I was never into politics back home. Australia uses the weird parliamentary system that I have still yet to understand. As such I never voted. I felt that it was a disservice to those that actually took the time, effort and energy to weigh the issues if I came in and nullified their vote because the opponent's name "makes her sound like she's got big tits".
It's weird, because Australians don't have the right to vote. The 'right' would include the right to abstain, and you can't. Voting is compulsory. Not voting is (or was when I lived there) a fifty dollar fine. In my new home of Massachusetts, they would call that "Wicked Retarded".
When I moved to the US, I generally stayed away from politics. It was a whole new system to try and learn, and I wasn't allowed to vote anyway, so why bother?
(In a small aside, when Barack Obama won the election in 2008, there were many groups aligned to the Tea Party that complained that "this president won't be MY voice, therefore I am a victim of taxation without representation." This drives me completely insane. You got to vote. You participated. Your right to vote doesn't guarantee that your guy wins. I'm a non-citizen. I pay taxes but I'm not allowed to vote. I am the LIVING DEFINITION of taxation without representation. If anyone should be pissed, it's me.)
Anyway, the Bush years happened. Although I don't vote I'm probably one of those Liberals, with the occasional Conservative leaning. I became very interested in political comedy, and this bled into a fascination with pundits. I would listen to the Boston talk radio station, which was all Conservative. I wanted to hear the other side.
Now being good at arguing, I can see the kinds of tricks that many pundits are doing. It's easy to win an argument if you're just shouting into a microphone, and if you have a dump button handy, any dissenting point of view from a caller won't be heard. The biggest trick is the circular-logic argument. "If you oppose my point of view, you're an idiot, and why would I listen to anything an idiot has to say?" It's surprisingly effective.
I also think it's funny that there's a "shut up and sing" backlash against famous people that espouse their political beliefs. The only difference between a singer and a political pundit is that one of them has a performing arts talent. Would putting their views into a song make it somehow okay?
One of my closest friends in the US is a Conservative. We have the most lively political debates. Afterward, we remain friends. This is normal for us. I feel like it should be normal for everybody. I respect and understand that he has a difference of opinion. Not only that, I realise that we NEED people with a difference of opinion in order to check our own. Devil's advocate is almost always a helpful thing, and having two sides to a political debate is a constant devil's advocate.
Reading internet forums, especially those after political news stories, makes me sad. People are angry, mean, insulting, arrogant and downright threatening in a way that simply does not occur in a face-to-face meeting. Not only that, none of these arguments have any hope of succeeding.
As a near-professional in the art of the argument, I will say this: There is no point to arguing unless you have a chance of changing your opponent's mind.
This will never happen if people continue to argue in the way that they do on message boards and forums. People on both sides do it, and it's just a stupid and pointless waste of time.
If you really want people to listen to you, and you insist on remaining online behind a wall of anonymity, here's a few rules to follow. They are not mandatory. It's still your right to act like a jackass online if you still want to.
1. Quit name-calling. All of it. As soon as you type 'Libtard' or 'Rethuglican' your argument goes right out the window. Anything you type after that is just taking up precious internets.
2. If you're posting anonymously, any claim you make about your real life is a waste of time. "I'm a marine." "I own a lawnmower." "I have a black friend." Anything like this that you use to somehow underline your point is going to be construed as an unverifiable fact by anyone you hope to convert.
3. Stop getting religious. Telling atheists that they will spend eternity in a lake of fire is pointless. They don't believe in the lake of fire either. Is this how you hope to convert people? "Oh man, I didn't believe in God, but that lake-of-fire thing? I didn't know about that. I'm in!"
4. Stop getting atheist. Religious people have been hearing all their lives that God's not real. You saying it is hardly going to change anything.
5. Don't bother making threats. Nobody's paying attention, and even if they were, they know you're bluffing.
6. Try seeing someone's point. Make a concession. It feels really, really good.
7. Try respectfully disagreeing. This will often segue into 'agree-to-disagree'. It also feels really, really good.
8. Learn something. A point may be good, even if it's being made rather badly. Why does somebody have an opposing opinion? Investigate. Empathise. You don't have to agree, but you are somewhat obliged to educate yourself.
I know that this won't change much. People are still hoping to make the national team for the Douchebag Olympics. However, I wouldn't have typed all of this if I didn't think I'd convert at least one person.
That would have been pointless.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
When Bad Parenting goes Bad
I call my daughter 'chicken'. I used to call her 'little chick' and then she hit a growth spurt, so the name evolved. The fact that she's a flapper when she gets excited only helps.
I taught my daughter to play Magic the Gathering. This is a collectible card game that took off back in 1995. Usually anyone under 13 doesn't really 'get' the strategy and intricacies of the game. Elise got it at 9.
Every Friday night I take Elise to a game store in Providence RI and we play in their small Magic tournament. Elise has to handle enforced social interaction, people messing with her plans, and being stomped my players literally five times her age. It's a great experience for her, and for me. I get to see my little chicken interact in this tiny microcosm of adult nerds, and for the most part she does well.
