A video on mainstreamed kids

The story of seven mainstreamed deaf/hh kids with their hearing aids and cochlear implants. Oral and aural education enables children who are deaf and hard-of-hearing to listen and talk with success and confidence. Technology plays a huge role while parents play an equally but perhaps larger role on helping ensure this success and confidence.

Dr. Gallaudet praised the oral and auditory teaching method.

Interesting stuff about Dr. Gallaudet.

Dr. Gallaudet acknowledged the power of hearing when it came to education and teaching people with hearing loss. He explained to the Royal Commission of the United Kingdom on the Condition of the Blind, the Deaf and Dumb (as reported in the 1892 Volta Bureau report) on commending the successful use of the aural and oral teaching method despite the availability of the manual method at the time.

Segment 13.147 - 13.152 from the Commission notes, Dr. Gallaudet detailed on how he exhibited a young boy the example of on the power of hearing to the National Academy of Sciences which gave him further insight and understanding on the power of using residual hearing for teaching and developing a language. Dr. Gallaudet acknowledged that success to the Royal Commission despite the crude"technological" approach that was available to them at the time. So successful was the use of this boy's residual hearing by using a particular method of teaching ensured his language success to carry on appropriate conversations with hearing people.

Dr. Gallaudet:
A third method which we are now practising in America with some exceedingly interesting results may be spoken of as the aural or auricular method. A very considerable percentage of those who are classed in the community as deaf-mutes have a degree of hearing which makes it entirely possible that they may be educated through the ear. The percentage is put variously at from 12 to 25 per cent., which even at the lowest figure is a large percentage of the whole number. The first movement in reference to the aural teaching of the deaf was made in Nebraska four years ago, and it was found in that institution that the percentage was quite large of those who were capable of being taught by the ear. I saw in that institution a little more than two years ago a class which was being taught entirely upon this method, and the process of teaching was an exceedingly interesting one. The class consisted, perhaps, of 11 or 12 pupils. There had been a careful examination of the amount of hearing possessed by each of these pupils, and that pupil who heard the least was placed at the teacher's right hand, the one who had a little more hearing was placed next, and the one who had a little more further on, while the one who had the greatest amount of hearing was furthest removed from the teacher. The teacher then in a voice elevated above the ordinary tone was able to dictate to those pupils, and they had all of them been actually taught to use that hearing which they possessed, which prior to the instruction was not supposed to have been sufficient to be made available at all as a means of instruction. In other words, those pupils were gradually ceasing to be deaf-mutes; they were speaking very well, and they were hearing as well as persons whom we call hard of-hearing persons. The result would be that, having come to the school under the legal appellation of "deaf-mutes," they would go out of the school not deaf-mutes at all.

The Commission (LORD EGERTON OF TATTON):
How is that result attained?

Dr. Gallaudet:
The process I can describe a little more fully by reference to the result of a very interesting experiment which we tried in the primary school connected with our college at Washington. In that primary school we try a good many experiments, and we do what we can to develop various methods. The children come in at the age of seven, and they continue in the school for eight or nine years. We had a boy who entered before we began to teach articulation. He was accredited to us as a deaf-mute from one year of age. He lost his hearing in infancy before he learnt to speak; he was absolutely dumb, and the degree of hearing that he possessed was not supposed to be of any account at all. He was registered as hearing slightly very loud noises. Not long after he entered we began teaching him speech, and he was taught to articulate. His progress was only moderate; his success was so imperfect that after a year's effort it was almost decided to give up attempting to teach him any further, but his teacher discovered, purely accidentally, that in uttering a word when the boy's face was turned away from him the boy reproduced the sound. With the use of the hearing tube it was presently discovered that the boy could repeat the vowel sounds and many of the consonant sounds without difficulty; he could repeat words the meaning of which he did not in the least degree understand. The teacher then at once began to educate his hearing. This degree of hearing which the boy possessed had never been enough for him to hold any conversation with members of his family or with any person at an ordinary distance from him.

The Commission:
Was the speaking tube that was used an ordinary speaking tube?

Dr. Gallaudet:
Yes, a flexible speaking tube. Within two years after that time I exhibited this boy before the National Academy of Sciences at Washington, and talked with him through the tube without difficulty, and today he has advanced far enough to be a student in our college; he is a young man full of promise, and he hears well enough to be able to sit by the side of either of you gentlemen and carry on a conversation with you through the tube.

The Commission:
The fact is that his power of hearing had been overlooked?

Dr. Gallaudet:
Just so.

The Commission:
There was no extra mechanism in the tube?

Dr. Gallaudet:
No. The result in that case shows that a very small amount of hearing, untrained to be useful, has existed in hundreds of deaf persons who have gone on through life dumb and hard of hearing, and classed as deaf, whereas they might, under this aural or auricular method of instruction, have been taken entirely out of the category of deaf-mutes.

The Commission:
Is there any medical inspection of these children before they enter school, and is any attempt made by the doctors to improve the hearing if the passages have become clogged by cold or disease?

Dr. Gallaudet:
Yes, in all our better schools there is a careful medical inspection of the children as they enter; it is usually the case that all means have been exhausted to benefit the hearing by the parents and friends of the children before they are brought to the institution. An examination by the medical man exhibits that fact. There are a few instances where the hearing by medical treatment has been improved, but they are very few. I commend this auricular method to all who are interested in the education of the deaf as one deserving of very great attention, because, if we take the number of the deaf who are capable of being taught aurally as amounting to 10 per cent, only, it is conferring upon them a great boon to teach them aurally; it is a greater boon even than giving them the power of imperfect speech.

Now, imagine with today's technology on hearing aids and cochlear implants, and how much of  a boon they would bring. Of course, there are no one shoe size fits all here. Each to his or her own on how one is taught and raised, and, of course, an informed parents' own decision on how it would be done for their child with a hearing loss.

Who ever thought that Dr. Gallaudet would trot out a boy to the National Academy of Sciences (see bolded red color words above) and hold him up as an example of a successful product of an oral and auditory teaching approach to gain a language?

ADDENDUM: In 1886 according to the Royal Commission report (see excerpt above in red bold letters), Edward Miner Gallaudet acknowledged the importance of listening and speaking. This acknowledgment came six years after the famous Milan Conference in 1880.

In 1880, there was an international conference of deaf educators, the Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf. At this conference, held September 6-11, 1880, a declaration was made that oral education was better than manual (sign) education. A resolution was passed banning sign language. The only countries opposed to the ban were the United States (represented by Edward Miner Gallaudet, Rev. Thomas Gallaudet, Issac Peet, James Denison, and Charles Stoddard) and Britain. The sign supporters tried, but failed, to get their voices heard.

How come this was never brought up whenever people used the old Milan Conference argument? Did E.M. Gallaudet handed in his own head on a platter when he trotted that deaf boy out to the National Academy of Sciences about his remarkable speaking and listening ability via the "tubes"? Did the Deaf community ever find out about this or was this tidbit of information was purposely withheld and not discussed when E.M. Gallaudet practically fawned over the deaf boy as being able to speak quite well and hear some, and be able to carry a conversation with a hearing person by show casing him in front of the National Academy of Sciences?

