All in all, the continual adding of admendments and other changes in the bill in order to placate Deaf protesters' demands have gotten to the point where their actions have helped vulgarized the bill's original intent. Even the protesters were still not satisfied. From the gist of it legislators seemed to have lost sight for the rest of the children who are mostly hard of hearing or have a hearing loss only in one ear that audiologists frequently diagnose than those who are profoundly deaf. That's what seems to be missing here.CAM gets it wrong in her recent blog about me.
Candy (Gina Sutton) and Mike McConnell verbally supported this bill saying parents should have full access to information but yet were perfectly okay with the original bill minimizing the information on ASL which was expected of them as they are supporters of oralism.My "verbal support" of the bill was based on as long as parents make an informed decision regarding all communication options (which includes ASL) then I have no problem with their decisions. This has been my stance for years if you had bothered to do any proper research. The bill's intent was to inform parents of all communication options available. I applauded that ASL was included later on in the bill. Nothing was said about minimizing the information on ASL. In fact, I pointed out that information available to parents should be made equally so in an unbiased manner of all communication options (i.e. visual, auditory and language options) on August 10, 2010.
In other words, this pamphlet MUST provide benefits and risks for the ASL option as well as for any options described in it. And in an unbiased manner, too. It'd be foolish and folly to think that ASL will be excluded from the risk part if every other options must describe the benefits and risks when everything is of equal weight and value in terms of information provided for the parents....in an unbiased manner.Also, CAM, where did I say that I said that governor Schwarzenegger did the right thing? That's rather puzzling if not dishonest coming from you to say that. Making things up are you? All I did was that I outlined the governor's reasons for not supporting the bill and that his reasons aligned closely to that of CAA's reasons for dropping their support against the bill in my most recent blog about the veto. In my blogs I understood some of CAA's points on why they withdrew their support for the bill. I haven't even pointed out whether I supported the governor's veto or not. Either you are not reading my blogs right, you have not read them at all or that you are purposely making things up along the way for whatever reasons. In this case about Arnold you are making things up.There is no back-pedaling on my part since I've made no statement about Arnold's veto.
Until you provide the links on exactly what I said and where it'd be best to properly make your arguments based on those actual facts and comments rather than make things up along the way as you are wont to do. Until you do your recent blog has no standing, truth or validity regarding me or my blogs.
24 comments:
That is why I don't bother with what CAM says, she distorts things all the time.
She need to point out specifically what I said in all of my blogs and comments within my blog and not rant her head off. There's no credibility to her blog. Likewise, she would need to specifically point out to your specific blog and comments you made.
Which of course is a LOT of reading, and if she didn't READ our blogs...hmm that would explain her silly rants.
The burden of the proof is with her to show where we said what. That part would be interesting. As I say, bring it on.
Again, thank you for providing a forum for me to say what I wanted to say.
Mike, you SUPPORTED the original bill which had very limited information on ASL as a valid language for the deaf, and you WERE fine with it. "as long as ASL is there, I am okay with it, attitude. It did NOT matter to you how much information would be presented to the parents on ASL - as long as "it's there." That was the whole point of the anti-AB2072's activism...to increase ASL's role in the bill which you had said was not necessary and that they did not understand the bill as read.
I know what I read in your post. Now you ARE backpedaling because the bill was vetoed which made you look foolish because you were thrilled it passed in the Senate and you figured it would be passed into law by the governor's hand.
You never said "ASL needs to have a stronger role in information dissemination to the parents which the original AB2072 lacked." You never supported the amended version before it was reversed back to its original version just before it passed in Senate.
You never saw a problem with audiologist being the gatekeeper because they would have to work with parents "anyway."
So, please no more backpedaling. Own up to what you said. Say, "Ok. So the governor disagreed with the Senate and believed the bill to be biased. I disagree with him." THAT I would be okay with. NOT that you agree with the bill being vetoed because you initially disagreed with it because it is simply NOT true.
Both Mike Candy always support parents full choices. They never say one choice! one choice! one choice!
Deaf against AB 2072 mean they against choices: Must Bi Bi Must! That no choice!
They discrmnate parents. Mike Candy not disrcmnate parents
CAM fool no one!
