Autism is a disease that can be described as a development disorder that takes on several different forms. It is a disease that appears during the first three years of an individual’s life, and it affects a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others. Overtime, autism can develop from an acute state to a debilitating level.
Autism is “defined by a certain set of behaviors and is a “spectrum disorder” that affects people differently and to varying degrees” (“About Autism” ).
In the documentary “ The Musical,” I think the message that the director was attempting to convey to his audience about Autism is that a person can live a somewhat functional and meaningful life, despite the fact that they have this mental disorder.
I found the character, Neal, very interesting. He was not able to form words to speak. He communicated by learning how to use a specifically design keyboard and screen to type out his thoughts.
Wyatt was another character who I thought was more fascinating. His knowledge of dinosaurs was at a level that would impress the most experienced paleontoligist. The fact that he could sit down and engage you in an intelligent conversation on the facts about the different species of dinosaurs, while correctly pronouncing their name was absolutely amazing.
Just with those two little boys, the director was able to demonstrate differences in the levels of severity with autism.
The documentary left me with a few questions.How does a person develop autism? Is it a disease that develops at birth? Can a person grow out of it? Can a person be cured from autism?
There is no known cause for autism, but it is “generally accepted that it is caused by abnormalities in the brain structure or function” (What Causes Autism). Some people think it is hereditary or it may be connected with certain illnesses or disabilities that may already exist.
Some people think that women who have children at forty or older may have a higher risk of having a child with autism.
Usually a child may develop autism anywhere from birth to up to three years of age. Children do not grow out of autism because there is no cure. There are resources and information available to make life with autism better.
About Autism. 19 July 2008 Autism Society of America 21 January 2008 < http://www.autism-/
society.org/site>
What Causes Autism. 19 July 2008 Autism Society of America 21 January 2008 <http://www.autism-/
society.org/site>
Monday, July 21, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Wild Wild West
When the new law on gun control was passed last week making the Florida the fourth state to allow guns at the workplace, I had mixed feelings about the new legislation. According to the new law, if my employer is not a hospital, prison, power plant or school, I can take my handgun to work as long as I have a concealed weapons permit and the gun is locked inside my vehicle. Is this good or bad news?
In the gun control article, " Showdown," it states that Florida has more concealed weapons permits than any state in the nation. The article also indicates the new law is good news for some Floridians and the bad news for others.
What is the point in bringing a gun to work? Think about it, how often are people robbed or shot at during work hours? Speaking from the point of a person who works a normal forty-hour work week and considers himself to be a law-abiding citizen, I have never found myself in a threatening work situation where I felt the need to physically defend myself, let alone pull out a gun.
The people I work with who have dishonorable intentions or criminal minds probably already bring their guns to work, and up until now, I have never felt intimidated by them. I feel intimidated because I do not know who they are, but now that this law has been passed that legally allows guns to be brought to work, it makes me feel that I may be at a disadvantage.
I could be the only one at work unarmed which, in turn, make me suspicious and fearful of everyone. I think that this new legislation would only put everyone on edge and create a more hostile work environment.
Everyone is already aware of the reputation of the United States Postal Service with regards to workplace violence. As a postal employee, now I know that everyone can legally bring their guns to work. This does not make me feel like I am working in a safer work environment.
In fact, taking into consideration some of the strange characters that I work with, it makes me feel just the opposite. I am sure that the law makers that passed this law had good intentions, but I feel that they failed to make it clear to the public how this law is to be interpreted.
Saying that it is now legal to bring a gun to work is too broad of a statement. Where do you draw the line with the interpretation of the law? What are the limitations?
When I go to a place such as Disney World, am I to assume that it is a strong possibility that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck could have access to a weapon? When I take my six-year old son to school, or my two-year old daughter to daycare, it doesn't give me an added sense of assurance for their safety knowing that it is a possibility that their teachers may have a gun at work.
When I go to church, knowing that it is a possibility that the pastor, the deacons, ushers or even the secretary may have access to a gun does not make me feel safer either.
Everything has its place and unless you work at a job where you are required to carry a weapon, the work place is certainly no place for a gun. The gun laws are too lax and need to be stricter.
I do not think we as citizens will ever know the true intent of the United States Constitution with regards to who should bear arms.
In the gun control article, " Showdown," it states that Florida has more concealed weapons permits than any state in the nation. The article also indicates the new law is good news for some Floridians and the bad news for others.
