Strange bedfellows?

You have AGBell, NAD and other organizations who are part of the Hearing Alliance (DHHA) group, a Coalition of Consumer and Professional Organizations, who support the ratification of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which was made on July 17, 2012. Also, if you hadn't noticed when you clicked on that link it goes through the Listening and Spoken Language Knowledge Center website. That internet address will soon be AGBell's new website for the AG Bell Association. The old AGBell website address will soon redirect to the new Knowledge Center.

Anyways, AGBell explains in depth about the CRPD along with AGBell's position paper regarding the CRPD with some suggestions on changing/adding a few things to CRPD and compare that to
NAD's position paper which was updated in May of 2012.

Interesting to see the differences between the two organizations regarding their support for CRPD.

You can see the continuing CRPD changes on the amendments in the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations webpage.

The adventurous life and love story of Mable

Here's an interesting piece of history with a bunch of black and white photos written by the National Geographic. A piece that covers the human side on the life and adventurous times of Mabel Gardiner Hubbard (late deafened at age 5) who was married to Alexander Graham Bell. What sealed the National Geographic relationship with the Bell family was that Mable and Alexander G. Bell had two daughters together named Elsie and Daisy where Elsie grew up and married Gilbert Hovey Grosvenor who was National Geographic magazine’s first editor-in-chief. That solidified the family ties with the National Geographic company.

Defacing The Volta Bureau in D.C. and more

I've seen some recent pictures of those protesting against AGBell and the symposium today in Washington D.C. where pictures of AGBell's signs at the Volta Bureau in D.C. were defaced with adhesive tapes and placards covering them up though no permanent damage.

Just to make myself clear, I'm not against protesting per se but as long as it is done peacefully and leaving alone private properties by not defacing them and that a protest does not interrupt the normal course of business as an unintended consequence. It's worse when the intended consequence is to interrupt the normal course of a business. Protesting can be a tricky thing and sometimes the lines are blurred.

In Washington D.C. there are laws regarding graffiti and defacing private properties. In this case, the use of adhesive tapes and placards to alter signs at the Volta Bureau and such an action could be considered as defacing and even be called as "graffiti" (note my emphasis in the bold underline)

"(4) "Graffiti" means an inscription, writing, drawing, marking, or design that is painted, sprayed, etched, scratched, or otherwise placed on structures, buildings, dwellings, statues, monuments, fences, vehicles, or other similar materials that are on public or private property without the consent of the owner, manager, or agent in charge of the property, and the graffiti is visible from a public right-of-way.


"(5) "Graffiti material" means any aerosol can, bottle, spray device or other [*1614] mechanism designed to dispense paint or a similar substance under pressure, indelible marker, paint stick, adhesive label, and engraving device capable of leaving a visible mark on a natural or man-made surface.

The Volta Bureau is a private property. Also, graffiti doesn't mean it has to be permanent per se. You can see they used adhesives (tape) and with posters that were used to cover up the signs. The question is, do they intend to leave such markings behind ?

From D.C. criminal defense lawyers.

DC Graffiti/Defacement Laws & Penalties
The offense of graffiti is pretty self explanatory. But this doesn’t just apply to spray painting on walls or marking up a fence. You could face this charge for keying a car or smearing mud over the property of another.

According to the law, this offense applies when writing, drawing figures, cutting, chipping, covering, painting, or marking on public property or the private property of another without their permission.

Generally this offense carries up to 180 days in jail and $1,000 in fines. You will also likely be required to perform community service and pay restitution if convicted of defacement or graffiti. - Ref: DC Code 22-3312.01

Also, I've gotten reports of noise being made at near or inside the Omni Hotel in D.C. where the AGBell symposium is being held. This reminds me about D.C.'s local ordinance on creating noise during a protest. A few years back there was a protest at another hotel in D.C. where the problem of noise nuisance was raised. 

An effort was undertaken in 2008 to toughen the District’s unusually liberal noise laws but the city’s labor organizations orchestrated, with the help of D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), an amendment limiting it to residential areas. “A noise shall not be considered a noise disturbance if it is made during noncommercial public speaking during the daytime and does not exceed 80 decibels inside the nearest occupied residence in districts zoned R-1A, R-1B, R-2, R-3 or R-4” is the relevant passage cited by the city’s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. That means no recourse for Ms. Iwamoto, who lives in a commercially zoned neighborhood one block away from the Madison — or for the many other residents whom city officials have successfully lured to mixed-use developments aimed at enlivening the downtown.


Labor officials argue that protest is the only method available to workers to fight for their rights against adversaries with greater resources. But the demonstrations of the Madison workers were not aimed at getting a message across; they were intended to create a nuisance that would cost the hotel business. No other city, according to the advocacy group Noise Free America, allows unlimited amplification in the name of free speech. Indeed, courts have upheld limitations on amplification to safeguard public health and safety. No one is suggesting that anyone’s voice be stifled, only that it not be artificially — and noxiously — augmented.