Again, CAM, you have not bothered to read what I've been saying. You are still making things up as you go along. And, no, you have NOT read my blogs carefully or my previous comments.
I've stated already that information provided to parents should be of equal value and weight in my blog early on. Nothing about "as long as ASL is in there it's ok."
In the original bill at the very beginning it said,
"This bill would, instead provide that the written information
shall be on all communication, options for children with hearing
loss, and that the information shall be provided to parents when
their newborn or infant fails the hearing screening, at a followup
appointment to diagnose a hearing loss, and at entry into the Early
Start program."
All communication options means all including ASL or signing in this case. This was the conceptual understanding on my part and for many people as well. I made it clear in the very beginning that as long as parents make an informed decision regarding communication options I'd be fine with it. The bill was later clarified to include "visual language" and then later to "ASL." I understood the concept of all communication options here. And because I already understood how the legislative process works amending a bill is a common procedure in the effort to clarify and strengthen the bill. This is exactly what happened with the inclusion of the actual wording with ASL.
As for the governor I made no such statement disagreeing or agreeing with what the governor did on vetoeing the bill. I simply outlined the governor's reason for rejecting the bill. Please, for the record, find the exact quote where I said such a thing that you are claiming I said.
FIND MY QUOTE!
And stop with the twisting of the words because you have not once provided a link to what I said and where. Not once. Yet you continue to twist things inappropriately and inaccurately. I have so far provided the links to some of my earliest comments. You have not.
CAM, you have for some reason this very convuluted thinking in all this about me and this bill. I suggest you go back to the very beginning of my blogs on the AB2072 and read through them all.
Now, again, if you cannot provide the exact quotes with the necessary links you have no valid arguments. What you say have no weight.
AB 2072 is still alive and will remain on an eternal life
The options and resource brochures offered on this page were inspired by AB 2072 http://eyefirevlogs.com/eyefire2/?p=9451 resources have been developed for 4 counties already and more counties brochures will be developed once time becomes available. Eventually all counties in California will have their specific brochures and weve been asked by people in Colorado, Illinois, and New Jersey for development of these resources for their respective locations.
Over 8000 copies of the brochures have been downloaded as of today
See my post in youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRwy0Quflg
AB 2072 is not dead. It is alive and getting bigger.
Richard Roehm
Modern Deaf Communication
CAM is having a yada, yada, yada. I never liked her blog. Too tacky.
Of course, I supported the fully choices, not the one choice.
I don't support California's new panelists to develop the new brochure. Federal Gov't ALREADY provided the brochure. We pay for the federal taxes to provide the brochures for the people to get some information. I support that. Californians should have thanked Federal Gov't to help Californians to save California's State Tax.
You CDNIAs tried to "hijack" the AB2072. Since Governator vetoed the bill, you CDNIAs wasted California's state tax.
White Ghost
WG,
She's being dishonest by twisting words. She's out of her league here.
I think before anyone states the people who opposed AB2072 lobbied for ASL only. That is a ridiculous comment. The truth is that the authors and those who lobbied in support of AB2072 are strict "oral only" without the use of sign language organizations and private schools. They paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to their lobbyists. The string of money comes from the Obberkotter Foundation (UPS) that gives them huge sums of money each year to support this agenda and their programs.
You can go online and research all this. The facts are there.
I agree with CAM. I see backpedaling and endless and posting by Mike, Candy and Holism trying to redeem themselves by spinning what they said in earlier posts. It is typical of people who think they know everything.
Anony 8:22 AM,
It was already understood from the beginning that the bill (once it was discovered) was sponsored by the California Coalition of agencies for deaf and hearing loss. Specifically it soon came to the understanding that it was those oral/aural option schools that were the main group sponsoring this bill. We already understood that. It was then that the understanding of the language of the bill (e.g. all communication options) was to be clarified where it went to "visual language" and then later clarified further to mean ASL. We all saw that process. We already understood that all legislative process undergoing numerous changes on the language of any bills introduced by clarifying and strengthening the bill's standing. Or have you not been paying attention to my blogs and comments? No, you have not.
