrect!In terms of money for insurance, if a person has apraxia which requires speech therapy to overcome, why isn't that as deserving of funding as a broken leg, or any other disability? Granted, I agree with you that snake oil should not be funded. In terms of the aversives, the issue originated from numerous cases in which children were killed while at school with these behaviour methods (aversives and other dangerous methods). I would say, safety first before discipline. I think we are agreed.I cannot comment much on the motivation for the author of this document. it is certainly not well written.

>>>

>>> /Accept and Sign " The Autism Reform Act of 2009"/

>>>

>>> As a country we have watched Autism Spectrum Disorders grow in a

>>> devastating number.

>>>

>> Well-intentioned, certainly. But it's a bad, BAD idea as proposed.

>>

>> - Bill, 'older', dx AS

>>

>> --

>> WD "Bill" Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

>> http://home. earthlink. net/~wdloughman/ wdl.htm

>>

> Bill,

>

> I know you are an educated man and I would value your insight on this

> proposal. What reforms would you make to it so that it better serves

> the people it is supposed to help? What specifically do you not like

> about the proposal? Looking forward to your discerning opinion.

>

> Karmyn

Almost sorry I promised to respond. Tim's thoughts about it are cogent,

mercifully brief, and *better than what I offer* below. But Karmyn's

request was in good faith, and I *did* promise, sooo.....

From Newland's (12/22/08 06:18 pm) ASPIRES post:

============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= =====

>

> /Accept and Sign " The Autism Reform Act of 2009"/

>

> As a country we have watched Autism Spectrum Disorders grow in a

> devastating number. Over the last decade it has spiraled so

> quickly out of control that:

This emperor has no clothes.

The *best* evidence shows rates of *diagnosis* are rising, ...not that

"autism" is rising.

Broadened and more inclusive "official" autism criteria, and

"diagnosis" at later and later ages, make it *appear* that "autism" is

increasing.

BAD assumption. SPURIOUS evidence.

>

> 1.) There must not just be one person but an ENTIRE U.S. OFFICE OF

> COMPLIANCE for Educating Children with Autism.

There is *NO objective test* for autism.

Therefore no way to know what's effective in teaching "autists".

Therefore no way to establish what's in compliance and what isn't.

EXCEPT by establishing "rules" which would have *NO OBJECTIVE BASIS*.

That's bad science, worse law, and establishing such an Office would be

*even worse* government. BAD rule.

>

> 2.) The use of Time Out Rooms, Corporal punishments, Restraints,

> and the high amount of Abuse must be monitored with severe

> penalties to states and fines or conviction of those that break

> such a REFORM Law.

"Monitored"? ? To what effect? Who'll do it? Importantly, who monitors

the monitors?? As important: who pays for all this? BAD rule.

>

> 3.) School Districts/States must each have an " Office of Autism

> Education Compliance or be subject to loss of Federal Funding.

"Each have an office": Do the math. Cities, counties and States -

that's a LOT of districts!

Each with a staff and infrastructure; all of it costing lots of money

*on top of* already inadequate school budgets. BAD rule.

>

> 4.) Due Process Hearing Officers must NOT be employees of the state

> and shall be employed by the Federal Government ONLY.

Meaningless "scatter-gun" proposal. But if implemented anyway, it

*assumes* Federal oversight is better than State (or other) oversight.

That's a "fact" all-too clearly NOT in evidence. BAD rule.

>

> 5.) Insurance companies MUST provide the Early Interventions such as

> ABA Discreet Trial at no cost to parents.

There's no good evidence Early Interventions help autists.

Why? Because we don't really know *who is* an autist. Because

there's *no objective test* for autism.

Early Interventions do sometimes do *something*, yes. But what,

.....and to whom? Where's the reality here?

Then again: the money. Insurance companies always take *my* money to

cover *someone else's* risk.

