Organizational Cyberbullying Action

What is that? "Organizational Cyberbullying Action" or OCA where groups of people band together in the effort to cyberbully people into silence. Sometimes using an organization as a front but behind the scene the bullying by leaders or members of that organization occurs. A term that Amy came up while commenting in my blog regarding use of a DBC website to harass a blogger. Although the definition of OCA was my own, not Amy's. Something that I thought was worth looking into for now.

Over the last few years or so, especially right after DPN2 protest in 2006, the use of new and colorful words were used and abused in the effort to suppress others into submission by getting bloggers and vloggers to shut up with their comments and opinions contrary to other Deaf people's views and opinions by using words against them. Words like:

Avdism. This is probably the number one word used to try and cajole and suppress other bloggers or vloggers' opinions by accusing them of practicing "avdism." This word was especially used against Tayler in the effort to control him on how Deafread and DVTV are to be operated.

Colonized/Colonialized. As in the case here seen in this screenshot where one Deaf person used a visible and well known organization's website, Deaf Bilingual Coalition, to try and bully me into submission (see story here) and create an appearance he had the backing of the DBC behind him. Incidentally, neither the Deaf person in question and especially the DBC never once made any attempt to make a formal and public apology to me. The word "colonialized" is a commonly used word against other deaf and hard of hearing people, and sometimes Deaf people. The word was conceptually derived from Paddy Ladd's book as a source of inspiration for Deaf people to use and abuse.

All these efforts at suppression seems to reek of the age old social problem of "not Deaf enough" lobbed at other Deaf people, ironically so. And if you're a Deaf person who doesn't agree with "avdism" then you are deemed as a "traitor" to the Deaf community. If your views do not jive with some Deaf people populist views then they see you as an adversary, a person who doesn't fit the mold as what a Deaf person is supposed to behave, act, and think when others see it as extremism going too far. There's common sense and then there's extremism.

Questioning DBC's hit counter... an illusion?

My thoughts about my recent blog on fake award badges (of which Fookem & Bug finally removed their questionable "Top Blog" award badge) turned me to thinking about the Deaf Bilingual Coalition's website. I couldn't help but noticed DBC's visitor hit counter prominently shown near the top of their website. The number I saw just a few minutes ago had a hit count of 2,495,575 hits. That got me thinking. That number literally does not add up since I know that DBC website first went up in late spring or summer of 2008 using the Archive.org site to ascertain the initial date of that website going public. And with my curiousity piqued I did a little investigation.

I used Google's search engine to use its cache feature to see what was the visitor count according to Google's last "snapshot" of that website. The Google cache captured the DBC website on August 31, 2010 showed a hit counter at 2,489,421. That's 6 days apart from Google cache record to today's count with a difference of 6,154 hits. Assuming this counter is true in over 6 days worth that's about 1,000 hits a day. Even this number might be questionable as well when compared to my website where I normally get anywhere from 400 to 800 hits a day.

Using the Alexa traffic rank website my website has a traffic rank of 3,894,629 (as of September 2010) while the DBC website has a traffic rank of 14,204,188. My blogsite is almost 7 years old with over 800,000 hits. But DBC is about 2 years old with supposedly 2,495,575 hits yet it ranks much lower than mine? With 2,495,575 hits in 2 years that's the equivalent of 104,000 hits a month yet in six days it racked up about 6,000 hits (assuming this is even true) which would leave about 30,000 hits in a month. Supposing the "2,495,575 hits" is true then certainly Alexa's website would've easily shown that.

This analysis of mine has nothing to do with who has the bigger number of hits. That's besides point here. It's about the obvious discrepancies I am seeing with DBC's own visitor counter number. And frankly, my conclusion is that whoever put that counter up with the high hits isn't being honest.

Breaking: Deaf Hate Speech Found

Unbelievable! Here are some perpetrators of hate speech found on the internet that deserves our attention but before I go further with this damning expose' here's USAToday on an article about hate speech and how it is difficult to police and define.

Maybe a little shake up is in order here (*ahem*) but with all these recent nebulous, insinuating claims of "Deaf hate speech" or "Deaf hate crimes" on YouTube and in blogs are beginning to look like an attempt to sow dischord and distrust for those who simply have an opinion, no matter how disagreeable it may be. Perhaps to try and form a Deaf mob of some sort? Reminds me of villagers with pitchforks and torches rallying together to go after Frankenstein whose only fault was that he existed. The real hate being perpetrated was the villagers going after Frankenstein.

