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.

Doubters of Sarah Churman...and the hypocrisy

Oh, I covered this before but it was done in a video format about how so many people, especially some deaf people, doubted Sarah Churman's ability to hear and even speak so well even after getting her implantable Envoy hearing device. What surprised me out of all of the videos I produced this one video I did has netted me with over 8,500 hits since last year in October 2011.Must've been a flurry of video searches going on when Sarah Churman's video went viral.

Neat.

The other video I did in July of 2009 that turned out well netted me over 5,400 hits. A video I produced called, "A positive ASL video of a 1 year old baby." And the next video I produced back in July 2011 was a video for hearing people only called, "When deaf/hh people speak, the hypocrisy from the deaf culture." A video where I discussed the hypocrisy I saw from a certain select group of deaf people in the deaf community when I pointed out to Jeff who did the very same thing producing a video for hearing people only. Just as well I also pointed out Tim Riker who did the very same thing by talking at the AB2072 Senate Health Hearing on June 23, 2010 instead of signing. And when I pointed that out in my blog about the hypocrisy they certainly circled the wagon around Tim Riker in the effort to "protect" him for speaking when they have furiously for years tried to prop up the positive message of ASL. And in the end, that group had to fall back speaking to a group of hearing people at the Senate Health Hearing despite having an ASL interpreters readily available. And this was a deaf guy, fluent in ASl, who was the the chapter president of the California Association of the Deaf (Sacramento chapter). A chapter that represents culturally deaf people who chose to speak over signing.

Now, as I think about it, my "for hearing people only" video for some reason has gotten more attention than Jeff's video even though we both produced a video for hearing people only. Why is that? Interesting.

Oh, and don't forget. Sarah Churman's new book is almost out. Don't forget to buy a copy.

Why "Deaf" (big D) for all with hearing loss won't work

I want to add more on what I wrote earlier in my blog about what Don Grushkin said previously about changing the definition of the word "Deaf" with a capitalized letter 'd' to be reserved for all people with hearing loss, deaf and hard of hearing. I want to explain to the readers (and to Don Grushkin and everybody in his Deafhood Foundation circle) why this new definition of his will not work.

First off the definition of "Deaf" with the capitalized 'd' was made popular with the help of Padden and Humphries. The newly defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. They ran with it without even looking back. The d/D hole has already been dug and will continue grow and be divisive.

Who to blame? Well, we all know who.

Secondly, in the Google search you have nearly 15,000 searches that cover the meaning and definition of "D"eaf or "big D." You have About.com explaining the big 'D' and small 'd' in d/Deaf. You have Wikipedia doing the same thing. You have medical journals that discuss culturally deaf people and using the "big D" to explain the meaning of "Deaf."  In an ASL lesson website it explains the big 'D' and little 'd' in d/Deaf.  In other countries they recognize the big 'D' in Deaf on what it supposed to mean. It has entered in the glossary of disability groups or organizations.  Captioning services explain to people on the meaning of "D"eaf.  That definition is ensconced in the Federal government such as NIH.  And the examples go on and on.

The hole continues to go deeper and bigger.

The divisiveness will continue.

That strategy is no good to try and move the goal post in the hope it'll help the Deafhood Foundation or for any "Deafhood" followers with a capital "D" (as opposed to "deafhood") to try and get the new "Deaf" word out as to mean all inclusive for anybody with a hearing loss. That effort was tried once before in CAD who got caught with their pants down for violating the 501(c)(3) laws in their secretive attempt to change their own bylaws that went unnoticed for almost 6 years on inserting the word "D"eafhood.

The old CAD Bylaws 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.

It wasn't an alternative or an option on the Deafhood requirement part because the word "shall" is a legally binding word and must be followed. No room there.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a captioned 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.

But still left behind the "big D" Deaf in their bylaws language. Barry Sewell in his captioned video asked why it was left in without any definition or explanation for the "big D" Deaf.

Don't forget that important bit of history of subterfuge.

Bottom line, the "big D" and "little d" are already well ensconced into the collective minds of culturally deaf people.   They already developed manual signs to distinguish themselves from deaf people and that's simply a hole already dug, Don Grushkin.

Picture source. Left: Judy Gough; and Far Right: Ella Mae Lentz - board members of Deafhood Foundation. 

Don Grushkin on what you said about the d/D as being divisive.

