Page 1 of 2 [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

17 Sep 2008, 11:03 am

I read on obamas site what he plans to do policy wise about people on the ASD spectrum. I do not like that he is going to fund the combatting autism act, although there does seem to be some positive actions he will take.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/AutismSp ... orders.pdf

this page contains all contact information

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


Ravenclawgurl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,274
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

17 Sep 2008, 1:24 pm

cool ill read this later when i have more time



bloop
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 49
Location: UK

17 Sep 2008, 1:46 pm

I wonder if you could explain a bit more about this Combating Autism Act. I'm from the UK so not au fait with American politics. I've read the link you post above, and the summary published on the White House website, and despite the ill advised title (surely "Supporting" or "Researching" might be better than "combating"?) the spirit of the act seems to be quite positive (although I have to say I'm always sceptical of politicians..)

I note on the White House website that the first paragraph quotes George W Bush introducing the Act when it was passed, which does quote him as saying the act will go towards "curing autism" - totally lacking in understanding clearly, but isn't that the case for everythign Dubya says? Surely we just write that off as a Bush-ism and take the act in the spirit it seems to be meant?

And if it funds further research into ASDs, the research can't help but conclude that "cure" isn't really a relevant term, and that the research will be better directed at providing better levels of support within families & communities, raising awareness, and so on, which are all aims of the act (or so it says). Professional researchers especially those into healthcare don't waste their time barking up the wrong tree - it looks bad on their academic credentials! So even if Bushy thinks there is a cure (let's face it he probably thinks being black or a democrat can be cured), then the research he's funding will prove him wrong... surely?

Or am I missing something? Help in understanding appreciated!



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

17 Sep 2008, 2:10 pm

bloop wrote:
I wonder if you could explain a bit more about this Combating Autism Act. I'm from the UK so not au fait with American politics. I've read the link you post above, and the summary published on the White House website, and despite the ill advised title (surely "Supporting" or "Researching" might be better than "combating"?) the spirit of the act seems to be quite positive (although I have to say I'm always sceptical of politicians..)

I note on the White House website that the first paragraph quotes George W Bush introducing the Act when it was passed, which does quote him as saying the act will go towards "curing autism" - totally lacking in understanding clearly, but isn't that the case for everythign Dubya says? Surely we just write that off as a Bush-ism and take the act in the spirit it seems to be meant?

And if it funds further research into ASDs, the research can't help but conclude that "cure" isn't really a relevant term, and that the research will be better directed at providing better levels of support within families & communities, raising awareness, and so on, which are all aims of the act (or so it says). Professional researchers especially those into healthcare don't waste their time barking up the wrong tree - it looks bad on their academic credentials! So even if Bushy thinks there is a cure (let's face it he probably thinks being black or a democrat can be cured), then the research he's funding will prove him wrong... surely?

Or am I missing something? Help in understanding appreciated!


There is abortion and genetic engineering that could happen from that research and the cocnept of treatment and intervention in this country is usually associated with the conept of curing. Many of the orgaqnizations suporting the act still think that autism is caused by vaccines or mercury. In theory mercuy could make a persons functioning worse, but that would apply to all brains not just the autistic. I can defintely disagree with the professionals part since the DSM at one time considered homosexuality a disease alonbg with many sexual fetishes. If that is not enough the concept of metnal illness and disease is culturally and socially determined.


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


bloop
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 49
Location: UK

17 Sep 2008, 2:20 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
bloop wrote:
I wonder if you could explain a bit more about this Combating Autism Act. I'm from the UK so not au fait with American politics. I've read the link you post above, and the summary published on the White House website, and despite the ill advised title (surely "Supporting" or "Researching" might be better than "combating"?) the spirit of the act seems to be quite positive (although I have to say I'm always sceptical of politicians..)

I note on the White House website that the first paragraph quotes George W Bush introducing the Act when it was passed, which does quote him as saying the act will go towards "curing autism" - totally lacking in understanding clearly, but isn't that the case for everythign Dubya says? Surely we just write that off as a Bush-ism and take the act in the spirit it seems to be meant?

And if it funds further research into ASDs, the research can't help but conclude that "cure" isn't really a relevant term, and that the research will be better directed at providing better levels of support within families & communities, raising awareness, and so on, which are all aims of the act (or so it says). Professional researchers especially those into healthcare don't waste their time barking up the wrong tree - it looks bad on their academic credentials! So even if Bushy thinks there is a cure (let's face it he probably thinks being black or a democrat can be cured), then the research he's funding will prove him wrong... surely?

Or am I missing something? Help in understanding appreciated!