Use of such colorful words like "Deaf hate speech" or "Deaf hate crime" is the same classic example of using the words "avdism" or "avdist" as a weapon of choice as a way to try and shut up other people's own opinions, arguments, certain facts and such on various deaf/hh - related issues. This has lately been used in one popular deaf/hh forum in the name of "self preservation."

I rarely even bother to watch vlogs by Deaf people except this time someone gave me a heads up and I saw Lois' vlog (*hand waves at Lois*). Yes, I'm back. I am who I am. Diversity includes those who don't always necessarily agree with everything, too.

Also, as a clarification it was I who initiated the email to Tayler, the owner of Deafread and Deafvideo.TV, to discuss a few things and decided to come back after a lengthy absence on my own volition. Though I realized one funny thing between the both of us and how we have something in common and that we both were viciously called as an "avdist." Perhaps the real perpetrators of "Deaf hate speech" are those who like to lob words like "avdist," or charge them with "hate speech" or "hate crime" at Deaf/deaf people?

Here's what Tayler Mayer said about Deafvideo.TV in my blog comment:

The most bizarre thing I've seen is if someone disagrees with Deafhood, it's called *udism. I made a vlog and there's still people who don't understand.

And I've been called an *udist because I didn't feel the definition of *udism was clear enough to be enforced on DeafRead/DeafVIDEO.TV. I instead said it wouldn't be tolerated under the harassment rule. It's just harder to enforce something that's not clear. Never mind that wasn't enough for them folks.

The term *udism indeed has its merits, but it's been manipulated into a weapon only meant to hurt or intimidate others.

Was Tayler a victim, ironically so, of "hate speech" by some Deaf people and those those who disagreed with other people's opinions?

Since you’ve just discussed how some people attempted to shut others up by using the term oppression, then avdism, whenever there was criticism of DBC or AFA on DVTV, is the prohibition against Barry to vlog about DBC or AFA on DVTV still in effect?

Was I a victim of "hate speech" by certain Deaf people? Emotions ran high and people have used that as a justification and excuse to slap on the "hate crime" and/or "hate speech" charges? Isn't that one of the definition of a "hate speech" as well?

I hope you won't be disappointed that there is no new discovery on finding a "Deaf hate speech." And, no, I don't believe the people who lobbed the words "avdist" or "Deaf hate speech" and such at other Deaf or deaf/hh people committed any hate speech at all. I see them as having a strong opinion but to call it as a "hate crime" or "hate speech"? Isn't that going a bit too far, if not an irresponsible and reckless charge?

Something to chew on here.

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.

Paranoia, Emotional Baggage, Zealotry, Cult Followers…in no particular order

I want to talk about something a little bit different and slightly off tangent but falls well within the paranoia discussion that will follow shortly. Lately I know that some Deaf people out there have seen my devilish remark, “My plan is working flawlessly *rubs hands* heh heh…,” in a few places such as Paotie’s, my blog and elsewhere. I made up this devilish looking remark first in Chronicles of a Bionic Woman and then proceeded to use that same remark based off of a funny movie in a few other places. Strategically timed I supposed when I placed it. But the result was that several Deaf people began to take note and commented by making up wild conspiracy claims believing my remark had to do with AGBell, the DBC, or thinking it had to do about a devilish plan against the Deaf community at large and so on. Though let me make myself clear that I do have a certain propensity to delve in a bit of quirky humor. I know that some people already know this or don’t take it seriously but when I made that devilish remark about my plan that is “working flawlessly” I said it to hopefully prove a point. And that people will run off with that remark of mine thinking it’s proof that I’m out to destroy the Deaf culture and what not or whatever so- called agenda you want to conspire and bring up. But the thing is….there is no plan! I have no plan that is “working flawlessly.” So, relax. Have a beer and laugh over this one. You’ve been punked big time.

Ok. Feel better now? Now that I’ve officially placed a disclaimer about my devilish remark as a non-issue or of no concern for the Deaf community I go to my topic of discussion.