There's still the problem of the phrase "maybe I shouldn't talk about that" never passing through her brain. Elise will happily chat about any subject, and cheerfully ignore any and all cues that perhaps this isn't a good idea.
One time, against a guy in his 30s, she quotes from a TV show. The joke is funny. Her opponent asks where the quote is from.
"Family Guy" she says. "It's my favourite show!"
Now I get the stare. This is the stare I get from other parents, some of them relatives, that says "What the hell is wrong with you?"
"You let her watch Family Guy?" he says to me.
"Yes. Yes I do." Now at this point I don't feel like I should have to explain myself. I'm her father. I'm allowed to make decisions like that. However, this guy is a friend. I decide to indulge him. "I'm familiar with all of the episodes and I don't let her watch anything too bad." This answer is satisfactory.
Until Elise says: "My Dad downloaded the episode that was banned in America and let me watch it. It was all about abortion."
Sigh.
You see, there was a recent episode of Family Guy that Fox refused to air. They paid for it, but they opted to not show it. The episode aired in every other country, but nt here (since the US is so sickeningly prudish). All this guy heard was that there was a Family Guy episode that dealt with abortion, and I let my little angel watch it. Because I'm an awful father.
What actually happened was this: Elise heard that there was a banned episode, and she begged me to download it. I found the episode online, but instead of simply allowing Elise to view it, I watched it with my wife so we could gauge just how bad this episode was.
Turns out this episode of Family Guy dealt with the subject of abortion with remarkable sensitivity. They introduced a difficult subject, and talked about it like we were all adults. The only controversy here was an overreaction by Fox. As a writer myself, I can say that this was probably the most well-written episode of Family Guy ever, and it's a real disservice to everyone involved that Fox denied these creative people an opportunity to show off their talented writing staff. Boo Fox.
So I allowed Elise to watch it. And she did. As a parent I feel like it's my responsibility to expose her to things that will help her deal with the world. My greatest asset is my sense of humour. It lets me observe, process and understand the world in a way that I can't easily describe. Humour disarms people and diffuses bad situations. There were so many bad things that happened in my life, and if it weren't for comedy I think I'd be rocking back and forth in a padded room somewhere.
Elise is constantly exposed to good, well-written comedy. Shows like Family Guy and South Park repeatedly get a beating in the press. Idiots like the Parent's television Council want to have these shows removed from the airwaves, denying us even the choice of some of the best comedy America can generate. The PTC specifically want to be able to sit their kids down in front of the TV and leave them to it. They don't think parents should be at all responsible for the things their kids are watching. The irony here is that they would be the first to call me a bad parent.
I have always taken an active interest in where my children find their entertainment. If they like a show, I watch the show. If they play a video game, I play it too. Every single thing they do in their leisure time has, at one point or another, been evaluated by me or Karen.
I know that I will have to endure people staring at me, trying to decide whether or not to call child services (or just beat me with a shovel). Friends, relatives and strangers will make judgements without giving me a chance to respond. I'm sure that there are literally dozens of people that have written me off as a bad parent.
I find myself not giving a shit about any of them. There's only one person whose opinion matters, and right now she's dancing around upstairs shouting "Victory is mine!"
PS, A quick word about downloading. I don't usually condone this. There's enough free TV on cable and the internet to keep my interest. Sometimes there's a weird thing that I'm (by some chance or design) denied the opportunity to see. In this case I'll download an episode. If Fox had aired it I would have watched it on Fox, seen their commercials, and purchased the products within. I'm a fair man, after all.
I taught my daughter to play Magic the Gathering. This is a collectible card game that took off back in 1995. Usually anyone under 13 doesn't really 'get' the strategy and intricacies of the game. Elise got it at 9.
Every Friday night I take Elise to a game store in Providence RI and we play in their small Magic tournament. Elise has to handle enforced social interaction, people messing with her plans, and being stomped my players literally five times her age. It's a great experience for her, and for me. I get to see my little chicken interact in this tiny microcosm of adult nerds, and for the most part she does well.
There's still the problem of the phrase "maybe I shouldn't talk about that" never passing through her brain. Elise will happily chat about any subject, and cheerfully ignore any and all cues that perhaps this isn't a good idea.
One time, against a guy in his 30s, she quotes from a TV show. The joke is funny. Her opponent asks where the quote is from.
"Family Guy" she says. "It's my favourite show!"
Now I get the stare. This is the stare I get from other parents, some of them relatives, that says "What the hell is wrong with you?"
"You let her watch Family Guy?" he says to me.
"Yes. Yes I do." Now at this point I don't feel like I should have to explain myself. I'm her father. I'm allowed to make decisions like that. However, this guy is a friend. I decide to indulge him. "I'm familiar with all of the episodes and I don't let her watch anything too bad." This answer is satisfactory.
Until Elise says: "My Dad downloaded the episode that was banned in America and let me watch it. It was all about abortion."
Sigh.