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

I agree, it's divisive. It's ego driven but the hole has already been dug and it continues to be dug. And to try and change the meaning (moving the goal post) of the word "Deaf" (big D) to the advantage of Deafhood Foundation, CAD bylaws or for Deafhood followers in the effort to try and capture a much larger deaf and hard of hearing population and appear neutral about it will not work. You have 30 years of the "big D" and "little d" definitions working against you.

Good luck on undoing all that.
 

The Deaf Dr. Evil Plot......exposed!

Interesting to see the responses in Dianrez's recent blog. One thing I'll have to correct her is her assumption that my recent video was about saving face. Hardly. If she had bothered to pay close attention it was about the ridiculousness of assuming that my quote "Heh heh...my plan is working flawlessly" is meant that I'm somehow planning to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community like some people actually believed here, here, here and most recently today seen here, for example just to name a few. In fact, some people were already proposing these wild conspiracy theories at the very beginning that there were these "super-secret" meetings between me, Barry, Paotie, and whoever else. Before I even started doing the whole Dr. Evil routine quote.

That conspiratorial thinking probably started about more than two years ago when Barry first came on the blogging scene in 2008. So, if people were willing to believe some conspiratorial nonsense about us conspiring together for the ultimate destruction of the Deaf community, I decided to have some fun beginning in Paotie's blog in June 2008 doing the whole Dr. Evil act. And again here. I repeated that again probably 3 or 4 times in my blog as well. If people desperately wanted to believe in their own conspiracy theories about me and other Deaf, deaf, hh people getting together to conspire to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community, I decided to play along since they desperately wanted to believe in it anyway.

Get it? I hope you do, Dianrez.

Hence with all the recent conspiratorial nonsense thrown about at me as seen in my blog comments lately were probably manifested as a result of my Dr. Evil comment started over two years ago and have since floated throughout the minds of many Deaf readers up to today. Which is why I keep saying, "Remove those insipid thoughts of any lingering conspiracy theory about me. You'll sleep better at night." In other words, you'd be playing yourself for a fool to even suggest such that there is such a plot on taking down the Deaf community. It's just plain common sense.

And, Paotie, I know you're laughing already.

So, the big secret is out! Only that I didn't need to explain all this to you, Dianrez, since the very notion that I'm out to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community would have been absurd to you in the first place. Right? Yet, somehow I have the feeling you didn't quite understand all that simply because of the fact of you calling me out as "saving face" in my latest video vlog which was totally incorrect. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to this whole "Dr. Evil" scenario I played with the pinky finger in the lips thing on several occassions over the last few years but it's certainly not about saving face. It's about the ridiculousness of how some people actually believe in this whole conspiracy nonsense from the very beginning. Even some "leaders" fell for that nonsense, too. Sure. We expected that people would because they wanted to desperately believe in that.

About Barry and to help calm the nervous minds out there.

The first time I heard of Barry was back in early 2008 when he did his first blog. I enjoyed and liked his philosophy on many things, and so naturally I saw the things he said and agreed with many things on what he said. I think it was the fact that I publicly agreed with him in his blog comments did people began to speculate about us. And since people were already into this conspiratorial thinking mode that somehow we were in collusion on the planning for the ultimate destruction of the Deaf community, the DBC, AFA, Deafhood, and whatever-Deaf-organization-you-can-think-of! Sorry to disappoint you folks but that's pure bunk. Stop being so paranoid as I have said. We do have strong opinions about some of these Deaf organizations, the Deaf "leaders," their way of doing things, and differences in our philosophies, and so on. That pretty much sums it up. But just because we disagree strongly with other notable Deaf people doesn't mean we're out to destroy the Deaf community. That's pretty much common sense right there and I shouldn't even have to explain all this, either, incredibly so.

I decided to sign since I have discussed this before elsewhere on the ridiculousness of that assumption. I see paranoia and suspicion as an ongoing problem in some segments of the Deaf community. Just a tiny fraction, mind you, of those who are actively connected to the internet. This sort of paranoia could be seen in several articles on the AB2072 issue by invoking Godwin's Law along with eugenics and the Nazism labels in articles written by Deaf supporters of AB2072! I blogged about that saying it doesn't make any sense to use Nazi analogies and people shouldn't be using Nazi labels in such a way within the Deaf community. It reflects poorly on them in my opinion. And by pointing that out it's not attacking the Deaf community as some people are wont to believe but about how those articles reeked a sense of desperation.

