Walk4Hearing to break donation record

I reported on this earlier this year in April and in 8 months time the Walk4Hearing organization was able to raise another $800,000 with $1.2 million dollars already raised with the goal of $1.4 million dollars this year. From the looks of it they will definitely break the $1.4 million dollar mark this year beating out last year of $1.3 million dollars.

Money raised is shared between national and local programs and services including support of children with hearing loss at www.kidsandhearingloss.org.

National Programs and Services      

• Provide timely and reliable information about hearing loss through HLAA’s website, Hearing Loss Magazine, HLAA e-News, the Hearing Loss Support Specialist Training, message boards/chat forums and annual conventions
• Advocacy at the national level to affect legislation that impacts people with hearing loss, whether it’s funding for hearing aids, cochlear implants, communication access in public places or other important issues
• A nationwide network of chapters and state organizations providing peer support
• Support for parents of children with hearing loss at www.kidsandhearingloss.org
• Outreach to veterans returning with hearing loss
• Social networking site for young adults with hearing loss at www.hearinglossnation.org

Local Programs and Services     

• Captioning and hearing assistive technology at HLAA chapter meetings to make them accessible
• Scholarships toward college tuition for students with hearing loss
• Funding for hearing aids and assistive listening devices for people who cannot afford them
• Installation of hearing assistive technology in public places, such as community rooms and public libraries
• Captioning of live theater productions
• Seminars on coping with hearing loss

The www.kidsandhearingloss.org website is to help

...empower parents of hard of hearing and/or deaf children by providing the resources necessary for them to make informed decisions about their children’s hearing loss.

Deaf Schools similar to Hogwarts?

I saw Amy Cohen's link to a video in Facebook of Michael Stultz, an ASL teacher, who did a video explaining to his hearing students on what deaf schools are like. In a moment of inspiration he used the Hogwarts school that Harry Potter and his friends, and their enemies, attended as having that similarity. Mr. Stultz explained that Hogwarts and deaf schools have similarities such a having a cafeteria where students would come together and meet and eat, dormitories, classroom settings, and even sports or contests settings, and a place where self-identity would be realized. Although I'm wondering if deaf schools would include Gallaudet University as the final place for  "advanced wizardry students" to attend and graduate?

Seeing the video title I wondered who Lord Voldemort would be while I watched the video. Of course, I wasn't surprised when Mr. Stultz targeted AGBell and other oral schools as being the "Lord Voldemort" equivalent although never mind the fact that Lord Voldemort is a character and not an institution in the Harry Potter books/movies. Does teaching ASL includes teaching students on what to think about AGBell and other oral schools?

Just wondering.

Mr. Stultz gave an example of how "Voldemort's" goal would be to eradicate the Muggle born (not born into pure blood of wizard parents) and their kind of wizardry (which happens to be the good kind and used for good and not fall prey to the dark magic like Voldemort did - aka Tom Riddle). In other words, Mr. Stultz made the claim that the ultimate goal of AGBell and other oral schools (so called "Voldemort") would be to deliberately eradicate the culturally deaf community (so called "Muggles").

Desperate are we?

Problem number one. Lord Voldemort is Muggle born, too, but believe in blood-purity even though he became the most powerful and feared half-blood Dark Wizard. Dumbledore explains the blood-purity complex and problem that Lord Voldemort and other arch enemies of the dark magic believe in.

Dumbledore asserts that the much-vaunted blood purity does not exist, and is only a fiction maintained by the deceptions of supremacist wizards.

At Hogwarts they have their pure-bloods, too, like Draco Malfoy and others in the House of Slytherin. So, that's problem number two.

The pure-bloods are those born to wizard parents with many of them believing on mixing only with their kinds (e.g. nth generation family of pure blood, no miscegenation ). Examples of pure-bloods and what they do in order to maintain their "blood purity" lineage would be the Blacks, the Lestranges, the Crouches, the Fudges, the Gaunts, the Longbottoms, the Malfoys, the Potters and the Weasleys but not all of them believe in mixing only with their kinds like what the Malfoys believe (pay attention to the underlined bold below).

To maintain their blood purity, supremacist families have been known to inbreed into their own families by marrying their cousins, resulting in mental instability and violent natures. The Gaunts displayed both tendencies by the time of the sixth book with the exception of Merope, the last female member of the line.  

Pure-blood supremacists believe blood purity is a measure of a wizard's magical ability – notwithstanding examples of highly skilled Muggle-born witches like Hermione Granger and Lily Evans, and less skilled pure-bloods such as Neville Longbottom – and Muggles to be low-life, having no magic in them. Supremacists apply the term "blood traitor" to pure-bloods who harbor no prejudice against non-pure-bloods (enjoying their presence and relations with them).  

