Professional Motocross Deaf Gal Shreds Dirt

Here's a video introduction of Ashley Fiolek, age 17, one of the top amateur motocrossers from around the country seen racing in one of the many hand selected Red Bull Jam motocross races. She's a tough gal who doesn't mind mixing it up by racing in the men's division. But in the women division she won the Women's Supercross Title and placed second overall in the Women's Motocross Division. Indeed, a worldclass motocrosser that's up and coming. Check out her bio page by Red Bull and see a video of her racing (no subtitles/captions or transcript).

Check out this video of her signing about her racing experiences. Video comes with subtitles. And last but not least be sure to check out her official Ashley Fiolek website.

Wonder if she ever met Greg Gunderson?

A Video Interview with Greg Gunderson

Check out this video (ASL, SEE and subtitle) of Greg Gunderson being interviewed by Jason Curry (CEO and President of sComm, Inc, maker of the widely popular UbiDuo communication device) about the advantages of having UbiDuo to communicate with hearing people. Greg Gunderson is the nationally known and popular professional sprint car driver who happen to be....Deaf!

Woman Victim Uses UbiDuo

Jason Curry, CEO of sComm, Inc (a deaf owned and deaf run company) where the UbuiDuo is built, donated the face-to-face communication device to a hearing woman so she could communicate with her friends, families, nurses and doctors while she recuperates from a violent store robbery.

Nearly a month after a man slashed the throat of a clerk at a convenience
store, the 19-year-old woman struggles to recover and regain her speech.

Police said Sean Cave, 38, allegedly robbed the Stop-N-Go on Highway 59
in Winthrop, Mo., and nearly killed Kim DeJonge. He is accused of slitting
DeJonge's throat twice and stabbing her seven times.

Kudos to Jason Curry for helping out a victim in need of support and help.

Informed Decision....would you accept and support a parents' decision?

There are concerns among many Deaf people that hearing parents of deaf/hh babies and children that they may not have access to all of the necessary information to make an *informed decision* about mode of communicaton to be used. If you watch Barb Digi recent video on YouTube she points out that very same but legitimate concern. However, the biggest test is after the fact when parents do make an *informed decision*. Supposing hearing parents do get all the necessary and relevant materials regarding ASL, SEE, AVT, cued speech, oral/aural trainings, educational aspects and so on. Let's say hearing parents spend considerable time with materials given to them by various hearing loss organizations (AGBell, pro-ASL organizations, pro-bilingual organizatoins, cued speech organizations, etc), met with numerous deaf/hh people, met with various profesional educators and so on over a short but intense period of time. With all the due diligence already undertaken the hearing parents finally make an *informed decision*. They decide to go for the cochlear implant and cochlear implant route for their deaf/hh baby or child. Will you, as a Deaf person unequivocally accept and support the hearing parents' decision for their deaf/hh baby or child? Remember, hearing parents took every effort and did their due diligence effort, including an in-depth comprehensive look at ASL, to make an *informed decision* about their deaf/hh baby or child.

Barb Digi, would you unequivocally accept and support hearing parents' *informed decision* after they have accessed all relevant information decide to go for the AVT and cochlear implant route? I make this challenge to you Barb (and to any Deaf people out there) to answer this question of mine. It is indeed a relevant question to ask.

Watch Barb Digi's video which comes with a built-in scrolling transcript for those who do not know ASL

Paranoia, Emotional Baggage, Zealotry, Cult Followers…in no particular order

I want to talk about something a little bit different and slightly off tangent but falls well within the paranoia discussion that will follow shortly. Lately I know that some Deaf people out there have seen my devilish remark, “My plan is working flawlessly *rubs hands* heh heh…,” in a few places such as Paotie’s, my blog and elsewhere. I made up this devilish looking remark first in Chronicles of a Bionic Woman and then proceeded to use that same remark based off of a funny movie in a few other places. Strategically timed I supposed when I placed it. But the result was that several Deaf people began to take note and commented by making up wild conspiracy claims believing my remark had to do with AGBell, the DBC, or thinking it had to do about a devilish plan against the Deaf community at large and so on. Though let me make myself clear that I do have a certain propensity to delve in a bit of quirky humor. I know that some people already know this or don’t take it seriously but when I made that devilish remark about my plan that is “working flawlessly” I said it to hopefully prove a point. And that people will run off with that remark of mine thinking it’s proof that I’m out to destroy the Deaf culture and what not or whatever so- called agenda you want to conspire and bring up. But the thing is….there is no plan! I have no plan that is “working flawlessly.” So, relax. Have a beer and laugh over this one. You’ve been punked big time.