You see, there was a recent episode of Family Guy that Fox refused to air. They paid for it, but they opted to not show it. The episode aired in every other country, but nt here (since the US is so sickeningly prudish). All this guy heard was that there was a Family Guy episode that dealt with abortion, and I let my little angel watch it. Because I'm an awful father.
What actually happened was this: Elise heard that there was a banned episode, and she begged me to download it. I found the episode online, but instead of simply allowing Elise to view it, I watched it with my wife so we could gauge just how bad this episode was.
Turns out this episode of Family Guy dealt with the subject of abortion with remarkable sensitivity. They introduced a difficult subject, and talked about it like we were all adults. The only controversy here was an overreaction by Fox. As a writer myself, I can say that this was probably the most well-written episode of Family Guy ever, and it's a real disservice to everyone involved that Fox denied these creative people an opportunity to show off their talented writing staff. Boo Fox.
So I allowed Elise to watch it. And she did. As a parent I feel like it's my responsibility to expose her to things that will help her deal with the world. My greatest asset is my sense of humour. It lets me observe, process and understand the world in a way that I can't easily describe. Humour disarms people and diffuses bad situations. There were so many bad things that happened in my life, and if it weren't for comedy I think I'd be rocking back and forth in a padded room somewhere.
Elise is constantly exposed to good, well-written comedy. Shows like Family Guy and South Park repeatedly get a beating in the press. Idiots like the Parent's television Council want to have these shows removed from the airwaves, denying us even the choice of some of the best comedy America can generate. The PTC specifically want to be able to sit their kids down in front of the TV and leave them to it. They don't think parents should be at all responsible for the things their kids are watching. The irony here is that they would be the first to call me a bad parent.
I have always taken an active interest in where my children find their entertainment. If they like a show, I watch the show. If they play a video game, I play it too. Every single thing they do in their leisure time has, at one point or another, been evaluated by me or Karen.
I know that I will have to endure people staring at me, trying to decide whether or not to call child services (or just beat me with a shovel). Friends, relatives and strangers will make judgements without giving me a chance to respond. I'm sure that there are literally dozens of people that have written me off as a bad parent.
I find myself not giving a shit about any of them. There's only one person whose opinion matters, and right now she's dancing around upstairs shouting "Victory is mine!"
PS, A quick word about downloading. I don't usually condone this. There's enough free TV on cable and the internet to keep my interest. Sometimes there's a weird thing that I'm (by some chance or design) denied the opportunity to see. In this case I'll download an episode. If Fox had aired it I would have watched it on Fox, seen their commercials, and purchased the products within. I'm a fair man, after all.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Zero Tolerance
My daughter is 11. We share many things, but above all we have the same affliction. We are both awesome.
I do occasionally have trouble with her school. I was diagnosed when I was 12, and all throughout my acedemic life there was no clear and consistent answer or treatment for high functioning autism. (There was, but it usually boiled down to hitting me with things.)
Now we have the 'specialist' in the classroom. We have the 'autism school'. Of all of the schools in Fitchburg Massachusetts, one is designated as the 'autism school'. I have no idea how they became the 'autism school'. Perhaps they drew the short straw. I say this because they don't seem to be terribly happy about it.
This year we have had around a dozen phone calls saying "Pick your kid up, she's suspended." She would get suspended for various things. Once she threw shoes at a teacher. Obviously she's not allowed to do that. One time she kicked a kid in the face. That was a two day suspension.
When my wife told me about this one, the first question I asked was "Why did she kick him?" That drove my wife crazy. To her mind there's no reason to ever kick anybody in the face. I came up with two on the spot:
1. The kid was coming at her with a weapon and the kick was both self-defense and amazingly amazing.
2. The kid's face was on fire.
The real reason wasn't nearly as poetic. The kid pissed her off and went and got his face kicked. I explained to my sweet delicate flower that we do not dispense justice that way. We are not Batman.
A couple of months ago, she was suspended for a week. This was a Friday afternoon. We had to pick her up and couldn't bring her back for 5 full days.
Because she was screaming.
That's not what she claimed, that's what the teacher said.
5 days for screaming and only 2 days for kicking a kid in the face? That must have been one ugly kid.
The answer came back "We have a zero tolerance policy."
There it is. Zero Tolerance. I will now explain how 'Zero Tolerance' is a bunch of crap.
Whenever anything happens in society, those in charge have to decide if and when to apply the rule of law, or apply the intent of the law. Perhaps the law should be ignored altogether. This is why a cop generally doesn't ticket you for jaywalking if you're fleeing a building fire. Technically you broke the law, but the cop isn't being a jackass. He's using his JUDGEMENT.
Now if that city had zero tolerance for jaywalking, you'd be screwed.
"But Ian," you say, "Schools have to have zero tolerance for things like drugs and violence" Okay, let's examine that.
You're on your way to school and on the path you spy a ziplock bag with white powder in it. Being the incredibly social-minded person you are, you pocket it. First thing you do is go to the principal's office and hand it to him, explaining that you didn't want anyone else to pick it up, and would he please deal with it as appropriate?