I'm curious now. Exactly what was Dianrez's view of using Nazi analogies in those articles at the height of the AB2072 brouhaha? Did she at all speak up on that? She was strangely quiet about that over the past several months. Dianrez, was it appropriate to use those Nazi-labels, connotations and or implications in those AB2072 articles written up by Deaf people, even by the chapter president (Sacramento) of CAD in order to advance their cause?

Have a good night, folks. Sweet conspiratorial dreams.

Oral Deaf Man Criticicizes Other Oral Deaf Man for Using His Voice

It was pretty incredible, bold, and foolish at the same time for Tim Riker (chapter president (Sacramento) of California of the Deaf) to criticize and demean a deaf man, John Fortius/Fortias, as seen in his response to my blog yesterday for using his voice in show of his support of the AB2072 bill on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing.

(Tim Riker) - I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him.

Since Tim Riker didn't say exactly who but there is only one man who used his voice and supported the AB2027 bill in the video recording of the meeting and that was John Fortius, a volunteer deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County. Tim Riker can only be talking about John Fortius. There can be no other person he could be talking about except John Fortius.

What is galling and irresponsible for Tim Riker is to criticize without any merit saying that John Fortius' (profoundly deaf since birth) speech was "unintelligble." Tim Riker's comment was done in poor taste. It was rather unprofessional for Tim Riker to use his position as chapter president of CAD to go after another deaf man for using his voice when in fact he also used his voice on that same day as well. It is rather an unsavory move for him to use his position to try and convince many others of that false claim in order to push his ASL agenda and lob a few conspiracy bombs about audiologists while he's at it.

Tim, I can tell you for a fact that John Fortius' speech was indeed intelligible and was understood for perhaps 98% to 99% of his speech. Mind the fact that were two unofficial transcripts (see below) that recorded all of his speech that day. Also, one ASL interperter was able to interpret what he said as seen in the video starting at 20:48. I was able to understand most of his speech just by listening to the recorded video. And he spoke fine to me. There is no need to get into details on how his voice sounded like which is, of course, not like what a hearing person's speech would sound like. His speech was "unintelligble" only to Tim Riker who is deaf and uses a hearing aid. Perhaps he should consider the fact about his own hearing loss and the limitation of how he can discriminate another person's speech? Perhaps he could not understand John Fortius' speech because he has a deep voice? Tim Riker needs to understand that some deaf/hh people are able to hear better when people's voices are in the higher frequency range than lower ones like men's voices. Or vice versa. Or that some deaf/hh people can hear very well in both the higher and lower frequency range of a person's voice. In this case, it was only Tim Riker who could not understand him while everybody else could to one degree or another.

Secondly, Senator Alquist did not interrupt John Fortius "several times" as Tim Riker tried to put it. In fact, she only interrupted him once to ask him to speak from his heart and not look at his notes. That can be seen in the video. You can also see that in the transcript, too. How disengenuous of Tim Riker to say those things in order to push his ASL agenda while as chapter president of CAD, no less. He even contributed to a heavily biased "eugenics" article called California Eugenics-Style Bill Creates Uproar Among the Deaf Community. Anything to do to push an agenda, eh? Kick another deaf man down for using his voice and then try and prop him up saying that the Deaf community would welcome him?

Nice move.

Here's the unofficial transcript below and in the video John Fortius begins to talk at 20:48:

JOHN FORTIUS: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortius, I am 32 years old, and I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I’m here today in support of this bill. At a young age, when my Mom found out that I had lost my hearing, she decided that she was going to do the oral-auditory approach, and this in part because she had prior training to my birth, she had a speech pathologist. As a result of her guidance and some education through oral-auditory school, I was mainstreamed in preschool and on. Some of my [accomplishments] since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Williamette University in Salem, Oregon. Was a college football player, and just a year ago, I recently graduated from law school. And continuously, from the time that I graduated from college, I’ve been continuously employed when not in school. Just most recently I have been working as a deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County as a volunteer. Currently–

SEN. ALQUIST: And why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: Why am I supportive of the bill?

SEN. ALQUIST: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.