Ok. Feel better now? Now that I’ve officially placed a disclaimer about my devilish remark as a non-issue or of no concern for the Deaf community I go to my topic of discussion.

It becomes an odd if almost comical event to witness bloggers or vloggers resort to using Godwin’s Law (Reducto ad Hitlerum) in their own arguments thinking they’re well grounded in logical, scholarly thoughts. Hardly. The mere act of bringing up Nazism or “playing the Nazi card” to try and make parallels or associations in an argument simply gets nullified on that merit alone. Playing the Nazi card in the hope that appeal to emotions will win out rather than on logic and common sense will simply lose all credibility and everything they say after that won’t mean much. This is especially so when you have group of Deaf people playing the Nazi card to try and create supposed parallels on what’s happening today to deaf and hard of hearing people when it comes to AGBell’s philosophy as an organization. Doing so would be pretty much proof that those people who resort to that tactic are carrying way too much emotional baggage. I’m sure they have legitimate issues based on past experiences but to play the Nazi card will simply nullify their own arguments!

Yet with my odd but uneasy fascination on witnessing cult followers who are hell bent on destroying AGBell at all costs even at the cost of losing all credibility to the eyes of basically everybody which means Deaf, deaf, hh, hearing people and especially hearing parents. Yet the AGBell organization believes that hearing parents have the right to make informed decisions when it comes to their deaf/hh child, even if it means choosing ASL or not. Although AGBell’s philosophy as an organization does emphasize on the listening and speaking aspect for deaf and hard of hearing children. However, AGBell is not the one shooting themselves in the foot but the Deaf adherents or zealots who are basically doing that by continuing to demonize AGBell at every possible turn at a great cost to the credibility of the whole Deaf community. It is simply becomes an unproductive endeavor all in the name to “save” deaf/hh babies from those mean and heartless hearing parents from the hypnotic control of AGBell professionals. There are better ways on getting positive messages across.

Again, all this is rather comical but sad to watch these things transpire in front of our eyes. Zealotry has a way of blinding people and not see the bigger picture. You have advocates with the right frame of mind and then you have those who are simply out of control who use their own emotional baggage to drag the rest of the people down the drain. These are simply an opinion and observation of mine so take it with a grain of salt.

So in review of I what have written today and the things that have been happening lately in the hearing loss community when it comes to paranoia, emotional baggage, zealotry and cult followers, I’d like to make a concluding remark:

My plan is working flawlessly! *rubs hands* Heh heh….muwahhhahahaha!

A Champion of Oralists?

Recently in Mr. Sandman’s blog suggested that I’ve become “a champion of the decidedly tiny minority of oralist/oralist-leaning blogosphere” and I want to take a short time to discuss this and clarify a few things for him and many others.

Whether I’m a “champion” or not is beside the point in what I believe in or advocate as a person with hearing loss who wears a hearing aid which have benefitted me enormously in my life as a Ragtime pianist, my career, and my life. I do support those who choose to use their voice to speak as their primary means of communicating, even if it means not knowing how or the need to sign. Though not just for those “oralists” who cannot hear well or at all I support but those who do hear well with their hearing aids or even cochlear implants nowadays. Talking has always been an effective means of communicating among my hearing or hard of hearing peers.