He suspends you for two weeks. You brought drugs into the school, and although your actions were commendable (and you did nothing wrong in his eyes), the school has a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY.
"But surely the principal would take that into account..." Nope. That would be showing tolerance. It's zero tolerance, baby. Showing tolerance violates the policy.
Zero tolerance is such a cop-out. On the face of it, it demonstrates how seriously the school or workplace takes a certain issue. It sounds good. It feels good. It's the best thing for everybody.
Until it blows up in your face. Until you end up punishing someone for doing nothing wrong in the eyes of society. The only thing a zero tolerance policy achieves is a complete absence of culpability. If you're not ALLOWED to exercise your judgement, you can't possibly get into trouble for making a bad judgement call.
It's the buzzword for those who are too cowardly to make a decision in case it turns out to be wrong. For some reason, being wrong terrifies people. I've made literally thousands of decisions in my life. A good percentage of these were wrong decisions. Does this mean I should stop deciding things? Absolutely not. I am the Arbiter of All Things. It wouldn't look too well if I wussed out.
Against my wife's advice, I vowed to go down to the school on Monday and explain to them that they were wrong, how they were wrong, and how they were going to correct their mistake. I would be civil. I would be polite. I would not kick anybody in the face, but I did reserve the right to want to do that. I would not do that of course. Not unless someone's face was on fire.
Before I got there however, I received a phone call. The assistant principal. She called to apologise. It was her decision to suspend Elise for a week and she admits it was an overreaction. Elise was welcome to come back to school immediately.
Looks like the school showed a little tolerance. Good to hear. It's always a good idea to show some judgement, and it's a bad idea to preach to kids that tolerance is a bad word.
Tolerance is something we should all be striving for. Zero tolerance is an old dog that needs to be put down.
I do occasionally have trouble with her school. I was diagnosed when I was 12, and all throughout my acedemic life there was no clear and consistent answer or treatment for high functioning autism. (There was, but it usually boiled down to hitting me with things.)
Now we have the 'specialist' in the classroom. We have the 'autism school'. Of all of the schools in Fitchburg Massachusetts, one is designated as the 'autism school'. I have no idea how they became the 'autism school'. Perhaps they drew the short straw. I say this because they don't seem to be terribly happy about it.
This year we have had around a dozen phone calls saying "Pick your kid up, she's suspended." She would get suspended for various things. Once she threw shoes at a teacher. Obviously she's not allowed to do that. One time she kicked a kid in the face. That was a two day suspension.
When my wife told me about this one, the first question I asked was "Why did she kick him?" That drove my wife crazy. To her mind there's no reason to ever kick anybody in the face. I came up with two on the spot:
1. The kid was coming at her with a weapon and the kick was both self-defense and amazingly amazing.
2. The kid's face was on fire.
The real reason wasn't nearly as poetic. The kid pissed her off and went and got his face kicked. I explained to my sweet delicate flower that we do not dispense justice that way. We are not Batman.
A couple of months ago, she was suspended for a week. This was a Friday afternoon. We had to pick her up and couldn't bring her back for 5 full days.
Because she was screaming.
That's not what she claimed, that's what the teacher said.
5 days for screaming and only 2 days for kicking a kid in the face? That must have been one ugly kid.
The answer came back "We have a zero tolerance policy."
There it is. Zero Tolerance. I will now explain how 'Zero Tolerance' is a bunch of crap.
Whenever anything happens in society, those in charge have to decide if and when to apply the rule of law, or apply the intent of the law. Perhaps the law should be ignored altogether. This is why a cop generally doesn't ticket you for jaywalking if you're fleeing a building fire. Technically you broke the law, but the cop isn't being a jackass. He's using his JUDGEMENT.
Now if that city had zero tolerance for jaywalking, you'd be screwed.
"But Ian," you say, "Schools have to have zero tolerance for things like drugs and violence" Okay, let's examine that.
You're on your way to school and on the path you spy a ziplock bag with white powder in it. Being the incredibly social-minded person you are, you pocket it. First thing you do is go to the principal's office and hand it to him, explaining that you didn't want anyone else to pick it up, and would he please deal with it as appropriate?
He suspends you for two weeks. You brought drugs into the school, and although your actions were commendable (and you did nothing wrong in his eyes), the school has a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY.
"But surely the principal would take that into account..." Nope. That would be showing tolerance. It's zero tolerance, baby. Showing tolerance violates the policy.
Zero tolerance is such a cop-out. On the face of it, it demonstrates how seriously the school or workplace takes a certain issue. It sounds good. It feels good. It's the best thing for everybody.
Until it blows up in your face. Until you end up punishing someone for doing nothing wrong in the eyes of society. The only thing a zero tolerance policy achieves is a complete absence of culpability. If you're not ALLOWED to exercise your judgement, you can't possibly get into trouble for making a bad judgement call.