The antagonistic wizards in the Harry Potter books are almost all supremacists, while Harry and his friends disagree with this ideology. Rowling draws several parallels between the pure-blood supremacists and Nazi ideology in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the belief that pure-blood wizards have the right to subjugate the Muggle world and view themselves as a "master race", laws requiring Muggle-borns to register with the Ministry of Magic, rounding up Undesirables, etc.).

Sounds familiar? Traitors of "pure-blood" in the deaf sense would be culturally deaf people who enjoy intermingling with deaf/hh people of AGBell and those who are products of oral or even mainstreamed schools.

Who would the "pure-bloods" be if Michael Stultz is determined to use Voldemort and Hogwarts as examples?  Since "pure-bloods" are those wizards born to wizard parents sound very much like culturally deaf people born to culturally deaf parents and are a part of the "nth Deaf Generation." Those "pure-bloods" sometime advocates "Deaf purity" in all aspect of their Deaf life such as no hearing aids or cochlear implants coinciding with their own elitism of having been born, if they are lucky, as the nth culturally deaf generation who associate mostly with "their kinds" like other culturally deaf friends and families.

Deafhood anyone?

You see the problem now? The "pure-blood" at deaf schools would be the "nth born culturally deaf" students who do not wear or believe in hearing aids or cochlear implants, does not talk or do the "yowling" and use ASL only as their primary mode of communication. The "pure-bloods" at Hogwarts believe that Mugglehould not be taught magic and wizarding skills who limit their interaction with them by marginalizing them in many aspects of their lives.

Does that not sound familiar already? Do you see where I'm getting at?

Does the pure-blood Malfoys sound familiar, too?

Who would the "Deaf Malfoys" be at Gallaudet University and other (signing) deaf schools if you *really* want to go that far, Mr. Stultz?  Who would be the "Deaf Potters" be at Galluadet University and other deaf schools? What about the Longbottoms and the Weasleys who do not believe in the blood-purity requirement?

This gets worse (or better depending on your view).

Michael Stultz's attempted to compare (signing) deaf schools to that of Hogwarts using Lord Voldemort (aka Tom Riddle who is the ultimate character villain of Harry Potter) to represent AGBell and oral schools presents a number of problems as you can probably already see it by now.

Not everybody who attended Hogwarts were Muggle borns. You had the Malfoys, remember? The same pure-blood Draco Malfoy who sneered at Muggle borns at Hogwarts by calling them derisively and derogatorily as "Mudbloods."

Harry first encounters Draco's snobbish bigotry after their initial encounter at Madam Malkin's.[2] Rowling uses the Malfoys to introduce themes of intolerance and bigotry into a setting where people are often judged solely by their blood lineage rather than their good character or accomplishments. Draco, adhering to his family's beliefs, thinks that Muggle-born witches and wizards, which he and other characters derogatorily describe by the epithet Mudbloods, should be denied a magical education. Harry's first impression that the Wizarding community is a "magical wonderland" is instantly shattered. Says Rowling, "[Harry] found out that many people in power in the wizarding world are just as corrupt and nasty as they are in our world." Malfoy was originally named "Draco Spungen" in the earliest drafts of Philosopher's Stone. "Spungen" also appeared on her pre-canon class list, but it was crossed out and replaced with the surname "Spinks", while "Malfoy" was later added after the completion of the list. Philip Nel believes that Malfoy is derived from the French phrase mal foi, meaning "bad faith."In an article published in 2002, Nilsen and Nilsen argue that "Draco" has connotations with draconian, and that his name starts with "mal", a French prefix for "bad" or "evil". Many of Draco's relatives on his mother's side of the family (the Blacks) are named for stars or constellations (e.g., Sirius Black, Regulus Black, Andromeda Black Tonks, Bellatrix Black Lestrange, Cygnus Black, Orion Black). Another constellation is Draco (the Dragon). Draco Malfoy eventually named his son for yet another constellation, Scorpius.

Again, sound familiar?

In Hogwarts there are four Houses in the school of witchcraft and wizardry: Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Slytherin. Prior to starting school the Sorting Hat identifies each new Hogwarts student by wearing the hat. The Sorting Hat would either identify the new student belonging either to  Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, or Slytherin House,

The Sorting Hat claims that blood purity, is a factor in selecting Slytherins. This suggests that it bases its decisions more upon the views of its members than on any accurate test of a student's lineage. Muggle-born Slytherins exist, but are very rare, as noted insultingly by Scabior the Snatcher.[9] There have also been definite examples of half-bloods sorted into the house, including Tom Marvolo Riddle (Lord Voldemort) and Severus Snape. Harry Potter was nearly sorted into Slytherin, but ended up in Gryffindor instead.

