Deaf Zombie Walk 2011

Aaargghh! They are alive! Er...dead! Um, well, they're deaf zombies practicing their zombie walk for charity at the 2011 Flint Zombie Walk.

Deaf Zombies Invade Halloween!

Happy Halloween and welcome to the night of the deaf zombies. Be wary of mindless deaf zombie professors roaming the haunted hallways of schools seeking fresh brains and flesh for they are bereft of it. Once sane professors of higher learning succumbed to the ravages of the zombie virus leaving them as mindless zombie professors yearning for real fresh brains for some reason.  Like this one here.

But people continually ask do deaf zombies exist? Where are they? Why aren't they included? That's the real question on Halloween night. Yet we see evidence of deaf zombies roaming aimlessly unaware of their very own empty existence but a desire for fresh flesh to sustain their ravenous appetites.



In the end of the video the professor gets attacked by his own deaf zombie students who will soon join the mindless cadre of deaf zombies. Call that irony.  But do we see evidence of deaf zombie professors? Yes! They do exist!

Be careful of them. Zombiehood isn't exactly a desirable trait to have when your brain turns to Swiss cheese.

Happy Halloween! Boo!

If you want a real scare next year, be sure to visit the Nightmare Factory at Oregon School for the Deaf located in Salem. A haunted entertainment with the help of the popular tv show Extreme Makeover (see video of that show here).



DISCLAIMER: Zombies do not exist. They are fictional imagination of the human mind despite the rising popularity of zombies in movies, tv shows, games and haunted showings and it being a $5.7 billion dollars a year business enterprise. All zombie characters in this blog and videos are in fact real human beings playing as zombies. Of course, you knew that. Right?

Anybody for Zombie Monopoly game for some mindless fun? I promise you it won't cost you $656 dollars. 

Successful Deaf/HH Entrepreneurs

Successful deaf and hard of hearing entrepreneurs. The numbers are few and far in between but they are out there if you look hard enough. What gets me excited is seeing successful, legitimate, ethical businesses run by deaf and hard of hearing entrepreneurs whether they know sign language or not. It becomes an even greater excitement if you personally know someone running a successful business and watched it grow from the very beginning. I don't say this often or make it apparent but there is a certain satisfaction on seeing deaf and hard of hearing entrepreneurs struggle after many years of hard work, the long hours they put in coming to fruition on the horizon and beyond when their businesses finally take off in a big way.

That's the American dream. But it ain't all that easy.

Approximately 50 percent of new businesses go out of business within 5 years in a good economy. The reason for failure is many.  It's even harder for deaf and hard of hearing owned businesses to survive beyond the first 5 year and I would consider a company a success if they survive beyond the 5 year magic mark.  Though nowadays it's harder still for any businesses to survive in our current recession economy when everybody is cutting back to save money.  So, it was a nice surprise seeing an article when RIT/NTID their first Deaf Entrepreneurs Roundtable Panel discussion last year in the effort to help uncover keys to successful deaf entrepreneurship.

The panel discussion, “Deaf and Hard of Hearing Entrepreneurs—Living the Dream,” explored a multitude of issues related to deaf entrepreneurship. The panel consisted of eight deaf and hard-of-hearing entrepreneurs from around the country who shared their keys to success and explained some of the challenges that they encountered along the way.

With the advantage of technology today communication is made possible between entrepreneurs regardless of communication preference as they share many common grounds than not. It's a great idea to bring together deaf and hard of hearing entrepreneurs to discuss ways to survive running a business and make it a successful one.  By learning from each other businesses can leverage those knowledge to better compete in a tough market dominated mostly by hearing people and businesses. So, it's hard to get the deserved recognition.

A coveted spot for any new businesses would to be featured in INC Magazine top 500 fastest growing private company. Although very, very few deaf or hard of hearing owned businesses ever get featured in INC Magazine such as Keen Guides whose owner was one of the RIT/NTID Deaf Entrepreneurs Roundtable Panel members in 2010. One key to recognizance is for a business to be a "game changer." You have a particular technology or business model that fits what it appears to be a niche market but only to find out it's really a much bigger market once the idea takes off by fulfilling a demand. Inclusivity is the key in many business models in the deaf/hh -owned businesses. Inclusivity is a rather large market need to fill when you have 36 million people with hearing loss in the United States who typically do not have the same type of access and enjoyment that hearing people have.

Company: Keen Guides In 2004, Catherine McNally — deaf since she was 8 months old — was at a museum and asked for an alternative to the audio tour… only to be handed a 50-page manuscript. Talk about an “aha” moment. Today, her company makes mobile tours available on iTunes that use captions and American Sign Language; there are currently 136 tours available in Seattle, New Orleans and the Washington, DC, area, among others. While funding is pending, McNally is charging full-speed ahead with plans to reach 1,111 sites across the US by November.

The Message: “I am using my work to bring greater awareness for inclusive accessibility in cultural tourism,” McNally says. www.keenguides.com.

This is what I've always advocated, the need for inclusiveness for all people, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people regardless of communication preference.  There is no feeling of inclusiveness when you watch a video that isn't captioned or subtitled (that can be done by capable people and without much effort versus those who refuse on ideological grounds) and instead gets handed a transcript of that video whether it's done with voice or sign language. There are a few deaf and hard of hearing businesses that I'm aware of who had that "Ah ha" moment and decided to make a business out of it. A time when everything makes sense to risk it because no one else thought of it before on the need to make it work. What makes many deaf and hard of hearing owned businesses successful is their fulfillment of the need for deaf and hard of hearing customers and clients to feel included because they know exactly how they feel.  And that, my friends, is a potential multi-billion dollar market place with 36 million people with hearing loss in the United States.  The question is, how can you tap into that potential?

Hiding behind the "entertainment" claim

Interesting blog piece but yet again an overtly (and obvious) personal one under the guise as being simply a fictional, "entertainment" blog piece. And the obvious effort to twist the story a bit under the guise as a "fictional story." Strange, huh?  I've addressed this before in a similar vein. Others have addressed it as well recognizing such writings as personal in nature simply because of the nature of targeting individuals under the guise as an "entertainment venue."  

Deafread is an aggregator site and not explicitly for "entertainment purposes" as people should already know. The owners developed DeafRead as a way to allow everyone a voice, including mine, for those who sign up.

One central reason for developing DeafRead is that Jared and I wanted to empower the deaf community; we wanted to allow everyone a voice, a place where people could speak out. 

I am one of those voices. They make a key point in Deafread about the purpose of its aggregator, note the bold.

An aggregator simply gathers posts; it does not mean we support or reject the content within each post. We don't censor blogs based on the bloggers' opinions. We publish everything as long as it is deaf-related and satisfies the guidelines. 

So, this "Deaf Anthology" blog appears to satisfy Deafread's guidelines. And that's fine. At least have the cojones to admit that what was written was essentially personal in nature instead of hiding behind a disclaimer that blogs written were simply fictional in nature or for "entertainment venue". Deaf Anthology, if you have an actual, real, bonafide complaint, then take it up with Deafread.

UPDATE: Again, if you have a real, bonafide complaint, take it up with Deafread instead of relying on fictional blogs. Secondly, understand that Deafread never made any promise of taking anyone to some "promise land" but rather an aggregator site to give voice to all sides. Plus, they even put up a disclaimer.

"DeafRead does not endorse any of the blogs by the mere act of publishing."

 Learn to agree to disagree.

Thought of the day: Double standards

There is no "anti-deafhood." Just that we have no interest in such a concept and certainly don't care for these fanaticism and pushiness by means of peer pressure in order to get people to conform to their DH. They play the games of double standards. Their words betray their actions. And their actions betray their words. We prefer to accept diversity as it is and keep things simple without all of the utter nonsense.

MTVU at Gallaudet - the next brouhaha..ha ha?