It's the buzzword for those who are too cowardly to make a decision in case it turns out to be wrong. For some reason, being wrong terrifies people. I've made literally thousands of decisions in my life. A good percentage of these were wrong decisions. Does this mean I should stop deciding things? Absolutely not. I am the Arbiter of All Things. It wouldn't look too well if I wussed out.
Against my wife's advice, I vowed to go down to the school on Monday and explain to them that they were wrong, how they were wrong, and how they were going to correct their mistake. I would be civil. I would be polite. I would not kick anybody in the face, but I did reserve the right to want to do that. I would not do that of course. Not unless someone's face was on fire.
Before I got there however, I received a phone call. The assistant principal. She called to apologise. It was her decision to suspend Elise for a week and she admits it was an overreaction. Elise was welcome to come back to school immediately.
Looks like the school showed a little tolerance. Good to hear. It's always a good idea to show some judgement, and it's a bad idea to preach to kids that tolerance is a bad word.
Tolerance is something we should all be striving for. Zero tolerance is an old dog that needs to be put down.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
A letter I wrote to SimplexGrinnell
I used to work for this company, SimplexGrinnell. I was an alarm dispatcher. Basically my job was to call 911 about 40 times a day. It was a job I was very good at, and I was considered to be one of the best dispatchers on my shift.
One day I experienced a good level of 'different treatment'. Based on a comment from my immediate supervisor, I thought it might have something to do with my condition. I alerted the appropriate people within the company. There was an investigation. Then the treatment continued. Then there was a second investigation. I managed to acquire quite a bit of evidence, but my concern was ultimately dismissed as a series of unfortunate miscommunications.
A month later I was fired. Evidently, I was 'too loud' when dispatching on a fire emergency. This sounded to me to be a bit flimsy, but I was assured that it had nothing to do with my complaints of discrimination and everything to do with raising my voice an octave in order to save lives and property.
I may go into more detail in a later post. There are a *lot* of details.
I wrote a few letters to Simplex over the years, trying to gain some insight into their educational practices. You see, I feel that autistic people should be utilised in order to gain maximum benefit from their gifts. Simplex seemed to believe that autistic people needed to be quiet, especially when it came to asserting their basic rights.
To date I have received no response from Simplex, or their parent company Tyco.
Two days ago, I wrote the following letter. This time I sent copies to the EEOC and the White House. Who knows? I may get a response this time.
If anyone does respond, I'll post it here. This is the letter that Simplex received yesterday:
SimplexGrinnell
Human Resources Department
50 Technology Drive
Westminster MA 01441
cc: US EEOC New York Office.
cc: US EEOC Washington DC Headquarters.
cc: The White House.
Dear Simplex,
Recently, the HBO movie Temple Grandin won several awards at this years Emmy Awards. It's no secret that autistic people are here to stay. Not only that, but we have a lot to offer. You like thinking outside the box? That's where we live.
Managers in your departments should be embracing people with these unique gifts rather than turning them away. Not only is it illegal, it's not too smart. Autistic people are gaining momentum. We are contributing to society. We are everywhere.
There will be a point in time when we will not tolerate discrimination, abuse or other forms of hatred.
I urge you, please, educate yourselves on the advantages and unique gifts that autism can bring to your company. Also, please let this knowledge trickle down to all departments. You're missing out on some major opportunities when you turn away a section of the disabled community because of a fear of the unknown.
Autism isn't a dirty word. I should not feel ashamed or nervous when I say it. One day I will be able to say it proudly, but it will take the effort of companies like SimplexGrinnell to take the biggest step. One that reverses direction and moves forward.
Looking forward to joining you in the future,
Martin Ian Taylor
Autistic...and proud of it.
One day I experienced a good level of 'different treatment'. Based on a comment from my immediate supervisor, I thought it might have something to do with my condition. I alerted the appropriate people within the company. There was an investigation. Then the treatment continued. Then there was a second investigation. I managed to acquire quite a bit of evidence, but my concern was ultimately dismissed as a series of unfortunate miscommunications.
A month later I was fired. Evidently, I was 'too loud' when dispatching on a fire emergency. This sounded to me to be a bit flimsy, but I was assured that it had nothing to do with my complaints of discrimination and everything to do with raising my voice an octave in order to save lives and property.
I may go into more detail in a later post. There are a *lot* of details.
I wrote a few letters to Simplex over the years, trying to gain some insight into their educational practices. You see, I feel that autistic people should be utilised in order to gain maximum benefit from their gifts. Simplex seemed to believe that autistic people needed to be quiet, especially when it came to asserting their basic rights.
To date I have received no response from Simplex, or their parent company Tyco.
Two days ago, I wrote the following letter. This time I sent copies to the EEOC and the White House. Who knows? I may get a response this time.
If anyone does respond, I'll post it here. This is the letter that Simplex received yesterday:
SimplexGrinnell
Human Resources Department
50 Technology Drive
Westminster MA 01441
cc: US EEOC New York Office.
cc: US EEOC Washington DC Headquarters.
cc: The White House.