Ah ha....I see. I see. Hmmm. Hmmm. *nods my head*

A Poll: Was Edward Miner Gallaudet an ASL-only extremist?

Lately the view has been that Alexander Graham Bell is an oral-only extremist, which is probably true, then it'd be fair to ask this question: Was Edward Miner Gallaudet an ASL/Sign-only extremist, too? What exactly is an "extremist"?

Cast your vote in a poll below. 

The Power of YouTube Downloader

Just because you get caught with your pants down in an embarrassing YouTube video whose link suddenly went private after people found out about the blatant hate speech against a deaf person by calling him a disabled person just because he recently got a cochlear implant, yanking it from public view doesn't guarantee much nowadays. Well, it's good to have a software handy called YouTube Downloader that anyone can use religiously before somebody gets wind of it and have second thoughts and get it yanked off. Check it out. The power of "privatization" just goes out the window. Nothing is ever "private" once it goes public first. Somebody out there is always copying embarrassing, questionable or unprofessional videos.

Funny Norwegian TV Commercial on Hearing Aids

A TV-commercial for The Norwegian Associaton For the Hard of Hearing titled, "What has happened behind your back today?" A commercial encouraging the use of hearing aids and the danger for not wearing one. Watch, it's not what you think.

No need for captions since none is needed except for the very end translating some Norwegian text into English. All funny stuff here. Enjoy!

Alexander Graham Bell and the Telephone Invention

First off, it is a fact that Alexander Graham Bell is the first to patent the invention of the telephone in the United States and the first to bring telephone services successfully to the marketplace. In fact, Mr. Bell beat out Mr. Gray by hours at the Patent Office on the same day submitting very similar telephone designs. Does that mean both stole Mr. Meucci's idea as well? Although Alexander Graham Bell drew upon his own idea about the telephone through his work on "harmonic telegraph" or "acoustic telegraph" in the effort to send multiple messages at once over a single wire as a way to help reduce the cost of telegraph service that use Morse Code. Inventors who worked on the acoustic telegraph included Charles Bourseul, Thomas Edison, Elisha Gray, and Alexander Graham Bell. Their efforts led to the invention of the telephone. Others have invented or claimed to have a telephone system such as Johann Philipp Reis, Innocenzo Manzetti, Charles Bourseul, Amos Dolbear, Sylvanus Cushman, Daniel Drawbaugh, Edward Farrar, and James McDonough.

Now, according to Tom Farley about the so called stealing of Mr. Meucci's telephone invention by Mr. Bell:

"...Like Gray, Meucci claims Bell stole his ideas. To be true Bell must have falsified every notebook and letter he wrote about coming to his conclusions. That is, it is not enough to steal, you must provide a false story about how you came along on the path to discovery. You must falsify each step toward invention. Nothing in Bell's writing, character, or his life after 1876 suggest he did so, indeed, in the more than 600 lawsuits which involved him, no one else was credited for inventing the telephone." Farley also writes that, "Nearly every scholar agrees that Bell and Watson were the first to transmit intelligible speech by electrical means. Others transmitted a sound or a click or a buzz but our boys [Bell and Watson] were the first to transmit speech one could understand."

And that's true. Alexander Graham Bell had a working prototype as a proof of concept.

Out of Alexander Graham Bell's patented invention of the telephone came the famous Bell Telephone Company a few years later it became AT&T. And the rest is history.

Now, just because the U.S. House of Representative passed a bill in 2002 on recognizing that Meucci was the person who invented the telephone does not mean much since the Senate didn't the pass that bill. What's more, the whole Meucci bill was suspect from the very beginning. 

Edwin Grosvenor found 10 errors in the 2002 congressional Meucci resolution. He was quite critical on the intent of the U.S. House of Representative and its historical accuracy regarding Meucci and the invention of the telephone.

Mr. Grosvenor also asked two very important questions in Section "C":

1) "Should Congress overrule the US courts and its own committee, which looked at evidence extensively, and without reviewing any evidence in the matter?"


2) "Should Congress pass resolutions on historical facts without checking with legitimate historians or their own library?"

So true.

Grosvenor concluded that: "The historical “facts” stated in HR 269 were obtained from highly biased sources, and based on shoddy, cursory research."  And people continue to ignore the fact that "Bell’s telephone patent was litigated in 600 court cases, with many different judges in different jurisdictions. Bell never lost a case, including the one involving Meucci."

That's 600 court cases successfully defended in Bell's telephone patent. It was literally litigated to death knowing just how valuable Bell's telephone patent was.

Out of Alexander Graham Bell's patented invention of the telephone came the famous Bell Telephone Company where years later it became AT&T telephone company. And ironically in 1964 AT&T produced its first videophone prototype at the 1964 New York World's Fair where two deaf users were able to freely communicate with each other between the fair and another city as a test market although in 1956 the Bell System (Western Electric/AT&T) produced a very crude picturephone but never test marketed.

So, each time you make a video phone relay call you are essentially paying homage to the inventor of the telephone Alexander Graham Bell.  So, it'd be essentially impossible to "hang up" on Alexander Graham Bell simply because Alexander Graham Bell and many others after him made possible the existence of the video phone today. There's also a good chance that you use AT&T, too.  And remember all of the great excitement about the new video relay service app for iPhone 4 that would allow deaf and hard of hearing customers to make VRS calls? A true video phone for deaf signers when AT&T introduced it last year in December 2010?
And if you're thinking internet, well, Comcast is the largest cable operator and home internet service provider but in 2001, Comcast acquired the assets of the then largest cable television operator at the time, AT&T Broadband.

Savor the irony folks.

No matter what folks do, pretty much anything they touch using the telephone or laptop computer, much of the thanks still go back to Alexander Graham Bell and his first patented telephone invention.

*rubs hands* Mwahhahahaha! My plan is working flawlessly!

Calm down, folks.


And, yes, I'm content that Alexander Graham Bell is the father of the telephone.  I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. Time to put my hearing aid for the night and hit the sack. Oh, wait, did AGBell also help contribute/inspire on the invention of a hearing aid?

Alexander Bell’s Contributions to the Hearing Aid
When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, he was actually working on ways to amplify sound of the hearing impaired. His use of a receiver and phone was translated in the early 1900’s into a form of carbon microphone. This hearing aid included a receiver in or over the ear that had multiple wires running to the amplifier, which was worn around the neck.

Mon Dieu! Alexander Graham Bell's touch is everywhere!!

Sleep tight.

*rubs hands*

Alexander Graham Bell Phone Invention Inspired Video Phone Idea.

The latest (seemingly) inside gag (for the Deaf community that is) by ConvoRelay's latest advertisement that caters mostly to Deaf people was brought to attention by Tayler in his vlog saying it was the "best ad" he'd ever seen.  However, this ad could also be seen as an inside joke familiar mostly by those in the Deaf community and not in the hearing community. The ad is placed on the walk way at a relatively new subway stop location (New York Ave / Florida Ave/ Gallaudet University) that is close to Gallaudet University about 3 to 4 blocks away.

The ad, as a unintended consequence, possibly, could be seen as a double-entredre ad by those familiar with the name and its relationship with the culturally deaf community.

