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.