I agree. It's one thing to protest with a show of solidarity and support, and another thing when protesters deface private properties and artificially create loud noises that can interrupt services and/or businesses. Businesses do have the right to protect their customers and businesses from such interruptions. Such an example would be to make so much noise at the hotel that CART services couldn't be provided adequately for those attending at AGBell's Listening and Spoken Language Symposium (and that the police had to intervene to stop the noise interruption).

Even Sean Gerlis said this about Deaf protesters defacing/desecrating a private property:

On behalf of Bobbie Beth Scoggins, Prez of NAD & myself, we NAD do not condone this behavior....to desecrate AGB's building.

Glad to hear that the protest went without much of a hitch and was for the large part peacefully done despite a few obnoxious moments and the arrival of several police cars to the scene of the protest outside of the hotel building where the symposium was held, and that protesters were told to leave the hotel.

ADDENDUM: Sorry to say this but no where did I say the taping incident damaged the AGBell plaque signage on the front of its building. No where did I say that police complained. Although I seriously doubt the people inside of The Volta Bureau building were aware of the defacing that took place taking only minutes to do and removed. Just a matter of the fact that defacing did occur and I made it clear from the beginning of this blog that no permanent damage was done in the first place. Sorry Patti, your screaming and hyperventilating isn't helping all this. NAD made it clear that they supported the protest in principle but not the covering up the AGBell signs and such. We know which group is the more mature ones.

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?

Quit yer bitchin.....

dFor a person with a hearing loss going to college for the first time will come to the realization (mostly the parents' realization) that cost of college just keeps getting more expensive with each passing year. The best thing to prepare well ahead of time by researching all of the available and possible scholarships and grants that can help keep expenses down. There are some 2.7 million local, state and national college scholarships and grants worth over 19 billion dollars for free! Imagine that. There are several possible scholarships or grants a deaf or hard of hearing person can apply for.

Each of these organization or institution has the right to define the eligibility criteria in order to qualify for a scholarship or grant such as Alexander Graham Bell's which provides about 18 or so scholarships each year to qualified applicants. But what happens when deaf people find out about AGB and do not qualify?

"Life is soooooooo unfair!" (*rants* *rants* *throws self on floor and proceed to Defcon 4 temper tantrum*)

That's pretty much in a nutshell. Unbelievably so.

People need to learn to move on and keep digging when it comes to searching for free money. There are scholarships and grants available that have nothing to do with hearing loss or disability. In fact, there are tons of them! If you are a female and want to study law, there are scholarships/grants out there for that. African American? Yep. Good at sports? Sure thang! Even kids of deceased parents can tap into scholarships specifically for them. Are you a single Mom and going to college? Yep, there's a grant for that, too. Amazing. Just about almost anything you can think of there's a grant for it. And you can tally up those grants worth $300, $150, $500, $800, $100 and so on. It can add up quickly when you "nickle and dime" your grants together over time.

How about pound the pavement for a change instead of trying to find something easier that focuses directly on a person's own hearing loss? Look around. Invest your time and energy and dig up these valuable scholarship and grant resources that are worth over $19 billion dollars. How can you get that piece of the pie to help with your college expenses? Simple. You dig around for it like you would panning for gold along a creek. Be sure to give yourself at least a year's time to dig up these gold nuggets before attending college and make a note when to apply for them when the time is right.  And do not stop looking. Just because you have a good list of possible grants or scholarships doesn't mean you stop looking because not you may not get that award after you apply. It's best to keep looking and add more to your list of grants and scholarships. 

Bitchin' about AGBell's scholarship award program regarding its eligibility criteria is simply a big waste of time. AGBell has every right to define those criteria for eligibility purposes just like any other scholarships or grants you apply for.

Time to stop crying like a baby over that. Let's be an adult for a change because going to college is an investment of your time and resource. Spend it wisely.  Know where to look and get that gold nugget you were looking for.

Good luck for 2012 and beyond. You'll need it.

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.

Dr. Gallaudet praised the oral and auditory teaching method.

Interesting stuff about Dr. Gallaudet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gallaudet:
Just so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander Graham Bell and the Telephone Invention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

So true.

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

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

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

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

Savor the irony folks.

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

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

Calm down, folks.


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

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

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

Sleep tight.

*rubs hands*

Alexander Graham Bell Phone Invention Inspired Video Phone Idea.

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

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

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

Makes ya wonder.

Just food for thoughts here.

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

But here's the thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eligibility:

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

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

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

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

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

Vinton Cerf accepted award from AGBell !