The first message could be seen as a poke at the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing organization by those who designed the ad. Maybe not.  But if it is then it's a poke that reveals a long standing temper tantrum from some people in the culturally deaf community who are against the AGBell hearing loss organization. The ad, ironically so, is placed on the floor where the name "Alexander Graham Bell"  can be walked all over by dirty shoes at a subway station near Gallaudet University, a hotbed of students who are against AGBell in more ways than one. Maybe that wasn't the intention of the ad designer (who designed it, btw?) but the ad is indeed on that floor and the name "Alexander Graham Bell" is on it saying, "You can hang up on Alexander Graham Bell" and it is located at a subway stop next (near) to Gallaudet University.

Makes ya wonder.

Just food for thoughts here.

The second message in that ad is the acknowledgment of the telephone technology which was a communication barrier for many deaf people. Although we need to remember the TTY technology of the 1980s and onward on how it has helped people with hearing loss to scale that communication barrier..... somewhat.

But here's the thing.

What Alexander Graham Bell invented was a blessing for us all, deaf, hard of hearing or hearing. His phone invention has inspired thousands of would be inventers to invent new and wonderful communication technology for us down the road. In fact, the telephone technology has inspired inventers of what a video phone would look like back even in 1910 as seen in a drawing below.

And even earlier, a few years after Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone in 1876, drew inspiration from Thomas Edison in a conceptual drawing that was done in 1878 describing Edison's Telephonoscope and how it could "transmits light as well as sound." He was smart and savvy enough to see the potential of Alexander Graham Bell's own telephone technology and the possibilities it could hold well into the future. He had the right idea in mind of what we now know as the video phone or "VP" for short as we know it today.  Alexander predicted that "the day would come when the man at the telephone would be able to see the distant person to whom he was speaking." (see here and here).  That day has already arrived....some 120 years later. Who knew it would take that long for it to be commercially viable and used by millions of people? 

As for the ConvoRelay ad and the inside joke? Was there any double entredre intended? I wonder. If so, then it'd be getting kinda thin by now, dotcha think? It may be clever, maybe unintentional (who knows?), but only to those who are intimately familiar with AGBell Association of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing organization and the tiff that the Deaf community have against them. Even though the organization supports and recognizes the various uses of communication technology of every kind that can help deaf and hard of hearing people have communication access.

Like it or not, every time you use your cell phone or video phone you have Alexander Graham Bell to thank every time you answer that relay call or use your video phone. Where would communication technology be today if it had not been for AGBell? Maybe that's irony in of itself, wouldn't ya say?

Deaf Echo Chamber

Yells: "Hello!"

Echos - "hello...hello.......hello.............hello...........................hello."

In Deaf Echo there is an obvious pro-union article called "Madison, Wisconsin - So This is Democracy: An Attack on Education" which soon gotten my attention and decided to contribute to the discussion offering my viewpoints and opinions. But somehow, somewhere down the line, a moderator decided that I was making "abusive comments" in my responses and comments.

*scratches my head*

Hmmm.

Really?

The funny thing is that no where did I make any "abusive comments." I stated my opinions and concerns. In my own blog I hereby challenge the moderator to back up what he's claiming and point out exactly what and where my so called "abusive comments" are. As for me, I see none because I created none.

Now. I know that sometimes for other people to read what I write it may get their ire or misconstrue on exactly what I'm writing thinking it's one thing when it's not. Hence, the reason why I attempted to explain in Deaf Echo which, obviously, didn't go anywhere. 

What I think the problem is that some people are upset because I dared to have a difference of opinion or that I provided links to facts. At least it seems to be that. Bottom line, I see things differently. I attacked no one personally. I made no snarky remarks. I made no emotional, blind rage at any one. Ironically though, some veiled personal attacks against me were allowed. Double standards? You make the call. But all this had me wondering on exactly what bias is being permitted over there. Now remember folks, Moderators have every right to see fit on how to run their own website or blog. That's not the issue here. The issue is the lack of honesty.

Somebody is not being honest on wanting to have a "good discussion." Is it a one-sided discussion the goal or allow discussion from both sides of the fence? Which is it? Will it be driving forward or backward?

This is what one moderator (Bobby) said:

Mike McConnell has been blocked from further commenting on Deaf Echo for repeat violations of our policies. Specifically, writing abusive comments. We do not tolerate this on Deaf Echo. We love a good discussion that drives things forward, and we act aggressively to maintain a good environment for our readers and writers.

Until the moderator can actually point out exactly which comment I wrote that was "abusive" then that's the challenge for him to answer my call. Otherwise, I think this is a matter of protecting somebody or at least assert some kind of control on what's being allowed to discussed, perhaps keeping it pro-union as possible?? Maybe I'm wrong though the response and action made by the moderator was rather curious. Although I'm not alone in seeing the problem of this so called "abusive comments." Candy agreed that she also saw no abusive comments were being made from me.

I don't see any abusive comments by Mike. Gotta have two polarizing sides to have a good discussions and sometimes some things just don't "drive things forward." I don't see his comments creating a bad environment. Just sayin' Then again, it is your blog.

Yes, it is his blog. No doubt. And he has every right to maintain control as he sees fit. Curiously though, no one responded to what Candy said. BTW, thank you, Candy. We can always agree to disagree. 

But I think the ban had to do more with the link I provided in reponse to a moderator's "Greedy" picture cartoon he left. And so in response to that I left a link as an attempt to put into perspective the teacher's average compensation package (salary + benefits). The "Greedy Teachers" picture in the link that came with it was not the intention but the figures I wanted to present so readers can be well informed. That is certainly not considered as an "abusive comment."  In all honesty, I'm guessing exactly which comments the moderator found "so abusive" to warrant a ban. Curiously enough the moderator is also pro-union as well which could put into question the whole neutrality of that moderator.

No snide comments were made from me.

No snarks.

No abusive comments.

Just my opinions, perspective, understanding, knowledge and facts of the matter at hand. No one wants to see jobs lost. I'm not making fun or light of that, obviously.  I don't think people want to see deaf education or any education suffer, I've not hinted at nor made fun of that.

Deaf Echo, let's have the cojones to be honest and forthright than to hide behind some so-called policies and claim that I was making "abusive comments." There is no evidence of that at all. If Deaf Echo doesn't want to hear the other side, then just say so rather than hide behind an excuse!

As for those who attempted at making these veiled potshots at me, let me say this.

What the author wrote in Deaf Echo isn't lost on me on his care for Deaf Ed and his job. No one is saying what he says is unwarranted or to be easily dismissed. I have not made any emotional or personal pot shots at the author nor anyone in that forum. What I provided are some facts to add to my discussion. And, certainly, I am leery of unions as well since we already have laws that protect us and our rights. This isn't 1959 any more. 

Next, what I've stated in Deaf Echo is that if the spending problem isn't corrected or resolved somehow at the state level (even at the Federal level!!!) it will soon hurt a lot more of us than we would ever dreamed of.  And if Wisconsin or any other states see a 30-fold increase in their deficit increase in two years time then no amount screaming will help to save all of deaf education. We all can see that coming from miles away. ALL OF US. At least that's what I'm seeing now.

