STARTED WITH THE INTENT OF BEING AN ASSHOLE...ENDED UP CONTEMPLATIVE

     I've got myself reading comments on a post related to autism. I tell you, if you've ever needed help understanding what denial is and/or looked like, read a forum for parents of children with autism.

     Right away you're assaulted with corruptions of the English language: "My son is not autistic, he HAS autism..." said one mother who clearly doesn't understand that many nouns have adjectival forms and that the -ic suffix does in fact mean "having, showing, or affected by" among its several related definitions.
      Another mother put it this way, "I think a better way to say this is that you have autism. If you say you are autistic that means thats is [sic] all you are" - I find posts like this somewhat ironic as it seems parents with autistic kids make sure you know this fact, even if you didn't ask. It's like the old joke about "How can you tell if someone is a vegetarian? Don't worry, they'll tell you." And God forbid you're not 100% completely on their side of thinking. Oh, the hell that will rain down upon you. They're perfect little angels who, unlike typical children, need excessively costly care and limitless attention from one-on-one aides devoted to their "special needs", another term that bugs the shit out of me for being too vague and ultimately dishonest. These parents go way the fuck out of their way to delude themselves into thinking these kids can be just like typical kids; that all we need to do is understand they're just different. Different being a hell of a loaded word. Yes, autistics come with a range of misbehaviors. My Best Friend worked with them so I've got the stories ranging from ones who are otherwise alright except in certain circumstances - meaning they're fairly trainable - to ones which are so lost that they can't even speak at eight years old, still wear diapers, and have no clue whatsoever just how strong they are.

      As far as I can tell, there's no cure for autism and the cure, if one can be found, will likely be like those for cancer, a range of remedies. Or no cure will be found because a prenatal test will finally be developed to detect the gene or genes responsible for autism and their prevalence in the population, like that of Down Syndrome, will drop precipitously. I'm suspecting the latter will be what ultimately happens.
      More denial here: "I also agree with others who've pointed out that this is not an autistic child, but a child with autism. This is an important distinction in advocacy efforts to educate the public and educators that our children are not broken, not defective and not defined by their diagnosis." --- If they are not broken, defective, or otherwise defined by their diagnosis, then why all the advocacy? I feel like they want it both ways. They're not defective, but they need special-this and special-that. They're not defined by their diagnosis until the school refuses to treat them any different than a typical student in which case these children have special needs which must be addressed by the school system. Huh? That's like saying a blind person isn't defined by their diagnosis. Yeah, they pretty much are and compared to sighted people, their eyes/optic nerves are quite defective indeed, even broken. Yet analogizing this woman's sentences, she would likely claim that a person who's blind is no different from you and me but he needs special books printed in braille and seeing-eye dogs when out in public, but no different. Nope, not at all.

      They of course despise the adjective normal and will be quick to scold you for using the term because they feel this stigmatizes their autistic children as abnormal. They'll use the word "typical" or "regular" (and yes, the words will often appear enclosed within begrudging quotation marks) instead for describing children exhibiting expected behaviors not that I understand how the logical following that your autistic child is "atypical" or "irregular" is any less stigmatizing but whatever. "Some children's needs can't be met in a 'typical' classroom. That is why we have special education classes and teachers."

      Another common thread I take from these discussions are that these kids with autism are "not my (the parents') problem: they're your problem and you have to pay for it!" I find frequent appeals to government laws like IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and threats to sue in open court. Never mind that I have no idea where this money is supposed to come should the parents win their cases no matter how meritorious the filing.
      I also see many references to all children having a right to an education. Again, it's not my problem, it's yours. Yes, but what rarely goes addressed is what to do if they are uneducatable? One commenter wrote the following:

What's the answer? I love how people bitch about education, but there are no solutions offered. Serious questions: 1) Is it fair to put special needs kids in a school with other kids? 2) Is it right for a teacher to spend 90% of their time on 10% of the kids? 3) Would there be objection to segmenting schools to where kids were sent to teachers who are equipped to teach different levels of learning? 4) Autism comes in many forms. If a child is non-verbal, yet superior at electronic learning, and another autistic child lashes out (Aspergers), would you put them in the same class due to Autism?