There’s a second term called “aural” that is often overlooked by the Deaf community of which the deaf and hard of hearing community is intimately aware of. Though some people often take the word “oral” to mean “aural” as well but not every oralist is an “auralist” or an "oral-auralist" (if that is even a word) . The word “aural” relates to the ear on the ability to hear, discriminate and understand words and sound while "oral" relates to the ability to speak and proper enunciation of words. For me, I've used mostly aural approaches to get where I am today only because of my ability to discriminate speech is high with thanks to early use of my hearing aid at around age 3. My speech discrimination score for spoken words stands at around 94% when a word is spoken alone but it goes up to 97 or 98% when spoken in the form of a sentence. Hence, my ability to use the telephone or cell phone with ease. So, in the case of being a "champion" I see myself rather as a huge supporter of those who can benefit immensely from the use of their hearing aids or cochlear implants knowing that many do cherish the world of sound. So, in retrospect, I'm more of the oral-aural supporter than oral. Still there is nothing wrong with speaking just like this deaf, motivational speaker, Stephen Hopson who is an oralist.

Browneyedgirl65 made a comment in her blog on not caring about the ability to hear birds chirping or hear a Mozart symphony which is fine. However, there are those who do cherish sounds much more than Browneyedgirl65 and that they are thankful with technology (i.e. hearing aids, cochlear implants) giving them the ability and the miracle to hear beautiful sounds or the ability to understand the spoken words. Even I am grateful and blessed with what I have. Not even Deaf politics can take that one away from me. Being able to hear and understand words and sound are important to a lot of people with various levels of hearing loss. For others, it is not. I guess you have to hear the nuances of sound in order to understand where I'm coming from and really understand and appreciate the value and quality of sound to be enjoyed as a gift to those who can hear.

But here’s another myth. The so-called small blogosphere of oralists, which I will include "auralists" who are also "oralist," isn’t so decidedly small but rather a large group, much larger than you think. Rather, it’s decidedly larger than the Deaf community. Look around and you can see why but this is so only if you look carefully enough. Why we don’t hear from these hard of hearing bloggers? It’s because many don’t delve into the world of Deaf politics, ASL and bickering dominating their Deaf blogspace. For the most part they're not interested in Deaf culture or ASL. They have other interests not always deaf-related for the most part. You have to know where to look in Google and it isn't always patently obvious on where to look like you could with a Deaf community of bloggers.

Of course, you won't see them in YouTube videos mimicking a barking seal like a bad oralist ability to speak like one Deaf vlogger did as a sign of intellect even though he's going for his graduate degree right now. Yet this video has now been conveniently taken down. But then you have a Deaf person who mimic badly on the way some oralists may supposedly speak with exaggerated lip movements. Stephen Hopson he isn't - a recognized motivational speaker and oralist who is deaf. But if you think those videos were funny then I suppose this video is funny, too, on how people sign? Or if you really want something that's funny and a knee-slapper visit comedians making fun of sign language at the Laugh Factory with a "sign language interpreter" doing his job. Keith Wann he isn't. I guess the old mantra is that if you can't take a joke, take hike applies here, too?

Just as there is a “World Federation of the Deaf” there is an “International Federation of Hard of Hearing” organization that began in 1977 based out of Germany. And a few weeks ago they held their 7th IFHOH Congress in Vancouver, Canada. You can look and see the papers that were presented as well which is an interesting list of topics covered. Organization members of IFHOH in the United States are NTID, ALDA (The Association of Late Deafened Adults), HOHA (Hard of Hearing Advocates), SHHH (Hearing Loss Association of America), ATA (American Tinnitus Association), and AGB (Alexander Graham Bell). You can see a list of those members in other countries as well. It's quite a comprehensive list.

With 31 million people with hearing loss in the United States the decidedly much smaller community would be in fact the Deaf community consisting of some 900,000 Deaf people. So, if I'm going to be a champion of something it'd be for a much bigger picture than a narrow one.

Deaf Nirvana

Over the years ever since the days of Gallaudet University I am continually not surprised on seeing how a few select group of Deaf people who have the ability to run the gamut from political correctness campaigns in Deaf culture to the constant playing as victims of oppression to the pulpit grandstanding “book thumping” sermons on how to achieve this so-called “Deaf Nirvana.” I swear. It’s like watching one slow train wreck after another with a few cabooses managing to survive intact. But then again who would report about surviving cabooses but the whole train wreck instead? Though rarely have I seen anything positive in the Deaf community with enough traction to move forward that can be *shared by all* whether Deaf, deaf, hh or hearing. But to teach “Deaf Nirvana” with a plastic smile like some Cheshire cat bent on selling a particular concept/product can only raise red flags and suspicions. Naturally more so for those who have never heard of or experienced Deaf culture. And when they see an organization get attacked or witnessed a rally that, to them, looks more like a protest than not or the pimping of “Deafhood” concept that comes with a smile by those who are trying to invite hearing parents to come over to their “Deaf” side will not win much hearts. Simply put, there are too many mixed messages and not enough credibility.