Now, anony 8:22 AM, my "endless posting" were mostly of the variety of analyzing the bill by asking questions, doing polls, providing letters by CAA, for example, and more analysis. I don't seriously think you've even bothered to read any of my blogs because what you're saying doesn't make sense. Or that you have some serious selective thinking going on here.
As for the bill it was understood that communication options means all communication options including ASL or signing in this case. This was the conceptual understanding on my part and for many people as well. I made it clear in the very beginning that as long as parents make an informed decision regarding communication options I'd be fine with it. Informed decision means to include the understanding about ASL. This was a bill about providing a comprehensive pamphlet explaining those communication options (and electronic equivalent on the internet) to any parents with a child diagnosed with a hearing loss.
There has been no "back-pedaling" to this day. Furthermore, you keep saying that without giving examples by providing quotes and links to show otherwise. I can easily say that the Deaf organizations who were claiming victory themselves about the final passing of the bill are also "back-pedaling" after this veto, too. See, I don't play that game unless I have some actual instances with links and quotes to show that in this case.
Again, anony, where have I "back-pedaled"? And show us how that is the case, too.
Anonymous...
When Ella Lentz first notified everyone about AB2072, she explained that CA DNIA was already working (For three years!!) on a proposal to mandate all deaf/hh babies to learn ASL FIRST!! No other options can be added until that child is fluent in ASL! It's all in the DNIA statement. Please do check my blogs, the DNIA statement is there. Or send me an email (on my blog) and I will send you a copy of that PDF. So, I hope you understand that is why I started to blog a storm about AB2072 because it was clear that some, not all mind you.., but some members of CA DNIA did advocate for ASL only, ONLY in the beginning... Get what I am getting at?
And..one more thing..
The supporters of this bill did not want to eliminate ASL as part of the information process for parents. They are parents who have personally experienced being given only one option: ASL and go to CSDR or CSDF. This is the reasoning behind the bill, thus you will see the explanation in regards to that in the analysis part of the bill.
This is a case of displaced anger. I read CAM's blog and thought, "so?" The reason the bill wasn't signed had nothing to do with Mike or Candy. It really doesn't matter whether they were for or against or for at one point, then against -- or what they wrote in their blogs.
I get so sick of this antagonism in the Deaf blogosphere. Why not focus on the REAL issues? Please!
There is a saying, "Perfect is the enemy of the good." I think it was first written by Voltaire. The idea behind it is that you need to take small steps to effect change.
I saw this in action not long ago. There is a deaf lawyer here in Seattle who has been negotiating the inclusion of CART at all the major downtown theaters and elsewhere. Seattle has one of the most liberally intepreted state disability laws in the country and so many of these theaters were actually breaking the law by refusing to provide CART for the HH/deaf who don't sign. But instead of suing them, he has been very successful sitting down at a table, providing facts and negotiating changes one small step at a time. And he has been successful. So at this one meeting I attended, there were many deaf blind in the audience. They were angry. The Deaf have their interpreted performances and the deaf got their CART performances. What about the deaf-blind? THEIR needs had been left out. But they weren't looking at the big picture. You don't always get everything you want in the first go-round. The deaf-blind should have considered CART as a victory even for them, even though they couldn't use it-- because the inclusion of CART is paving the way for other requests in the future. It's a matter of building on success one step at a time.
Point is-- if the bill had been left alone in the first place-- it could have been tweaked later after it was passed.
Now it's back to square one.
This has nothing to do with Mike or Candy or what they supported or didn't support.
RLM, you are not welcomed here. Please get a clue.
Kim, exactly. They had that one opportunity there which would've made the steps easier into the future. But they want the whole enchilada and force parents to do their bidding instead.
As for the deaf-blind, I agree. I make the conscious effort to include captions in all of my vlogging whether I sign or use my voice. I even brought up this problem in a blog of mine a few years back about how Deaf people when they do their vlogging short changes the deaf-blind community by not having them included. And what did some Deaf people do? They got mad at me and went after me. One Deaf-blind woman explained the fact that the Deaf-blind group are at the bottom of the "Deaf totem pole." It was a sad thing to hear. Quite revelatory, too, on some Deaf people's attitude regarding communication access for them. One Deaf person had the audicity and stupidity to say that he doesn't want to include captioning in with the video because it ruins the "purity" of ASL. That guy has a few loose nuts in his brain for saying that.
