Proof when voice is more effective than signing....

Or is it?

Well, one person was the Chapter president (Sacramento) of California Association of the Deaf, an organization who pride themselves their strong heritage on using ASL, used his voice instead at a California Senate Health Hearing discussing the AB2072 bill in a roomful of culturally deaf people which would make Alexander G. Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, John Tracy Clinic, Oberkotter Foundation and all of the oral/aural schools around the United States quite proud.




Sign language interpreters were at the hearing to help interpret both voice and sign language.  Yet it's perfectly alright to use your voice, even at Gallaudet University, CSUN, or elsewhere as long as there are interpreters and/or CART services available so that everyone, deaf, hard of hearing and/or hearing can understand what's being said. Tim Riker, former chapter president of CAD, made it perfectly clear on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing that using his voice was wholly acceptable finding it preferable and more effective than signing.  Although one cannot avoid noticing the total irony coming from a chapter president of an organization that exclusively use sign language.

It was perfectly clear that using my voice at Gallaudet University's blog/vlog conference with interpreters and real time captioners available for the audience and for those watching over the internet (it was a live taping) was more effective for me than signing. It was simply due to my preference and communication ease. I discussed one of the topic surrounding the use of technology on whether ASL is in danger of disappearing.




It was perfectly clear when a Gallaudet University Board of Trustee member, Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, used her voice at a Gallaudet University graduation commencement speech was an effective use of her communication preference to the graduating class of 2006  with an inspirational speech but you need to know the true story of why she had to use her voice before you get angry first.

It was perfectly clear that John Fortius, an oral person who does not know sign language, who used his voice at the California Senate Health Hearing was an effective and efficient way of communicating to the assembly members.  Even though, ironically enough, the former chapter president of CAD criticized John (it appears he was talking about John) for having "unintelligible" speech.  Even though there is a complete transcript of John Fortias' speech and that sign language interpreters were clearly interpreting in ASL what John said for the deaf audience in attendance at the Senate Health Hearing.





Thank you, Tim Riker, former California chapter president of Sacramento CAD. Thank you, John Fortias. Thank you Dr. Brenda Brueggemann.

Whatever mode of communication you find most effective and efficient is what really counts.

When extremism goes after their own sign language interpreters

AFA and others have been demonizing interpreters hired by A.G. Bell while others have produced names and pictures of them. Never mind that Professional Interpreters are bound by a code of professional conduct to provide equal access, remain neutral, and keep confidential, no matter who the clients are. But for any sign language interpreters to show up at the July 18 - 20, 2013 A.G. Bell LSLS Symposium in Los Angeles was met, ironically, with outrage by extremist adherents. Damned if you do produce an interpreter, damned if you don't and not provide that all important communication access.  Interpreters who were hired at the A.G. Bell LSLS Symposium get called as "traitors" and other name bashing. Rick P. and few others on the Facebook discussion were the only few sane, common sense people on board contributing to the discussion.

Folks, as a CODA, a husband of a Deaf woman, an interpreter and a colleague of Mr. LoParo, I can tell you Bob is neither a traitor nor a supporter of AGB. He was there to provide communication access - period. Think about it. If he wasn't there, how would you know what they were really saying? If you depended on his work to know what was being said, then you know he wasn't the message, he was only the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. Many of us interpret in situations we don't really like. Just because an interpreter takes a job it doesn't mean we support any particular side. In fact, if we did, we shouldn't take the job. I'm sure Bob knew that taking the job would be difficult. I'm also sure he felt that the Deaf people who were there to protest had a right to know what was being said and that's probably why he took the job.

Jen P. interjects:

I am stunned by this witch hunt. I hope you all realize what you are saying when you say you expect interpreters to serve only those with whom they agree. Be very careful what you wish for. We live and act in a political world. We interpret in a neutral one.

Rick P. continues on his with his explanation shedding a bit more light on the misplaced mock outrage.

The reality in this situation is that Mr. LoParo was not paid directly by AGBell. He worked for an interpreting agency that was providing interpreters at the request of the conference. It seems like interpreters are in a no-win situation with this. We see what has happened with Mr. LoParo in this posting. I'm curious what would have happened if no interpreters accepted the job. Would we then be accused of being audist and on AGBell's "side" because there was a lack of communication access? Would we then be accused of intentionally keeping the Deaf community "in the dark"? Personally, I encourage our communities to have a discussion about the situation. I would also warn that some people on this thread are getting close to the legal definition of slander. I would also warn that we are "dividing and conquering" ourselves which plays right into the hands of the oppressor.