Let’s review Ben Vess’ recent vlog on calling out Ella Mae Lentz which was recently pulled. According to Ben the scathing video supposedly helped increase the internal ruckus among some of those in the Deaf community. Or so they say. But I am seeing two messages from all this.

One message is that Deaf leaders are not allowed to be attacked with negative critiques, no matter how shallow it may seem. I suppose it would depend on how critical the message is to meet their definition of something that’s more “acceptable” than not. Some people have tolerances so thin that they’ll gasp and say, “How dare YOU attack our leaders like that!” even if it’s a constructive one. And then we see the circling of the wagons to protect those leaders, yet hear nothing from the leaders. And because of that we hear from other bloggers regarding a litmus test on whether you, as a blogger or vlogger, would attack your own mother in the same way as you have done to others is a bit off kilter (silly in some ways) but perhaps valid in certain circumstances. Still, we’re not dealing with mothers anyway. Or even close friends or associates. It’s the clearing of the air is what I see it as. I see this ongoing “ethics” finger wagging as more navel gazing in the attempt to define what’s “appropriate” when it comes to vlogging or blogging. I understand there is a time a place to have a bit of decorum but it’s not always possible when sensitive issues abound. The internet is a place to air out and sort out our feelings whether it’s done appropriately or not. Let’s not fall into the political correctness trap.

Ben’s message that day, before he removed it, had some critical points that needed to be raised at the time but few/many took it personally thinking he had gone too far. I don’t see it that way but a natural progression that it was time to call out certain leaders. Ben was seeing Ella for what it was at the time. Insight or grain of truth, whatever it was, he saw something that needed to get out even to the point that the truth may hurt. Sometimes there comes a time when you simply have to be blunt to get your message across in full force. Was Ben’s vlog to Ella inappropriate? That probably depends on you and the thickness of your skin. These things will happen again and again when it comes to directing emotions toward leaders or anybody else. Calling a person a coward isn’t necessarily name-calling but it’s certainly mild compared to those who wished a deaf person’s baby certain death.

A second message I am seeing lately is that censuring must be done in order to “help aid the community” by ensuring that things do not get “out of line” or that inappropriate comments and actions be somehow curtailed or prevented. The question I have is, which community are we talking about helping? Does that mean we should censure those who attack AGBell, too? Or gang up on those who get out of line frequently by attacking certain deaf/hh organizations? Is this about attacking certain leader(s) of an organization? Or is this about how, as a group, can help control through peer pressure on what vloggers or bloggers should or should not say or do and get them “blacklisted” somehow? Is there such a thing as having an open mind and simply agree to disagree?

I see vlogging and blogging as creative outlets rather than something that must come encumbered as "politically correct" vlogs or blogs just to make sure people feelings do not get hurt. Whatever. So, does the act of censuring (not censorship) help promote an atmosphere where people come to the point of being unsure on which posts will be seen as appropriate or not? Why create these doubts in the first place? But when bloggers/vloggers do post in the strongest terms they get accused of causing division when the fault are really those who do most of the hand wringing that caused their own internal strife. Maybe it’s time to bring out that caliper once again and measure just how thick that person’s skin really is?