I asked in my earlier comments on how can one reconcile that problem and still help deaf education? How can one reconcile with that and compete against others who want to see education remain intact in public schools? And so on? I'd like to see it reconciled but then again reality is starting to bite hard and that has become scary. Just like suddenly seeing your years of abusing your credit cards to such extreme debts do you find yourself in a pickle of a situation that will change your life forever.

What about California?

Their budget deficit is much worse than Wisconsin's. How are they going to eventually face that and even try and reconcile with their deeply red deficit problem and attempt to keep the education system afloat, especially schools for the deaf? And at the same time compete against everything else on what money's is left on the table? Is it a spending problem? Lack of control? Too much control of union bosses or reps? Not enough taxes? Too much taxes? Not business friendly enough? And so on. There are many questions here.

And finally, most people seems to be saying in Deaf Echo that money or job isn't the issue but it's about the retention on their collective bargaining status. But why do some of them keep reverting back to saying, yes, it's about keeping jobs when facing the "chopping block."

Which one is it?

I'd rather have a job even if it means not having health care and other benefits than no job at all that will help keep the money flowing. When it really comes down to it, that would be it. It's about money and control for all of us. It's certainly about the battle for survival and it just so happens that the state holds the purse string and if there isn't enough money to go around, so what are we to do?

And lastly folks, learn to leave the veiled emotional pot shots out the next time. I'm not interested in infantilism. But when it comes to interesting discussion, I'm for that whether you agree or disagree. At least have the temerity to agree to disagree.

Why the Snarkyism Carl?

First order, congrats to Russell on his successful surgery for his new cochlear implant. He took the time to chronicle his pre-surgery and post-surgery videos (See Pre-surgery, Post surgery,  Post surgery Day #2....more?).  His activation will begin this Friday and I'm sure many will be anxious to see how it goes and join in with his wife and son who both wear cochlear implant. A first and second generation family of cochlear implant users! It's like Sound and Fury all over again with another first and second generation family of cochlear implant users. 

They will still be deaf but will certainly have much greater access to sound than ever before. This is not about being "disabled" but about what you can do and not about on what you cannot do.  But for one deaf person to go online and do a snarky video about Russell's post-implantation results and congratulate him by calling him "disabled" raises the question on his maturity or the lack of maturity for that matter.

Scholarship opportunity for deaf and hard of hearing seeking undergrad or grad degree

For those seeking scholarship grants who are deaf or hard of hearing who are pursuing an undergraduate or graduate degree at an accredited mainstream college or university, here's your chance to apply before the March 15, 2011 deadline!

Eligibility:

- Spoken communication must be the applicant's primary mode of communication.
- Hearing loss must have been diagnosed before the applicant’s fourth birthday.
- Hearing loss must be bilateral and in the moderate to profound range.

Applicants must have an unaided Pure-Tone Average (PTA) of 60dB or greater in the better-hearing ear in the speech frequencies of 500, 1000 and 2000 Hz. Applicants with cochlear implants meet this eligibility requirement. Unilateral (one-sided) hearing loss does not qualify.

The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell) offers several scholarships for full-time students who are deaf and hard of hearing and who are pursuing an undergraduate or graduate degree at an accredited mainstream college or university.

This is a merit-based scholarship program with award selection being extremely competitive. While the number and value of awards varies from year to year. In 2010, 144 eligible applications were received and 18 awards were granted, which ranged from $1,000 to $10,000.

Don't miss out this opportunity and perhaps help cut the cost of college! This scholarship isn't just for those in the United States but those who are seeking degrees in other countries.

Fear of communicating??

Who is really afraid of communicating to who? Is it a deaf person who fear communicating to a hearing person? Hard of hearing person who fear communicating to a deaf person? Or a hearing person who has a fear of communicating to a deaf person? Where does this fear lie? Why does this happen? Who exhibits this terrifying fear of communicating? Scared to strike up some real conversations when there is no real communication access? Why wait for an interpreter if there's an alternative way to communicate? Is it a fear of communication or a lack of understanding? How do you categorize yourself as? Are you an extrovert? Introvert? Shy? Weak?  Is it "communiphobia" (fear of communicating) you have? Is this something you notice in other people? Tell me your thoughts!

Justin Osmond speaks at his university graduation

Justin Osmond, the 2nd son of Merril and Mary Osmond.

(He) was born with a severe/profound sensorial-neural hearing loss. Diagnosed at the age of 2, he finally got to hear life’s precious sounds for his very first time. Considering the fact that he was a couple years behind his peers, he has shown through a series of intense dedication and mental/physical exertion, that nothing can stop him from going after his dreams and aspirations.

After 12 years of intense speech/listening therapy, he can speak with passion and hear with conviction. There were many obstacles and challenges that represented stumbling blocks, despair and lack of hope. But his will-power, determination, desire, and hope surpassed all hurdles that stood in his way.

Despite the inevitable, and with a 90% hearing loss, Justin pressed forward with a perfect brightness of hope and a love for all humanity. He went on to play the violin, viola, piano, and drums. He has received numerous awards such as the prestigious sterling scholarship in music, academic scholarships, honorary achievements, and many athletic titles in soccer, football, basketball, and track. He is also proud to represent the Boy Scouts of America as an Eagle Scout and he currently has his Masters in Business Administration (MBA).

Justin currently serves as public relations, board member, and a spokesperson for the Starkey Hearing Foundation, the largest outreach program in providing hearing help to children worldwide. He continues to travel the world with one object in mind: To leave Better Hearing Smiles behind.

On February 12, 2011, Justin spoke at his graduation ceremony at Western Governors University in Salt Lake City, Utah.

He continues to give back to others who are hearing-impaired with the Olive Osmond Perpetual Hearing Fund, which he founded in honor of his grandmother.

To continue his non-profit work, Justin decided to go back to school for his MBA at Western Governors University, headquartered here in Salt Lake City.

On Feb. 12 Justin will graduate and has been selected as one of the student speakers at WGU’s winter commencement ceremony. For someone who struggled to speak, Justin is now making a graduation speech in front of thousands of people.

Justin will serve as a model and inspiration to those with hearing loss by helping others with hearing loss.

Merril Osmond who is Justin's father is one of the famously known Osmond Brothers band during the 1970s, and even to today 50 years later. The other two oldest Osmond brothers, George Virl Osmond, Jr. and Tom Osmond, who did not sing were born with a hearing loss.

AVT and ASL do not and cannot mix

There seems to be an ongoing confusion and misunderstanding on the role of Auditory-Verbal Therapy (AVT) by many people thinking it is all about "banning ASL." Simply to say that is a sign that a person does not understand what AVT is about. There is no "banning ASL" in AVT anymore than ASL means that it "bans" the use of voice.  ASL, sign language, SEE, lip-reading, cues, and such do not play a role. AVT is an exercise session set aside for the single purpose to help a child with a hearing aid or cochlear implant to learn, recognize and understand verbal speech sound without looking at the lips or other cues.

From "Auditory-Verbal Therapy:Developing Spoken Language Through ListeningWith ChildrenWho Are Deaf" it describes what AVT is about (note the bolded words below).