He followed up in response to another commenter who said that we (teachers) have to try to reach them all...

I agree that you try to reach them all, but at what point do you realize you can't? Being a little selfish here, but why should my child be told to read the book while you spend your time with the children who need the special attention? If it truly is an equal education, why is it that kids who take time from the rest of the class consistently [are] not removed and better place in classes with teachers who are better equipped to teach special needs children? If it is the social aspect that we are trying to give these kids, isn't that what recess, lunch, electives are for?

     He was treated well though such comments can often lead to flame wars.

      I know there are no simple solutions to this problem that's not a problem until you decide it's not a problem because then it most assuredly is. Personally, I'm an advocate for euthanasia for anyone who cannot be made to independently and lawfully participate in society. It seems the only humane thing to do. Yeah, I know it's not their fault they turned out this way. I also really don't believe George wanted to kill Lenny. From a resources point of view, it seems so entirely wasteful. All this investment with zero potential for positive overall returns. For every successfully trained autistic who makes the covers of magazines and gets interviewed on television for the public to praise, how many spend their lives in institutions in abysmal conditions just because we can't bring ourselves to give them an injection of euthasol (assuming it works the same on humans)? What is the success rate of education and training of individuals with autism? Does it even approach that of high school graduation rates or are they marvels of wasteful inefficiency? What is the cost/benefit analysis? I know from a parental point of view, their child is of course perfectly precious but what do the numbers say? I suppose for my own curiosity's sake, what is the cost/benefit analysis of the average human? I might be unpleasantly surprised to know the results.

      I hate these entries because they never go anywhere...

THIS IS WHY I ALWAYS READ THE COMMENTS SECTIONS

Once upon a midnight dreary, fingers cramped and vision bleary,
System manuals piled high and wasted paper on the floor,
Longing for the warmth of bed sheets, still I sat there doing spreadsheets.
Having reached the bottom line I took a floppy from the drawer,
I then invoked the SAVE command and waited for the disk to store,
Only this and nothing more.

Deep into the monitor peering, long I sat there wond'ring, fearing,
Doubting, while the disk kept churning, turning yet to churn some more.
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token.
"Save!" I said, "You cursed mother! Save my data from before!"
One thing did the phosphors answer, only this and nothing more,
Just, "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

Was this some occult illusion, some maniacal intrusion?
These were choices undesired, ones I'd never faced before.
Carefully I weighed the choices as the disk made impish noises.
The cursor flashed, insistent, waiting, baiting me to type some more.
Clearly I must press a key, choosing one and nothing more,
From "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

With fingers pale and trembling, slowly toward the keyboard bending,
Longing for a happy ending, hoping all would be restored,
Praying for some guarantee, timidly, I pressed a key.
But on the screen there still persisted words appearing as before.
Ghastly grim they blinked and taunted, haunted, as my patience wore,
Saying "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

I tried to catch the chips off guard, and pressed again, but twice as hard.
I pleaded with the cursed machine: I begged and cried and then I swore.
Now in mighty desperation, trying random combinations,
Still there came the incantation, just as senseless as before.
Cursor blinking, angrily winking, blinking nonsense as before.
Reading, "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

There I sat, distraught, exhausted, by my own machine accosted.
Getting up I turned away and paced across the office floor.
And then I saw a dreadful sight: a lightning bolt cut through the night.
A gasp of horror overtook me, shook me to my very core.
The lightning zapped my previous data, lost and gone forevermore.
Not even, "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

To this day I do not know the place to which lost data go.
What demonic nether world us wrought where lost data will be stored,
Beyond the reach of mortal souls, beyond the ether, into black holes?
But sure as there's C, Pascal, Lotus, Ashton-Tate and more,
You will be one day be left to wander, lost on some Plutonian shore,
Pleading, "Abort, Retry, Ignore?"

--- original author unknown and you're welcome.

SPENDING TIME

More and more coins are nothing but reminders that I'm getting old. 2010 was the first year of these new Shield Cents. I still remember getting my first one and where I lived and what I was doing at the time.

