Erroneous and dishonest blogging by CAM

I "supported" the AB2072 bill predicated on the fact it was supposed to help inform parents make an informed decision regarding their deaf children identified with hearing loss. And that was the aim of this bill. But during the whole legislative process of adding new amendment after new amendment it became increasingly convuluted as I have said before near the end of the whole process. The bill was important that it also gave greater recognition to ASL as I have said repeatedly in my blogs and that it'd be a plus for pro-ASL organizations for a legislative body to recognize ASL as a language on paper for the first time. But with the increasing complexity added to the bill through amendments I made my point on August 26, 2010 about the bill in my blog the bill's diverging from its original intent (i.e. all communication options) when I published CAA's letter to Tony Mendoza for all to see:

All in all, the continual adding of admendments and other changes in the bill in order to placate Deaf protesters' demands have gotten to the point where their actions have helped vulgarized the bill's original intent. Even the protesters were still not satisfied. From the gist of it legislators seemed to have lost sight for the rest of the children who are mostly hard of hearing or have a hearing loss only in one ear that audiologists frequently diagnose than those who are profoundly deaf. That's what seems to be missing here.

CAM gets it wrong in her recent blog about me.

Candy (Gina Sutton) and Mike McConnell verbally supported this bill saying parents should have full access to information but yet were perfectly okay with the original bill minimizing the information on ASL which was expected of them as they are supporters of oralism.

My "verbal support" of the bill was based on as long as parents make an informed decision regarding all communication options (which includes ASL) then I have no problem with their decisions. This has been my stance for years if you had bothered to do any proper research. The bill's intent was to inform parents of all communication options available. I applauded that ASL was included later on in the bill. Nothing was said about minimizing the information on ASL. In fact, I pointed out that information available to parents should be made equally so in an unbiased manner of all communication options (i.e. visual, auditory and language options) on August 10, 2010.

In other words, this pamphlet MUST provide benefits and risks for the ASL option as well as for any options described in it. And in an unbiased manner, too. It'd be foolish and folly to think that ASL will be excluded from the risk part if every other options must describe the benefits and risks when everything is of equal weight and value in terms of information provided for the parents....in an unbiased manner.

Also, CAM, where did I say that I said that governor Schwarzenegger did the right thing? That's rather puzzling if not dishonest coming from you to say that. Making things up are you? All I did was that I outlined the governor's reasons for not supporting the bill and that his reasons aligned closely to that of CAA's reasons for dropping their support against the bill in my most recent blog about the veto. In my blogs I understood some of CAA's points on why they withdrew their support for the bill. I haven't even pointed out whether I supported the governor's veto or not. Either you are not reading my blogs right, you have not read them at all or that you are purposely making things up along the way for whatever reasons. In this case about Arnold you are making things up.There is no back-pedaling on my part since I've made no statement about Arnold's veto.

Until you provide the links on exactly what I said and where it'd be best to properly make your arguments based on those actual facts and comments rather than make things up along the way as you are wont to do. Until you do your recent blog has no standing, truth or validity regarding me or my blogs.

A quick analysis on the vetoed AB2072 bill

After reading the governor's letter on why he choose to veto the AB2072 bill I noticed three things he mentioned why.

1. The formation of an advisory committee would possibly be a duplicative work of other state programs.

2. The use of advisory committee would be quite biased.

3. And lastly use of an advisory committee would represent a significant workload which will require fiscal resources that the state is already short on.

In one paragraph near the end he stated that there are other resources and efforts being done by state agencies and departments that already try and get the information out to the parents with children identified with hearing loss. In fact, the CAA pointed this out in a letter to Tony Mendoza as seen in the first page, fifth paragraph:

Additionally, existing Health and Safety Code, Article 6.5 Section 124119.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 106, related to newborn and infant hearing screening, already provides for the dissemination of this information to parents. The Federal government already sponsors unbiased brochures, which are updated annually, by professionals in the area of communication options for the deaf and hard of hearing. These brochures can be provided to Californians at no cost. Further, there is really no reason, in our view, for such a broad expansion of this program in these difficult times.

This letter is very similar to the governor's own responses for his reason on vetoing the bill. Despite that, with the state continuing budget cuts will likely affect state organizations that are funded and supported through state grants in order to continue with their operations. With the governor vetoing the AB2072 bill means that ASL will not be recognized as a language in the state of California. And because of that pro-ASL deaf organizations who rely on state grants to help work with children and parents with hearing loss may be at risk. Had a similar bill to that of AB2072 with the inclusion of ASL that gets signed by the governor would have undoubtedly raise in recognizing ASL as a language and thereby have a greater chance of surviving any fiscal cuts via through grants to those organizations in California.  So, who really got hurt here?