FORTIUS: It gives people an opportunity–a chance to [pause] have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be a more [unintelligible] life. It would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not–I’m going off my speech–I’m the first to admit that I am not part of the Deaf Community. I have–I don’t associate with it, but I am an advocate of you know, just the best thing–the best course of action, whatever that might be–for disabled people. And so that is a big part of why I’m here today. And–

SEN. ALQUIST: Just speak to me.

FORTIUS: What’s that?

SEN. ALQUIST: I like what you’re saying. Don’t look at your notes. Just–why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: OK, basically, what I’m getting from, is when we’re faced with such an important decision in our lives, when is not being fully informed the best solution? And it’s logical, it’s common sense, and I believe seriously that being fully informed in any big decision in your life is very important, and so that is a big reason of why I’m here today in support of this bill.

SEN. ALQUIST: Thank you very much.

FORTIUS: Thank you.

This transcript follows almost exactly in another unofficial transcript as well which goes to show that John Fortius' speech was indeed quite intelligible that day.

My advice to you Tim Riker? Leave out your business of criticizing other deaf or hard of hearing people's speech and their choices to use them or not. Not doing so will make you look bad as chapter president of CAD.

And lastly, Tim Riker complained that I used his name without permission of which I find humorous.

Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission.

No permission is required or needed in this case. Tim Riker gave his name and spoke at the June 23, 2010 AB2072 Senate Health hearing which was captured and recorded on video for the public made possible by California taxpayers. This means that the mentioning of his name in that video and what he said are now a matter of public record and for public consumption. What I did was copy the verbatim part of Tim Riker's comment in one of the transcripts. It's all part of the public record, Tim. No permission is required.

I support both John Fortius and Tim Riker's use of their voices regardless of the situation when there are interpreters available. I'm not in the position to criticize other deaf/hh people choice's to use their voice or sign using ASL or SEE (or whatever). The important point here is that deaf/hh people have the right to decide which methods to use to communicate. For Tim Riker to criticize another deaf man's use of his voice is a serious step back on CAD's own credibility as an organization. This time, I and many others doubt Tim Riker's sincerity after he criticized and demeaned John Fortius by saying this:

...there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him

Really, Tim? After what you have done so far? Unity for whom now?

*shakes head*

Tim Riker, chapter president of CAD, respond to Kokonut Pundit

In my blog, "Use of voice is way, way better than ASL! ", Tim Riker, chapter president (Sacramento) of CAD, responded in my blog comment section on why he choose to use his voice at the AB2072 California Senate Health Hearing. I am putting his combined responses here for ease of reading for my readers and a forum for him and others to respond and discuss here. Although for now I am assuming this is him responding unless otherwise notified.

Tim Riker - I had discussed with the people involved with the CDNIAS coalition regarding whether I should speak or sign during the hearing. I had their support to speak. Both ASL and spoken English were at my disposal because of my bilingual education while growing up. The general rule is to first consider the main audience when selecting which language to use. Then if you are able to use that language directly and fluently then use it. If not, then use an interpreter. This applies to any situation and any language. When someone who is fluent in Spanish decides to speak English to a predominantly Spanish speaking audience, then of course that would be considered very offensive. My audience was predominantly English speaking and my choice was appropriate for that situation. Tim Riker.

And another response in the same blog comment section.

First, I want to make it clear that every language needs to be respected, whether it's American Sign Language (ASL), English, Spanish or some other language. To deny any language the equal respect it deserves is called linguicism. Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission. I don't see anyone pointing out that Assembly Member Tony Mendoza or any of the other Hispanic legislators spoke English rather than Spanish in the Capitol. If someone wrote an article celebrating that a Hispanic person chose to speak English rather than Spanish in a specific situation, wouldn't that be an insult to Hispanic people who speak Spanish? I want to note that I am multilingual and select the most appropriate language for each situation. My first languages are both ASL and English and I have my family who used ASL with me and my bilingual education at Maryland School for the Deaf to thank for having multiple languages at my disposal. The fact that I spoke English during the California Senate Health Hearing was because the primary audience I was speaking to were the Senators who voted on this bill-- all of whom speak English. However, the most comfortable language for me in most situations is and will always be ASL. I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him. There are many with that background who have done that and they were among those who fought the hardest against AB 2072. I believe having a strong foundation and immersion in two different languages provided me the versatility I needed for various settings. However, how well I speak does not define who I am or my success. I know many very gifted, educated and successful Deaf people who use ASL to communicate and they don't hear or speak at all. I have nothing but respect for them and their contributions. Tim Riker

He also responded in my blog "Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?"