So, what is the House of Slytherin?

Slytherin is one of the four Houses at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and is traditionally home to students who exhibit such traits as cunning, resourcefulness, and ambition. Its emblematic animal is the snake and its colours are green and silver. The house ghost is the Bloody Baron. Founded by Salazar Slytherin, the house is composed mostly of pure-blood students, due to its founder's mistrust of Muggle-born witches and wizards. Slytherin house has a negative reputation, with many claiming that it is the source of most Dark Wizards in Britain, notably Tom Marvolo Riddle, a.k.a. Lord Voldemort, as well as many of his Death Eaters (followers). It has a traditional rivalry with Gryffindor.

The Sorting Hat selected Gryffindor House for Harry Potter who noted for his good character and strength rather than for his blood purity. The Sorting Hat almost put Harry Potter into the House of Slytherin. And if you remember the movie Harry Potter was praying/hoping that he wouldn't want to be put into the House of Slytherin. The Sorting Hat explains what a Slytherin would do :

Or perhaps in Slytherin,
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folk use any means,
To achieve their ends."

- "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" by J.K. Rowling        

The Slytherins will use any means to achieve their ends and that means cheating, killing, lying, providing misinformation, backstabing, defamation, and so on. Just making a point here and not making this a literal comparison so calm down by now.

But the House of Gryffindor emphasizes a completely different set of philosophy and belief:

The Gryffindor house emphasises the traits of courage as well as "daring, nerve, and chivalry," and thus its members are generally regarded as brave, though sometimes to the point of recklessness. They can also be short-tempered. Notably, Gryffindor house contributed many members to Dumbledore's Army and the Order of the Phoenix.

Ah, remember Dumbledore's Army during the Battle at Hogwarts?

The Slytherin students left while many students from the other three houses remained behind to fight against Lord Voldemort.      

"Before Harry could speak, there was a massive movement. The Gryffindors in front of him had risen and stood facing, not Harry, but the Slytherins. Then the Hufflepuffs stood, and almost at the same moment, the Ravenclaws, all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking toward Pansy instead, and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves." —before the Battle of Hogwarts.

If you want comparison, Mr. Stulz. I'm that "Muggle born" the "half-blood" deaf/hh guy. I'm that person in the "House of Gryffindor." Heck, I could be that "Harry Potter" who unwittingly became the leader in the fight against the Slytherins, the Malfoys, the Voldemorts and their evil "pure-bloods." I join with the other two Houses, the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws in the fight against the Slytherins and the "Voldemorts."

Nah. But I'm making a point here.

If you really want to get down to brass tacks then the "Muggle borns" at deaf schools (or even at Gallaudet University) would be deaf/hh students who are mostly born to hearing parents with most of them wearing hearing aids and cochlear implants who know how to talk and even listen, along with other communication tools such as CUED speech. The "pure-blood" would be those who are born to culturally deaf parents who advocate strongly ASL (as opposed to be open to PSE, SEE, Cued Speed, aural/oral methods), does not usually talk and usually do not wear hearing aids or cochlear implants. Their status as "pure Deaf" are coveted and used as an elitist badge of theirs.  I can play this game, too. Just humor me hear, folks. The "pure blood" would be the "nth generation Deaf family" students at a (signing) deaf school and Gallaudet University.

Mr. Stultz and others, do you really want to compare Hogwarts to that of deaf schools/Gallaudet University and "Lord Voldemort" to that of AGBell and oral schools supposedly bent on destroying Hogwarts and Muggle borns?  If I were you, I'd avoid the whole comparison game else you'd end up with the whole pure-blood contradiction and conundrum backfiring on you.

The continuing attacking, smearing, misinformation and disinformation campaigns against AGBell and other oral/aural schools are mostly done by those in the culturally deaf community and not the other way around. Look who really are doing the attacking. Look at those who are proud of their "pure-blood" as the "nth Deaf generation family member" (I have no beef about that one).

Look at the "Muggle borns" at deaf schools, Gallaudet University, NTID, and even CSUN who are made up of all walks of life those born deaf or late deafened. Those who grew up deaf, hard of hearing, or Deaf. Those who are CUED speech users, SEE users, PSE users, and ASL users. Those who prefer to talk and listen over signing. Those who are born to deaf parents, born to Deaf parents, or born to hearing parents. "Muggle borns" are the kind of people who simply accept others people with hearing loss for who they are. They do not care for the measure of "blood purity" (e.g. nth generation Deaf family, ASL only, etc) but rather look to the depth of a person's character born out of goodness and strength.


ADDENDUM:  See "Part II" of this blog piece.