Dear Simplex,
Recently, the HBO movie Temple Grandin won several awards at this years Emmy Awards. It's no secret that autistic people are here to stay. Not only that, but we have a lot to offer. You like thinking outside the box? That's where we live.
Managers in your departments should be embracing people with these unique gifts rather than turning them away. Not only is it illegal, it's not too smart. Autistic people are gaining momentum. We are contributing to society. We are everywhere.
There will be a point in time when we will not tolerate discrimination, abuse or other forms of hatred.
I urge you, please, educate yourselves on the advantages and unique gifts that autism can bring to your company. Also, please let this knowledge trickle down to all departments. You're missing out on some major opportunities when you turn away a section of the disabled community because of a fear of the unknown.
Autism isn't a dirty word. I should not feel ashamed or nervous when I say it. One day I will be able to say it proudly, but it will take the effort of companies like SimplexGrinnell to take the biggest step. One that reverses direction and moves forward.
Looking forward to joining you in the future,
Martin Ian Taylor
Autistic...and proud of it.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
An Open Letter to Everybody: STOP IT!
Dear Everybody,
I know I have these annoying little habits. Stim behaviour such as making little noises or patting my belly to a tune in my head. I know you hate it when I overanalyse everything and apply logic and reason when it's inconvenient.
I'm trying to stop. Really.
But you have to meet me halfway.
Here's a short list of things you have to stop right now. As a show of good faith.
STOP SAYING THESE THINGS
"I have to pee really badly!" - NO! You have to pee "WELL". Peeing badly serves no-one and makes for a messy bathroom. You're an adult. Start peeing like one.
"Bless you" - Said after a sneeze. WHAT? Did you seriously just bless me? Do you really go around blessing people? I would expect this kind of behaviour from the Pope, not from my mostly-atheist buddies. Do you think it's polite? How is it polite to consider that one of my bodily functions need to be blessed? If anything, bless my farts. They are most in need of God's intervention.
"I guess" - This is horribly misused and it needs to stop. If I ask you "Will it rain later?" and you respond with "I guess", that's valid. If I ask you "Did it rain today?" don't answer with "I guess". Appropriate answers are: "Yes", "No", and "I don't know". Stop guessing. It's annoying and it makes you look stupid.
"It's unprofessional" - Probably the most misused word in the American English language. If I were to apply for a bank loan while wearing a singlet, gloves, shorts and steel-toe boots, I would likely be called 'unprofessional'. Someone would actually call me this without knowing my profession. Would this really be unprofessional attire for a BRICKLAYER? Unless you're making a clear determination, taking into account the profession involved, stop saying "Unprofessional". It's unprofessional.
"Thank you for not smoking" - said on signs. I don't smoke. I never have. But thanking me for something I haven't yet done is a bit rude don't you think? Just say "no smoking". I can understand that. We live in a world of linear time. Thanking me for something I have yet to do/not do is not too far from paying me millions of dollars for the NBA career I am yet to have.
"We're going to let you go" - I get fired a lot. (No, really?) I've heard this, or variations of it, all my life on two different continents. Just say "You're fired". Why are you trying to spare my feelings? I DON'T WORK THERE ANYMORE. You "let go" people that you have imprisoned. If this phrase is the one you feel most comfortable with, maybe we need to check out your basement.
I know I have these annoying little habits. Stim behaviour such as making little noises or patting my belly to a tune in my head. I know you hate it when I overanalyse everything and apply logic and reason when it's inconvenient.
I'm trying to stop. Really.
But you have to meet me halfway.
Here's a short list of things you have to stop right now. As a show of good faith.
STOP SAYING THESE THINGS
"I have to pee really badly!" - NO! You have to pee "WELL". Peeing badly serves no-one and makes for a messy bathroom. You're an adult. Start peeing like one.
"Bless you" - Said after a sneeze. WHAT? Did you seriously just bless me? Do you really go around blessing people? I would expect this kind of behaviour from the Pope, not from my mostly-atheist buddies. Do you think it's polite? How is it polite to consider that one of my bodily functions need to be blessed? If anything, bless my farts. They are most in need of God's intervention.
"I guess" - This is horribly misused and it needs to stop. If I ask you "Will it rain later?" and you respond with "I guess", that's valid. If I ask you "Did it rain today?" don't answer with "I guess". Appropriate answers are: "Yes", "No", and "I don't know". Stop guessing. It's annoying and it makes you look stupid.
"It's unprofessional" - Probably the most misused word in the American English language. If I were to apply for a bank loan while wearing a singlet, gloves, shorts and steel-toe boots, I would likely be called 'unprofessional'. Someone would actually call me this without knowing my profession. Would this really be unprofessional attire for a BRICKLAYER? Unless you're making a clear determination, taking into account the profession involved, stop saying "Unprofessional". It's unprofessional.
"Thank you for not smoking" - said on signs. I don't smoke. I never have. But thanking me for something I haven't yet done is a bit rude don't you think? Just say "no smoking". I can understand that. We live in a world of linear time. Thanking me for something I have yet to do/not do is not too far from paying me millions of dollars for the NBA career I am yet to have.
