Under Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "extremist" as:
1 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalismOk. "Extreme measures" means what? Well, that falls under "extremism" and the dictionary defines it as:
2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : RADICALISM.So, it's about advocacy and how far one goes to advocating their beliefs and philosophies. But that alone doesn't give us a measuring stick. Let's see what the dictionary says about "radicalism."
1 : the quality or state of being radicalOk. What is a being "radical" then?
I think what we think of radicals here could fall under "b" which is the "tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions.3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.
Now, for babies born with a hearing loss where 90% of them are born into hearing parents. Looking from the perspectives of hearing parents who have no understanding or concept about ASL, Deaf culture and the existence of a Deaf community and for parents to hear from a particular Deaf group who pushes ASL first or ASL only agenda onto hearing parents could possible see them as an "extremist group." Especially if they advocate such a law that would force parents to take ASL and provide ASL for their own baby born with a hearing loss (regardless on hearing loss amount from mild to profound). Which brings me back to a recent blog piece I did, "F*ck you, Deaf community! ".
That blog piece I pointed out to readers of a forum that is frequented mostly by hearing parents of a child with hearing loss. One parent vented in anger when he had Deaf people come up to him and basically called him a "monster" and other names while in the presence of his deaf child with a cochlear implant. The decision this parent took wasn't easy when it came to choosing cochlear implant but it was his decision. I'm sure no parents would like being told of what to do with his or her child with a hearing loss and infringe on their basic right in making parental decisions.
And here it all boils down to the AB2072 bill. A bill that gives parents the opportunity to be informed of all communication options in an unbiased format such as what is written on a pamphlet for parents of children that were diagnosed with hearing loss. That way they can begin their direction on being fully informed and soon make an informed decision without feeling being pushed, cajoled, looked down upon, feeling lost, pressured and what not.
Remember, a hearing parents' perspective (or the hearing community) is vastly different from Deaf people on how each of them view a world without sound. For hearing people to hear how certain Deaf groups behave in the effort to make hearing parents feel guilty, to try and push the ASL only or ASL first agenda and even the ideological attempt to try and bypass parental rights to make their own decisions regarding which communication and educational paths they feel is right for their child with a hearing loss. That's enough for hearing people to see these groups as crackpots, extremists, a bunch of idiots, yahoos, and whatever name or image it may pop up in the minds of hearing people.
Maybe what this person did in the Wikipedia entry was a joke. Maybe a point was trying to be made there. Who knows. But it certainly not impossible to fathom the idea that many hearing parents would in fact see certain Deaf advocacy groups as being "extremists" in their actions or beliefs. I or other people might not see it that way but I'm sure there are many who do see it that way. It certainly didn't help some Deaf groups' image when they went out in public to protest against ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS in the AB2072 bill. Doing so I'm sure many people would've seen them as going to extremes in not accepting a bill that would allow parents be given information on ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS. Who would be foolish to disagree with such an idea?
Now, I'm hearing murmuring that Deafread should get me "blacklisted." Well, good luck with that as you tried to push Tayler to stop providing links that discusses cochlear implant in Deafread as well as having issues in DVTV in getting him to do your bidding and control his creative work. Tayler already knows in his video about me to O'Lois on how I do my blogging. He understands.
12 comments:
> they went out in public to protest against ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS in the AB2072 bill.
You are quoting theHolism's spin on what the opposition to AB 2072 wanted, and arguing against it as though it were the actual consensus opinion of the group.
The most "radical" opinion I saw expressed was that of "ASL First" which points out that ASL can be learned by even hearing babies earlier than spoken language can. Why not USE the 1st year to get the child ASL...
Even if you want to get a CI for the child (something that there are varying opinions on, even in the opposition), you're stuck waiting for that before you can even START the "learning to listen" part of the child's education.
Where the opposition objected to "ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS" the objection was to "options", that is, to forcing EXCLUSION of "options", as ASL is typically the "option" whose exclusion is advised.
Once again, by painting the opposition's arguments as extreme, your friends have been able to set up a "strawman" they can beat the stuffing out of, but are also able to avoid discussing the REAL issues because they have caracatured their opposition to the point of silliness.
You "are hearing murmuring" about Deafread... That allows you to make a statement that you feel is true as though it actually were.
Nobody cares about blacklisting you anywhere. We care that our arguments are being distorted to make them possible to argue with more easily.
So now theHolism is CLAIMING that "ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS" will still be in the bill, so that he can take credit if they are.