It becomes an odd if almost comical event to witness bloggers or vloggers resort to using Godwin’s Law (Reducto ad Hitlerum) in their own arguments thinking they’re well grounded in logical, scholarly thoughts. Hardly. The mere act of bringing up Nazism or “playing the Nazi card” to try and make parallels or associations in an argument simply gets nullified on that merit alone. Playing the Nazi card in the hope that appeal to emotions will win out rather than on logic and common sense will simply lose all credibility and everything they say after that won’t mean much. This is especially so when you have group of Deaf people playing the Nazi card to try and create supposed parallels on what’s happening today to deaf and hard of hearing people when it comes to AGBell’s philosophy as an organization. Doing so would be pretty much proof that those people who resort to that tactic are carrying way too much emotional baggage. I’m sure they have legitimate issues based on past experiences but to play the Nazi card will simply nullify their own arguments!

Yet with my odd but uneasy fascination on witnessing cult followers who are hell bent on destroying AGBell at all costs even at the cost of losing all credibility to the eyes of basically everybody which means Deaf, deaf, hh, hearing people and especially hearing parents. Yet the AGBell organization believes that hearing parents have the right to make informed decisions when it comes to their deaf/hh child, even if it means choosing ASL or not. Although AGBell’s philosophy as an organization does emphasize on the listening and speaking aspect for deaf and hard of hearing children. However, AGBell is not the one shooting themselves in the foot but the Deaf adherents or zealots who are basically doing that by continuing to demonize AGBell at every possible turn at a great cost to the credibility of the whole Deaf community. It is simply becomes an unproductive endeavor all in the name to “save” deaf/hh babies from those mean and heartless hearing parents from the hypnotic control of AGBell professionals. There are better ways on getting positive messages across.

Again, all this is rather comical but sad to watch these things transpire in front of our eyes. Zealotry has a way of blinding people and not see the bigger picture. You have advocates with the right frame of mind and then you have those who are simply out of control who use their own emotional baggage to drag the rest of the people down the drain. These are simply an opinion and observation of mine so take it with a grain of salt.

So in review of I what have written today and the things that have been happening lately in the hearing loss community when it comes to paranoia, emotional baggage, zealotry and cult followers, I’d like to make a concluding remark:

My plan is working flawlessly! *rubs hands* Heh heh….muwahhhahahaha!

Deafhoodism Voodoo

* click me and check inside for free! *

Just to be fair in the name of this so-called "transparency" game I am just now realizing that DBC, a grassroots organization with several core leaders running it, never disclosed any financial or commerical or venture gains with, if any, "Deafhood" workshops," amount of money donated to DBC via CAD (which is questionable on tactics used to receive money), products sold (e.g. t-shirts) , "Deafhood" trainings, re-imbursements, gifts, any relationship to Deafhood Foundation and so on.

Under DeafRead's policy regarding using blog or vlog sites on commercialization:

6) Commerical Sites

We do not link to commerical sites for the purpose of generating profit, other than our own (we have expenses to cover!)

Though DBC's website was linked numerous times in DeafRead and now it is reasonable to ask the question regarding any commercialization aspect, according to Jared, concerning the danger of becoming a "mouthpiece" for an organization:

DeafRead highly values the true ethos of blogging- that is a blogger sharing independent thought, meaningful analysis and personal opinions without undue influence.
When a blogger is part of an organization backed by a for-profit corporation and both of them can stand to benefit financially from the blogging effort, there is an inherent conflict of interest. These bloggers can optionally receive other means of compensation. The integrity of the blog posts then is called into question. The blogger can run the risk of becoming a mouthpiece for the corporation.

DeafRead prefers to distance ourselves from these types of blogs. This is why we continue to allow personal blogs of CI bloggers who display the true ethos of blogging. Any blog that start to push for a product to the point of almost becoming commercialized will be revisited by the DeafRead team for a possible change in its subscription status.

Indeed. So, what makes a product a product? Is it something tangible that you can touch that has value? Or can pushing a product be about pushing certain ideology or a concept in the hope of receiving some kind of monetary or beneficial (self-serving) gains through the incorporation of an idealogy and use that to sell their products?

Seems like this whole thing is this inexorable march towards this whole"Deafhoodism" folly. A few years ago I, as the original author (see here, here and here), came up with word "Deafhoodism" and provided a definition on what it means:

Deafhoodism - a Deaf status quo regarding Deafhood; a system of Deaf beliefs accepted as authoritative where acceptance and, sometimes, blameless actions toward other deaf and hard of hearing individuals outside of Deaf culture would be required. It is also a self-discovery oriented process involving sustained meaningful interaction with and commitment to, Deaf social, cultural and/or political life where a deaf or hard of hearing person would become a Deaf person someday.