Children and their parent(s) are typically seen once, and sometimes twice, a week for Auditory-Verbal therapy. Sessions usually last one hour where audition, speech, language, cognition, and communication goals are integrated into natural, playful, and age-appropriate activities. The therapist models for the parents the skill to be developed, then guides the parents as they participate actively in establishing the goal. The emphasis is on the process of listening for learning speech and language without the use of visual cues, such as lipreading or sign language. For each verbal interaction, the child is first presented with auditory information, the parent and/or child then verbally responds to what was heard, and finally the auditory cue is reinforced with a toy, picture, or action. Listening is linked with speech, and vice versa, so that listening is an active rather than a passive process.

Simply put, AVT is a speech recognition training exercise for deaf and hard of hearing children who are hearing aid or cochlear implant users. ASL or any signing cannot be used in this therapy because it does not serve a purpose in AVT at all. NONE! ASL cannot serve as a tool to help train the ear during AVT anymore than voice alone can serve as a tool to help train on teaching ASL.

AVT is not about discouraging lip-reading, either. It'd be ludicrous to think it's about discouraging lip-reading because AVT is about picking up and recognizing the spoken word. People who say that AVT is about discouraging lip-reading generally do not understand the goal of AVT. It's about training the ear and the brain to recognize and understand the spoken words. It cannot get any simpler than that, folks!

So, for a person to go around and spout that AVT "bans" ASL is either practicing the art of terminological inexactitude or the person simply does not know what he or she is talking about thinking AVT is against ASL. That is hardly the case. AVT is about the emphasis on the process of listening for learning speech and language without the use of visual cues, such as lipreading or sign language. Think of AVT like a telephone exercise where speaking and listening is required. ASL would be impossible here and serves no purpose. ASL cannot be used in a telephone conversation. Right?

I hope ya'll understand what AVT is about now.

Videos: Compare and Contrast on Communication Methods and Options

Let's compare with the recent ASL video that came out on what it appears to be (CDE) California Department of Education's official support on the ASL option against all other communication methods and options in an equal unbiased approach on information for parents to watch. Also see the CDE Oversight Committee in the last video below at 12:55 to see the scrolling names. You might recognize some of the names. That alone certainly raise questions about the possibility of conflict of interest. Who is Andrew Laufer?

As far as I can tell there were no budget set aside using California's public tax dollars to produce a video on other communication and language options for parents to learn and be informed about. The budget of $34,000 dollars was used to produce the inspirational ASL video with the intent to distribute DVD videos targeting parents of newborn Deaf or hard of hearing children. It is not known if CDE will include other DVDs, pamphlets or other information about other options along with the distributed ASL DVD video for parents to have. Is that their intent? Or just the ASL video only?

I have a question for you CDE, are other options being denied to parents who need to know all other options in order to make an informed decision regarding their deaf/hh newborn child? Is this the only DVD video available for those parents that talks expressly only on ASL? Do you have other communication options to provide and show? Do you have plans to make other similar videos about Cued Speech? Signing Exact English? Audio-Verbal approaches? And so on?


Auditory-oral approach on learning how to speak and improve listening skill.


Cued speech with auditory-oral examples along with sign language using Cuers.


A deaf/hh boy with hearing aid learning how to speak and listen fluently in both the English and Cantonese language through auditory-oral approach with his mother.


A mother and deaf/hh son (with a cochlear implant) moment with her signing in SEE and him responding in SEE which is a full visual communication access of the English language while at the same time hear exactly the spoken English language.


California Department of Education's ASL video of parents and kids signing only.

When I witness some angry struttin'....

You know, from me as a deaf/hh person looking at a bunch of anonymous, unknown people doing his or her thing making far flung comments in various blogs and postings reminds me of watching some, unknown guy doing his/her "struttin' business."

No sound is needed when all one need is to see it visually just like the one in the video above. It doesn't make any sense but you're seeing it. Right there.

Whatever words came forth are rendered meaningless because all you remember is the struttin' instead, the walking around, the finger pointing, the flailing of the arms, the constant mouth movements, the hopping, stomping, the sticking of the rear end out and so on. And, exactly what was the message in the end?

But like me and others who continually witness these odd "struttin' businesses" from a variety of people can only cause you to wonder and shake your head, and you're probably scratchin' your heads, too, at the absurdity of it all. Angry, sure. It's obvious. Anybody can see that. But to throw words here or there hoping it'd stick long enough to mean something but they end up entirely lost because all you can remember is all that struttin'.

Now, if ya'll want a meaningful discourse I'd be happy to do it when it comes to a variety of hearing loss topics and such. If you have an important message, say it, without doing the whole struttin' business and be obscure about it. I have my hopes but I am keeping realistic here, too. Creativity has its limits around here in these parts. Make it count.

Success is relative....

For a hard of hearing or deaf person the word "success" is relative, each to his or her own on what exactly that means when it comes to communication whether it's signing, speaking or writing. What I don't do is begrudge my parents who had very little information to go on in the 1960s when it came to exposure to signing or sign language, and not necessarily ASL per se but signing in general. Information was extremely hard to come by on education and communication for deaf and hard of hearing children. Parents of those days either had to research on their own to get the necessary information or went with the flow on what educators and some in the community had to say and take them as authoritative. We know better now.  It's night and day when compared to the information and knowledge of the 1960s to that of today, especially when cochlear implant and hearing aid technology are at an advanced stage.

For me, I do consider myself an "oral success" which includes both the speaking and listening skills. I am perhaps one of the few rare breed out there to discuss this publicly. I'm sure there are many more of them out there like me. I know. I've met them before. But what is "success" then? Well, to me, it's the ability to communicate and listen successfully. Though the listening part varies depending on the environment I'm in, of course. Between using a phone versus listening in a crowded room with everybody talking is like night and day sometimes. But then again technology continues to improve where one day a "smart" hearing aid will have the ability to screen out unwanted background noise and focus on the voice near me instead. Yet, success is relative.

Here's a short piece of my mother's letter she wrote to me in 2002 before she had internet connection (i.e  email). It's a short reflective piece out of a two page letter she wrote to me about my past and what she had to do to get the education for me and the amount  work she put into to help develop my speech and listening skill where educators have told her and many others that we deaf and hard of hearing people would be a lost cause and that we wouldn't be able to progress above the 5th grade level in our lifetime.

I know it is hard on little deaf children whose parents will not or can not sign. I also know that the parents who really tried and spent a lot of time with the kids had a lot of success. If I were to do it over, I would combine signs and lip reading and speech. Because as I look back and remember, we did use our version of signs for words like “no,” “yes,” “baby,” “love,” “up,” “milk,” “eat,” and many others that I have long forgotten.

All in all, the school boards, the teachers, the books, did not give a lot of encouragement about the education and successful adult livelihood for the deaf community. I am proud that you can make them all eat their words now.

And eat their words they have and I will continue to remind them of that. Which is why I consider my mother my hero because without her I wouldn't be where I am today. But I do not hate my parents when at times I could not understand them when I was younger. I cannot spend time begrudging the past and I don't have anything to begrudge against my parents, either. They are human beings, too. And I still love them.

"I wanna be like Mike" .....Whattt?

Um.....really? You wanna go there? You gotta be kidding me.