I discussed whether I should speak English or use American Sign Language while testifying with the core committee. I had the support of the core committee. I think it's a general cultural rule if you're fluent in ASL but choose to speak English to a predominantly Deaf audience, it is offensive. In my case, even though there were many Deaf people watching, the main audience were the Senators on the Health Committee who ultimately had to vote on the bill. As a multilingual Deaf person, I spoke English with the support of other Deaf people because it was appropriate for me in that situation. By the way, please beware of Candy since I notice she will quote what other people say out of context. She did that earlier by quoting only a small part of my comment on another blog several months ago when I explained how audism and dysconscious audism in society creates a hierarchy. It's actually in every person's best interest to promote English and ASL bilingual education for every Deaf child so they can eventually choose for themselves which language they use for each situation. More importantly, when society is equally accepting of ASL, you will shatter this hierarchy which affects everyone regardless of how well they hear or speak. Tim Riker

Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?

I've waited to see if anybody had actually objected to Tim Riker, the chapter president of the California Association of the Deaf (Sacramento chapter), who used his voice at the AB2072 Senate Health Hearing on June 23, 2010 instead of signing in ASL as seen in the Calchannel.com (June 23) along with a partial transcript below on what he said which starts at 31 minutes and 40 seconds into the video:

Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur (actually, it's Tim Riker), I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter. I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy. We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the positive changes to the current mark up language of the bill, and it means progress, but the language of the bill still needs a little bit more work to make it so that we can really put the focus on the deaf children and getting the parents access to the information that they need. I wanted to point to a 2003 state senate resolution number 20, it formally apologized for the outrageous attempt to *socially engineer people out of *existence. The regional version of Mendoza’s AB 2072 bill leads us towards a slippery slope of *eugenics. So the proposed amendment is a very good step in the right direction. It is fair, if we have a few changes to the amendment. The proposed amendment by the health committee, it still threatens the fundamental values of a deaf education and language development, by giving audiologists the power to discriminate information for which they are not trained or licensed. The audiologists’ training gives them the buyer that’s inherently unacceptable, if the audiologist ought to have a role, it must only be to identify that child is deaf, as soon as possible, and then refer the parent to an appropriate professional or entity with a focus on the educational aspect of raising a deaf child. That needs to be determined by the panel of people who are, represented by people involved with the...

How come no outrage from people in the Deaf community for Time to use his voice when the issue was about getting ASL into the spotlight? With Tim Rikier's refusal to sign and use of his voice, was it to try and appear more "intelligent" and more "educated" hoping that linguicism would prevail on the part of the committee looking favorably at Tim's pleas and be impressed with him?

A) When a Deaf person is able to speak English with his voice, or write excellent English, he gets lauded as intelligent and well educated. This person is considered successful in life.

B) When a Deaf uses ASL (no matter how fluently), but writes mediocre English, and cannot speak English, he is considered intellectually inferior, ill-educated, and guaranteed to fail in life.

On linguicism:

SCENARIOS:

Two persons are talking. During the course of this conversation, one of the persons is assessing the other’s wealth, quality of education, status in society based on the other person’s use/choice of language or dialect.

A) If the other person shows an excellent command of English, the assessor assumes he is quite well-educated, possibly from a wealthy family, which then indicates an elevated status in society.
B) If that other person shows poor command of the English language, or uses another language, the assessor assumes that he’s ill-educated, poor, possibly from a ghetto and therefore from the lower classes in society.

What I don't understand is that since Tim Riker is deep within the world of Deaf culture and community as chapter president of CAD he uses his voice.... instead of signing using his proud and preferred language, American Sign Language. I kind of wondered what exactly was Tim's strategy in doing that. What was his goal to use his voice that day as chapter president of CAD? There were voice interpreters there that day and would have interpretted his signing yet he choose to use his voice that day, on live tv, in front of thousands of Deaf people tuning into the AB2072 soap opera. Not one single outcry from a Deaf person, community or group objecting or asking why he used his voice instead. Not one (as far as I can tell so far).

Why the silence? Is this another example of hypocrisy at work?