"We're going to let you go" - I get fired a lot. (No, really?) I've heard this, or variations of it, all my life on two different continents. Just say "You're fired". Why are you trying to spare my feelings? I DON'T WORK THERE ANYMORE. You "let go" people that you have imprisoned. If this phrase is the one you feel most comfortable with, maybe we need to check out your basement.
Amy Winehouse, William Shakespeare, and me.
Art is a tricky thing. The quote I hear most is; "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like", attributed to James Thurber.
Thurber's quote sums up art for pretty much everybody. It's all about what *you* like. Art should convey emotion, and it's not going to convey it to absolutely everybody.
The story The Emperor's New Clothes doesn't deal with art exactly, but the mob mentality behind trends. I always enjoyed that story, because it told me that the truth was far more important than 'fitting in'.
A few years ago, I was treated to my first song by the British singer Amy Winehouse. I had read and heard all kinds of good things about this Amy Winehouse. I was looking forward to seeing (hearing) what all the fuss was about.
The song was "Rehab". I hated it. I really hated it. I thought it sucked.
I actually found myself thinking that maybe the fault was mine. That I just didn't get it. Maybe I'm too dumb to appreciate this fine piece of vocal dexterity. I just don't understand this sweet soul biscuit of a woman and I'm too stupid to fell her pain.
I listened to a few more of her songs.
Nope, Amy Winehouse sucks.
And then it hit me, so does Shakespeare.
All my life I've felt the same thing about Shakespeare that I felt about Amy Winehouse. Maybe I'm just too dumb to get it. The plays just felt clunky and awful. The words, the characters, the plots...all just plain bad.
Of course, it can't be that. I must be wrong. EVERYBODY loves Shakespeare. Who the Hell am I to call him bad? I just don't understand.
I took another look. I read translations, interpretations, and analysis. I read every single piece of objective information I could find (and believe me, it was hard to come by) and I came to the same conclusion that I had in my youth. The only difference being that I was now comfortable with my dislike. Shakespeare is a hack.
Was Shakespeare good in his time? Maybe. That's the beauty of being me. I don't consider how Shakespeare used to be. I'm judging him now. By today's standards.
You remember how dancing used to be 300 years ago? Probably not, but you may have read about it. Boring, slow and decidedly unsexy. Can you imagine how crowds would react if you tried to pull that kind of crap today?
How about journalism? The way news was given to the masses was completely unprofessional when compared with the standards of today.
Courts? Police? Prisons? Hospitals? Completely unacceptable.
So why hold such reverence for plays that are just as old? It doesn't make logical sense. It's just there to make acting students feel inadequate.
Of course, the best actors in the world are trained in the plays of Shakespeare. That actually does make sense. If you can make that drek even remotely entertaining, you deserve to stand among the world's finest thespians.
One of the rebuttals I get from people usually follows the trend of "You're a writer, aren't you being a bit ridiculous claiming to be better than Shakespeare?" My answer to that is: No, not in the slightest. I would very much like to be remembered for my writing in hundreds of years, but I would be equally horrified to learn that my writing was being used and performed with such ridiculous reverence.
By all means, call Shakespeare a visionary for his time. Call him an amazing talent for his time. Claim that he stands with the giants of his time.
But for the love of all that is literary, leave him in his time.
"But Ian" you say, "Amy Winehouse is in *our* time!"
Yeah but she's a talentless whore.
Thurber's quote sums up art for pretty much everybody. It's all about what *you* like. Art should convey emotion, and it's not going to convey it to absolutely everybody.
The story The Emperor's New Clothes doesn't deal with art exactly, but the mob mentality behind trends. I always enjoyed that story, because it told me that the truth was far more important than 'fitting in'.
A few years ago, I was treated to my first song by the British singer Amy Winehouse. I had read and heard all kinds of good things about this Amy Winehouse. I was looking forward to seeing (hearing) what all the fuss was about.
The song was "Rehab". I hated it. I really hated it. I thought it sucked.
I actually found myself thinking that maybe the fault was mine. That I just didn't get it. Maybe I'm too dumb to appreciate this fine piece of vocal dexterity. I just don't understand this sweet soul biscuit of a woman and I'm too stupid to fell her pain.
I listened to a few more of her songs.
Nope, Amy Winehouse sucks.
And then it hit me, so does Shakespeare.
All my life I've felt the same thing about Shakespeare that I felt about Amy Winehouse. Maybe I'm just too dumb to get it. The plays just felt clunky and awful. The words, the characters, the plots...all just plain bad.
Of course, it can't be that. I must be wrong. EVERYBODY loves Shakespeare. Who the Hell am I to call him bad? I just don't understand.
I took another look. I read translations, interpretations, and analysis. I read every single piece of objective information I could find (and believe me, it was hard to come by) and I came to the same conclusion that I had in my youth. The only difference being that I was now comfortable with my dislike. Shakespeare is a hack.