Next I want to discuss the words “Deaf babies” being used rather than “deaf babies” or “deaf/hh babies.” By saying “Deaf babies” it creates a perception of ownership of babies born with hearing loss as if they belong to the Deaf community and not to hearing parents. To hearing parents, babies are either born as deaf, hard of hearing or simply a baby with a hearing loss and not “Deaf babies.” Babies are not born culturally deaf to these hearing parents. Otherwise saying “Deaf babies” does help create suspicions among hearing parents towards the Deaf community. There is a difference on helping hearing parents be made aware of the benefits of signing with deaf/hh children versus telling them what to think in the efforts to make them feel guilty for not using ASL. Instead, efforts should be undertaken to help ensure that these parents get the proper information in the most neutral manner so that they can make an informed decision on their own without using guilt to try and pimp ASL. Whatever hearing parents decide people should throw in their support for them even if they decide not to use ASL. Hearing loss grass roots organizations should not be in the business to constantly try and make parents feel guilty by bringing up the past or use Godwin’s Law by invoking a Hitler comparison just to try and create guilt among hearing parents. This is true going after deaf/hh parents of deaf/hh babies on creating guilt for not using a certain technology or a particular communication method. But anyone who invokes Godwin’s Law loses instant credibility in a thread or argument (i.e. meaning…don’t do that unless you want to look really stupid). A good way to lose hearing parents’ attention is to drive them away with protests disguised as “rallies” on the same day when a hearing loss convention was taking place, go after organizations who are trying to offer support to parents of deaf/hh babies, call deaf/hh babies as “Deaf babies” or put the English language on the bottom totem pole and ASL on the top and so on. The best way to win is to provide support to parents of deaf/hh babies and children even if it means parents may end up not choosing ASL. Some parents may eventually come around. Some won’t because they have already decided based on the circumstances they are in. Some will never come around because of what they have heard about Deaf culture and ASL. That’s a fact of life.

Now, myths stick around a lot longer than the actual facts which is why hearing parents or anybody in the hearing society (we’re talking about 90 to 95% of the population in the U.S) will see Deaf people in some negative light in a lot of cases. It’s a lose-lose proposition if Deaf people continue to attack AGBell; pretend that rallies are “neutral” and are not protests; feign ignorance that setting up a counter-convention next door to a hearing loss convention on the same day doesn’t hurt anyone and is only meant to “inform” and help get in touch with hearing parents of deaf/hh children when in fact hearing parents are likely to see it as a confrontation instead; promote “Deaf Nirvana” through “Deafhood” or other cultural awareness methods; get NAD involved by becoming more “Deaf Centric” rather than to help serve the 30 million people with hearing loss and so on; or have Deaf leaders present conflicting messages or their lack of transparency. It just gets deeper and deeper. So, what else is new?

Currently rumor has it that a third “deaf/Deaf/hh” content aggregator may go up and people are already moaning and groaning at the idea of another content aggregator site. But I say, bully! This is about competing philosophies which means more places for people to go and see which philosophies fit them. There is no one-size shoe fits all here. Even DeafRead cannot fulfill that roll. Neither can Deaf Village. Or another content aggregator site for that matter. People will pick and choose for a reason. Even if Deaf Village offered free video/vlog ASL interpretations as part of their captioning or transcripting services in order to help vloggers comply with DV’s guidelines on video accessibility, most/many won’t take up the offer simply because they are either biased against cochlear implants, AVT, oral and/or aural trainings in the first place or some other far-fetched reasons. That was already apparent anyway when Ben Vess tried to do the same thing by offering a free ASL translation service. I cannot fathom the idea that a single content aggregator having a monopoly over deafness-related topics via blogs and vlogs. Competition was bound to happen as it did with Deaf, deaf and hard of hearing forums when it began in the late 1990s based on a particular philosophy in what an owner wanted to see in a forum. It may either constrain or promote developments and provide some unity among a particular group of people.

Unity aside, I have already for the longest time accepted the fact that it’s the parents who are in control of their deaf/hh babies and not that of the Deaf community or any other deaf/hh communities out there. They decide. Not me. Not a particular community or organization. Yet, I still see masks being worn by some people pretending to be one thing when really they are not. I am sure hearing parents of deaf/hh children are becoming a lot more wary nowadays of those who put on a plastic smile only because the internet makes it possible to see what’s going on in vlogs, blogs and the media. Showcasing “Deaf Nirvana” may be counter-productive when everything else supporting it would probably scare most hearing parents away anyway. Try and look from hearing parents’ perspective for a change. I sympathize with hearing parents of deaf/hh babies on their leeriness towards Deaf people who try and promote ASL or Deaf culture simply because of the confusing and mixed messages. If anything this pushing of “Deaf Nirvana” will simply have hearing parents of deaf/hh children see them more like a cult-like phenomenon than anything else. They aren't exactly flocking to this particular group's ideology or concept. They have their reasons.