It was an interesting beginning episode of the new MTVU tv reality series "Quiet Campus: Welcome to Gallaudet." Four Gallaudet University students introduced themselves in the show.  All of them came from mainstreamed schools. Two of them were strongly oral, a third one a late deafened student who lost her hearing while as a hearing child due to chemotheraphy who described herself as "deaf with a splash of hearing," and a fourth one described himself as a gay latino with "three strikes against him" (i.e. deaf, gay and latino). It was a nice video introduction and a way to show the world what Gallaudet University is like. Although there seems to be a bit of mild "brouhaha" going on with the complaint that the show was missing a "culturally Deaf ASL-using students be a part of the cast." Sure, why not. Although I'm not making a big deal out of it. Nor am I making a big deal of Taylor who described herself as "deaf with a splash of hearing" (i.e. hard of hearing). She's simply being with herself. I've no desire to make any kind of judgement against her or the cast based on their upbringing or what school they went to. Or how they describe themselves as. They are students of Gallaudet University and are representatives of that school and the Deaf community. Also, just because a deaf person went to a mainstreamed school does not necessarily mean they're not culturally deaf. A lot of that depends on their background and their primary means of communication among themselves.

Perhaps people should be asking the hard questions. Who did MTVU consult with at Gallaudet University about the selection process for their new reality show? Somebody inside at Gallaudet University administration had to know about the upcoming MTVU show beforehand before giving their approval. Was there any consultation at all? Were recommendations given on how to select the students? Who were involved? How were the cast members selected by MTVU? What were the criteria for the selection? And so on. Instead of targeting those four students who described themselves as mainstream students at one time.

Double Dog Dare You!

It is just fascinating to hear comments every now and then through the grapevines that gets filtered down to me in my emails about the few Deaf people who continually dismiss me as someone who is supposedly angry at the Deaf community for "not accepting me." Or that I'm "lonely" which is funny because whenever I opine strongly or present facts on certain deaf-related issues in my blogs (or vlogs) do they resort to this sort of low ball approach of attacking instead of making cogent arguments. Whenever a loss for words they go for the guns and call me an "extremist" something ..something.. whatever. It's like them playing the race card over and over and over because that is  their only response they have left in the cards thinking it's a cogent argument.

Deaf community does not accept me?

How droll and laughable that argument has become lately.

Why? Well, looking back it's funny because the term "Deaf community" has always meant the culturally deaf community. That has always been the defined framework for years in the attempt to instill that message so far ingrained it can only mean "culturally deaf people" (Padden, Carol; Tom Humphries (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture) and nothing else.

Nowadays you have some Deaf people trying to move the goal post in their desperate bid to concoct a new meaning of the term "D"eaf as to also include people with all kinds of hearing loss whether they are hearing aid users, cochlear implant users, oral deaf, SEE users, cued speech users, late deafened (and not "latened" deaf, folks!), implantable hearing aid users, and anybody with mild to profound hearing loss. In other words, their newly made up term "D"eaf people would apply to the 36 million people with hearing loss in the United States. Using the argument that I am "angry" because the "Deaf community" hasn't accepted me becomes even sillier worthy of a joke or two. It simply becomes a losing argument! Wait til I show this to my Deaf, deaf, hh and hearing Facebook friends and fans of my blog and ask them why they have not "accepted me" for who I am.

Note the sarcasm.

Let's suppose they keep the original intended meaning of the term "D"eaf that Deaf people have
worked so hard to define over the last 25 years (see Padden, Carol; Tom Humphries (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture) to mean "culturally deaf people" and apply that term in "Deaf community" with all of its intended meaning.

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture.  The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society.  We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.

 Fine. Except that using the same argument that I am "angry at the Deaf community" for not
"accepting me" fails miserably as well because it would indicate a "members only" mentality based on sign language and culture. I have many Deaf friends (old and new ones, even the ones from NTID) that I keep track of in my Facebook and Deaf people I don't know well enough who simply accept and support me for who I am. They are part of the Deaf community. In other words, I see no evidence of their rejection of me.  In all actuality, the whole rejection notion comes from the very few Deaf people who simply have a beef with me and don't like me. Pretty straight forward and obvious. Heck, even Tayler Mayer doesn't reject me and that's a whole lotta Deaf community behind him with his DeafRead and DVTV communities which continues to grow and thrive despite the failed walkout.

Bottom line, we simply accept each other for who we are. I feel no rejection from the "Deaf community" as a whole, folks. Sorry to disappoint the few "unfans."

If that's not the "Deaf community" context in mind then perhaps it's using the "Gallaudet University as the Deaf community" argument since I did go there from 1988 to 1991 in only 3 1/2 short years graduating with a bachelor degree in mathematics. Even using that argument fails on so many levels because a good portion of my Deaf friends were the ones I met while at Gallaudet University. Heck, I even got kudos from Deaf people sitting in the audience (and on the panel) after I did my verbal speech presentation at the first ever blog/vlog (see video of my presentation at 1:25 to 1:42 with an ASL interpreter) conference at Gallaudet University, including comments in my blog offering praise and kudos from the very people in the Deaf community.  It was an honor that Jill Bradbury at Gallaudet University selected me along with several other bloggers/vloggers to attend the conference. She left an astute comment in my blog about diversity.

Mike - I thought it took a lot of confidence to stand up and speak during your panel. By doing so, you helped the conference make a strong statement about embracing diversity in the deaf community. Waving hands! At dinner someone said to me that you are supporting the deaf community in a really valuable way through your interest in technology. Thanks for keeping us informed! Jill.Bradbury | 02.04.07 - 1:28 pm |

It's all about embracing diversity. I accept people with hearing loss regardless of their background, regardless of whether they know sign language or not. The same goes on their acceptance of me for who I am regardless of my communication preferences or background. I just go about a different way of interacting with people of various backgrounds and communication preferences. Something that few seem to not understand.

It's one thing to disagree with a person's opinion but an entirely another realm of fantasy to use a piss poor claim of my being "angry" because the Deaf community "rejected" me as a substitute argument.  Having several Deaf people who don't like me or reject me do not make a "Deaf community."

Gawrsh! *kicks a pebble*

This whole blog piece was precipitated when I looked back on some old comments that were a few years old on somebody else's blog. A few Deaf people actually  "double dog" or "triple dog" dared me to sign in my own video believing I couldn't sign and I was simply a helpless ol "orally." And, of course, the rest was history once I did that. But then they complained even more because of my opinionated signed vlogs both in the signed and spoken format (along with my own subtitles).  Got to laugh at the irony when it comes to diversity and accessibility. How about if I do a "double dog" dare to those same people and ask them to add subtitles in their own signed vlogs? No, make that a triple dog dare! I bet dollars to donuts they won't.

A Poll: How much money you are willing to spend on technology for better work potential?

For deaf and hard of hearing people, how much money are you willing to spend on technology to ensure a better career path, business opportunities and/or promotion potential?

Transgressing the hate and negativity

It was interesting to watch Ryan Comerson's uncaptioned video "Transgressing the Object: The Laboratory" about, ironically, education (i.e. pedagogy). I say ironically because his video wasn't captioned and noting he was only willing to reach out to the potential 0.05 percent of the U.S. population in his effort to "educate" people by sharing his opinions to those who may be interested on such issues. And by reaching out to the interested group which would drop the potential number down to perhaps 0.01 percent (0.0001) of the U.S population, namely the many in the Deaf community. 

Back to topic.

Each person's experience is different. My upbringing was based on positive reinforcement and support from my parents that helped make the optimistic person today. I believe there are always something better or something good that will come out of our own experiences and learn when things do not work as expected. I've also learned to be patient because results take time, even if it means taking a lifetime to see the end result.

Growing up I've never liked people with pessimistic attitudes. I noticed when people behave like that, they generally feel insecure about themselves and tend to lash out at people succumbing to their own emotions and use words as their weapons.  Sometimes subconsciously find ways to drag other people down to their level thinking "If I'm feeling negative, others should, too." The key lay in growing up in a good household with a good positive, parental support system in place. Sure there were negative experiences but the key is that positive experiences outweigh the negative helping to instill those optimistic attitudes. It is also good to be the non-conformist peppered with independent and critical thinking skills. Having said that, I'm not discounting those whose own experiences were much different from mine that could have been much more drastic. I'm just pointing out that laying a good positive foundation is key for a more optimistic approach in life instead of living the life as a "drama queen" at every stage of his or her life passing out ad hominems like candies on Halloween night. Whenever I see that happens, it makes me wonder on just how happy or satisfied they are with their life.  Even to the point of screeching "Where is OUR money going?" having the audacity and pure ego to think all money donated to deafness organizations ought to be going to "Deaf-centered" organizations because it's "OUR" money. Oh, really? Not saying that Commerson is that person or doing that. He has the right to opine in his own way with some valid points but the problem is the heavy wet blanket conspiracy to lay blame at everything that moves instead of acknowledging and holding accountable some of their own actions. The conspiratorial flag can be seen waving prominently in the first paragraph of his part II article when he wrote a mouthful:

The white supremacist audist capitalist patriarchy education-as-a-banking system hegemony has long since incapacitated our children.