Now, I'm in favor of a person in choosing how one prefer to communicate. I won't discriminate anybody for doing that. It's really none of my business. There were ASL interpreters available for both voice and ASL translation at the meeting it wouldn't matter to me. I am not opposed to Tim or anybody else who choose to use his/her voice or sign. I'm just noticing the obvious disconnect between what Deaf people say about using voice over ASL when it comes to choice. And it's usually a negative one.

Now, when I choose to use my voice at Gallaudet University's first ever blog/vlog conference where it had ASL and voice interpreters, and real time captioners available for the live internet audience, I had gotten a few grumbling complaints and objections from some Deaf people saying what I did was rude and so on. And of all places on the sacred grounds of Gallaudet University did I dare use my voice in front of Deaf people. Oh well.

What I'm presenting here or trying to say is not about the complaints per se although I am wondering about that too but it's the irony in seeing a chapter president of CAD who is Deaf use his voice in front of thousands on live streaming tv (which is now recorded for history) in order to elevate the status and use of ASL. Did he unwittingly lowered the status of ASL as not important and choose to use his voice instead? Did he unwittingly elevated the use of voice over ASL that day? Those are the interesting questions I have here.

ADDENDUM: If you have no objection (I don't) to Tim Riker's using his voice then you should have no objections to Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf and knows ASL, using her voice at Gallaudet University's 2006 graduation commencement speech?

ADDENDUM #2: In a blog called Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi blogger discussed the Breuggemann's use of her voice and agrees strongly that she shouldn't have used her voice and that it was plainly wrong. Oh really?

People in our community are free to choose what language they want to use in various situations - I absolutely agree with that. Dr. Brueggemann's choice, however, went far beyond the bounds of diversity and was, in my view, a grave offense. I took great affront at her choice that day...

Too bad this blogger doesn't know the true reason why Brueggemann decided to use her voice in an email exchange that Brueggemann and I had at the time. I wonder how this blogger feels about Tim Riker's use of his voice being that he's a chapter president of CAD? In both situations both had ASL interpreters at the time with the exception of Gallaudet University that had both an ASL interpreter and real time captioner for the large video screen at the graduation ceremony.

Related blog - Voice is way, way better than ASL!

"Deafhood," AFA, and CAD linked as "Extremist Groups" in Wikipedia?

There must be a joke in there somewhere. The name "Deafhood" was found in a Wikipedia entry under the listed "Extremist Groups" category as seen in the United States section along with other notable organizations like Church of Scientology, Earth First!, and Aryan Nation. Not only that but AFA and CAD were also found under that list, too. Here's a screen capture of that Wikipedia entry.

BTW, do you take much stock into Wikipedia nowadays?

Yet, when you click on the "Deafhood" it links to it's own Wikipedia entry on "Deafhood." And I couldn't help but noticed this entry.

Numerous deaf and hearing people view 'deafhood' as a closed society, largely due to long history of rejections against those who do not practice and use pure ASL (American Sign Language). Those who did not practice pure ASL were generally rejected by people who practice deafhood theory. For instance, numerous deaf people were categorized as 'deafless' because they were not deaf enough therefore they were rejected from the deafhood community. Numerous deaf individuals that choose to wear cochlear implants, hearing aids and use different communication methods / devices were also rejected by the deafhood community. The general deaf community sees deafhood as an extremist group.

Again, here's a screen capture of that entry, too.

Interesting. I'm sure entries will change again and again and again and again and again and again....ad nauseum.

Disclaimer: I am only reporting this as I just found out about it. Somebody created these Wikipedia entries and not I.

DBC in Violation of IRS Charitable Contribution Law?

Two questions stood out when I visited DBC's donation page (if unable to link go here to an archived section) and noticed a couple of things that merit serious questions as to their tax deductibility claim.

Consider making a donation to the Deaf Bilingual Coalition. All donations go directly towards promoting the mission, purpose, and goals of DBC.

You may donate through Pay Pal via California Association of the Deaf
http://www.cad1906.org/.
DBC is under Programs on the Home Page. Please go to donate:

http://cad1906.org/programs/support-for-the-deaf-bilingual-coalition/

or...

Make checks out to the Deaf Bilingual Coalition

And mail to:
Deaf Bilingual Coalition
c/o Alyce Reynolds
40002 Catalina Place

Fremont, CA 94539

Your donations are tax deductible and are greatly appreciated!!