We understand and agree that each of us express things differently when it comes to our blogs or vlogs. The so-called “division” within the Deaf community isn’t caused by my blogging or vlogging efforts or other people v/blogging efforts. Rather I see this as paranoia run amok. I see less confidence in what people have to show for. No matter how hard some people try they try and make this whole thing into a gloom and doom scenario. Accusing bloggers or vloggers for the supposed “downfall” or “division” within a Deaf community simply doesn’t cut it. Instead I see fear for change as their shared template and "justification" for lashing out. Change is always the only constant thing we have. Change is inevitable. Change happens. Technology is becoming a big part of our change. This isn’t simply about the Deaf community anymore but the whole hearing loss community of all stripes who have different needs and philosophies. So, don’t let paranoia get the best of you.

Disclaimer - This blog is of my own personal opinion and nobody else.

Deafhoodism Voodoo

* click me and check inside for free! *

Just to be fair in the name of this so-called "transparency" game I am just now realizing that DBC, a grassroots organization with several core leaders running it, never disclosed any financial or commerical or venture gains with, if any, "Deafhood" workshops," amount of money donated to DBC via CAD (which is questionable on tactics used to receive money), products sold (e.g. t-shirts) , "Deafhood" trainings, re-imbursements, gifts, any relationship to Deafhood Foundation and so on.

Under DeafRead's policy regarding using blog or vlog sites on commercialization:

6) Commerical Sites

We do not link to commerical sites for the purpose of generating profit, other than our own (we have expenses to cover!)

Though DBC's website was linked numerous times in DeafRead and now it is reasonable to ask the question regarding any commercialization aspect, according to Jared, concerning the danger of becoming a "mouthpiece" for an organization:

DeafRead highly values the true ethos of blogging- that is a blogger sharing independent thought, meaningful analysis and personal opinions without undue influence.
When a blogger is part of an organization backed by a for-profit corporation and both of them can stand to benefit financially from the blogging effort, there is an inherent conflict of interest. These bloggers can optionally receive other means of compensation. The integrity of the blog posts then is called into question. The blogger can run the risk of becoming a mouthpiece for the corporation.

DeafRead prefers to distance ourselves from these types of blogs. This is why we continue to allow personal blogs of CI bloggers who display the true ethos of blogging. Any blog that start to push for a product to the point of almost becoming commercialized will be revisited by the DeafRead team for a possible change in its subscription status.

Indeed. So, what makes a product a product? Is it something tangible that you can touch that has value? Or can pushing a product be about pushing certain ideology or a concept in the hope of receiving some kind of monetary or beneficial (self-serving) gains through the incorporation of an idealogy and use that to sell their products?

Seems like this whole thing is this inexorable march towards this whole"Deafhoodism" folly. A few years ago I, as the original author (see here, here and here), came up with word "Deafhoodism" and provided a definition on what it means:

Deafhoodism - a Deaf status quo regarding Deafhood; a system of Deaf beliefs accepted as authoritative where acceptance and, sometimes, blameless actions toward other deaf and hard of hearing individuals outside of Deaf culture would be required. It is also a self-discovery oriented process involving sustained meaningful interaction with and commitment to, Deaf social, cultural and/or political life where a deaf or hard of hearing person would become a Deaf person someday.

In short, hoping these "deaf and hard of hearing people" will "see the light" and reach for "Deaf nirvana" someday.

But it seems like DBC cannot keep "Deafhood" separate from their now quagmire of a mission that's already beginning to show mixed messages and letting Deaf politics become their mission du jour that's seemingly filled with hidden agendas. It's becoming more and more painfully obvious in what some of these people are doing.