I understand the need to buck the system once in awhile but I just have a different approach and see things differently rather than laying it on thick such pessimistic attitudes laced with the "woe-is-me" approaches. That's just me. I like positive boot-strappers who strive for inclusiveness. But I think what Commerson was trying to say in one part of his video is the need to challenge the educational system by giving greater power to over to students and encourage them to develop their own critical thinking skills.  A need to develop and think for themselves. Sure, and I agree. I asked a LOT of questions when I was a kid at school and never once did teachers stop me from asking those questions. We were encouraged to do so. People need to ask questions and think for themselves rather than pay homage in a prostrate position bowing to people without thinking (i.e. gullible). Today, that's exactly what I'm doing now in my blog by thinking for myself using the power of critical thinking. However, the problem seems to be he is essentially blaming everything as the source of the problem without going into details as to why, which ones, and how exactly but in glossed over generalities.

Ryan Commerson used a quote from Paulo Freire, who wrote "Pedagogy of the Oppressed":

“One cannot expect positive results from an educational or political action program which fails to respect the particular view of the world held by the people. Such a program constitutes cultural invasion, good intentions notwithstanding.”

I find it quite ironic when Freire noted that one cannot expect positive results from an education or political action program in terms of hegemony because whenever people reach a certain level of power and control they may find themselves doing the same thing to other people when given the chance. We see hegemony in all walks of life, including some in the Deaf community as a subset of a larger culture on practicing oppression. The key is to have a more open society approach than a closed one because technology continues to increasingly close the communication gaps between deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people.

With my own independent, critical thinking approach I see differently the views on a variety of sensitive topics on deafness which has earned me much scorn from some Deaf people only because I'm the guy who usually throws a monkey wrench into their way of thinking. Instead of agreeing to disagree do they resort to openly call me names thinking its a winning argument. I've been shown pictures of the double bird shots with the crossed eye looks aimed at me on their own blogsite only to have it quickly taken down which was an indication that their arguments were purely based on emotion rather than approaching it from the view as a hearty debate.

I've said several years ago at the beginning of my blog in 2004 moving forward that technology would be the key to help close that communication gap with hearing people and provide alternative approaches to those who may have a different look on what deaf/hh people are capable of. I repeated my technology mantra during my verbal speech (see my video at time stamp from 1:25 to 1:42 with ASL interpreter) at Gallaudet University's vlog/blog conference in early 2007 and how technology could help easily spread and preserve sign language. I still believe it's true today that technology is key to our own separate individual successes such as CART, implantable hearing aids, cochlear implants, digital hearing aids, face to face communication technologies, video phone on laptops, video phone on cell phones, email, blogs, vlogs, remote interpreters, speech to text capabilities on smart phones for non-texters,  ASL interpreters (relay calls) via smart phones, more CC shows, easier capability to add subtitles to your own videos, speech to text recognition on videos (e.g. YouTube), including more FM induction loops in public places, and many more down the road not yet seen developed or incorporated widely. I'm the ever so optimistic person with never a dour moment. In order to educate people, one must remain positive. The moment you go dour and go negative by making it personal is the moment when judgement gets clouded.

I've always believed that the best voice to show to the world is simply to show the end result of what we're capable of rather than resort to attacking individuals, companies, or organizations and make it personal. Leaders need to lead and be accommodating to others and hold to a higher ethical standard when it comes to accountability instead of hiding behind the facade of "leading from behind" that serves only as crutch and an excuse.

Leading from behind....

The phrase "leading from behind" essentially means to let others do the work or "thrive" and thus allow the "leader" to abrogate certain responsibilities and, most importantly, have less accountability when the crap finally hits the fan. We have seen this happen again and again seen in email exchanges, YouTube videos, Facebook, blogs, community forums, school gatherings, and so on. Such certain "leaders" in the Deaf community who insist they are not leaders but are merely "leading from behind" face a conundrum when many followers see them as leaders of their community. They look up to them for guidance and sense of responsibility from them.

Yet, we've seen the consequences of "leading from behind" by encouraging others do the dirty works. We've seen what happens when people were encouraged or suggested at the behest of their "leaders" to call on CPS on other people they don't like, call their employers, or provide sensitive information online for the public to see in order to harass and intimidate people for having alternative opinions because of their blogs or vlogs, or simply having a strong opinion of things that goes against their very grain.  There's a danger in allowing that to happen when you have groups of people running amok you cannot control. Having no control as result of "leading from behind" gives those "leaders" free and clear accountability but yet followers still follow their every words.  Never having the need to issue apologies for any misunderstanding or miscommunication. Never needing to apologize on the followers' behalf for such transgressions. Never having the humility to apologize to others when fault is clearly seen. 

"Leading from behind" from a social aspect is simply a crutch to avoid any accountability and responsibility to those who follow. It becomes an ego of mass proportion. We can only sit in amazement on how certain events have continually unfold before us over the years because of that so-called "leadership role" but in actually it has become a leaderless movement with no accountability built in. 

Members of DVTV

Seems like there's a misconception about the word "members" by a few people out there and what it means when used in the form like "members of DVTV." There's a YouTube video floating around (won't say who in order to save this guy some embarrassment) where one guy tries to explain by saying "I'm a member of DVTV" is incorrect and proceeded to explain because "member" means you pay to be a part of a club or group. Well, I'm sorry but there is no such thing the term "member" means payment is required in order to become a member. The word "member" does not imply a payment of any kind in order to become a "member." No such thing. It simply means that a person belongs to a group, a club, political party or an organization. Any joining of a group or such means you become a member of that group. There are membership fees in order to become a member. Or one can join a group and become  a member of that group and not pay anything.  You are born as a member of your family, for example. Or a member of a political party, a high school band, a clan, a tribe, a "no girls allowed tree house club," and so on.

And so by saying "member of DVTV" or "members of DVTV" is absolutely appropriate (and correct) to describe membership of an organization or a group. To the person in question, you might want to remove that video or else a double face palm will be the result.

A professional patriotic purveyor of highly entertaining and informative blogging

Sometimes you have to laugh on what goes on in some deaf people's minds when it comes to even the simplest of things in my own blogs such as the word "purveyor" seen at the top of my blog.

Kokonut Pundit, a nationally known professional patriotic purveyor of highly entertaining and informative blogging.

For those who don't know, "purveyor" is defined as "a person or business that sells or provides something" such as "a purveyor of kitchen supplies." The word "purveyor" is a noun. In my blog I provide highly entertaining and informative blogging. The noun "purveyor" stems from the word "purvey" which means "to make available" or "to supply or provide (something) for use" such as to "purvey information." It's a verb. I am a purveyor of highly entertaining and informative blogging. In short, I provide highly entertaining and informative blogging.

Remember, kiddies, "purveyor" is a noun that describes a person who "purveys" (a verb) or provides something.

For example, my phrase was borrowed (and modified slightly) from one of my favorite ragtime website (I love playing ragtime piano, of course) whose own phrasing goes like this:

"Professional Patriotic Purveyor of Pianistic Pyrotechnics"

I loved the quirky and funny phrasing so much that I modified it to suit my blog. It'd be awfully silly (not to mention extremely stupid) to conclude that "purveyor" means "to lie" when in fact "purveyor" is a noun to begin with.  The "lie" charge came from this dictionary on "purveyor" thinking it means to "spread lies" which is not the case since the key thing is a person's action (verb) that describes the person's doing such as "spreads," "repeats" or "sells";

 purveyor [pəˈveɪə]

n

1. (often plural) a person, organization, etc., that supplies food and provisions

2. a person who spreads, repeats, or sells (information, lies, etc.)