Now I'm like, "Shit! There's four of you already?!!"

Time marches on indeed...

ADDENDUM: On a side note, I've been a carrying a 2010 cent with me since I first got one three years ago letting it "circulate" with a bunch of other change as I walk and go about my day. Since cents haven't really circulated in over fifty years (Have you ever seen a worn-out Lincoln Memorial Cent? A coin which honestly circulates will only last about 40 years in circulation before getting worn nearly flat and unidentifiable), I knew I would never see a worn-out Shield Cent. I'm not even sure if a worn-out Shield Cent will be possible either since the copper plating is micro-thin and zinc corrodes rapidly when exposed to moist air. So far the copper layer has held but I've seen my share of corroded "Zincolns" (1982 to present) at work. It remains to be seen.

almost exactly three years worth of wear

I have other coins I'm carrying that I also feel I'll never see worn-down versions of but this is the only one I can remember definitely when I started. It's a long-term patience project. If I can figure out how to light a coin properly, I'll consider sharing the current conditions of this project in progress. All in all it reminds me of the rock tumbler my Brother and I had as kids. I remember Dad remarking how it was a great thing to have because we would only see him every other weekend at the time and since the rocks had to tumble for days on end, they could get smoothed and polished while we were away. He figured (and almost certainly correctly) that we as kids would be too impatient for this at home with Mom; that we'd stop it and check it too often. Now I "tumble" these coins in my change purse as I walk around to, fro, and at work for several miles each day.

COMMENTER NON GRATA

      It seems Cracked.com's head editor, David Wong, has had it out for commenters on his site for some time. I'm not sure he's ever liked them and even if you had doubts, when you find yourself being referred to as a cancer, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
      I understand his reasoning and examples of asshats abound. Cracked.com works very hard at removing bad comments (ones which insult or threaten the writer or are blatantly racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. --- criticism is okay, don't worry). We see a relatively clean comments section because moderators behind the scenes work so hard to keep it that way. The site has grown impressively in the past six years so it's not like alienating the small commenting community would make a difference at all. Still...I don't like it.

     While yes, I am offended at being viewed this way, I'm also realizing that far too much of my time is being devoted to that site. I didn't even realize it until I read about Cracked's growth that they've gone from publishing about six articles/videos a week to six articles/videos a DAY. The site, which I've been following for about three years now, has slowly been encroaching on my available time. It takes up too much now and I've known this for a while but just kinda accepted it.
      And because the comments tended to be spectacular, I would find myself reading "meh" articles simply to enjoy the top comments.

      With Mr. Wong's hatred of us commenters (I'm not a good one, but I do participate when I can), I think it's time I inspire myself to move on and be a part of that site far less frequently. Other things in my life are suffering as a result.
      I removed Cracked's page from my Facebook and Twitter feeds. That way, I won't be so often reminded of the site. It's a shame though, because I've made a couple of real-life friends as a result of comments made. I'll do what I can to return to the site only at my leisure rather than as a daily occurrence.

      I went through this with Gawker some time back. I enjoyed commenting on their often political posts anonymously so I wouldn't be judged on my sex, race, religion, etc. I had no desire to connect my Gawker account to my other accounts and when that became a requirement to post a comment, I simply stopped going to the site. (Gawker is also known for hating its commenters)

      Cracked may end up joining this website.

      Perhaps it will be best for me too. I'll get back to what I've been putting off for far too long now and perhaps find something new to do.

       We'll see...

YOUR FAULT OR MY FAULT OR A BIT OF BOTH?

     Is it still considered cyberstalking if you're only passively using the internet to keep an occasional eye on someone? I don't know. Usually when I hear the term I associate it with attempts to crack passwords or creating sock-puppet accounts to surreptitiously follow a person on social networking sites...shit like that.

