Seriously? Really?

Apparently some website called The Root (the root of what I wonder) has delusions about being the arbiter of blackness or something. The folks at the website have put up a list of people they wish they could remove from black history because they are "embarrassing". Okay whatever. Now some folk are trying to say that it was just a joke, tongue in cheek silliness. Yeah it's silly alright. Too late to try putting that toothpaste back in the tube now people. You've already put the foolishness out there.

I'm not going to link to the list but I will link to two posts discussing it. First at Booker Rising, TheRoot.com Releases "Black Folks We’d Like To Remove From Black History" List: Bookerista Response and second Althouse, Black Folks We'd Like To Remove From Black History. I found the contrasting tones of the comments on the two posts very interesting.

In any case, this stunt doesn't make me very interested in visiting The Root any time soon.

Thankful Thursday

Today I am thankful for/that:

1. Hubby is home for the snow day.


2. Hot chocolate with marshmallows.


3. Playing in the snow.


4. Central heating.


5. We still have power.


6. This thankful list swiped from a facebook friend, "Bathtubs filled with hot water. Good teachers. The military...and steak."


7. Friends who remind me what things are really important.

What are you thankful for?

Dallas Tea Party Invite to Keith Olbermann

Via Booker Rising.
[Insert evil chuckling here.]
People do listen when you keep trying to portray them as racists. They're just not coming to the conclusions that you want them to about your claims.

Nothing New Under The Sun

The bible says that there is nothing new under the sun. Now ain't that the truth. Virginia lawmaker Bob Marshall seems to be channeling Jesus' disciples from a couple thousand years ago and not in a good way.

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children."

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."

Marshall has since tried to back away from and clarify his statement. But where have I heard that kind of thinking before, that disability must be the result of someone's sin? Ah here we are,

1As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.
John 9:1-3

Read the whole chapter, it's very instructive.

Apparently Marshall, like the disciples, upon seeing someone in need assumes that they or their parents must have done something to deserve it. Jesus' response was to admonish the disciples (and by extension all Christians down through history) to do God's work. Jesus' response to the blind man was to help him. Now we mere humans don't have Jesus' capacity to heal but we can take steps to make life better for those like the blind man in this passage.

It is worth noting the response to the Pharisees in this passage as well. They didn't know or care about the blind man until he became a useful tool to try to beat Jesus over the head with (sound familiar?). They were "offended" that Jesus had healed the blind man on the Sabbath. I use the scare quotes because the Pharisees were in full on any-stick-is-good-enough-to-beat-him-with mode (again, sound familiar?). The Pharisees discounted everything the blind man had to say and reviled him because he wasn't saying the things that they wanted to hear (again, a familiar tactic isn't it?).

So Mr. Marshall, and all who think like him, rather than trying to use the disabled as a useful stick to beat opponents over the head with, rather than speculating on whose sin is responsible for their disability do what Jesus did. Help them.

Fun With Snow

For those of you who have more snow than you know what to do with here's an idea.



Those Daleks have got more lives than a Time Lord's cat. As one commenter at the site says, "PRECIPITATE! PRECIPITATE!"

Anti-vaccine Studies Getting Some Scrutiny

I dislike appeals to scientific consensus preferring to peruse the research that current scientific opinion is based on for myself. Having said that, in light of Lancet finally getting around to retracting Andrew Wakefield's 1998 study that claimed that vaccines were linked to autism, Popular Mechanics is taking a look at some studies that have claimed a link between vaccines and autism.

The Truth About 9 Anti-Vaccine Studies
Now that the infamous 1998 Lancet study implicating vaccines for causing autism has been retracted, does the anti-vaccination movement have any scientific legs left to stand on? Here, we investigate the scientific merit of some of the other lightning-rod studies from over the last decade that anti-vaccination advocates say back up their claims.

Thankful Thursday

Today I am thankful for/that:

1. Hot steamy showers.


2. Little voices gleefully shouting, "Daddy! Daddy!" and "Mommy! Mommy!"


3. That yellow blob in the sky. I'm pretty sure it's the sun.


4. Modern medicine. We'd be so miserable without it.


5. Central heating.

What are you thankful for?