3. a person or thing that habitually provides or supplies a particular thing or quality a purveyor of humour

4. (Historical Terms) History an officer providing or exacting provisions, lodging, etc., for a sovereign

I spread, provide or repeat information in my blogs. In short, I purvey information, opinions, and even funny commentaries in my blogs.

Now, somebody seriously needs to go back and re-take English 101. But I'm sure somebody out there will soon enough get inspired by the word "purveyor" and twist it some more out of hate or malice. If not, maybe a simple inspiration would be the result. Who knows? Let the fun begin!

Seven year anniversary of Kokonut Pundit

Tomorrow, on October 22, 2011, will be my 7th anniversary for my Kokonut Pundit blog. Seven years of continuous blogging. This blog is blog number 1,880. Last year's anniversary I had 1,609 blogs. This year's anniversary will have a count of 1,880 blogs. That's 279 blogs later, an increase over 198 blogs I did from 2009 - 2010, increasing my average to 0.75 blog/day. With those numbers in place I can say with confidence that I'm the one of most prolific deaf/hh blogger around with Kokonut Pundit being the most blogged blogsite ever for a deaf/hh blogger. And the most long lived deaf/hh blogger as well who continuously blogged since October 2004 (with one break lasting 4 months or so). No other deaf/hh blogs come close on the number of blogs I've produced nor the staying power.

Tomorrow Kokonut Pundit will enter its 8th year. I'm looking forward to new milestones such as my 2,000th blog and my one millionth hit with 71,000+ hits to go as seen on my Sitemeter (currently at 928,000+ hits).  Year 2005 and 2006 were big years for me on the number of hits upping my number quite substantially because of links to my blogs from well known political bloggers. Those were exciting times. It's been fun and I continue to blog the many stories and opinions of mine whether it relates to deafness issues or opinions of the day. I like to thank the readers and visitors who enjoy reading my blogs made this possible. Keep coming. And thank you! 

I would like to take the time to dedicate this blog to my mother-in-law who passed away yesterday after an extended illness. She never read my blog but her soul lives on in heaven with her son, Kevin. Bless her soul and wonderful memory.

The big boat

I've maintained the same outlook and philosophy on not needing a label to describe people with hearing loss from mild to profound and their own personal journey well before I began blogging. I made that clear in July 2006 and it is still true today:

- Basically it boils down to common sense knowing that we all go through, including hearing people, our own self-awareness discovery process as part of our journey. Self-discovery about one's own deafness or hearing loss doesn't mean the person will be led into a Deaf culture life......

- I’ve always accepted deaf and hard of hearing people for who they are and not worry about their background, signing abilities, the ability to speak or hear, or what have you. It didn’t matter to me. But to others, in many instances, did matter a lot.

- I just simply accept people for who they are since we're all basically in the same boat when it comes to equal access issues, legal rights and the narrowing of our communication gaps with hearing people and vice versa.

With that philosophy in mind the overloaded dinghy in tow is in danger of capsizing while one heavy person continues to feed himself ego, hatefulness, jealousy, fear, politics and political correctness. The eating continues to slowly weigh down the little dinghy ever more so. Sailing on the larger and studier ship are people with their own private and personal journey who don't care for the same food of politics but recognize each other for who they are. There's no denying their journeys. There's no denial in my journey or my deafness or who I am. My journey involves many things which is deeply personal to begin with. No labels. None of the politically correct terminologies but simply a journey of self discovery covering many things.

For hearing people only........

My wife and I had a good time at Deaf Nation in Portland recently this Sunday where we caught up with friends, especially seeing one of my dear friend I haven't seen in person for 19 years. It was unexpected and we surprised each other by literally bumping into each other. It was great chatting with my friend catching up and swapping stories with my wife and friends. Even Joel Barish came by and chatted with me and my wife, and our friends at the table. Interesting information from Joel on how he handles jet lags. I won't tell you what it is. You'll have to ask him.

Met Ron Rice, the famous NTID swimmer, who was introduced to me because of my blog by another NTID alumnus I know:

Ron Rice was the first All-American in RIT swimming history, placing in the 200-yard freestyle at the 1974-75 NCAA Championship. He repeated a year later as part of the 400-yard freestyle relay. The first National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) student to earn All-American plaudits, the native of Warren, Mich. won 82 of 85 races during a brilliant career. He led the team in scoring all four seasons and was Most Valuable Swimmer four times. He served as tri-captain in 1976-77. Rice also set nine school records. Equally impressive are his 16 world records and 12 Gold Medals at the World Games for the Deaf. He was named World Deaf Athlete of the Year and American Athletic Association of the Deaf Athlete of the Year in 1973. Twice he was NTID Male Athlete of the Year.

Ron told me about my blog and how he reads it on occasion and even commented on it a few times. He enjoys reading it. Said that people need to understand and respect other people's opinions. I agree.  Nice to meet a gold medalist! Great chat.

Also, I met and sat down with Miriam Richards who is also very good friend of my friend (that I just bumped into after 19 years) which I didn't know. If you don't recognize the name Miriam Richards she is the person who is attempting to be the first deaf person to climb the 50 highest peaks in the United States. She has a book that came out earlier this year called "Highpoint of Persistence: The Miriam Richards Story."  Sounds like a very interesting and adventurous book to read! Might want to take a look at it.

Oh, about the title, I thought it would get your attention. But it's funny what people think of me just because of my blog. I'm certainly not surprised on what some people think or believe about me.  I can only shake my head at their sad misinformation just because of hate that blind them to say such things.

Sarah Churman's audiogram

I said previously that in time we'll know more about Sarah's hearing loss and that people need to keep an open mind about her and the YouTube video that went viral with more than 7.9 million views. That helped produce a 150 percent jump in sales inquiries for the hearing aide company Envoy Medical with more to come for Envoy Medical and Sarah Churman as well (note the bold).

Sixteen days ago 29-year-old Sarah Churman posted a video of herself hearing her voice loud and clear for the first time after being implanted with Envoy Medical’s Esteem device. The video went viral, sales have spiked and Churman and Envoy have shared the spotlight on The Today Show, Ellen DeGeneres, Fox and Friends, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta, among others. The story was also covered on 150 local television stations, and the media attention keeps coming: MSNBC will be doing a story at Churman’s house.

Envoy already spends around $8 million to $10 million a year on radio advertising with announcers including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage. Company CEO Patrick Spearman said as a result of the video big-name celebrities have approached Envoy about getting the device. Spearman thinks that development could lead to television appearances as well as television advertising.

In short, it was a good deal for Envoy Medical to help re-imburse Sarah the $30,000 she spent on the hearing aid implant and will cover for free for Sarah's second implant for her other ear. The viral video was after all basically free advertising for the company's product.

A few days ago Sarah answered a few questions of her own in her own blog. Today, more questions were answered regarding the many complaints saying the whole video was fixed, for example.

In addition to an increase in media exposure and sales, the video also led to a lot of skepticism. Critical anonymous online commenters accused Envoy of creating the video as a marketing strategy. Envoy has posted around 20 to 25 similar videos themselves in the past, though none of them had the same impact as Churman’s.

Did Envoy have something to do with it?

“Absolutely not,” Spearman said. “It was a surprise to us.”

Churman’s husband posted it to YouTube “thinking his family and friends would watch it and people were so touched by it that all of a sudden it went viral,” Spearman said.

Envoy Medical has since given Churman a free device for her other ear.

“It’s basically a reimbursement for her time,” Spearman said, pointing out that she’s been flying all over the country for television appearances.

That's what I said, too, about how the video was meant for her family and didn't expect it to go viral.

And then you have the doubts that Sarah could not be deaf (well, she is, so get over it) only because she speaks so clearly or how she could hear her own voice for the first time because, darn it, it's an impossibility!

“The definition of deaf is somewhat of a range,” Spearman said. “If you have a severe hearing loss, you’re considered deaf, anything over a 70 decibel loss.

“The skepticism, you’re always going to have people who are skeptical but the reason is because she said I heard my voice for the first time. Well, what she heard was her real voice, the same way you and I hear our own voice. She could hear something [before]. Not a lot, and not very well, but she could hear tones and sounds or she wouldn’t be able to speak. And that’s where this came from, people saying, ‘Well, she’s not deaf.’