Yes-- I am not blind-- but I understand that the blind have special assistive devices that will make fonts appear larger so they can read captioned videos on their computers.
By championing each others' causes, we all end up winning. I see much more open-mindedness in the hh/late-deafened communities regarding access for all. Maybe it's because at our conventions we are often mingling with late-deafened who are also blind or paralyzed-- people who can't sign OR speak. Creativity and mutual respect are valued much more than any single agenda.
When you've seen that, it's hard to reconcile with the Deafhood militancy and their self-centeredness. They lose credibility by their failure to recognize the needs of others within the wider deaf community.
I read Aidan's blog, "The AB 2072 was killed by Terminator" I was like, huh? So I copied and pasted her excerpt from the blog.
"One commenter on a blog, someone who is angry due to having abandonment/rejection issues, and who obsesses about it, “WhiteGhost,” along with others like him/her, projects their own psychologies on the scene, creating an ideology of delusion, claiming that the Deaf people who take a proactive approach are instead are supposedly just Deaf people who are not capable of reading and writing English well enough to understand the issues. WOW, that is bad enough they had to delude themselves into thinking that the Deaf community is not capable of reading and writing the kind of sophisticated language required and that they supossedly do not understand what is the real reason that AB207 was vetoed."
My response:
How do you expect us to understand the medical language and book? How do you expect us to understand the football language and book? How do you expect us to understand the mechanical language and book? All of the above: I DO NOT, COULD NOT, WOULD NOT, WILL NOT understand all of those languages and books. Why? That's because I did neither study nor read in those fields.
Many, many deaf and hearing people who don't work in any fields WOULD, COULD, WILL NOT understand the language and book unless they take some courses from college or some training classes from the conference center.
Why don't you go to the hospital and read the medical language and book, Aidan? Why don't you try?
I only asked theHolism to do the vlog to *HELP* deaf or hearing people who would, could, will not understand the political language in the AB 2072. That's all.
White Ghost
anony 2:50 PM,
Exactly. It is a serious problem. It can also be a serious image problem as well.
What does this bill have to do with late deafened? We are dealing with children after it have been proven they have a hearing loss.
WG,
Mack is having some delusional issues of her own. I certainly don't feel that the Deaf community has "rejected" me. LOL. Heck, I sign. They accept me. I think she's having issues with me because I chose who I want to be with, my preferences on communication, and probably because of my opinion. When people go around and spout, "Well, you are having rejection issues" do not know any better and making comments like that points to an underlying insecurity on their part. I'm not sure what it is but doing the whole ad hominem thing raises red flags here. It actually shifts the focus on the people doing the "rejection" claim as having a problem.
Second Kim's small baby steps.
If we ever catch an audiologist handing out 20-pages brochures describing ASL on single page in just one line, we can invoke the bill to force balanced brochures changes! Good thing we passed that bill......
wait, the original bill didn't pass did it ? Bummer.
Ahhh...Mike,
I appreciate you for explaining about what happened at the Facebook. I don't use the Facebook or other social networking accounts because I don't trust the crazy hackers/spammers. If I get any smarter than that, then, don't take any risks..... ;-)
I understand what you mean about the delusional issue she is having right now. When we get their own opinions on political issues, she cannot change our mind and opinion. There is nothing she can do about it.
@ Anonymous 4:37-- Late-deafened parents are more likely to have deaf babies than hearing parents. This is because many genetic conditions that cause late deafness also cause early deafness. Some degenerative genetic conditions cause other disabilities like blindess and or paralysis as well. Sometimes one genetic condition will lead to both, while other times there may be two different genetic conditions causing hearing loss and some other disability.
YOU are who I'm talking about when I say some Deaf seem to lack of perspective when it comes to the wider d/hh/Deaf community. This bill was NOT all about Deaf people and their needs.
Kim,
Correct. It's about all kinds of people with hearing loss in all communities, not just about the Deaf community which us 33 times smaller that the hearing loss community in the United States.
Post a Comment