According to DBC in an older blogsite:

CAD has a federal I.D. number as non-profit organization with a 501(c) status. All donations are tax deductible according to federal tax laws and it must be reported to theIRS as well as to the members of CAD. Every dollar donated helps increase awareness andsupport actions to ensure that ASL is not denied to Deaf children.

Two things stand out starkly so. First, you can donate money to CAD via PayPal or you can donate money DIRECTLY to DBC using your paper check and not to CAD and use DBC's organization address.

Secondly, an organization must be qualified before you can deduct your contributions as tax deductible according to "IRS Publication 1771, Charitable Contributions - Substantiation and Disclosure Requirements" that explains federal tax law for organizations that receive tax-deductible charitable contributions (e.g. cash) and for taxpayers who make contributions. You can find out whether an organization qualifies if they are listed under IRS Publication 78 by doing a simple search for names of qualified charitable organizations by visiting the Publication 78 search page. A simple search reveals that CAD would qualify for IRS tax deduction but not DBC. And this raises a question about sending a check directly to DBC using their home address on the check. It does not say "Or send check to CAD." DBC cannot, according to the IRS, receive donated money directly as an organization because DBC is not listed under IRS Publication 78 list of qualified organizations for IRS tax deduction purposes.

Thirdly, money donated to CAD would be legitimate according to IRS Publication 78 and that they are obligated to disclose to the public on the amount of money that was donated. If money was donated to DBC via CAD's PayPal then CAD must also be obligated to disclose publicly monies donated according to IRS guidelines. Not doing so would be a breach of IRS’ requirement on disclosing money. If you donated money to CAD for DBC, CAD is required by IRS law to send you a letter of acknowledgement on cash contribution/donation to CAD. The penalty for an organization that do not meet the written disclosure requirement is $10 per contribution, not to exceed $5000 per fundraising event or mailing. An organization may avoid the penalty if it can show that failure to meet the requirements was due to reasonable cause. For more info on this go to Section 170(f)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 1.170A-13(f) of the Income Tax Regulations. The “low-cost article” rules are set forth in Section 513 (h)(2) of the Code. You can find this information at http://www.irs.gov/ .

Now, some questions. Is DBC part of an umbrella organization under CAD which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization? Did CAD file DBC as part of their umbrella organization with the IRS? As for money donated to CAD for DBC, how is money given to DBC even though it is an organization that doesn't qualify under IRS' Publication 78? What are the legalities concerning a non-profit company such as CAD on giving or passing donated money to an unlisted organization not on IRS list of qualified organizations? What I what I want to know as a tax payer is how much money was donated to CAD (e.g. via PayPal) where the money is funneled over to DBC over the past year starting in 2007. Does this sound like a money laundering effort even though it is NOT in the usual sense of the word? The IRS explains exactly what money laundering is. I'm not saying it's being done that way but I am asking questions about the legalities and processes of how money goes from CAD to DBC. Does CAD have to report to the IRS on who and how much of the donated money goes to DBC? And what about checks sent directly to DBC? How does DBC report the financial transaction on donated money sent directly to them and not through CAD? Who is controlling this flow of donated money? How were donated monies spent by DBC? Were travel expenses paid? What about hotel costs? Convention costs? Do these things get reported to CAD? To the IRS? Is CAD responsible for reporting these things? Or DBC?

See where I'm getting at?

Where's the accountability here?

Where's the money coming from?

Where's the money going to?

Does the IRS know about this?

So many questions regarding financial transactions and charitable donations. Barry Sewell asks similar questions as well regarding accountability, bylaws and such that question the whole movement by DBC. Transparency is not there. No accountability. No Democracy in action. Simply too many red flags at the moment. All we have are these questionable activities and supposed hidden agendas by DBC and the people involved (or were once involved but were dropped or kicked out). But I think the IRS issue could be a potentially serious one that perhaps even NAD may not be aware of. We need some kind of transparency here to explain these things whether it's DBC, CAD, or even NAD.

A mission ought to be simple and direct. In the case of babies or children with hearing loss it should be about providing positive and valuable information for hearing parents to have about ASL and English (spoken, signed, and/or written) as being equal without all the added baggage and guilt thrown at them. Even if parents choose a different mode of communication or method they should not be made to feel guilty when it was an informed decision process.