“Well, it’s just a matter of semantics and how you define deaf, but she basically has a severe hearing loss because I’ve obviously seen her audiogram. She had a 70 to 75 decibel loss at 1500 to 2000 hertz, and that’s a severe hearing loss.”

Not the full detail of her audiogram but I'm happy with it though I didn't feel the need to question her so harshly or unnecessarily.

There you have it folks. Pretty much all in a nutshell with most questions answered. She's deaf. She can speak really well.  The viral video isn't a fake and was never a ploy set up by Envoy Medical. And she can finally hear very well with the help of her new implantable hearing aid.

Time for people to move on and stop speculating and nitpicking, and be happy for Sarah just for once. Welcome her with open arms.

Refusing to subtitle your own videos

One of the lamest excuses for a deaf or hard of hearing person to say regarding their own videos is the refusal to subtitle their own videos (whether it's voice or signing) until a good majority of videos in YouTube gets captioned or subtitled by their own authors. The funny thing is that the best way to spread awareness is to include subtitles in your own videos. Doing that tells other people that you are for inclusiveness for those who cannot hear, understand the spoken words or understand signs. Recently today, on the John Tracy Clinic Facebook page it had a historical JTC video in it that was up but had no captions or subtitles to it. I responded by saying there's no captions. A quick reply was given saying they don't have the resource or time to add subtitles. I then wrote a quick response that was respectful in nature.

I caption my videos I put on my blog by listening to it. I need anywhere from an hour to three hours of my own time depending on the length of the video whether it's my own personal video or something else. I use Overstream (or physically add the captions for my own videos), for example, http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2010/10/matt-hamill-post-fight-video-interview.html, a video I captioned last year. And my video tribute to JTC (http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2010/09/video-tribute-to-john-tracy-clinic.html ).

Yet I'm hard of hearing (moderate-severe) and I took the time to do this by myself because my main audience are mostly deaf and hard of hearing. I know what it's like to be left out, so why would I do that to them even though I can understand the spoken words?

It'd be better to have video captioned first and have it ready to go rather than doing it later. Otherwise, it'd give the appearance of not caring first for people with hearing loss their consideration when it comes to accessibility. It'd be better to caption first in light of the organization's connection and name. Not doing so only serve an ironic reminder on the lack of inclusion.

Let's not use excuses and include everyone whenever a video first comes out by JTC using whatever medium format (e.g. Facebook, JTC website, YouTube, etc.).

Respectfully yours. Mike

Needless to say that video on JTC Facebook disappeared 10 minutes later. I hope they understood my  message on making sure any videos put out are to be captioned. Not to be mean but just showing them the futility in trying to use the "no time" or "no resource" excuse when it comes to adding subtitles to a video. It's very easy nowadays. Nothing complex about it all. All I had to do was prove to them that including subtitles in a video does not take a whole lot of time and resources. I used my own subtitled videos as examples to prove my very point! They relented and removed the video and the comments that went with it.

I include captions/subtitles to my spoken videos but in videos where I signed in a video called "Professionalism or name calling? knowing full well I'd have an audience that do not know sign language. This includes hearing parents of deaf/hh babies! Regardless, this is the surest way to reach the widest number of people out there in YouTube land. Barry Sewell finally saw that light last year and began including captions to all of his signed videos with his first Open Letter to NAD and the Community on June 9, 2010. He has been one of the most prolific signing vloggers out there and among the very, very few who include captions. Adding subtitles to his videos are a guarantee that his videos can be watched by both signers and non-signers alike.  Barry Sewell now has a huge edge over those who refuses to include subtitles to their own signing videos. If one thinks about it, 99.9% of the U.S. population does not know sign language. By including English subtitles to a signed video will ensure a capability of a captioned video to reach a majority of the U.S. population because it then becomes completely watchable.

If you have the means and capability to include subtitles or captions you should do so. Using the excuse as a reason to not include subtitles because you're waiting for the rest of the English speaking population to include their subtitles becomes a very lame one. It simply becomes a cop out excuse and a way to conveniently avoid doing any additional legwork for your signed videos and that you purposely discriminate because of a stupid ideology.  For Barry and I, we don't think of it as doing extra legwork but rather the huge opportunity and potential to reach a much larger and wider non-signing population which amounts to potentially several tens of millions of people in the U.S. alone not counting many more countries outside of the U.S. who know the English language. Remember, I said "potential" and not that the figure I gave is the actual number people will watch. I encourage those who sign in their own videos who have the capability and the means to include subtitles to consider that opportunity. Inclusiveness goes both ways. Let's not be selfish about it and let stupidity be your answer. 

But to focus on a very, very, very small segment of the Deaf community which amounts to potentially some 600,000 (maybe less or more) Deaf people, your non-subtitled signing videos would only reach a fraction of that 600,000 number because about half of those people are adults or older teens who can watch, and then you have an even smaller number of people who even bother or have an interest going onto the internet to watch YouTube videos or even visit DVTV (which btw continues to thrive despite a miserably failed boycott against it) and watch those signed videos.

All in all you have a potential Deaf audience of maybe 50,000 to 100,000 vs a potential audience if you include English subtitles to your signing videos will go up to perhaps several tens of millions of English speaking audience that actively use the internet.  I'm just guessing on the potential side of things but assuredly the number is much, much larger on the English speaking/listening side than the signing side. No one can dispute that one bit.

So, which signing message do you think will have a better chance of getting out to the wider audience? A signed video with no subtitless, or a signed video with subtitles?  Waiting for the hearing population to do the subtitles first is a losing proposition because those that do include English subtitles to their own signing videos have the distinct political advantage and leading edge over those who do not subtitle their videos in getting the word out.  And it is those people whose words are the ones that get out to the general population...and not the signed videos with no subtitles. They will be the ones forever relegated to the eyes of a very small population of Deaf people. And will forever fall on, literally, deaf ears in the hearing population because they do not understand a signed video.

The problem with satire

I've no problem with satires in the political realm of things, even in deaf politics. But to be a blogger and do satires by going after known deaf people in the blog/vlogosphere for "entertainment venue" or use "sarcasm in its stories" while hiding behind a disclaimer that everything blogged is simply fictional is being dishonest if not disingenuous. By repeatedly going after certain deaf people it would become increasingly obvious a blogger, in reality, has a political disagreement and makes it known by doing these "fictional stories." Its aggressiveness begins to stand out. It'd be easier to blog and state the reason why you disagree rather than hide behind a disclaimer that blogs are simply fictional stories. By doing these so-called "fictional stories" it becomes obvious the effort to hide behind political disagreements. Sorry, using a disclaimer won't work when it has already become obvious a blogger's own political disagreements in the world of deaf politics.

Deaf Rock Singer - History 4 Sale

Here's a "hearing impaired" rock singer based out of Seattle, Washington that plays in a band called "History for Sale" or H4S for short. They play alternative, indie, and rock genre music.  In a press release this summer (June 2011) it explains that the lead singer is deaf (hearing impaired):

AFTER A TRYING 2010 THE DEAF SINGER LEADS 'HISTORY for SALE' IN RELEASE OF "THE FUTURE":

SEATTLE, WA June 17, 2011 - HISTORY for SALE seems to know the frequency needed to speak their voice in a time of musical chaos. From the land of gray skies and an every evolving music scene that is Seattle, Washington, HISTORY for SALE has placed the task squarely on the shoulders of hearing impaired lead singer Mark Young by pushing him to the front of the mix. His searing vocals and R&B inspired staccato delivery give flight to the sounds, but give no indication to the fact that he is wearing hearing aids while doing so. Though a self titled debut effort from the band has been previously released, it is on this sophomore 8 track effort that HISTORY for SALE (H4S) seem to have become a singular entity. A gelled mass of musical substance that has found that speaking in volumes and taking listeners on a journey of musical exploration and virtuosity is something only life experienced artists who make honest music can do.