And that has been the biggest problem among culturally deaf rabid adherents when it comes to their own "dividing and conquering" within their own culturally deaf community.

Deborah M. makes a salient point on communication access and knowing what's going on at the convention.

I'm just saying that there could be situations where having an interpreter there at AGBell could be good for the Deaf community.

Rather than to attack interpreters for accepting an interpreting job at AG Bell, use them for the benefit of learning and meeting people in the effort to learn from each other the people at the symposium. Rick Pope made an observation about the AFA who was there.

Reading Ms. Jordan's account of the situation at the Omni hotel, it becomes clear that the AFA leader herself was using an interpreter for communication access that ensured her First Amendment rights. She clearly redirected people who were inappropriately trying to interpret.

"Ruthie made it clear that there were ASL certified and qualified interpreters at the rally and at no point should the security or police utilize AG Bell staff members as interpreters."

So, I have to wonder why an interpreter is catching hell from AFA supporters when the interpreter was requested by the AFA leadership. As for the comments about Mr. LoParo's "stone face", he was interpreting in a situation that could have or did involve law enforcement. If Mr. LoParo had greeted people with hugs and other behaviors that are common in the Deaf world, it could have given the impression that he was not impartial. This could have given the AGBers reason to remove him from the situation (I've seen it happen) thus negatively affecting communication access for the ASL-using protestors. Even by the AFA accounts on the website, Mr. LoParo behaved professionally and ensured the AFA leadership had meaningful access to their Constitutional rights. Why, then, is he being excoriated without any comment from the very consumers of his services?

Jen P. offered her perspective as an interpreter who attended a previous AG Bell conference.

I worked at the AGB Conference in Milwaukee in 2008, as an ASL interpreter and as an oral interpreter. I shall not discuss assignment specifics due to confidentiality. I am, however, compelled to say that AG Bell conferences are gathering places for a diverse assemblage of people, many of whom are deaf and, through no fault of their own, grew up deprived of access to a natural, visual language. Every last one of these individuals has the right to attend this or any other event, the right to discuss educational, social, linguistic and medical concerns with others who also face the same issues. They have the right to access language and information and the right to the interpreting or captioning services of their choosing. All of the attendees had an opportunity during the conference to either use or to see ASL interpreters at work. I am proud of the service I provided for these deaf individuals. I did not make the decision to work at this conference lightly or easily or without a lot of reflective and deliberate thought. Nobody has the right or authority to tell me which deaf people are (or ARE NOT) worthy of interpreting services, or in which contexts they may be served. The interpreters at these conferences are not conspirators with the enemy. They are not oralists or audists. They are performing the same professional, confidential and impartial services they provide to anyone else in the deaf/Deaf communities. You want to find out what happens if interpreters stop interpreting AG Bell conferences? It’s an interesting thought-experiment, but why stop there? Should VRS interpreters disconnect a call every time someone makes a comment in a phone conversation that is oppressive, hateful, rude, illegal, or distasteful? Do deaf people not have the human right to make their own mistakes, to deceive and be deceived, to have views that lie outside the mainstream? Should hearing interpreters decide who has the right to services based on a person’s religion, race, sexual orientation, political views, affiliations and memberships? Be careful of what you wish for. And please cease and desist with this intolerable and defamatory witch hunt. All of your energies are much better spent against your enemies than against your allies.

She further re-iterates the danger of blacklisting and choosing for the interpreters based on an ideological condition.

Patti, if one truly believes that the conference attendees have the right to equal access, it follows (for me) that as a professional, if I am qualified for the work and able to execute my duties with impartiality, then I need not recuse myself. I am not supporting an organization or an "ism". I am serving people. Actual people, not abstract stereotypes or cultural villains. The thinking on this thread has been very black and white. This setting is approved for interpreters, this setting is bad. This interpreter is good. This one is blacklisted. It is this kind of black and white thinking that rules the AG Bell roost. Signing is bad and talking is good. Activism can be polluted by extremism. I am not an AG Bell supporter. I support open communication between deaf and hearing people. I will not be intimidated by extremist thinking into believing that somebody else should do the work that I believe should be done and done well. It's not a great analogy, but some lawyers defend criminals because they believe in citizens rights to a fair defense. I believe in communication access. My conscience is clear.

The latest FB discussion is an interesting read on how extremism can get out of control. It's also an example of a slippery slope in action in the attempt to try and control interpreters on who they should or should not interpret for purely on ideological and selfish motives. And at the same time fall prey to their own paranoia. A move that would guarantee shooting oneself in the foot each and every time.

Passing thru......

My quick thoughts on several things.