Resisting the "Taint" of Autism

The news has hit the main stream media that part of the proposed revisions destined to be in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) include incorporating the current category of Aspeger's Syndrome, along with Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD), Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) and a few others, into the larger Autism Spectrum Disorder category. All in all I think this is a good move that will result in more accurate diagnosis and better access to services for individuals who currently have autism related diagnoses but not the label autism.

While I haven't yet come across objections to doing away with some of the other diagnostic labels such as PDD and PDD-NOS there seems to be some criticism of the changes with respect to Asperger's Syndrome. The one criticism that I find most irritating is the complaint that this change will "taint" Asperger individuals with the label of autism. The complaint rears its ugly head in this NPR story, Asperger's Officially Placed Inside Autism Spectrum, as well as the comments.

Now as a parent of autistic children I'm sure you can see the problem I have with this particular objection to the changes in the DSM. It is that perceived "taint" that has been attached to autism. There is nothing wrong with being autistic. That taint that some fear has nothing to do with who autistic people are or what they can accomplish. It has everything to do with looking down on people who are different, unworthy others.

Objecting to the proposed DSM changes on the grounds that one does not want to be associated with those autistic people only serves to reinforce an ugly stereotype of autistic individuals. Rather than play along with the stereotype that autistic people are stupid, helpless or otherwise undesirable this is an opportunity to push back against the prejudice. There is a wide range of autistic ability that includes those who are currently diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. It covers those who can fake "normal" well enough to escape close scrutiny and those whose intelligence is valued enough for "normal" folk to over look their quirks. It covers those who the thoughtless and unimaginative call "low functioning", mostly because they don't utilize spoken language, but are anything but "low functioning".

Roy Richard Grinker, an anthropologist who studies the anthropology of autism, writes in an op-ed column titled, Disorder Out of Chaos, in the New York Times that,

Almost everyone with Asperger’s also fits the profile of the more classic autistic disorder. Indeed, in the current diagnostic manual, a child who has good language acquisition and intelligence qualifies as autistic if, in addition to having restricted interests and problems with social interactions, he has just one of the following symptoms, which are common among children with Asperger’s: difficulty conversing, an inability to engage in make-believe play or repetitive or unusual use of language. Even the best available diagnostic instruments cannot clearly distinguish between Asperger’s and autistic disorder.

People who now have a diagnosis of Asperger’s can be just as socially impaired as those with autism. So Asperger’s should not be a synonym for “high functioning.” Likewise, people with autism who are described as “low functioning,” including those without language, can have the kinds of intelligence and hidden abilities that are associated with Asperger’s — in art, music and engineering, for example — and can communicate if given assistance.

Moreover, large epidemiological studies have demonstrated that mild symptoms of autism are common in the general population. In particular, scientists have found that family members of a child with autism often exhibit isolated autistic traits. With autism, as with many medical diagnoses — like hypertension and obesity — the boundary lines are drawn as much by culture as by nature. Dividing up the workings of the mind is not as neat and orderly as categorizing species.

I've long held the opinion that autism is far more common than anyone currently realizes. Given the frequency with which isolated autistic traits occur in the population I'd say that we are all a little bit autistic. So the "them" that some do not wish to be associated with is more like an "us".

Left Brain/Right Brain also discusses the proposed changes to the DSM.

Green Police

You know, "Escape the draconian rule of the green police by buying our cool green car" doesn't really strike me as good pr for environmentalists or the car. Americans have a bit of a history of starting revolts over stuff like this.

Y'all Got Played

Planned Parenthood, NOW, et al got played tonight. Had they not made such a fuss about the Tebow Super Bowl ad I doubt anyone would have noticed it. Instead they made a big stink and got everyone talking and watching. Tebow's story was all over the internet, television and newspapers long before the ad aired tonight. Focus on the Family got far more than they paid for thanks to the hyperventilation of those groups who felt that Focus on the Family shouldn't have been allowed to share their message during the super bowl (hello freedom of speech anyone?).



Can't have women on television talking about how much they love their kids now can we? How is it that this is so objectionable but there's not a peep about other ads that I won't mention? Those are some interesting priorities.

This is the other ad that aired during the pregame festivities.