It goes on explaining the history and the lead singer's deafness:

Sound is something that is taken for granted every day, but not by the hearing challenged singer. "I was born with a partially flattened stirrup and thus couldn't resonate certain frequencies" Young contends. "Through high school in Yakima it was all about EPMD, Public Enemy, DJ QUIK, and how loud you could play your music. Basically everything your parents tell you not to do" he added. Given his loss, it is hard to imagine that someone with so great a hearing deficiency requiring hearing aids could aspire to lead a rock band into the fray of the current day music scene, and do so effectively, but listening to the tracks on "The Future" it seems that task is but just a small one.

Behind Frans Laulainen's inventive and metronome like drumming, Doug Warren's walking and driving bass lines, and Keefe O'neill's Edge and Gilmour like guitar melodies HISTORY for SALE have created a album that is not small, is not local, and does not suggest something shallow or narrow in space. What they have created is an anthemic crying voice of "HEAR ME NOW". A message that even a deaf man could hear.

Here we have a deaf/hearing impaired/hard of hearing lead singer and let's not get into this whole "he's not really deaf nonsense sort of deal a la Sarah Churman" because it serves no purpose. If he wants to be identified as a deaf singer, let him.  

Despite all that it got me wondering since there are extremely few truly deaf bands such as Beethoven's Nightmare, what are some of deaf/hh people's favorite local rock bands that they like to listen to and not the big name rock bands (i.e. Billy Joel, Madonna, etc)? What's your favorite local rock bands in your area?

As for History for Sale, good luck to them and many successes. The rock band business is a brutal one.  You can listen to their music here and tell me what you think of the music and the lead singer.

Deaf YouVideo

Interesting to see this blog piece pointing to my blog,"When haters gonna still hate....and the clueless ones continue to be clueless," on what it appears to be on assumptions that I was attacking deaf/hh/Deaf people for making those rude comments in YouTube. Quite the contrary. It was people in general I was noting who made those rude comments. No where did I mention Deaf/deaf/hh people as my target in my blog but rather the people who did the commenting in Sarah Churman's YouTube and elsewhere the links I provided where you can find those demeaning, hateful or clueless comments (e.g. deaf people cannot talk clearly). No where in my blog did I imply or say that the majority of degenerating comments came from "hearing impaired" people. Common sense tells you that one cannot tell whether those comments in YouTube came from a hearing person or a deaf/hh person simply by reading them.

Next time, look both ways before crossing a busy road, people.

UPDATE: Name calling such as "Mikey Mouse" is a sign of defensiveness. Not sure what the owner of Deaf YouVideo big deal was and the need to respond. This blog update was a clarification to readers (and not to Deaf YouVideo) who may have assumed that I was attacking deaf/hh/Deaf people in my haters blog piece but that was never the case as you can clearly see.

UPDATE II: The author of DYV removed a section that contained the name calling as you can see in my screen capture below. My story remains. What I see is the continued misapplication and misunderstanding by people who want to read what they want to read in my blog. Reason for this varies. I've made it clear what my blog was about in my first update for those who misread my blog. Secondly, bringing up the issue of rapes, for example, at Gallaudet is not sensationalism nor attacking Gallaudet University but forcing people to confront the issues. If people choose to bury their heads and pretend they never happened, then they choose that action. Name another blog that have covered this serious issue and I can pretty much guarantee you not one ever did in all these years going back in 2006 when I first covered it. Calling it "sensationalism" such as the issue of rape or alcoholism shows a desire to ignore such seriousness. People would prefer to sweep such issues under the carpet and I find that appalling and sad. 

Sarah Churman responds to questions....

It was a matter of time until Sarah found the time to answer some questions pertaining to her ability to speak clearly and how she hears before and after getting her implantable hearing aid. It is really astounding to read comments from people saying how it's an impossibility for one to develop a clear voice with no deaf accent. Here's Sarah Churman's money shot on one of the  most asked question,"How do you know how to talk?":

Anyway, everyone is different. Everyone heals differently, everyone learns differently, and everyone excels at different things. I personally have always LOVED to read and write. English and Grammar have always been something I have enjoyed. I also enjoy talking! (Big shocker to those who know me huh? NOT! Lol.) I have worked very hard to overcome and to speak well. I went to deaf ed school when I was very young, then on to public school where I took speech classes and therapy. I don't think people realize how intently I read lips. When you read lips, you are studying how people move their mouths, where they place their tongue (and for those of you with tongue rings, yes, you trip me up) and their teeth. It's a skill I have had 29 years to hone.

Next question: "How did she know what the doc was saying without looking at her mouth?"

Um. I got my ear turned on :) How do YOU know what people are saying? You HEAR them. I don't mean to be rude, but really? I don't know, I can't explain the brain or how it works. I just know my ear works and I heard her clear as a bell. (which was awesome) I've always been able to hear some noise if it was loud enough with my hearing aids, just not able to make a distinction as to what people were actually saying. If you covered your mouth, I couldn't read your lips. The best way I know to explain it is like this.; if you went to a foreign country and someone spoke to you, you'd know they were talking because you can hear something, but you have no idea what they are actually saying. Hope that helps.

With hearing aids, noise distortion is always an issue which is why sometimes hearing people talk can get muddled. Sounds are electronically amplified but gets distorted. But with the Esteem implantable hearing aid this distortion gets eliminated because it uses the ear's "eardrum as a natural microphone, picking up sounds through the ear canal, thereby using the body’s natural anatomy to reduce the background noise, distortion, and acoustic feedback that people experience with conventional hearing aids."

It's pretty galling to see people dismiss the very notion that deaf people cannot have the ability to speak clearly. I don't think the motto "deaf/hh people can do anything except hear" precludes the ability to speak clearly. Some require more intense speech therapy and training while others not so much. It all depends on amount of hearing loss, types of frequency loss, early intervention, amount of speech therapy and probably the most important of all is the love to talk constantly and not be afraid to find ways to improve speech diction. Although I believe that we can have the ability to hear just not close to the level of a hearing person but that Esteem implantable hearing aid sure comes pretty close.

The elimination of a scourge....

An organization in New Zealand is setting out to eradicate this scourge that affects an estimated 284 million people worldwide. Approximately 80% of the cases are due to causes which could have been prevented, treated or cured in the first place. This scourge cost the New Zealand society some $2.8 billion dollars in 2009. Multiply this cost in all of the countries worldwide and you'll see how exacting this condition affects society. This organization makes a point that this "is a scourge to be avoided at all costs." Just like the scourge of polio that is now a thing of the past. The irony here is that no outrage will be directed at this organization's ultimate goal in New Zealand on finding ways to eliminate this "scourge."

And then you have Dimity Dornan who says that deafness is scourge and that one day it will disappear just like polio. Yet you have some Deaf people in an outrage over this attempt at eradicating the condition of hearing loss whether it's mild or profound hearing loss.

Funny thing, if you were born with a hearing loss or became deaf pre-lingually and later in life as an adult you lose your vision completely but you'd be the first one to step up to have your eye-sight restored once a cure for vision loss becomes available. The irony would be that you'd object to a cure and the eradication for hearing loss but not for eradicating vision loss. Me think some people out there are hyperventilating a wee bit too much.

An example of a successful hearing loss organization

If you haven't heard of Hearing Loss Association of America you will now. This is an organization that has been around awhile since 1979 when they were known as SHHH (Self Help for Hard of Hearing) aimed at mostly the hard of hearing segment of society. It has grown today into a nationally known organization that is representative of the hearing loss population seen in the United States with 36 million people with hearing loss. In 2006, they began a Walk4Hearing project as way to raise funds. In it's first year it was a smashing success surpassing expectations on the money raised when they hoped to get $25,000 and instead got $300, 000 that year. This year their goal is to raise $1.2 million dollars and they are already on track to reach that goal with $1.07 million dollars already raised so far. A remarkable feat in such a short time. A testament to their marketing skills, support and advocacy.  The Walk4Hearing is national event that takes place in 24 cities throughout the year providing constant awareness about hearing loss and their organization. It is the largest walk of its kind in the country that raises awareness and helps to eradicate the stigma associated with hearing loss.

The organization's mission is to help people rather than create enemies. Their organization's leaders do not disparage people, create an oppressive "political atmosphere," attack companies, mess around with their bylaws or go after organizations because of a philosophical difference. Their philosophy is different. Their goals are different. Their mission is to is to open the world of communication to people with hearing loss by providing information, education, support and advocacy. Because of that people become receptive of that approach in seeking their support and help.