I noticed (that goes without saying) that some culturally deaf people continue to have this obsessiveness toward anything with the name "AG Bell" attached. There's a sense morbid enjoyment over his obituary, too. Yet many are planning to protest at the Omni Hotel in Washington D.C. this July 21 - 23 where AG Bell will host the Listening and Spoken Language Symposium. My advice? Bring lots of bullhorns and make lots of noise. Noise can certainly get people's attention.

A friend of mine told me about the Green Lantern movie. He watched it and said it wasn't really that good. I shrugged even though I don't really care for those kinds of movies and don't have the need to watch them, either. I later learned about the Green Lantern pledge. I shrugged. My friend then showed me about a few YouTube videos of adults Green Lantern fans reciting the Green Lantern pledge hoping to win the Green Lantern video contest (a winner already announced after I did a quick Google search). I think it has to do something with promising to eat their oatmeal cereal every morning and drink their milk. How quaint. Now, kids I understand who like to emulate and act out their favorite super heros but to see grown adults act out their fantasy on being the Green Lantern? Isn't that a bit regressive? If you want to be a real hero then better to be a fire fighter, EMT, a search and rescue person, or be those who serve in the Armed Forces than to dream of a fictional character that will never come true. No matter how many Green Lantern rings you have.

To infinity and beyond!

Will deaf and hard of hearing people migrate away from Facebook? Nah. Maybe some culturally deaf people but then again many do prefer reading since it's faster to type and read what's said at a glance, and it's quicker to post, too. FB remain to be wildly popular among friends, relatives and family members and a good place to see what's happening in their worlds.

Deaf Jeff is sure one weird fellow. He likes to do all this cryptic messaging, song and dance type routine in his blog, regarding certain individuals as the target. Which is fine and dandy since that is how he expresses himself, including his two YouTube videos for "hearing people only" that have him speaking with his voice but no captioning or transcript. Irony is all I can think of here if not hypocrisy which is kind of like the Tim Riker thing, too. But each blogger to him/herself. Just like how I prefer to do my own sort of thing in my own blog and vlog on how I want to express myself. But, of course, I get the usual wailing from those who don't like what I have to say or opine. You can't please everybody. I understand that already. 

I've come to the conclusion that tossing about the a-wordism around which is nothing but a crutch word to use when one is unable to make any real or valid arguments and must resort to such a word against other deaf and hard of hearing people they don't like. That's pretty much the bottom line. And that is pretty much in the same format as playing the race card but the irony goes further when it's aimed at another person with the same skin color. The same goes for deaf against deaf. Something like what Deaf Pundit has done. A seemingly cogent argument gets blown out of the water once the a-wordism is tossed about. I'd say it's better to be proud and be the better person than to hold such eternal grudges.

And, oh, what do you think of Marlee Matlin's new 7-Up poster?

Weaning....

What is wean?

- to detach from a source of dependence.

In other words, to let go and not be dependent on others. Get rid of that pacifier!

Barry said it in response to the Wisconsin protest, the closing of deaf schools, interpreter services closing, and so on.




Jerome Cain said it....(starting at 0:40 seconds)



Russell warned that unless schools for the deaf improve with better innovative academic programs and beat state academic requirements they'll soon become dinosaurs.



Gallaudet University may need to wean itself, too, eventually.

Of course, some may disagree with the whole weaning concept thinking it's cruel, never living the life of a rancher, when it's a fact of life separating calves from their mother cows as part of the whole ranching business. Whoever said that it's supposed to be a pleasant or uneventful process?

Life isn't a bed of roses.

Let's stop with the namby pamby excuses and learn to be creative, innovative and ground-breaking in order to thrive and compete successfully without the need to be overly dependent.

Catherine Murphy responds to nervous Nellies about AGBell

From the Spring 2011 Gallaudet Today newsletter Catherine Murphy, who is hearing (but learning ASL) and is the executive director of the Office of Public and Media Relations at Gallaudet University, respond to the controversy being circulated by angry or suspicious deaf people with dancing conspiratorial eyes.   

From Gallaudet Today newsletter (Spring 2011):

Gallaudet Today: The move from AG Bell to Gallaudet has been controversial in some circles. How do you address those concerns?  

Catherine Murphy: I haven't encountered any negative feedback myself, and everyone here at Gallaudet has been very welcoming. However, I can understand where some people might take notice of my selection for this position. I see my role as acting at the discretion of President Hurwitz and the Board of Trustees in implementing their vision as outlined in the Gallaudet Strategic Plan and in supporting the University's bilingual mission. I am especially interested in promoting public awareness and positive depictions of deaf individuals in the media.  There is a lot this community has to offer that I think is far too often overlooked.  I also see many ways that the alumni can take a greater role in helping to promote that awareness. 