But with the latest revelation by Barry Sewell with a copy of an IM between core leaders of DBC did it show that there are clear disdain towards hearing parents who get cochlear implants for their deaf children or the use of AVT. And the general atmosphere of disdain towards the idea of oralism as well. Not to mention personal agendas of somehow tying DBC with that of Deafhood Foundation. Of course, they have a right to their own personal opinions and beliefs but certainly and obviously so we are seeing that conflict of interest is occurring.

All in all, it seems like all of a sudden a bunch of Deaf people are simply wearing masks with the intention to further their own personal agendas regarding ASL, "Deafhood," "Deafhood" workshops, NAD, DBC, grab for power and any and everything in between. Remember what I said about carrying unnecessary baggage with you? Which is exactly why the below cartoon precisely describes what's going on.

DBC in Violation of IRS Charitable Contribution Law?

Two questions stood out when I visited DBC's donation page (if unable to link go here to an archived section) and noticed a couple of things that merit serious questions as to their tax deductibility claim.

Consider making a donation to the Deaf Bilingual Coalition. All donations go directly towards promoting the mission, purpose, and goals of DBC.

You may donate through Pay Pal via California Association of the Deaf
http://www.cad1906.org/.
DBC is under Programs on the Home Page. Please go to donate:

http://cad1906.org/programs/support-for-the-deaf-bilingual-coalition/

or...

Make checks out to the Deaf Bilingual Coalition

And mail to:
Deaf Bilingual Coalition
c/o Alyce Reynolds
40002 Catalina Place

Fremont, CA 94539

Your donations are tax deductible and are greatly appreciated!!

According to DBC in an older blogsite:

CAD has a federal I.D. number as non-profit organization with a 501(c) status. All donations are tax deductible according to federal tax laws and it must be reported to theIRS as well as to the members of CAD. Every dollar donated helps increase awareness andsupport actions to ensure that ASL is not denied to Deaf children.

Two things stand out starkly so. First, you can donate money to CAD via PayPal or you can donate money DIRECTLY to DBC using your paper check and not to CAD and use DBC's organization address.

Secondly, an organization must be qualified before you can deduct your contributions as tax deductible according to "IRS Publication 1771, Charitable Contributions - Substantiation and Disclosure Requirements" that explains federal tax law for organizations that receive tax-deductible charitable contributions (e.g. cash) and for taxpayers who make contributions. You can find out whether an organization qualifies if they are listed under IRS Publication 78 by doing a simple search for names of qualified charitable organizations by visiting the Publication 78 search page. A simple search reveals that CAD would qualify for IRS tax deduction but not DBC. And this raises a question about sending a check directly to DBC using their home address on the check. It does not say "Or send check to CAD." DBC cannot, according to the IRS, receive donated money directly as an organization because DBC is not listed under IRS Publication 78 list of qualified organizations for IRS tax deduction purposes.

Thirdly, money donated to CAD would be legitimate according to IRS Publication 78 and that they are obligated to disclose to the public on the amount of money that was donated. If money was donated to DBC via CAD's PayPal then CAD must also be obligated to disclose publicly monies donated according to IRS guidelines. Not doing so would be a breach of IRS’ requirement on disclosing money. If you donated money to CAD for DBC, CAD is required by IRS law to send you a letter of acknowledgement on cash contribution/donation to CAD. The penalty for an organization that do not meet the written disclosure requirement is $10 per contribution, not to exceed $5000 per fundraising event or mailing. An organization may avoid the penalty if it can show that failure to meet the requirements was due to reasonable cause. For more info on this go to Section 170(f)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 1.170A-13(f) of the Income Tax Regulations. The “low-cost article” rules are set forth in Section 513 (h)(2) of the Code. You can find this information at http://www.irs.gov/ .