Vinton Cerf as some of you may know is the "Father of the Internet." He is also deaf. But here is probably a little known fact among those in the Deaf community. Vinton Cerf was awarded the Alexander Graham Bell Medal for his contribution on the internet. AGBell recognized Vinton Cerf's extra-ordinary contribution in helping build the first ever internet. The real surprise is that this medal award took place 13 years ago. Maybe it's time that the Deaf community demand that Vinton Cerf return his AGBell medal back to AGBell? And if Vinton Cerf refuses to return his medal back to AGBell then perhaps the Deaf community ought to stage a boycott against using the internet as a show of solidiarity hoping that Vinton Cerf will cave into their demands?

Yeah, I bet you wouldn't.

(correction: changed "Vincent" to "Vinton" which is his correct first name).

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.

Informed Decision....would you accept and support a parents' decision?

There are concerns among many Deaf people that hearing parents of deaf/hh babies and children that they may not have access to all of the necessary information to make an *informed decision* about mode of communicaton to be used. If you watch Barb Digi recent video on YouTube she points out that very same but legitimate concern. However, the biggest test is after the fact when parents do make an *informed decision*. Supposing hearing parents do get all the necessary and relevant materials regarding ASL, SEE, AVT, cued speech, oral/aural trainings, educational aspects and so on. Let's say hearing parents spend considerable time with materials given to them by various hearing loss organizations (AGBell, pro-ASL organizations, pro-bilingual organizatoins, cued speech organizations, etc), met with numerous deaf/hh people, met with various profesional educators and so on over a short but intense period of time. With all the due diligence already undertaken the hearing parents finally make an *informed decision*. They decide to go for the cochlear implant and cochlear implant route for their deaf/hh baby or child. Will you, as a Deaf person unequivocally accept and support the hearing parents' decision for their deaf/hh baby or child? Remember, hearing parents took every effort and did their due diligence effort, including an in-depth comprehensive look at ASL, to make an *informed decision* about their deaf/hh baby or child.

Barb Digi, would you unequivocally accept and support hearing parents' *informed decision* after they have accessed all relevant information decide to go for the AVT and cochlear implant route? I make this challenge to you Barb (and to any Deaf people out there) to answer this question of mine. It is indeed a relevant question to ask.

Watch Barb Digi's video which comes with a built-in scrolling transcript for those who do not know ASL

Interview with President of AGBell

New AGBell President, Jay Wyant, celebrated his swearing-in on June 30 with a guest appearance on the Milwaukee local FOX show "Wake Up Milwaukee." Since Fox 6 news did not provide captioning or a transcript for those in the audience with hearing loss, AGBell provided the captioning themselves. An unfortunate and ironic twist considering that Fox 6 news interviewed a deaf person who is the president of a nationally known organization for deaf and hard of hearing people and parents of children with hearing loss.

Recently, one blogger, RLM, made this wild claim about Jay Wyant before AGBell added captioning in their video link of the Fox 6 news interview:

Why the new AGBell president, Jay Wyant, solely appeared on the Milwaukee WITI FOX News' Health Center segment without someone from the DBC to offer the counter-argument on the ongoing controversy on the educational method and language acquisition and development?

Apparently, if you watch the captioned video by AGBell (note, be sure click on "CC" symbol to turn on the closed captioning), you can easily tell that no arguments were made at all at anytime regarding any topics such as educational method or language acquisition and development. I am hoping that RLM will publicly acknowledge this error of his.

UPDATE: It's a bit ironic considering the lack of captioning or available transcript by Fox 6 news but even more so coming from AGBell's website that linked to that video of the Fox 6 news interview with Jay Wyant who, again more irony here, used to be the Marketing Director for CaptionMax and has extensive in telecommunications and technology accessbility background as described in here. It certainly behooves AGBell to at least offer a transcript of the Fox 6 news even though it was the news station's utlimate responsibility in providing a text version of the interview for those who cannot hear or understand well the spoken word. A transcript should have been provided by AGBell once they thought about linking to a non-captioned Fox 6 news interview of their own president. But it took a hard of hearing person, me, to do all this wokr just so the rest of ya'll can have that equal access. Yet it took several hours to get all this prepared by listening and writing down the words and putting them into captioned form along with a transcript. Yet, I'm not going use laziness or the "purity" route as an excuse not to provide captioning or a transcript when many of you know you can do it anyway but don't. You are what you do.

Jay Wyant, are you listening to what I'm saying?

Great interview, though.

UPDATE II: I removed the YouTube video of my captioning effort and transcript from my blog since AGBell now has their captioned video of the interview. Of course, done by CaptionMax. Good for them. And I wonder why it took them so long? Yet I was about 98 to 98% accurate despite Jay's voice, which is still very intelligible. And I commend him for speaking and using his voice in front of a camera. That takes courage and shows full confidence in his ability to speak and have a dialogue.