I expect that the new bill will now start to reflect the more nuanced reality, and that EVENTUALLY, you guys will have to give up trying to misrepresent the positions of the folks doing the actual work of getting a bill's sausage ground into law.
So, "Kill AB 2072, unless Deaf Babies can have ASL" has been disingenuously distorted into "...ASL ONLY" so that you actually have an argument at all...
ALL COMMUNICATION... Not just OPTIONS...
Hope this helps get the arguments back on track...
As for you guys... What are you doing in YOUR state to ensure that Deaf Babies have language?
Arguing with us?
- Linda
The main thrust of the bill is to provide ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS to parents. That alone deserve merits and a point that everyone should easily agree with. Instead of reciting the mantra "Kill the bill" people could have simply supported it but make a point that some clarifcations were needed. People were not interested in seeing this bill. And later it became "I object unless amended." Why not use that as a rallying cry instead of "Kill the bill"? One of the impetus to this protest was the names of the organizations that supported this bill. Again, it was their Achilles Heel to focus on those exclusively as a reason to "Kill the bill!" Even after ASL was included in the bill.
ASL first is not the same thing as ASL only which I included as an either or situation since many advocated the former philosophy than the latter. I've no problem with ASL first as an introduction to communication access but one cannot force parents to take that route. It does no one no good to try and get them to do your bidding or make them feel guilty. It does not work. Which is why I explained earlier that people spend more time going after AGBell and such than they do on promoting the positive use of ASL. That's their Achilles Heel. Instead of seeing that ASL was included in the bill after the question was raised people didn't see that bill as an opportunity to expand ASL. They wanted that bill dead in the water. That was their protest. The didn't say, "Now, since they included ASL let's try and encourage them to change the bill's language to reflect better in helping inform parents" instead of continuing with the mantra "Kill the bill!"
Parental rights remain whether you like it or not.
ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS is the main thrust of this bill. It will not change.
> Instead of reciting the mantra "Kill the bill" people could have simply supported it but make a point that some clarifcations were needed
You remember that we started out politely asking to have our points heard, but repeatedly found ourselves just being repeatedly dismissed by "hearing experts" who "knew more".
We were deliberately disincluded in the early work on this bill, so only by going to the capitol in large numbers and stating the simplest possible argument, could we get them to even START to listen.
You didn't notice the earlier more modest noise we made, because it was not loud enough to be heard.
Hope that clarifies "why" we "didn't" do things your way... We did, and it went entirely unnoticed... Time for a simpler, louder, message, which seems to have gotten their attention enough that we now have a seat at the table.
As always, my own opinion, based on what I can see. You are active in your own deaf community, right? Helping THEM get the communication they need, even if it is only the "option" of having communication that will work for them?
You're not just getting in the middle of the California fight without also doing good work in your own community, right?
Please feel free to brag about how your community has benefited from your own individual action, Mike!
Clearly it won't be any "extreme" changes to the status quo, but surely you're doing SOMETHING to help your own community become better as well as advising others... Right?
- Linda
Then it behooves the Deaf organizations in California to stay on top of bills being introduced rather than all of sudden finding out a bill later on that would have an impact on their community. I think this is a lesson learned here when you see leaders all of sudden learn about this bill so late in the game. Never mind if the legislature failed to contact organizations or not that may have an impact on yours. Don't rely on them but rely on yourselves to know what's going on in the legislature process and what bills are being introduced.
The Achille's Heel for many peole here have been to go after AGBell, CI, oral/auditory approaches and so on instead of focusing on ASL. That's what I noticed early on.
I've stated many times that this is a good bill because it captures on the concept of ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS information for parents and their child diagnosed with hearing loss. So, it was a bill worth supporting and to work with.
My involvement with the deaf and hh communities (note the plural) has to do with technology/communication.
Check it out:
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12336
Already saw that. Rather curious that they go after a single citizen in the effort to paint him? Interesting. Exactly what is this website? Certainly not journalism. Exactly what is this the author relationship to Edwin Black? What stakes do they have in this article? Why the apparent call to defend anti-AB2072 protesters who wanted to end the bill?
You might want to ask THEM.
The Cutting Edge News seems to have enough circulation that Google News picks it up, for whatever THAT is worth...
As to why Barry was mentioned, it was because Edwin Black TRIED to make contact with him as documented in the comments of:
http://theholism.blogspot.com/2010/06/flattened-peacock-on-ab-2072.html
- Linda
Linda..