Feel better now, folks?

Catherine Murphy does not do her own Press Releases but at the discretion of President Hurwitz and the BOT.  Gallaudet University is doing what it must do to survive, compete and thrive according to their Mission and Vision of their plan.

I'm sure Josh Swiller, Catherine Murphy, Alan Hurwitz and a few others are all sitting around thei tables rubbing their hands and exclaiming loudly with their crooked pinkies in the corner of their mouths, "Heh heh...my plan is working flawlessly!" And laugh loudly. No. It's was a group effort to initiate this Strategic Plan that began 18 months ago. They have goals and strategies in place. Ambitious in their plan to see enrollment of full-time undergrads, full- and part-time graduate students, and continuing education students grow to 3,000 by 2015. And that's only 4 years away.

Gallaudet University simply need to prove they can compete academically with the rest of their university brethens. But to have a completely all Deaf university is not what diversity is all about at this institution of higher learning. Nor will it help them thrive and survive. It boils down to showing their academic mettle. And one of their goals is to "expand domestic recruiting to become 'top of mind' for all deaf and hard of hearing students, and hearing students seeking deaf/HH-related careers." This is a different time and economy Gallaudet University is facing now. And it'll be their biggest challenge yet to come. Long term survival. But if they can't prove their academic superiority with the rest of the universities and be equally competitive then I'm certain Congress will do something about reducing funding (or stop altogether) to Gallaudet University as Congress continues to struggle with their own deficit and debt problems.  We'll probably know what direction this will go in 3 to 5 years from now. Stay tuned.

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!

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.

AB 2072 - passed

Great news. AB 2072 bill passed by the Health Senate Committee with a 5 to 1 vote, along with 2 abstaining. It now goes to the Senate which I'm sure they'll recognize this bill as a bill that empowers parents to make an informed decision.

This is about letting parents make the decision and not the government. No government or any other entity or agency will be doing the decision for parents. This is about empowering parents in making their own decision where an agency or government says, "Here you go, you decide." This exactly how it should be done rather than a government making the decision for parents of newborns diagnosed with hearing loss. The best way to lose your independence is when a government ends up making decisions for you. This would be an example of interfering into people lives rather than helping them make their own decisions for a change provided that they are given adequate and proper information so they can make an informed decision. Once a government starts to make decisions for parents of newborns diagnosed with hearing loss would be the day when the government practices communism.

However, this bill would force audiologists to provide information given to them on ALL communication options, including ASL. If there are biased audiologists out there who do not favor ASL they would soon be forced to provide parents the various communication methods and shall include ASL. The audiologists do not decide for the parents. The government does not decide for the parents. State, regional or local agencies do not decide for the parents. Advocacy groups do not get to decide for the parents of newborns diagnosed with hearing loss such as CAD, CENIAS, NAD, DBC, NORCAL, DCARA, Deafhood Yoga, and any other organizations. The sole decision makers are the parents. This is what the Senate will recognize and understand.

DBC's credibility gap?

Here's the news on AG Bell giving out awards to people who made significant contributions to the hearing loss community that got some Deaf people freaking out over in Alldeaf land. The hatred for AG Bell is just dripping. So, that got me thinking and looking.

On March 1 and 2 there will be an EHDI (Early Hearing Detection Intervention) conference to take place in Chicago. And when I checked out the Exhibitors List I noticed that DBC (Deaf Bilingual Coalition) will have a booth there. So will AG Bell.

Hmmmm.

Now, about the DBC, it's not a surprise that they have a relationship with the AFA (Audism Free America with link via the DBC website) by going "on record as being supportive of AFA" as seen in Dianrez's blog. And the fact that John Egbert and others of DBC attended an AFA protest rally last year in April 2009 tells a bigger story about the DBC's own organization and the people who run it. The AFA is hardly separate from DBC's own organization and its ideology where both groups have specifically targeted AG Bell. DBC has yet to remain neutral in this regard and keep to their mission instead. But the leaders and members of DBC cannot even be kept separate from the AFA group when it comes to DBC's mission as an organization.

"For now, it was an honor to meet many bloggers that first came to my attention through DeafRead. Who could forget meeting in person: John Egbert, Insane Misha, Ella Lentz, David Eberwein, Ruthie Jordan, Aidan Mack, Sharon Duchesneau, Jehanne, Robin Polin, Candace McCullough, Tami Hossler, Patti Durr, Pinky Aiello, Star Greiser, and many others whose faces I recognized but didn't get their names."