Now, some questions. Is DBC part of an umbrella organization under CAD which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization? Did CAD file DBC as part of their umbrella organization with the IRS? As for money donated to CAD for DBC, how is money given to DBC even though it is an organization that doesn't qualify under IRS' Publication 78? What are the legalities concerning a non-profit company such as CAD on giving or passing donated money to an unlisted organization not on IRS list of qualified organizations? What I what I want to know as a tax payer is how much money was donated to CAD (e.g. via PayPal) where the money is funneled over to DBC over the past year starting in 2007. Does this sound like a money laundering effort even though it is NOT in the usual sense of the word? The IRS explains exactly what money laundering is. I'm not saying it's being done that way but I am asking questions about the legalities and processes of how money goes from CAD to DBC. Does CAD have to report to the IRS on who and how much of the donated money goes to DBC? And what about checks sent directly to DBC? How does DBC report the financial transaction on donated money sent directly to them and not through CAD? Who is controlling this flow of donated money? How were donated monies spent by DBC? Were travel expenses paid? What about hotel costs? Convention costs? Do these things get reported to CAD? To the IRS? Is CAD responsible for reporting these things? Or DBC?

See where I'm getting at?

Where's the accountability here?

Where's the money coming from?

Where's the money going to?

Does the IRS know about this?

So many questions regarding financial transactions and charitable donations. Barry Sewell asks similar questions as well regarding accountability, bylaws and such that question the whole movement by DBC. Transparency is not there. No accountability. No Democracy in action. Simply too many red flags at the moment. All we have are these questionable activities and supposed hidden agendas by DBC and the people involved (or were once involved but were dropped or kicked out). But I think the IRS issue could be a potentially serious one that perhaps even NAD may not be aware of. We need some kind of transparency here to explain these things whether it's DBC, CAD, or even NAD.

A mission ought to be simple and direct. In the case of babies or children with hearing loss it should be about providing positive and valuable information for hearing parents to have about ASL and English (spoken, signed, and/or written) as being equal without all the added baggage and guilt thrown at them. Even if parents choose a different mode of communication or method they should not be made to feel guilty when it was an informed decision process.

Interview with President of AGBell

New AGBell President, Jay Wyant, celebrated his swearing-in on June 30 with a guest appearance on the Milwaukee local FOX show "Wake Up Milwaukee." Since Fox 6 news did not provide captioning or a transcript for those in the audience with hearing loss, AGBell provided the captioning themselves. An unfortunate and ironic twist considering that Fox 6 news interviewed a deaf person who is the president of a nationally known organization for deaf and hard of hearing people and parents of children with hearing loss.

Recently, one blogger, RLM, made this wild claim about Jay Wyant before AGBell added captioning in their video link of the Fox 6 news interview:

Why the new AGBell president, Jay Wyant, solely appeared on the Milwaukee WITI FOX News' Health Center segment without someone from the DBC to offer the counter-argument on the ongoing controversy on the educational method and language acquisition and development?

Apparently, if you watch the captioned video by AGBell (note, be sure click on "CC" symbol to turn on the closed captioning), you can easily tell that no arguments were made at all at anytime regarding any topics such as educational method or language acquisition and development. I am hoping that RLM will publicly acknowledge this error of his.

UPDATE: It's a bit ironic considering the lack of captioning or available transcript by Fox 6 news but even more so coming from AGBell's website that linked to that video of the Fox 6 news interview with Jay Wyant who, again more irony here, used to be the Marketing Director for CaptionMax and has extensive in telecommunications and technology accessbility background as described in here. It certainly behooves AGBell to at least offer a transcript of the Fox 6 news even though it was the news station's utlimate responsibility in providing a text version of the interview for those who cannot hear or understand well the spoken word. A transcript should have been provided by AGBell once they thought about linking to a non-captioned Fox 6 news interview of their own president. But it took a hard of hearing person, me, to do all this wokr just so the rest of ya'll can have that equal access. Yet it took several hours to get all this prepared by listening and writing down the words and putting them into captioned form along with a transcript. Yet, I'm not going use laziness or the "purity" route as an excuse not to provide captioning or a transcript when many of you know you can do it anyway but don't. You are what you do.

Jay Wyant, are you listening to what I'm saying?

Great interview, though.

UPDATE II: I removed the YouTube video of my captioning effort and transcript from my blog since AGBell now has their captioned video of the interview. Of course, done by CaptionMax. Good for them. And I wonder why it took them so long? Yet I was about 98 to 98% accurate despite Jay's voice, which is still very intelligible. And I commend him for speaking and using his voice in front of a camera. That takes courage and shows full confidence in his ability to speak and have a dialogue.