In short, hoping these "deaf and hard of hearing people" will "see the light" and reach for "Deaf nirvana" someday.

But it seems like DBC cannot keep "Deafhood" separate from their now quagmire of a mission that's already beginning to show mixed messages and letting Deaf politics become their mission du jour that's seemingly filled with hidden agendas. It's becoming more and more painfully obvious in what some of these people are doing.

But with the latest revelation by Barry Sewell with a copy of an IM between core leaders of DBC did it show that there are clear disdain towards hearing parents who get cochlear implants for their deaf children or the use of AVT. And the general atmosphere of disdain towards the idea of oralism as well. Not to mention personal agendas of somehow tying DBC with that of Deafhood Foundation. Of course, they have a right to their own personal opinions and beliefs but certainly and obviously so we are seeing that conflict of interest is occurring.

All in all, it seems like all of a sudden a bunch of Deaf people are simply wearing masks with the intention to further their own personal agendas regarding ASL, "Deafhood," "Deafhood" workshops, NAD, DBC, grab for power and any and everything in between. Remember what I said about carrying unnecessary baggage with you? Which is exactly why the below cartoon precisely describes what's going on.

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.

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.

A Deficit Thinker?

The term “deficit thinking” came out during discussions on “deafhood” last year which has become the latest buzz word, in some circles, especially when people use it to lob at other people accusing them of having “deficit thinking.” Now, exactly what is a “deficit thinker”? Well, it’s a person who practices “deficit thinking.” Ok. What’s “deficit thinking” then?

According to a book on “The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice” (by Richard R. Valencia, which is an interesting read on the history of how that concept came about) the definition of “deficit thinking” is:

“Deficit thinking is tantamount to the process of ‘blaming the victim’. It is a model founded on imputation, not documentation.”

Imputation essentially means acts of accusation.

And further in the book it also defines “deficit thinking” as a form of oppression:

“..that deficit thinking is a form of oppression – that is, the cruel and unjust use of authority and power to keep a group of people in their place.”

John makes an arbitrary and vague charge against those who harbor “deficit thinking” ought to be removed is in fact highly ironic considering the definitions of what “deficit thinking” means. Though the book also talks about "deficit thinking" as a form of "psuedo-science."

"process of false persuasion by scientific pretense"

Now, DeafRead is free to do whatever they want on which blogs or vlogs to accept and publish the links when it comes to deafness related issues. I have no real complaints or qualms on what they do. Just as vloggers and bloggers are free to post what they want and moderate comments as they see fit.

Ain’t free expression great in America?

But to promote or instigate for the limitations on the free exchanges of ideas and concepts just because people happen to not like what’s being discussed sets a dangerous precedence. But that’s only if government does that and interferes with that freedom of expression and speech. Personal ownership, however, of a blog or website, the person is essentially free to do what he or she wants when it comes to discussed contents. But if people are not allowed greater access that can help lead to discussions about certain ideals, concepts and even myths then how can people learn? Isn’t this about learning and being fully informed in order to make an informed decision on what’s going on? Separate what's real and what's not? Who decide for who here? Isn't this all about balance?

Perhaps it's time that John (and others who are behind him on that idea) needs to point out publicly in his blog on exactly who those “deficit thinkers” are and explain to DeafRead editors or the owner why they must be removed from DeafRead and on what grounds. Which blogs need to be removed because of the contents? Which blogsites need to be removed? Which bloggers need to be removed or banned because discussions happen to revolve around topics that they do not like surely must be big enough of an excuse or justification for removal or banishment? Is John (and others) advocating to DeafRead editors and the owner that their policy or guideline ought to be revamped? And include a section that “Deficit thinking is not allowed”? Exactly what do you mean by "deficit thinking"? Who is really being desperate here, John? Is this imagined futility that bad when it comes to discussing various deaf or deafness related topics?

I’m sure readers of DeafRead will want to hear more about this suggestion of yours, John. And I'm sure readers will be looking forward to your list of names of those you (and others) feel need to be removed or its blog/vlog content removed because it rankles you.

The ball is in your court. You made the first imputation. Use your time wisely.