Seriously, dude. Do you even want to bother going there on what you're claiming or alluding to about me while seeing what you did in your own videos? I'm sure there are a lot things we can cover and discuss just to clarify our positions and misunderstanding. What is exactly your position anyhow after seeing the starkly different videos, and how they compare to my videos of me speaking with captions, and even, gasp!, signing, too? Remember what I said about diversity?

And folks, as for the Miss Deaf Teen tragedy he alluded to in the "I wanna be like Mike" video that I made fun of her? There are something that you need to know, folks.

http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2006/03/wild-949-really-messed-up.html
 
and

http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2006/03/when-deaf-people-mock-tragedy-of-deaf.html

Do I think the Deaf community is dumb? Nah, of course not. But I do have opinions on some people that I think merits some serious rethinking. No. I'm not talking about him. He's smart enough guy to know the differences. But the videos of him seen above are like night and day just begs some serious questioning in light of the ABC videos where he talked about how people discriminated against deaf people but without any signing, transcript or captions. Irony cannot be described here. And certainly, already some Deaf people are simply not happy with him pulling that one off.

Hey, Jeff, do you think the Deaf community is dumb/blind or what? A fair question to ask in light of his "I wanna be like Mike" vlog saying that I think the Deaf community is dumb.  How can he reconcile with the "I wanna be like Mike" vlog that was done in October 2010 and then the next month in November 2010 comes out with a vlog where he mostly spoke with no captions or transcript? Granted it was for a hearing audience yet the majority of his friends and such are deaf to begin with. No outcry? No pitchforks? No hurling of the a-wordism around? But I'm not here to disparage his choice on how he wanted to communicate in his YouTube videos. I back him 100% on his choice. Because I recognize that diversity comes in all flavors.

My advice, Jeff and others? Don't try and be like "Mike" but be yourself instead. Do the things that you enjoy and make you happy. I love playing ragtime piano on my piano as seen in my own Ragtime Piano blog, why fault me for that, Jeff? I understand the joke you tried to do. Really, if you're comfortable with who you are then that's all you need. If you feel comfortable talking, fine. I'd be the first person to defend you on your choice to communicate however you wish whether it's signing or speaking. But let's not play the high and mighty game here, and in the process do some serious twisting of the words. I don't mind your choice to speak but, really, come on now.

Btw, I still miss the hot, dry desert of the southwest.

Peace, dude.

What goes through your mind when you see this picture?

What are your thoughts and feelings when you see this picture below? It's an old bumper sticker I have that's around over 35 years old. I scanned it last year for my laptop. I have two of these stickers in my storage box along with one button with the same phrase on it. You can see a picture of that button on the left side of my blog.

Now, is that phrase true today? Can deaf children, which could mean children with mild to profound hearing loss, learn how to talk? Was that phrase true 40 years ago as well? Or should deaf children be best not to be taught on learning how to speak early in their life such as 40 years ago? 30 years ago? 10 years ago? Today???

Look at Deaf Jeff's (aka The Terlinguan blogger) recent video of him talking (although there is no captioning which I'm sure has raised a lot of eyebrows but I give him mega kudos on talking though) about ABC's recent show on discrimination against deaf people, ironically so. He also used his voice in an earlier video back in November 2010 for his hearing family and that's fine as well.  Jeff is an example of that oral success. Just like mine, Tim Riker's, and many others.

Looking back what would have been the consequences of not getting that early opportunity on learning how to speak? Now, remember, it says that deaf children can learn to talk and it says nothing about the inclusion of signing nor does the phrase presume to say (especially today) that signing shouldn't be included, either. Regardless, what are you thinking when you read that bumper sticker?

ASL vs Signed English Video Music of "Do I"

Here's a video of a song that is signed using the ASL version versus the SEE/English (signed English word order) version. The music is "Do I" by Luke Bryan signed by Allyballybabe. Here is what she has to say between the two signed versions.

I wanted to show the differences between ASL and SEE/English. There is a HUGEEEE difference, and hopefully this helps to see that. SEE and English SL are NOT languages. ASL, however, IS a language! Enjoy!

When searching for YouTube vids, be sure to take notice of if it is REALLY ASL, or if it's SEE/English that is mislabeled.. There are LOTS of SEE/English YouTubers out there. If you're wanting TRUE ASL, take caution..

Click on YouTube to get to her site containing the lyrics in English and in ASL gloss.

I agree. There is a stark difference. Just like that female astronaut who signed in PSE/SE/SEE (i.e. English word order) and certainly not in ASL. And thus no one can claim that first ASL was signed in outer space. Nearly 75% of those who answered my poll agreed that the female astronaut signed in an English word order format whether it's PSE, SEE, or SE. The point is that the majority saw the astronaut signed in English, not ASL which has a markedly different grammar and syntax than English. So, it's the signed English word order (whether it's PSE, SE, or SEE) that made into outer space. American Sign Language (ASL) never made it into outerspace but sign language did. So, don't call it ASL but sign language. It may be awhile til a true ASL signing astronaut will be seen from outer space. Meanwhile, let's celebrate the fact that sign language made its first debut in outer space in 2010!

Huzzah!

Super Bowl Madness...captioning galore!

Super Bowl #45 (XLV) is almost here and what's on the mind of many deaf and hard of hearing football fans everywhere are the much anticipated captioned commercials when past Super Bowl commercials were never captioned.

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and the National Football League (NFL) along with FOX Broadcasting Company, the network airing Super Bowl XLV on Sunday, February 6, 2011, are proud to announce that this will be the first fully captioned national broadcast of the Super Bowl in history, including all national commercials and promotions.

And so in the spirit of Super Bowl commercials here is "Uncle Bob's House -a Pepsi parody" a creative video I did three years ago in light of over the much ballyhoo-ed responses of ballistic proportion against AGBell's Pepsi letter over a Pepsi video Super Bowl commercial called "Bob's House."



Yeah, I prefer Coca Cola.

And, oh, a poll..a poll! Wanna do a poll? Did ya like my Uncle Bob's House parody video? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?  It's fully captioned!!

*drinks more Coke*



24 hours left to go and counting...who will win?

Steelers!!!

Packers!!!

Who am I rooting for?

None of your damned business!!

*drinks more Coke*

Go NAD!!!

*drinks Coke*...burp!

I blog

I blog.
They twitch.

I speak.
They moan.

I investigate.
They scream.

I shrug.
They convulse.

I laugh.
They accuse.

I hear.
They insult.

No matter what I do, many will never be satisfied with who I am or what I do. And if you dare say anything negative they'll take out their "deafhood" bible and accuse you of blasphemy and heresy, and summarily condemn you for not following. Last I look it was supposed to be a concept, not a cult.

No thanks. I want none of that. I just rather accept people for who they are and not about what they are and leave politics out of it.

Deaf/hh bloggers have their own opinions, experiences and knowledge over a variety of subjects and that's what make diversity in a blogging world such an interesting thing to observe and participate.  But there are selfish people out there. According to my latest poll result approximately 30% of those who answered my poll question want me to stop blogging which is rather a selfish thing to request while approximately 70% of them said I should continue to blog. 

I blog.