On one end you have deaf organizations (e.g. CAD, NAD, DeafNation, etc) that are completely and exclusively for the most part Deaf people that have a totally different way of interacting socially and with a different mindset. Now, if you have ever attended Hearing Loss Association of America workshops, visited their chapters (like I have) or conventions and met people there you'd find out it to be a completely different environment because you'll come across people with all forms of hearing loss from mild to profound wearing hearing aids or cochlear implants. Many of them do know sign language while a majority of them are people who speak and listen. This is especially noticeable at the Walk4Hearing if you ever get a chance to participate and interact with them. It's an almost completely different social camaraderie atmosphere compared to an exclusively Deaf environment. Those at Walk4Hearing are people that are representative of the hearing loss population in the U.S.

Watch this captioned video about the Walk4Hearing and the people involved. There are some signers in this video, too.

Deafhood? No Thanks.... revisited

People continue misunderstand about this loosely affiliated "group" on FB called "Deafhood? No Thanks" thinking it's based on the denial about ourselves regarding our hearing loss and who we are.

That's the furthest from the truth.

Rather it's our polite way of telling people that we do not subscribe to a closed society's approach using peer pressure, the incorporation of 'deaf power' movement or the flavor of it, the 'one communication option' approach, or using the movement to bully others through fear or use of oppressive tactics. Yet probably the most important of all is that we don't subscribe to playing the perennial victim card.  Subscribing to those approaches is a sure way to alienate further hearing parents of deaf/hh children, hard of hearing and deaf people, and even Deaf people. We don't subscribe to a victim mentality. We don't subscribe to the philosophy of exclusion and judgements regarding deafness.  We don't subscribe to going after parents who make alternative decisions for their deaf or hard of hearing children. We favor open society approaches such as equality for all deaf and hard of hearing people regardless of their backgrounds, communication methods and technology options. We invite anyone and make no judgements when it comes to deafness and their choices.We give them our support regardless the choices they make on deafness related issues.

We don't go around and mock other people's ability to speak calling it "yowling." We support them if they prefer to use their voice or not. Sign or not. Cued speech or not. Use of pen and paper or not.  Use SEE or not. Use ASL or not. Use CI or not. Use implantable hearing aid or not.  Prefer a hearing society over a deaf society. We don't go around wishing people harm or death because of philosophical difference or disagreement regarding deafness or their communication preferences. We don't harass people and sic the CPS on them. Or call their employers. And most important of all, we don't see ourselves as victims lamenting about the cruel fate of life, the unfairness of it all. The woe is me shtick. We don't need more labels. We don't need the stereotypes. We define it for ourselves as each of us see fit. Our journey is already deeply personal to begin with. A mere label doesn't do justice. And many of us simply do not care for it. While others may like the label and use it as they see personally fit, which is fine but I leave a caveat.

You may say it's simply a journey when it comes to "deafhood" but to go further by tacking on that label with a political ideology will only serve to alienate people further. Using the term to advance a political agenda and a springboard to attack individuals or companies while hiding behind an obvious facade.  Hypocrisy shines through when those things happen. We may be deaf or hard of hearing but we ain't blind. The concept of "deafhood" has de-evolved away from the concept of diversity and simple acceptance into the maws of power, politics and even greed. If it were about diversity and simple acceptance it would have been plainly obvious for all to see. But the mask has long since fallen off.

The term "deafhood" will never be accepted by the larger population of people with hearing loss. This is a population with some 33 million people with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound hearing loss. The majority of people are those with mild and moderate hearing loss.  A smaller percentage of that population are people with severe to profound hearing loss. Smaller still are people considered to be culturally deaf with ASL that makes up roughly about 2 percent of the total population of people with hearing loss (~600,000 or so).

It's like trying to incorporate "blindhood" and say that it's for all people with any kind of vision impairment who are undergoing their own journey, even those with easily correctable vision. But ask them if they are blind and they'll emphatically say they are not while others with more serious vision loss or impairment may say they're legally blind to those who have no vision at all are completely blind. The same with "deafhood" when it comes to people with mild or even moderate hearing loss who function fine with hearing aids (or even in some cases without hearing aids) and ask them if they are deaf and they will emphatically say they are not. Hard of hearing sure. Some hearing impairment? Sure. Have a hearing loss? Sure. But don't tell them they're deaf. That is the reality. That is how they wish to identify themselves as.  I'm not in the position to tell those people that they are wrong if they see themselves as deaf, hard of hearing, Deaf, partially deaf, partially hearing, hearing impaired or simply a person with a hearing loss. It's an individual thing.  Respect that.

Deafhood? No thanks!

New CAD by-laws continues to discriminate and profile?

Without much fanfare or notice to the public the California Association of the Deaf  (a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, incorporated in the State of California) managed to slip in their newly updated and redacted CAD bylaws dated August 13, 2011.  The old CAD Bylaws (link is no good but I do have a copy if you want to look at it) in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.

Section 25.3  Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents.  Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that discriminatory language in place for over 6 years. And because of that change Barry produced a video thanking CAD for the revision.  CAD may have changed its language in the new by-laws because of the recommendation from the California Department of Justice or from somewhere else. It doesn't matter. What matters is that CAD made the effort to correct a past mistake, however.

The new CAD by-laws appears to favor culturally deaf people, again, only because the term "Deaf" (upper case "D") is not defined and there are profiling and discrimination questions as well.  The term "Deaf" is used almost exclusively throughout the new by-laws.

For example:

Section 2.1 PURPOSE
The mission and advocacy of California Association of the Deaf is the promotion, preservation and protection of the civil rights, social, cultural, health, educational and economic well-being of the Deaf.

Section 3.1 MEMBERSHIP, DUES, AND TERMS
The Association is a membership organization with members having either voting or non-voting privileges and shall be open to all subgroups within the Deaf Community without discrimination as per Article II, Section 2.1 Purpose.

Section 3.3 HONORARY
Persons eminent for distinguished services to the Deaf may be made honorary members of the Association. They shall be entitled to all privileges of the Association.

Section 7.1.10: Communications/PR Committee
Communications/PR Committee shall support Association purposes with informational activities and increase public awareness of Deaf issues; inform members, as well as the general public, of developments in legislation and administration programs; promote communication and coordination between other organizations affecting Deaf issues; and work with Public Policy Committee on any announcements pertaining to advocacy issues. Shall also work to ensure that Deaf individuals living throughout California who may not know about the Association become familiar with who we are and what we do so that they may consider becoming a member and participating in the various activities that are offered.

Over the past few years notable people in the Deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people. According to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) explains the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.

What is obvious is that there are deaf people who may not know sign language, are not affiliated with Deaf culture, have other preferred means to communicate such as speaking, use Cued speech, or use Signing Exact English.

In the August 2011 CAD by-laws Policy and Procedures Guidelines it uses both terms "Deaf" and "hard of hearing" but offered no definitions or meanings for those terms. The only definition offered in the new CAD by-laws is "Deafhood."

PPG:1:2011 Definition of Deafhood:
The phrase “Deafhood” was coined by Paddy Ladd and was adopted by the membership of this Association in 2007. First posted as a counter to deafness, it describes the life-long process by which Deaf identity can be cultivated, maintained and deepened. It is a philosophical search for Deaf community and culture.

In the past CAD omitted the terms "deaf" and "hard of hearing" in favor of using the newly invented term "Deafhood" in their 2005 CAD by-laws. It was a term not found in an approved dictionary (e.g. Merriam-Webster). It was a term that could not be enforced should it get legally challenged because there is no legal definition.  In the new CAD by-laws update the upper case "D"eaf is used extensively throughout its by-laws language as the dominant term used.  This alone gives the appearance of profiling and discrimination that favors heavily culturally deaf people or Deaf people.  In my opinion, CAD needs to redact or revise their August 2011 by-laws and provide the proper definition or clarification for terms "Deaf," deaf, and" hard of hearing."  Not doing so will undoubtedly assure that the CAD by-laws will continue to favor heavily Deaf people. Even the CAD's Mission Statement as seen currently in their website,

The mission of the California Association of the Deaf is to protect the civil rights of the movement (empowerment) of Deafhood and promote the social (American Sign Language), cultural, health, educational, and economic well being of the Deaf (Californians) Community in the state of California.

is exactly the same one used in the old 2005 CAD by-laws but not used in current and new 2011 CAD by-laws.