     But what is it when it's passively done? Y'know, like with no attempts to communicate or harass? Like the girl I had a crush on in high school. We went to the same school...even had some of the same classes, so of course I saw her most days of any given week and would pay attention to her and get to know things about her through observation and overhearing things about her and on rare occasion by her. But I wouldn't bother her. I wasn't trying to use her friends to get to her. Okay, I did steal a picture of her once and followed her home this one time.
      Now I know that sounds bad, especially the latter one, but both were done opportunistically. In the latter case, it's not like I was waiting for her to leave at school and following a safe distance behind (or ahead as was my case). If I had done that, then yes...total psycho-stalker creep. The reality was that I just happened to notice she was walking about a block behind me. I ended up going out of my way, curious to where she was gonna turn. But it was just that one day and time. I even found out totally by chance later on, that that wasn't even where she lived. I dunno, maybe she was babysitting there or something. No, a mutual friend was bringing us home one day (school project...different story) and dropped her off first. So now I knew where she lived...but not because I had TRIED. And I didn't do anything about it. It became something I just knew.

      Anyways, my point is that. Because the internet is the thing these days. What if your cyberstalking is exclusively a passive activity? That is, you're just taking advantage of the person's lax security settings like you're a friend of a friend on Facebook and all the settings on the photos are viewable by "Friends of Friends" or they have a public Twitter feed or a public Instagram/Photobucket/Flickr account? Does that count or is that more like the equivalent of finding a phone number and address in an old phone book?
      Is searching on Google or Bing an e-mail address considered stalking or is that again, like looking someone up in a phone book?

      I feel like these attempts at justification answer my own question and that is, "Of course they are!...but I understand." What compels me to look in the first place? It's that feeling alone which poisons the activity no matter how benign. But still...it feels different. It's more like gathering intelligence and again, it's all passive. It's not like I'm using keyloggers or surreptitiously photographing at a distance or harassing their family/friends/coworkers so what exactly is IT that I am speaking of?
       A slightly different scenario. A girl shared several nude photos of herself with me a couple of years back all linked to a Photobucket account. The folder those pictures were in was marked private. However, the files were either unchanged default names (like IMG_0014 - put that in a Google Image Search and see what comes up! For additional fun, put MVI_00## in a YouTube search and see what comes up) or simple words like "pink", "me", or "silly". Now, you can't see the album, but if you have a direct link you can see the picture so on some bored nights I would try and guess file names and would occasionally succeed. Now that is tougher to justify. In fact, I can't. I think that actually counts as cyberstalking as I was taking advantage of a site vulnerability (since corrected by Photobucket...unfortunately) and not lax security protocol on the part of the user. I remember MySpace having a few exploits as well though the picture ones were fixed (unfortunately) before I ever got an account.
      Facebook offers a questionable example. Back in 2009 I believe, they changed their security settings and defaulted everything on everyone's profile to "Friends of Friends" unless you changed it. I was still reading Gawker at the time and was immediately aware of it and fixed my settings immediately. Not everyone did, including one of my crushes. She eventually did fix it but only after Facebook made it much easier to do so (I'm gonna take it she's not very computer savvy). Its current privacy screw-over is that all cover photos and all new profile photos are Public by default. You can change the profile picture setting, but not the cover photo. She hasn't noticed this...yet. But is that a site vulnerability issue making it thus cyberstalking or is that a user issue making her responsibility and thus I am merely seeing what anyone is allowed to see?

     It's such a confusing thing...

The first six unfiltered Bing Image Search results for IMG_0014:

IMG_0014 collage

MVI_0014 on YouTube

CRUELTY IN THE SERVICE OF MERCY...

     Apparently it is "World Autism Day". That means the timing of this entry may or may not be intentional. I had the idea for it a couple of days ago when reading an editorial in the New York Times written by a divorced mother of a normal daughter and autistic son who was once married to a man whose quirks she felt seemed mildly autistic.

     Anyways, she was mentioning how her son was like a force of nature: destructive in his ways, but not maliciously so. Like something to endure, rather than resist and dominate. I didn't really care about her personal story but I read on anyway because the autistic state of mind is an interesting one if only as a casual curiosity. I am continually amazed at how slight differences in genetic expression can lead to such dramatically different results. The difference between a normal and autistic human must be minuscule because they look the same, but behaviorally, they're from two different worlds. I would not be surprised if even the most obvious of birth defects (like missing limbs) also arise from tiny, seemingly insignificant alterations in the genetic code.