*pushes the enter button on keyboard*

Alcoholism on campus

Sure, many if not most colleges and universities have their set of problems on dealing with alcoholic consumption on campus. If not on campus then it's a problem when inebriated students bring their stupor back on campus after a night of partying. Either way it's a problem. Gallaudet University has its own problem on dealing with alcoholism on campus as well but I see it that they have a unique set of situation on how to deal with students who are deaf and hard of hearing that communicate mostly by signing. My question is do the students at Gallaudet University present its own unique set of situation and problems than students in other universities and colleges? Is there a higher or lower incidence of alcohol abuse among students on the campus of Gallaudet University when compared to other colleges and universities? That's my question.

Gallaudet University is certainly familiar with alcohol abuse and alcoholism on campus. We do know for a fact that there are students who do abuse alcohol while at Gallaudet University. Some may have brought their alcoholism when they entered school and others may have acquired alcoholism while at school and thus bring it with them after they graduate and become a life-long problem. Gallaudet University has done surveys and studies to determine how to rate this problem on campus when compared to other universities and colleges. In one study done in 2005 was the College Alcohol Problem Scale (CAPS) to determine a ranking scale and found that there were more college seniors who reported with more alcohol-associated problems.

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in scores on the College Alcohol Problem Scale (CAPS) among class ranks and gather information about alcohol prevention efforts for deaf college students. Two hundred and eight-six deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing college students completed a 21-item questionnaire. The questionnaire included eight items for the College Alcohol Problem Scale (CAPS), six items related to alcohol prevention, and seven demographic items. Cronbach alpha for the CAPS was .77. A principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted because the questionnaire was given to students for whom American Sign Language was their primary language. The PCA yielded a two-component instrument, which is consistent with other studies of hearing college students. Analysis of variance results indicated a significant difference in scores among college seniors and graduate students, with college seniors reporting more alcohol-associated problems. Comparisons of other ranks on the CAPS scores were non-significant.

This brings up questions of inadequate coping skills once they enter college. A situation many of us are aware of where becoming independent for the first time, away from home but only to face social pressure and wanting to "fit in" would they find drinking alcohol as a way to "solve" that so-called problem. Excuses vary on why students decide to drink excessively to the point of self-abuse risking bringing that abuse after college life.  But Gallaudet University has a strict policy in place on alcoholic consumption on campus and recognize that alcohol abuse is a problem.

Gallaudet recognizes that alcohol abuse is a physical, psychological, and social problem and that it should be treated as such. Within the limits of its available resources, Gallaudet University attempts to inform students and employees of the acute and chronic risks associated with the abuse of alcohol and to aid those with alcohol problems. Various support services, including employee assistance programs and counseling for students, are available for individuals who are experiencing difficulty with the consumption of alcoholic beverages or alcohol abuse.


Students and employees are warned that illegal possession, use, sale, or distribution of alcohol is punishable by law. Further, campus penalties for illicit alcohol possession, use, or distribution on campus are also severe. Students who are found guilty are subject to disciplinary action up to and including suspension and the loss of student status at the University. Employees are also subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

Yet according to the CAPS result it is likely that drinking problems still exist on campus at Gallaudet University. I suspect this has to do more with off-campus drinking than stashing drinks in dorm rooms for their own private partying if they can get away with it. There are many students who live off campus in housing rows just outside of Gallaudet University where students can BYOB (Bring your own beer). Keg parties and public on-campus drinking of the past are history. That's the good news, yet the problem is still there. The question is, how much of a problem is it today? Has it gone up, down or stayed the same? That's what I like to know despite the campus climate being substantianly different than it was during the late 1980s and early 1990s when I was there.

My thoughts on investigative blogging.....

Let me expand a bit about what I blog when people think what I do is an attack versus doing my usual investigative blogging that I do often such as the latest on campus rape issue. Plus I blog on a variety of issues and subjects that interest me....and not about whether if it interests you. That's not my goal. Either you like my blogging style or you don't.  That has always been my nature.

Had there had been a legitimate, integrity-driven journalist entity within the so-called Deaf community, wouldn't those issues had already been reported or looked into? But we don't see that, do we? Instead people seem to be content on Deaf News and BnB to do stories that are mostly the benign stuff. Important? Sure, but they're still mostly the benign stuff.

For example, has the BnB done any serious, in depth journalistic work about rape, alcoholism, miscommunication issues, and other such investigative work on campus? Any real in depth investigative work they've done? What about other bloggers? If so, let me know.  Or do they mostly do the commentary type of writings and try and keep to a safe leash instead? So far as for BnB they've already retracted a mismanaged article they did. Had it been in print instead of an electronic publication of that same Wirick article they wouldn't have had the easy convenience of retracting a story with the hope that it would quietly disappear. And to boot, it has been almost two months and no update to the public as to why they retracted their story or whether they'll issue an apology for their own mismanagement when their excuse for pulling it has to do with "safety concerns." Something is not adding up over there. We see hearing people who do investigative journalism on other hearing people or organizations to help expose the truth or at least question things that seems to be amiss. Yet, but when it comes to Deaf people, it's verbotten? Why? Something to hide? Skeletons in the closet? What?

Interesting.

And perhaps if the BnB, other similar "Deaf news" type of reporting and other bloggers had any journalistic gumption then they would have already investigated those stories. Right? But somebody did that once in the past some years ago who wrote an investigative piece and was summarily threatened with bodily harm on campus for doing such an investigative piece that deserved to be investigated. Makes ya wonder about the idiocy out there.

I like what J.P.R. had to say about what I do:

You are like Yang (or Yin, it does not matter which one) that must exist to counterbalance Yin (or Yang). If you stop, Yang will diminish or disappear and Yin will overpower the blogsphere. That is bad.


Please keep blogging on.


Joseph Pietro Riolo

Just keeping the balance here whether ya'll like it or not. Otherwise it'd be a boring, boring deaf/hh blogosphere out there. No? Okay, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration there but you get my drift.

What I do has nothing to do with malice but of concern and the desire to go deeper in the hope to bring up underlying issues that are essentially "verbotten" for the lack of a better word here.  I don't use Godwin's law or bring up reminiscences of Nazism or use Nazi-analogies about the so-called eugenics and such, and go about labeling using the a-wordism and other similar "wordism" at work with such ferocity you'd think it's a serious case of dysfunctionalism at work out there. 

Deaf and blind pianist wins talent contest

I covered him briefly before of him playing on his piano in a YouTube clip. His name is Sky Mundel. But the amazing thing is that not only is he blind and deaf but he has cerbral palsy and is autistic. He won the coveted Vancouver Island's Got Talent contest that took place this year on January 20th.

The 19-year-old pianist wowed the judges and audience alike at the finale for Vancouver Island's Got Talent Jan. 21, as he had throughout the competition, with two pieces dedicated to his mother and sister.

"It was a pleasure playing in this competition and I certainly will have a lot of fun performing in Las Vegas," he said upon taking to the stage after event host Maria Manna announced him as the winner.

Mundell, whose goal is to pursue a career in the music industry, will get a head start on that dream thanks to his win.

He will travel to Vegas to sign a contract with the Nevada Talent Agency, will perform at Planet Hollywood there as part of V: The Ultimate Variety Show, will receive image consulting and a professional marketing package.

He also won recording time for a three-song demo CD, a professional photo shoot and help setting up a web and social media presence.