"Autism", whatever it's decided to be, currently is costing people a

LOT of money. *My* premiums will go up, way up, ...all to pay for

something which has *NO good definition* -- *NO objective test*.

BAD thinking.

>

> 6.) Protection and Advocacy MUST be funded properly to allow parents

> that need help get it without any more then a 15 day waiting period.

Screwball thinking. Exactly *what*, please, is to be funded? What does

it look like? Who's to do it? And again, the money: who's on the hook

to pay for it all? And where's the oversight? Yet another Office?

>

> 7.) Grants for research, education, and non profit organizations for

> those with Autism Spectrum Disorders must be made in the amount of 5

> billion dollars.

Five billion here, 5 billion there... Pretty soon, y'know, we're

talking BIG money. Yet again: exactly *what* is all this going for?

And to whom? And...

>

> 8.) Relief for parents who have paid out of pocket to educate their

> children must be made swiftly with 100% reimbursement.

Oh, *I'm* for that one. Where do I apply? Oh. They meant *autistic*

children? What's that?

>

> 9.) Behavior Intervention Plans must accompany all Individual

> Education Plans.

UH-oh! Some form of brain-washing is to be *mandated*(! !), AND

regardless of its appropriateness. It says right there: *ALL* IEPs.

>

> 10.) Insurance companies must make available all resources for

> children and adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders including but not

> limited to any items deemed necessary by the physician for the

> treatment of metal toxicities and any other theraputic orders their

> physician may order.

Well, there's that $$$ problem again... I guess someone will handle

that; ...not to worry.

The real problem is that "MUST make available all..." What the hell

does that mean? And why is "the physician" empowered to make decisions

about it? Autism isn't a medical thing. BAD thinking.

>

> 11.) The Autism Reform Act shall consider all Autism Spectrum

> Disorders including Aspergers.

??????

>

> 12.) This Reform Act must be 'open' for additions as needed and

> create a 12 parent panel to propose such additions.

Who appoints the panel? What are the "12 parent"s' qualifications for

serving? Parents of whom? ..Or maybe of what? BAD law.

>

> - <http://www.change. org/profile/ view/143760>

> (Founder The Office of Advocacy), Wahiawa, HI Dec 09 @ 01:40AM PST

This guy is a self-aggrandizing ...what?

Obviously more interested in "stirring the pot" than in what are the

pot's contents, he's at least a tease. ...A charlatan? ...con-man?

A rabble-rouser with little interest in reform, and maybe *less*

interest in whatever it is that might deserve reform.

============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= =====

Tim's earlier and more pointedly skeptical comments are RIGHT ON!, and I

endorse them.

Especially Tim's "The kind of thing where it is not reasonable to

counter it item by item."

- Bill, older, dx AS; ...worried that *any* credence is given this.

--

WD "Bill" Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home. earthlink. net/~wdloughman/ wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

Princess wrote:

> Bill,

>

> I hope I did not offend you with my earlier post on this matter.

No, you didn't.

>

> I cannot comment much on the motivation for the author of this

> document. it is certainly not well written.

That it wasn't! Nor, *as a possible law* (...Act of 2009), was it well

thought-out, either. That was the thrust of my own commentary.

My closing shot: " ...worried that *any* credence is given this. " wasn't

aimed at you specifically or any List-member.

Nor even at the gist of its content. Rather, *IF* such badly-written

and poorly-conceived stuff is even considered as *possibly* acceptable

Law by our citizens -- *THEN* I grieve for our country and its future.

Tim's comments really were spot on:

" Some of it is garbled. Doesn't even get facts right. "

- Bill, older, dx AS

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

Bill,

It would not be the first time in this country that a badly worded, garbled law made it into the books! Here are a few funny examples (all too true!):

* In several states, there was a law either passed or introduced to make pi legally equal to 3.

* In one state, it was proposed to make pi equal to an even 4.

* In one house of the Illinois legislature, back in the mid 70's, there was a big discussion about a corn blight that was carried by the cytoplasm, and one legislator moved to ban cytolasm in corn!