There is abortion and genetic engineering that could happen from that research and the cocnept of treatment and intervention in this country is usually associated with the conept of curing. Many of the orgaqnizations suporting the act still think that autism is caused by vaccines or mercury. In theory mercuy could make a persons functioning worse, but that would apply to all brains not just the autistic. I can defintely disagree with the professionals part since the DSM at one time considered homosexuality a disease alonbg with many sexual fetishes.


That's great, thanks for the insight. I have to say the original links I read were open to interpretation, there was me forgetting that politics is so open to manipulation & abuse! Such a shame the policies over there are still so right wing and well - blind.

On another note... given that genetic engineering for things like diabetes, cancers and all sorts of congenital conditions is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off, and I'm guessing not easily covered by American Insurance companies - even if they did decide they wanted to genetically engineer ASDs out of people, do you think they'd ever get it out onto the market? Or even get ethics approval for the necessary trials? I would thought it would have been fairly impossible... But maybe there are things I'm missing in terms of US legislation too! The UK is pretty anti-experimenting on embryos - even stem cell research is pretty controversial and it's VERY difficult to get a licence to do it.



ja
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 140

17 Sep 2008, 3:00 pm

I'll bet the obama thing is really sweet, but the guy has flip-flopped on every issued he campaigned on during the primaries.

I think Obama's middle initial 'H.' stands for "How can you believe a word I say?"! !



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

17 Sep 2008, 7:02 pm

bloop wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
bloop wrote:
I wonder if you could explain a bit more about this Combating Autism Act. I'm from the UK so not au fait with American politics. I've read the link you post above, and the summary published on the White House website, and despite the ill advised title (surely "Supporting" or "Researching" might be better than "combating"?) the spirit of the act seems to be quite positive (although I have to say I'm always sceptical of politicians..)

I note on the White House website that the first paragraph quotes George W Bush introducing the Act when it was passed, which does quote him as saying the act will go towards "curing autism" - totally lacking in understanding clearly, but isn't that the case for everythign Dubya says? Surely we just write that off as a Bush-ism and take the act in the spirit it seems to be meant?

And if it funds further research into ASDs, the research can't help but conclude that "cure" isn't really a relevant term, and that the research will be better directed at providing better levels of support within families & communities, raising awareness, and so on, which are all aims of the act (or so it says). Professional researchers especially those into healthcare don't waste their time barking up the wrong tree - it looks bad on their academic credentials! So even if Bushy thinks there is a cure (let's face it he probably thinks being black or a democrat can be cured), then the research he's funding will prove him wrong... surely?

Or am I missing something? Help in understanding appreciated!


There is abortion and genetic engineering that could happen from that research and the cocnept of treatment and intervention in this country is usually associated with the conept of curing. Many of the orgaqnizations suporting the act still think that autism is caused by vaccines or mercury. In theory mercuy could make a persons functioning worse, but that would apply to all brains not just the autistic. I can defintely disagree with the professionals part since the DSM at one time considered homosexuality a disease alonbg with many sexual fetishes.


That's great, thanks for the insight. I have to say the original links I read were open to interpretation, there was me forgetting that politics is so open to manipulation & abuse! Such a shame the policies over there are still so right wing and well - blind.

On another note... given that genetic engineering for things like diabetes, cancers and all sorts of congenital conditions is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off, and I'm guessing not easily covered by American Insurance companies - even if they did decide they wanted to genetically engineer ASDs out of people, do you think they'd ever get it out onto the market? Or even get ethics approval for the necessary trials? I would thought it would have been fairly impossible... But maybe there are things I'm missing in terms of US legislation too! The UK is pretty anti-experimenting on embryos - even stem cell research is pretty controversial and it's VERY difficult to get a licence to do it.


genetic engineering is a while off and there is much ethical debate to be had on it. I acutally do not have a problem with genetic engrineering or use of stem cells by choice it is the designer baby crap that I am more worried about, but that is still covered under the whole genetic engineering issue.


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


GoddessofSnowandIce
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 209
Location: Antarctica (frequently seen around Lansdale, PA)

17 Sep 2008, 8:56 pm

I know a lot of you are skeptical about politicians and their promises. I'm one of the biggest skeptics there is. Still, when you weigh both parties' stance on health care and related issues, Obama's camp comes out on top. I don't agree 100% with all of his policies on various matters (I agree probably about 80%), but the alternative is 4 years of similar policies to those of the Bush administration. Have you seen what their policies have done to our economy? Lost jobs mean lost health insurance. Lost health insurance means some of our fellow autistics who are deeper into the spectrum could possibly lose their medical care.

Republican, Democrat or Independent-- we need to stand together on the issues that affect our country the most this electoral season. Think, and then cast your vote.