This is an incredible young man, 19 years old, to win this competition. Below are the videos of the Vancouver Island's Got Talent with him in it.


Final round and announcement of Sky Mundell as the winner out of 84 contestants.


2nd round in VIGT competition in November 2010.


1st round in October 2010

Someday soon I would like to meet him personally since Vancouver Island (Canada) is about a 6 hours drive from where I live. I am fascinated by pianists who are blind and a savant but Sky Mundell is quite the incredible and different pianist who happens to be deaf and austistic. In fact, I do have an interest in musically talented pianists who are blind and are classified as savants but Sky Mundell is a different breed. And why the interest? Well, naturally I'm a pianist myself who play ragtime and novelty rag pieces who happens to have a hearing loss in both ears.

It was late last year when I read a book about a black, blind savant pianist named "Blind Tom" who was one of the nineteenth century's most famous and perplexing pianists. A man with such an uncanny talent that very few of us would even dare hope to hold. It was several years ago when I became fascinated with pianists who are blind and classified as savants when I saw a show about boy named Derek Paravicini who is such a pianist. He is now an adult today. Anything to do with people who are deaf/hh pianist I have an interest. But for Sky Mundell, I'd say that a congratulation is in order for this young man. May he find success and joy!

Deaf and Alcoholism

"Why is it so hard for the deaf to deal with admitting they are alcoholics or drug addicts which is an impediment for recovery? Why is it so hard for them to stay sober once they have achieved it for a few weeks or months? What do you think the main reasons are?"

The above quote came from an article from a person who have worked with the deaf for over 30 years although this article was probably written in the mid to late 1990s yet I'm sure it's still relevant today.

I recognize that alcoholism is an insidious thing and I applaud anybody who publicly announce and seek support from friends and families to help him or her through this trial by fire. Or even find ways to express their experience and battles like, for example, through YouTube or blogs. But doing these things are not a prerequisite but a choice on how to deal with this problem head on whether done privately or publicly.

I,  myself, do not drink even though I was a licensed bartender at age 22 but it wasn't long until I figured out that I was really uncomfortable serving alcoholic drinks and getting approached by people under-21 years of age who try and ply a drink from me without ever showing a photo ID. Or notice a customer who had a bit much to drink and refuse to serve a drink only to get cussed at not knowing that I probably saved his life.  After about a year, I quit being a bartender. No glory in serving or drinking alcoholic drinks. None at all. I know what alcohol can do. I know somebody who was drunk and got behind the wheel and passed out while driving. Luckly nobody was killed except this driver I personally know ended up paralyzed from the chest downward.

It ain't pretty and I'm sure many people recognize that. Or do they?

Now, imagine what I saw when I went to Gallaudet University where many weekend in 1988, 1989, and 1990 I got to see the after effects of weekend partying and Rock Festivals did people leave their vomits all over the place inside and outside of my dormitory building. Inside the elevators, on the stairwell, in hallways, outside of the dorm in the bushes, and so on. Even witnessed a freshman lying in his own vomit completely passed out in the freshman lounge area of Benson Hall on the 2nd floor where I stayed. College life and alcohol simply do not mix. Sorry, accept that idea and get it through your head on that one.

But what causes one to go down the path of alcoholism (or drugs for this matter)? There are many reasons and causes. The article explains one of the many reasons for alcoholism.

"Substance abuse is a sensitive issue about which the deaf community does not yet feel comfortable talking. For many with in the community, it remains a moral issue; the denial of pathological drinking is very strong." (Rendon, 1992)

Regardless, talking about it helps. It makes you more human by facing your demons. And that no one is ever perfect. If alcohol is a big part of your life, it's time to rethink that and seek support. Find alternative ways to avoid alcohol by taking up other activities to keep you busy.Talk about it.  And perhaps one day you'll find yourself having no desire to drink and say, "No thanks. I don't drink."

ADDENDUM:  Here are some links on more information on where to get help on a variety of substance abuses.

Substance and Alcohol Intervention Services for the Deaf at NTID.

The International Deaf Substance Abuse Message Board

Substance Abuse within the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community


Deaf and Hard of Hearing AA 12 Steps Recovery Resources

Northwest Deaf Addiction Center


The Minnesota Chemical Dependency Program for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Individuals

The National Information Clearing House Catalog: Addressing the Chemical Health
Needs of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Individuals, 2006 Edition

Substance and Alcohol Intervention Services for the Deaf


Deaf Adult Services

Anixter Center - Addiction Recovery of the Dea

The National Directory of Alcohol and Other Drugs Prevention and Treatment Programs
Accessible to the Deaf

Sponsored by the Michigan Coalition for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People

The Substance Abuse Resources & Disability Issues (SARDI) Program


Deaf and Hard of Hearing Recovery Resources


Treatment Options Listing

Addiction Recovery for the Deaf


McAlister Institute - Signs of Life

F.E.G.S. (formerly New York Society for the Deaf)

Deaf Addiction Services

Family Services Foundation

Signs of Sobriety

Substance and Alcohol Intervention Society for the Deaf

Substance Abuse & Dependence Bibliography

Western Region Outreach Center & Consortia


Northwest Deaf Addiction Center

Deaf and Hard of Hearing AA Recovery Resources

Terminological Inexactitude

I love this phrase, "terminological inexactitude." It doesn't quite roll off of your tongue but it's not really a tongue twister, either. It's a phrase coined by a genius Winston Churchill which is basically about a play on words in the effort to imply certain things. A tactical misrepresentation done on purpose. In short, making an outright lie, sort of, when you know it isn't true. It's making a charge but purposely being fuzzy about it but an appeal to emotion instead. Kind of like when a deaf person calls another deaf person using the popular a-wordism over and over but not use any specific names. Even words like "deficit thinkers," too. Or "colonialized." Just gets nutty when that happens. An example of a terminological inexactitude of a Deaf person against Deaf/deaf/hh people is to say that certain "hearing impaired misguided colonialized bloggers to mislead the public that my ambition should be suppressed."

Repeat, rinse often, and hope that people will actually believe what you say.

It's the overuse of certain words in the effort to create an emotional appeal. Here's one non-deaf example:

'The [Israeli]deputy defence minister said the stepped-up rocket fire would trigger what he called a "bigger holocaust" in the Hamas-controlled coastal strip.'

If you don't recognize it it's the overuse and intentional misapplication of the word "holocaust."  An appeal to emotion through the misapplication of a word and to make it appear bigger than it really not. Kind of like using Godwin's law. The author makes a good point here further into his blog.

Terminological inexactitude is bad for all of us. It helps to persuade stupid people of wrong things, often intentionally.

Ambition is one thing but to constantly use terminological inexactitude on anything that moves in order to achieve a certain amount of persuasion over Deaf/deaf/hh people isn't the answer.  There is no misleading the public if the answer is to provide parents all of the necessary information about their child with a hearing loss (which could be in one or both ears) regarding communication, language, and educational options.  Yet, the bottom line is that no one community, including the Deaf community, owns babies with hearing loss. The deaf or hard of hearing child belongs ONLY to the parents and it is they who make the final, and hopefully, informed decision on what to do next. They hold the trump card. Not you. Not me. Not them. But the parents.

Get used to that concept. This is the 2010's and beyond, not the 1950's.