Many of the names seen in the Board of Directors and Members list on the DBC website are known to heavily dislike AGBell, even Brian Riley who helped write a letter for DBC used "fighting words" against AG Bell. It sure doesn't make them that much more credible, I can tell you that.

Here's another problem.

The DBC seems to lay claim on ownership of all deaf/hh babies by calling them as "Deaf babies" or "Deaf infants" with a capital "D" (see "Big D, small d") which denotes cultural deafness.

I. What is the Deaf Bilingual Coalition?

A. The Deaf Bilingual Coalition (DBC) is a community of Deaf and hearing people whose goals are to promote language acquisition, social justice, and quality education through the awareness of ASL and its excellence in cultivating the critical intellect of Deaf infants and young Deaf children.

B. The DBC’s mission is two-fold: We emphasize the importance of the social, emotional, linguistic, and cognitive aspects (of ASL and all natural sign languages) pertaining to early visual-language acquisition for all Deaf infants and young children; and to make the general public aware of the prevalence of misconceptions and misinformation that devalues ASL.

C. Since its inception, the DBC has empowered people to set up state chapters to research and explore early intervention programs, the Deaf education system, and to mentor hearing parents of Deaf babies to help equip them with critical information on language acquisition and development.

D. The DBC's original core committee was composed of volunteers who had all experienced bilingualism in their upbringing or been impacted by bilingual education. John Egbert of Minnesota founded the DBC in the summer of 2007.

Babies are born with a hearing loss. Babies are not born "Deaf" if from hearing parents. Maybe so for Deaf parents as they see their own baby as a Deaf baby but certainly not the case for hearing parents. DBC does not own these deaf/hh babies. It's the parents' decision, they decide and not DBC when it comes to their own babies and whether to call their baby a Deaf baby or not.

Next, I question whether DBC really does "mentor" hearing parents of "Deaf" babies. Do they get all pushy to try and somehow force their ideology onto unwitting hearing parents by making them aware? Or is it better to inform parents of deaf/hh babies by using positive examples of ASL rather than resort to conspiracy talks, continued negative remarks and darts and daggers aimed at AGBell whether implied or directly, and the continued bringing up old history rather than to look forward to the future in a positive way?

Having said that. You know what else I think? I think all hearing parents of deaf/hh babies should be informed of DBC's members and leaders past actions so that at least hearing parents can be fully informed about DBC's background and their ulterior agenda lurking in the background by continually attacking AG Bell in one form or another. AG Bell certainly doesn't do that by going after organizations by attacking them and use protesters as their pawns. AGBell has a mission to adhere to but they certainly do not attack ASL and certainly noticed past Deaf protests against them since 2007.

Since July 2007, another group affiliated with AFA has been staging demonstrations at AG Bell national conferences and state chapter meetings claiming that AG Bell is against sign language. In an effort to clarify its position on this issue, the AG Bell Board of Directors approved an official position statement on ASL which states, in part, “AG Bell acknowledges that a chosen approach depends on culture, family interests and desired communication outcome. AG Bell believes that the language and communication approach chosen should be based on an informed decision made by the child’s parents/family and based on their own unique circumstances…AG Bell does not believe that ASL should be prohibited or restricted as achoice, nor does AG Bell advocate against learning ASL as part of a child’s overall development if that is what the child’s parents desire.”

Regardless, AFA initiated this most recent demonstration at AG Bell headquarters and issued a call to action for supporters to demonstrate at oral/aural only programs in their local areas; in other words, to demonstrate at local pre-schools that offer a listening and spoken language educational approach for children who are deaf.

“This latest effort to target pre-schools and pre-school children I can only describe as unconscionable,” stated Graham. “To protest and criticize families who choose a particular communication and language approach is the height of intolerance.”

That way hearing parents can make an informed decision over a variety of issues and concerns, including any hidden agendas, if any. A good way to assess, for example, DBC's own credibility problem. Those on the outside may certainly see them as cry babies.

Next I can't help but wonder what are the odds that there'll be a protest by a bunch of Deaf people outside the conference to raise hackles about AG Bell just as they did over a year ago as noted in AG Bell's press release letter denouncing the protest? What are the odds that a protest will occur, if it ever, and that it'll have connections to AFA and, what else, the DBC organization just like before?

Makes ya wonder, doesn't it? We'll see how it goes March 1 and 2 in a few weeks from now.

*Note: apologies to Cox and Forkum for the cry babies picture that was slightly modified.