/voting Obama '08


_________________
"If there's one thing in my life that these years have taught it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it." ~Cowboy Junkies


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

18 Sep 2008, 10:01 am

No, that's the same stance he had before. Pretty much verbatim.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Roxas_XIII
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,217
Location: Laramie, WY

19 Sep 2008, 3:19 pm

It would help if he stopped using so much political jargon and toned down his bombastic usage of words. I mean seriously, I'm suprised if any American, aspie or otherwise, could decipher this load of horses**t. Based on this page alone, you'd think Obama would be the kind of person who would write a 5-paragraph essay for a multiple-choice question. Whenever someone explains something to me, I understand it much better if they use laymans terms and keep it condensed to no more than 5 minute reports, 10 for oral presentation. Any longer and I tune you out with my mental iPod. Got it memorized?


_________________
"Yeah, so this one time, I tried playing poker with tarot cards... got a full house, and about four people died." ~ Unknown comedian

Happy New Year from WP's resident fortune-teller! May the cards be ever in your favor.


Hbomb89
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 82

19 Sep 2008, 3:24 pm

Roxas_XIII wrote:
It would help if he stopped using so much political jargon and toned down his bombastic usage of words. I mean seriously, I'm suprised if any American, aspie or otherwise, could decipher this load of horses**t. Based on this page alone, you'd think Obama would be the kind of person who would write a 5-paragraph essay for a multiple-choice question. Whenever someone explains something to me, I understand it much better if they use laymans terms and keep it condensed to no more than 5 minute reports, 10 for oral presentation. Any longer and I tune you out with my mental iPod. Got it memorized?


Obama is an American politician running for office, of course he talks like that.



Roxas_XIII
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,217
Location: Laramie, WY

19 Sep 2008, 3:33 pm

Hbomb89 wrote:
Roxas_XIII wrote:
It would help if he stopped using so much political jargon and toned down his bombastic usage of words. I mean seriously, I'm suprised if any American, aspie or otherwise, could decipher this load of horses**t. Based on this page alone, you'd think Obama would be the kind of person who would write a 5-paragraph essay for a multiple-choice question. Whenever someone explains something to me, I understand it much better if they use laymans terms and keep it condensed to no more than 5 minute reports, 10 for oral presentation. Any longer and I tune you out with my mental iPod. Got it memorized?


Obama is an American politician running for office, of course he talks like that.


Well, then, I think someone should tell them all to keep it short so that everyone can understand what the hell they are saying.


_________________
"Yeah, so this one time, I tried playing poker with tarot cards... got a full house, and about four people died." ~ Unknown comedian

Happy New Year from WP's resident fortune-teller! May the cards be ever in your favor.


sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

20 Sep 2008, 12:20 am

Orwell wrote:
No, that's the same stance he had before. Pretty much verbatim.


you mean he quietly hold on to his principles?

how refreshing


Merle


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Sep 2008, 1:27 am

sinsboldly wrote:
Orwell wrote:
No, that's the same stance he had before. Pretty much verbatim.


you mean he quietly hold on to his principles?

how refreshing


Merle

Dunno if his stance on autism is really much based on principle, or anything that he takes all that seriously. Really, there are more important things for a politician to worry about, and I doubt he gives much thought to autism.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Warsie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,542
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

20 Sep 2008, 2:05 am

[joke] vote for Ron Paul 2008! [/joke]


_________________
I am a Star Wars Fan, Warsie here.
Masterdebating on chi-city's south side.......!


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

20 Sep 2008, 4:23 pm

Orwell wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Orwell wrote:
No, that's the same stance he had before. Pretty much verbatim.


you mean he quietly hold on to his principles?

how refreshing


Merle

Dunno if his stance on autism is really much based on principle, or anything that he takes all that seriously. Really, there are more important things for a politician to worry about, and I doubt he gives much thought to autism.


I don't think he does, either. The campaignes no doubt write up lists of who wants to know what as far as positions go, and assign them out to staffer to pick a stance. The candidate himself is only going to get involved, most likely, on the issues that concern the broader public and/or are of special interest to him.

Everything I've read from the candidates on autism is pretty boiler plate. There doesn't seem to any special interest there, just a position written up because people are asking.

Reality is, I don't think there is much for a president to DO with respect to autism. Provide leadership on ideas, perhaps, but the president is no more than a signature or a veto on legislation drawn up by others for this sort of thing.

The power the president truly has is in a limited number of areas, for example:

Foreign policy
Supreme Court ideology (in picking appointments - VERY powerful, if imperfect)

Most everything else involves intense negotiations with other parts of government, although there is definite leadership when it comes to budget priorities, etc.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).