Since you find it necessary to reiterate some points here, I'd like to remind you that the opponents of the bill had so many chances to collaborate with Mendoza and at some point Sheri send a letter saying they refuse to collaborate anymore. What the proponents wanted was a collaboration to the basic premise of the bill. Finally it took Alquist to set up a meeting so some sort of collaboration/compromise would take place. In the end, the bill's original goal still stands. This is exactly how the proponents hoped would happen. This way the bill will be passed with the message that it was a collaborative effort by all. A win-win, like I said. However, it does not change the fact that a lot of things that happened reflected badly on the opponents because in reality that bill was never about eugenics. And, an Audiologist would still give out the information in a limited role, which was easily understood by myself from the start but it had to be worded in order to satisfy the opponents. I understand the distrust that many has towards the audiologist, however that distrust went way too far. Like Alquist, I also said there has to be faith in the system at some point. The proponents had no intention of deceiving the opponents. Who or what organization teaches deaf to distrust the hearing, Linda?
My God, Candy. You have to ask that?? Where you been?
Hearing has given us very little reason to trust them, especially in the system operated mainly by hearing.
Senators do not know the history of the deaf and oppression by organizations like AGB and such....they had no idea how biased the audiologists would be in favor of oralism and CI.
We HAD to treat the bill as if it would be voted as is in favor of the audiologist and organizations like AGB. It did NOT give much role to ASL as an option and WAS tilted more in favor to medical perspectives. We COULDN'T afford to "trust the system." That would be suicide, Candy.
Thanks to the vigilant actions of many leaders in the Deaf community, the senators came to understand ASL DOES have a place in the bill, and considered that the bill needed to be re-written as it had happened on the eve of the health committee hearing. The 11th hour as the saying goes. We KNOW we can't just "trust" them.
You apparently do.
Not to be defending CAD (since I truly know next to nothing about them, except that they opposed AB2072), but radicalism in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Consider that less than a hundred years ago, women who wanted to vote were considered 'radicals.'
Whether we agree or disagree, we should welcome radicals for questioning laws they view as unjust. Without them we would never change-- and change is often a GOOD thing.
Having said all that, I am in favor or AB2072.
That "F*ck you, Deaf Community" post got me wanting to put in Overkill's song "F*ck you!" song and jam to it. Oxymoronic, eh?
However, I must say I am glad to see the perception of a hearing parent on his initial perspective (later revoked when it turns out it might be a misunderstanding - didn't go all the way through to page 5, just page 1). Yes, I did initially opposed the original draft of AB2072 on the grounds of audiologists playing the role, for the record. I just feel strongly it should be the visual linguistic expert to be playing the role of distribution of the brochure. Of course, this refers to the original bill before further amendments. However, I do also understand the choice for the parents to be provided with options should be mandatory, not an ultimatum of mono linguistic mode.
I won't lie and admit I'm amused by the whole stage of the play from the beginning. I feel the whole problem lies on one singular principle: agree to disagree and move on, instead of going on personal vendetta.
Regarding CAM's comment: "the senators came to understand ASL DOES have a place in the bill, and considered that the bill needed to be re-written as it had happened on the eve of the health committee hearing."
My understanding is that the bill passed in the Senate Health Committee as it was written. But Mendoza agreed to consider some clarifying language about (a) ensuring that the audiologist had no vested interest in steering parents to one option or another; (b) that the CDE will be the state agency having oversight over early intervention services for deaf babies after deafness was identified; and (c) that "visual language" will be changed to ASL. Also, a NEW brochure will be developed in collaboration by representatives of stakeholder organizations such as the sponsors of the bill (AGB, HLAA, ASHA, etc.) and CAD, NorCAL, etc. The work on the brochure will take place over 1 year.
Do I understand this correctly? If I were Mendoza, I wouldn't change anything on the original wording of the bill. Like many professionals, audiologists have a code of ethics. Codes of ethics never stopped anyone from unethical behavior, but they exist and are enforceable. I might consider saying "ASL and manually coded English systems" to differentiate ASL from SEE, Cued Speech, and sim-com. As for CDE having oversight, that won't work because a system is already in place under the state's Departments of Health Care Services and Developmental Services.
I'd suggest that the opponents of AB2072 learn to work WITH the system instead of against it. They need to become legislatively savvy instead of whining that the system is against them from the start.
Post a Comment