* Now, take a look at the law, and the lack of funcing, for "No Child Left Behind" to see a modern example of a legal quagmire where teachers are forced to teach to a test, and not to academic excellence- well, don't get me started- a number of typical teachers would get on a soap box over this one!

(When I was formally dx-ed, I was asked for the definition of the word "tirade", which I defined by example as the thing that ASpies were often accused of going on, when we have very strong opinions...)

> Bill,> > I hope I did not offend you with my earlier post on this matter.No, you didn't.> > I cannot comment much on the motivation for the author of this > document. it is certainly not well written. That it wasn't! Nor, *as a possible law* (...Act of 2009), was it well thought-out, either. That was the thrust of my own commentary.My closing shot: "...worried that *any* credence is given this." wasn't aimed at you specifically or any List-member.Nor even at the gist of its content. Rather, *IF* such badly-written and poorly-conceived stuff is even considered as *possibly* acceptable Law by our citizens -- *THEN* I grieve for our country and its future.Tim's comments really were spot on:"Some of it is garbled. Doesn't even get facts right."- Bill, older, dx AS-- WD "Bill" Loughman - Berkeley, California

USAhttp://home. earthlink. net/~wdloughman/ wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

>> Newland wrote:

>> Families do the research as well as those “with” and just know. If it

>> walks like a duck and talks like a duck, 9 out of ten times it is a

>> duck. What do you suggest for a test in todays world? Just curious.

>

>Bill wrote:

> I doubt there'll ever be a specific test for autism.

> There may be someday tests for " degrees " of autism. ...Criteria

> which may establish reliably - predict - some autistic capability that

> might be leveraged in a useful way.

>

> I agree about the ducks.

Interesting conversation here.. I've seen this guy posting on another list

as well.. I think he comes off like a used car salesman.. but unfortunately,

used car salesman manage to sell plenty of used cars.

Regarding the tests..

I have a basic distaste for the concept of " degrees of autism " .. I prefer to

see it more as manifestations of autism, of which the manifestations may

appear in a variety of degrees of themselves and number of (count) and

specific qualities of each manifestation.. In other words, I prefer to

view the spectrum as .. well, let me use an analogy..

You can make bread billions of ways. They mostly have some common

ingredients and when they're combined and baked you get.. you know, anything

from white bread to saltine crackers to 16 grain loaf (VERY nice toasted!)

to whatever, but they're all generally called " bread " .. well, except the

saltines, but anyway...

I don't see autism as a disease and these manifestations as symptoms, thus

we should stop treating the symptoms and find a cure for the disease.

I see autism, asperger's, adhd, pdd-whatever (add/remove labels as

necessary) as named " recipes " made of the general/overall collection of

" ingredients " available to make people from. some are just a little heavy

on the " salt " or other such ingredient.. and just like bread, a german hard

loaf may not be to one person's taste in the least, just as a non-verbal

child may be difficult to raise, but [and here's the big kicker] THAT

DOESN'T MAKE IT BAD/WRONG/A DISEASE.

...(ugh, I meant this to be like 2 sentences tops.. last part of my

digression:)

My can be a terror. He was nonverbal and had regressed

developmentally between 2 and 3, but I will tell you what, the child he is,

autism and all, makes him unique, special, yes a challenge, but perfect..

just perfect just the way he is. His personality is bound to make a big

impression on the people he touches throughout his life, and I wouldn't take

his autism away from him. I used to ache over what he could have been over

what he is, lament over how we thought we broke him. Like Bill said, I have

come to understand that he doesn't " have autism " , he *is* autism. Autism

*is* him. It is who he is just as much as Polish and Sicilian is who he is.

He deserves better than to have his autistic traits removed from him.

...

Also, love the comment about autistic capability, and disagree about the

ducks.. been fooled WAY too many times by trojan ducks

Usarian