What is the point in bringing a gun to work? Think about it, how often are people robbed or shot at during work hours? Speaking from the point of a person who works a normal forty-hour work week and considers himself to be a law-abiding citizen, I have never found myself in a threatening work situation where I felt the need to physically defend myself, let alone pull out a gun.
The people I work with who have dishonorable intentions or criminal minds probably already bring their guns to work, and up until now, I have never felt intimidated by them. I feel intimidated because I do not know who they are, but now that this law has been passed that legally allows guns to be brought to work, it makes me feel that I may be at a disadvantage.
I could be the only one at work unarmed which, in turn, make me suspicious and fearful of everyone. I think that this new legislation would only put everyone on edge and create a more hostile work environment.
Everyone is already aware of the reputation of the United States Postal Service with regards to workplace violence. As a postal employee, now I know that everyone can legally bring their guns to work. This does not make me feel like I am working in a safer work environment.
In fact, taking into consideration some of the strange characters that I work with, it makes me feel just the opposite. I am sure that the law makers that passed this law had good intentions, but I feel that they failed to make it clear to the public how this law is to be interpreted.
Saying that it is now legal to bring a gun to work is too broad of a statement. Where do you draw the line with the interpretation of the law? What are the limitations?
When I go to a place such as Disney World, am I to assume that it is a strong possibility that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck could have access to a weapon? When I take my six-year old son to school, or my two-year old daughter to daycare, it doesn't give me an added sense of assurance for their safety knowing that it is a possibility that their teachers may have a gun at work.
When I go to church, knowing that it is a possibility that the pastor, the deacons, ushers or even the secretary may have access to a gun does not make me feel safer either.
Everything has its place and unless you work at a job where you are required to carry a weapon, the work place is certainly no place for a gun. The gun laws are too lax and need to be stricter.
I do not think we as citizens will ever know the true intent of the United States Constitution with regards to who should bear arms.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
The electric car
What happened to the electric car? I think instead of asking that question, one should, first, ask the question, why was it killed? Let’s consider the advantages that an electric car would present.
The first would be the most obvious reason, and that would be the elimination of the need for gas. Why would anybody be against a car that would eliminate the need and dependency for engine oil?
A car that would have no need for an emission system, therefore, would undoubtedly be environmentally friendly.
Next, a car that has been proven to perform just as well as the standard cars of today, and in certain situations, it may perform even better. Also, people were beginning to develop a demand for them.
Some would argue that it had too many disadvantages such as the limitation of distance in which one would be able to travel before there would be a need for a recharge.
Others may say that trying to map out a route to which there would be enough locations where you were able to recharge would create much of a hassel.
Or the uncertainty about how well the car would perform over the long term, and the unknown problem that it may present in the future. These were the risks that some were unwilling to take.
But taking in consideration the history of the automobile, I am sure that when Henry Ford invented the first automobile that it presented problems that had to be worked out.
As evidence of the high performing cars that we drive today, a lot of these problems were resolved, and the evolution of the car was set into motion.
The electric car definitely presented some obstacles that needed to be addressed, but those obstacles were not so overwhelming that you could deny the justification of at least attempting to put forth an effort in developing the car.
So, to answer, the questions of who killed the electric car or why was it killed, all one needs to do is follow the money. Then, ask, who would the electric car hurt the most?
The first would be the most obvious reason, and that would be the elimination of the need for gas. Why would anybody be against a car that would eliminate the need and dependency for engine oil?
A car that would have no need for an emission system, therefore, would undoubtedly be environmentally friendly.
Next, a car that has been proven to perform just as well as the standard cars of today, and in certain situations, it may perform even better. Also, people were beginning to develop a demand for them.
Some would argue that it had too many disadvantages such as the limitation of distance in which one would be able to travel before there would be a need for a recharge.
Others may say that trying to map out a route to which there would be enough locations where you were able to recharge would create much of a hassel.
Or the uncertainty about how well the car would perform over the long term, and the unknown problem that it may present in the future. These were the risks that some were unwilling to take.
But taking in consideration the history of the automobile, I am sure that when Henry Ford invented the first automobile that it presented problems that had to be worked out.
As evidence of the high performing cars that we drive today, a lot of these problems were resolved, and the evolution of the car was set into motion.
The electric car definitely presented some obstacles that needed to be addressed, but those obstacles were not so overwhelming that you could deny the justification of at least attempting to put forth an effort in developing the car.
So, to answer, the questions of who killed the electric car or why was it killed, all one needs to do is follow the money. Then, ask, who would the electric car hurt the most?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)