ARTICLE II - PURPOSE

Section 2.1 PURPOSE
The mission of the California Association of the Deaf is to protect the civil rights of the movement (empowerment) of Deafhood1 and promote the social, (American Sign Language), cultural, health, educational and economic well being of the Deaf (Californians) Community in the state of California.

Seeing all this would make it appear that CAD is in an exclusive organization aimed at Deaf people rather than those who are not culturally affiliated (e.g. deaf, hard of hearing), those who do not know sign, or those who prefer to communicate by talking and listening and are comfortable in a hearing community. The California Association of the Deaf needs to re-think, again, their language as it is written currently in their by-laws so as to keep their credibility intact and be taken seriously once and for all.

The Sarah Churman Saga Continues.....

Since I am unable to contribute on Deaf Echo (for their petty reasons that's seven months old) and respond to comments over there I will do so here on my blog regarding what Mishkazena said:

"i'm glad for sarah churman. i wish her the best of luck. however, the title 'hearing her voice for the first time' is misleading. many people deny this, insisting one can develop a clear voice with no deaf accent without hearing one's voice in the past. it's an impossibility. yet our experiences and knowledge are dismissed. we're ridiculed and painted an anti implant group by the adoring and awe-struck hearing audience. this had been reinforced by several deaf people with a chip on their shoulders against culturally deaf people taking this as yet another opportunity to attack these deaf people."

I think it all boils down to the missing context of that YouTube title which says, "29 years old and hearing myself for the 1st time!" which could have been meant to say "29 years old and hearing myself clearly and loudly for the first time."  We don't know who put that title in but it was Sarah's husband who videotaped her. It was her husband who put that video on YouTube which means it was probably most likely her husband who wrote down that title.  But what we don't know is that there could be some truth to that title that Sarah was hearing her own voice for the first time. Unless you have her audiogram and a complete picture of her history, I suggest people withhold judgement until it becomes clear on Sarah's hearing loss.

Having said that, people with high frequency hearing loss can and do have a harder time hearing one's own voice, especially if the person is a female such as in probably the case for Sarah Churman. I don't know. Instead of saying it's an impossibility that she could speak so clearly and say she's deaf consider the option of keeping an open mind. Sarah already explained to Ellen DeGeneres that she cannot explain completely why she can speak so well and gets asked with that question all the time. She told Ellen that she accredited her good speech to deaf ed, speech therapy and her love to talk alot. But somehow people seem to try and paint her as a liar and not telling the truth. 

Next we have Dianrez's blog who continues to misunderstand and even twist on what I've said in the past.

People who have even a slight amount of hearing at some point, or who were born with hearing, are able to make the most of it in many cases and these are the ones most helped by hearing aids or later cochlear implants or the new implantable middle-ear device. Those with excellent auditory memory do the best of all. That the media and some bloggers continue to categorize them as "deaf" is misleading: these people are not, NOT deaf.

There are so many different types of hearing LOSS. I used this word deliberately. They are people with auditory memory going way back, even unconsciously; they have brain pathways in the speech range that worked at one time, and may still work. Then they "suffered" a LOSS. The memory traces are still there, however.

Hard of hearing people have this, too. McConnell, himself hard-of-hearing, acknowledges that there are different types of hearing LOSS, but he makes the mistake of lumping profoundly deaf people into this group. These are people without any auditory memory from birth, and even with early cochlear implants, may not always develop useful hearing as Heuer points out in his article.

A few profoundly deaf people have cochlear implants and are said to be living as hearing people, such as the Chaikof sisters of Cochlearimplantonline.com. Many, as all of us personally know, do not hear as well and as many stash them in drawers as those that use them. (Heuer)

I discussed in my blogs on the key to early intervention in conjunction with using current hearing technology to make it work, even for those who are profoundly deaf using cochlear implant, and make use of the auditory cortex during those crucial 4 years window of opportunity. I made my point about early intervention numerous times in my blogs, especially on cochlear implants, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many more going back a few years in my blog. The phrase "hard of hearing" does not pertain to db loss nowadays simply because of the advent of cochlear implant technology.  It's the ability to discriminate words, understand environmental sounds and speak intelligibly with the help of current hearing technology along with audio and speech therapies. Cochlear implants make it possible nowadays for those born profoundly deaf get implanted at such a young age and develop the ability to discriminate the spoken words (without looking) and be able to speak extremely well. The key has always been early intervention (rather than "auditory memory") using the existing hearing technology with lots of supports and encouragements. Not every instances are a success for various reasons but successes there are. In fact, Dianrez's own suggestion at the end of her blog supports my argument about profoundly deaf people can be put into the category of "hard of hearing":

Deaf: having little usable hearing for speech. Having little usable hearing for environmental sounds. Having little usable hearing even with devices.

You have profoundly deaf people who were born profoundly deaf whose hearing (what's left of it) is considered still usable only because of the existence of cochlear implant makes it possible to bridge that gap. Young deaf children have usable hearing for listening and speech development if cochlear implant is considered. It still usable hearing when it comes to environmental sounds. In a word, that would fit the definition of hard of hearing for prelingually (profoundly) deaf people who end up benefitting greatly from cochlear implants. Not all would fit into the category as hard of hearing people but many do. Even Jamie Berke of About.com Deafness admitted how the cochlear implant technology changed the meaning of the term "hard of hearing" for profoundly deaf people.

What is the difference between being hard of hearing and being deaf? The answer is not simple, and is getting even harder to define with the growth of cochlear implants.

You have cochlear implant wearers who consider themselves as deaf and hard of hearing just like you have hearing aid users who consider themselves as deaf and hard of hearing, just like me. Turn the device off, you're deaf. Turn it on, you're hard of hearing. Just like Sage in this captioned video below when she was 16 years old who was outfitted with a cochlear implant at age 22 months speaks about her cochlear implant.



There's no doubt that Sage is hard of hearing but then again she's deaf, too.

As for the Chaikof sisters (Rachel Chaikof that runs her own website Cochlear Implant Online) they never made the claims of living as "hearing people" but rather they have the ability to interact and associate with hearing people solely because of the early intervention with cochlear implant and speech therapies made it possible today to interact. Just as I can interact easily with hearing people but I'm certainly not a hearing person. They know they are deaf but see themselves as hard of hearing. Let's not twist words, Dianrez.

Another twist by Dianrez about what I said.

Then we have people who defend the people who are involved in the quest to hear again. Mike McConnell is one. Immediately he jumps on people who point out the flaws in such cures by way of electronic and mechanical devices: "Why is it so hard to congratulate a grown deaf adult seeing the immediate (and emotional) success from her implantable hearing aid in a video?" He has written several consecutive blogs, each insisting that Sarah is deaf four different ways and is still deaf when she turns off the implant. He adds, "Those people need to take their brains out of the gutter and stop with the stereotyping of what deaf people can or cannot do, especially on the ability to speak well. This is especially true coming from deaf people themselves which serves only an ironic and hypocritical reminder. Yet people continue with this conspiracy theory thinking something's afoot. Practically insinuating that she is not deaf because there is no way she can speak that well. No way!! Well, get over it folks, she is deaf."

I've not described nor insisted that Sarah is deaf in four different ways. Please stop with the disingenuous hyperbole and dishonesty, Dianez. I've already explained in the above about the terms "deaf" and "hard of hearing." Secondly, my comment asking why is it so hard to congratulate Sarah Churman's implantable hearing aid success was taken out of a paragraph I wrote while leaving the rest behind that explains my questioning which had nothing to do with about jumping on "people who point out flaws in such cures" (because implantable hearing aids are not a cure). Rather my comment had to do with people lamenting about one's own history struggling with his/her hearing aid wishing his/her story was video-taped and had gone viral, too. Instead of being happy for her you hear lamentations, the whole nine-yards "woe-is-me."