Was Shakespeare good in his time? Maybe. That's the beauty of being me. I don't consider how Shakespeare used to be. I'm judging him now. By today's standards.
You remember how dancing used to be 300 years ago? Probably not, but you may have read about it. Boring, slow and decidedly unsexy. Can you imagine how crowds would react if you tried to pull that kind of crap today?
How about journalism? The way news was given to the masses was completely unprofessional when compared with the standards of today.
Courts? Police? Prisons? Hospitals? Completely unacceptable.
So why hold such reverence for plays that are just as old? It doesn't make logical sense. It's just there to make acting students feel inadequate.
Of course, the best actors in the world are trained in the plays of Shakespeare. That actually does make sense. If you can make that drek even remotely entertaining, you deserve to stand among the world's finest thespians.
One of the rebuttals I get from people usually follows the trend of "You're a writer, aren't you being a bit ridiculous claiming to be better than Shakespeare?" My answer to that is: No, not in the slightest. I would very much like to be remembered for my writing in hundreds of years, but I would be equally horrified to learn that my writing was being used and performed with such ridiculous reverence.
By all means, call Shakespeare a visionary for his time. Call him an amazing talent for his time. Claim that he stands with the giants of his time.
But for the love of all that is literary, leave him in his time.
"But Ian" you say, "Amy Winehouse is in *our* time!"
Yeah but she's a talentless whore.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
I am not Spock
And my wife is not Doctor McCoy.
However, she does say things like: "Don't you have any feelings, you monster?", and I will reply with something like: "What is the point of becoming agitated?"
I suppose that it's weird for people to fathom, but if you apply logic to almost any emotional state, emotions will lose.
Your kitchen catches fire. You start to panic. Why? What's the point of that? And more importantly, how is it helping? Panicking will not help you remember where the fire extinguisher is, or help you communicate with the 911 operator. So why do it?
One morning, around 4am, my wife Karen woke me up with a scream. Not a regular scream either, but one where you inhale instead of exhale. It was one hell of an alarm. I turned the light on and saw that she was shaking, eyes wide open, blood spurting from the mouth. Turns out she was having a seizure, but she had never had one before. 911 was called. I gave the address, explained what was happening, and went back to Karen's side.
I stayed with her, making sure she was still breathing. When the ambulance came, the EMTs managed to revive her.
Was I panicked? Nope. Pumped with adrenaline, sure, but I was fully in control of my actions and thoughts. I'm told that, given the situation, most people would have panicked. I can't imagine anything more pointless than intentionally making myself useless for a period of time. Probably why I don't drink.
I get happy, angry or sad just like everybody else. I try to not be bored because it seems pointless. Why be bored? It just wastes time and makes you miserable.
This way of thinking extends to things like motion sickness. I really don't see the point of this. If you eat a bad egg, I understand why you need to vomit. If your eyes say you're moving but your ear says you're not, why is the stomach even getting involved? How is vomiting in the car helping anyone?
And what of insults? What's the point of being insulted? If somebody you don't like says something you don't like, why does it matter so much? It takes two parties for an insult to occur. Logically if you don't feel insulted, you're not insulted. Why torture yourself with the opinion of a jerk?
Karen would say "Because we're married, dumbass!"
However, she does say things like: "Don't you have any feelings, you monster?", and I will reply with something like: "What is the point of becoming agitated?"
I suppose that it's weird for people to fathom, but if you apply logic to almost any emotional state, emotions will lose.
Your kitchen catches fire. You start to panic. Why? What's the point of that? And more importantly, how is it helping? Panicking will not help you remember where the fire extinguisher is, or help you communicate with the 911 operator. So why do it?
One morning, around 4am, my wife Karen woke me up with a scream. Not a regular scream either, but one where you inhale instead of exhale. It was one hell of an alarm. I turned the light on and saw that she was shaking, eyes wide open, blood spurting from the mouth. Turns out she was having a seizure, but she had never had one before. 911 was called. I gave the address, explained what was happening, and went back to Karen's side.
I stayed with her, making sure she was still breathing. When the ambulance came, the EMTs managed to revive her.
Was I panicked? Nope. Pumped with adrenaline, sure, but I was fully in control of my actions and thoughts. I'm told that, given the situation, most people would have panicked. I can't imagine anything more pointless than intentionally making myself useless for a period of time. Probably why I don't drink.
I get happy, angry or sad just like everybody else. I try to not be bored because it seems pointless. Why be bored? It just wastes time and makes you miserable.
This way of thinking extends to things like motion sickness. I really don't see the point of this. If you eat a bad egg, I understand why you need to vomit. If your eyes say you're moving but your ear says you're not, why is the stomach even getting involved? How is vomiting in the car helping anyone?
And what of insults? What's the point of being insulted? If somebody you don't like says something you don't like, why does it matter so much? It takes two parties for an insult to occur. Logically if you don't feel insulted, you're not insulted. Why torture yourself with the opinion of a jerk?
Karen would say "Because we're married, dumbass!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)