     But even that is a deviation. My Best Friend has worked with autistics so I have her experience as well, an experience which she did not share with me wearing rose-tinted glasses. Some of them, much like the boy in that article, are highly disruptive and destructive (both self- and outwardly directed); barely able to learn (while others still were utterly devoid of any signs of humanity). The people who care for them are in constant fear of what little thing will be next to set them off. Once they are set off, all sorts of containment protocol goes into effect, each tailored to the individual so it's not like there's a codebook you can buy. I'll admit I know little of the subject but it seems autistic people have difficulty dealing with changes to their environment. They're "Lords of Predictability". I don't know why this is so but any change or deviation from a routine is cause for outbursts.
     I guess it's that part of the brain gone berserk. We all have it, right? That little part of us that gets annoyed when things aren't or don't go the way we had expected. But we get over it, maybe carry a little grudge or a slight tantrum depending on age...but we get over it whereas autistics apparently cannot and sometimes violently so. They're fascinated by orderly and predictable things like trains and subways and will take an absorbing interest in them.

     It is this category, the one between the trainable autistics and the untreatable ones that gave me this (what will certainly be perceived of as cruel) idea.
     I found myself thinking of split-brain patients. These are people who suffer from epileptic seizures who had a special surgery to help alleviate them. I'm not sure why this works (or even if the medical community knows why either), but they will receive an operation whereby the corpus callosum, the nerves linking the two hemispheres of the brain, are severed surgically. This gives the patient a new lease on life at the price of producing what amounts to two brains. Normally the effect goes unnoticed by the person, but with controlled experiments, the hemisphere's inability to communicate with the other can produce some fascinating results which I casually sum up as "your brain would rather lie to you than admit there's a problem."
     Now, this mutilation isn't considered a problem ethically because it is done to alleviate suffering in the one who is suffering. No, my idea is different and almost certainly runs afoul of the Hippocratic Oath.

     No, I'm not suggesting euthanasia. What I was thinking was, for this group of autistics, was deliberately paralyzing them.

     Again, I'm talking about mentally disabled kids who have demonstrated that they are dangers to themselves and to others through no understanding of their own. The kid in the editorial was described as running outside to go see waxwings which had since flown off. He went out without asking, without concern for his health and safety, etc. all because he was upset he had missed out on something. All the mother could do was watch and not interrupt unless his actions became life-threatening.

     But what if his legs didn't work? He wouldn't be able to run off like that. He wouldn't be able to get out of bed without assistance instead of what he normally did which was get up and make a lot of noise in order to satisfy whatever it was that was going through his deformed mind. The kid in the editorial wasn't presented as a puncher so perhaps if he were wheelchair-bound, he would be easier to control and train. Not being able to go where his legs could take him at will might get him to at least try to calm himself down.

     While yes, this is medically unethical, is it morally unethical? While the patient would not be helped by such a mutilating surgery, the caretakers would be. Would not their stress levels be reduced allowing them to better care for their deficient child? Such induced-incapacitation would also make it more difficult for the child to ignorantly hurt himself or others through his actions, however lacking in intent to do so.
      A more dangerous child could be fully paralyzed from the neck down. This surgical mutilation could also be applied to other types of deficient children who are ignorantly dangers to themselves and others.

      I don't really have a good argument to support this idea. I don't think I necessarily need one as I know it would never be adopted. I suggest it merely out of (misplaced?) sympathy for the parents of these children. Yes, some autistics grow up to be fairly fine as their symptoms are mild and they can thus be trained to behave normally and even go on to live their lives independently of caretakers. I'm not talking about them. To paralyze such a child deliberately would be cruel.
      I just think the parents of the more disabled ones, the ones which are likely never to be independent, could benefit from having some of the burden of their undue responsibility relieved. One less thing for them to have to worry about each day. I'm not calling it a solution because it is not, but until and if a cure can be found that isn't a prenatal test, is it right to force people to take on such a difficult duty with no options whatsoever?