Parental rights and their deaf child

Joseph Pietro Riolo (JPR) made some very salient points and asked the important questions when it came to parental rights and their deaf children as seen in Patti's blog. I'll use some of Joseph's points and comments in my blog by highlighting them. What it really boils down to is that parents do have the right to decide on how to raise their deaf child in terms of mode and mean of communication and language acquisition.

First, let's talk about the article “And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped: An Examination of the Cochlear Implant From a Jewish Bioethical Perspective” by Rabbi Darby Jared Leigh whose last paragraph makes a conceding point.

“A consolidation of these views leads only to the idea that from a Jewish perspective we ought not to impose opinions on the people who must make a decision vis a vis the cochlear implant, namely, the parents or legal guardian(s) of deaf children. The responsibility of Jews with respect to the cochlear implant is only to make sure that individuals considering this medical procedure have access to all of the relevant information from the medical community, the Deaf community, and from within Jewish tradition. Once this is done, others should step back and respect the divine image within those individuals, and allow them the space and freedom to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions.”

JPR makes this comment regarding the article in the last paragraph and I agree with his assessment, too.

This paragraph actually supports the decision to put cochlear implant in a deaf child if his or her parents decide to do so. Also, it supports the decision not to put cochlear implant in a deaf child. In other words, there is nothing wrong with putting or not putting cochlear implant in a deaf child.

Certainly, nothing wrong with putting or not putting cochlear implant in a deaf child. Parental rights are ensured here in allowing them to make the necessary and informed decision for their deaf children.

Next, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26(3) it states:

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” 

I agree with JPR's assessment that this

"strongly suggests that the parents of a deaf child can choose the pure oralism for the deaf child." 

There is nothing in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights document that states that this parental right would be overridden by the right of a deaf child to be culturally deaf. In fact, there is no mechanism to enforce the right of a deaf child to be culturally Deaf over parents' rights, and there shouldn't be a mechanism to ensure that due to numerous inherent problems as JPR explained why.

How a person is supposed to do when he or she sees that the right of a deaf child to be culturally Deaf is violated? Is he or she supposed to report the violation to police? Is he supposed to report the violation to Child Protection Service (or similar agency)? Is she supposed to report the violation to National Association of the Deaf, Deaf Bilingual Coalition or similar organization that will send a legal team to defend the right of the deaf child? Is he supposed to report the violation to any organization that focuses on human rights? After the violation is reported, how is the right supposed to be enforced? Does this mean that the parents are to be ordered by court or governmental agency to respect, maintain and support the right of the deaf child to be culturally Deaf? What will happen if the parents still refuse to do that?

Indeed. Lots of problems once that Pandora Box is opened.

But let's look at the "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." In that document it states that no obligation is required of the parents to use sign language with their deaf children. In other words if parents choose pure oralism without using a signed language approach for their deaf child, the parents do not violate anything in that document supported by the United Nation. Although the document does require governments to accept and recognize the use of sign languages as seen in Article 21(b) and (e):

(b) Accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means,modes and formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions;

(e) Recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages.

Also in Article 24(3)(c) it states:

“Ensuring that the education of persons, and in particular children,who are blind, deaf or deaf/blind, is delivered in the most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication for the individual, and in environments which maximize academic and social development."

Note the underlined bold in the above which could mean to include CART services, FM loop, sign language (ASL, PSE, SEE, what have you), speaking and listening, and so on. There are a variety of ways that can meet those assurances.

In Article 30(4) it points out for people with disabilities on the

“recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture”

As far as I can tell there is nothing in the document (Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) forbidding the parent’s right to choose pure oralism, ASL, SEE,PSE, SE, SimCom, contact language, manual alphabet, cued speech and such. Just as well there is nothing in the  document that showed any support of governments to actively suppress the use of sign language through laws, governmental actions and so forth, either.

In fact, JPR pointed out an all too apparent of an obligation and concluded that

"a government has the obligation to deliver education in the modes and means that agree with pure oralism. What the governments cannot do is that they cannot suppress or exclude any modes, means or languages when the parents of children with disabilities want them or ask for them."

And that's the bottom line when it comes to governmental intervention, which is already limited for a reason, on language and mode of communication and that such a decision is still within the parents' rights.

Some people might see choosing oralism over ASL as "punishment" or acts of "genocide" but according to the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" it says nothing of the sort.  JPR elaborated: 

Again, if the parents of a deaf child decide to exercise their right to put cochlear implant in the child and to use the pure oralism when raising the child, they do not violate anything in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The only thing in the document that seems to be related to the topic on hand is the term “mental harm” as in “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;” (Article II(b)). Although the enumeration of groups does not include linguistic groups (“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, …” (Article II)), I will assume that the enumeration is broad enough to include the linguistic groups that include Deaf culture.

It may be possible that some people will attempt to argue that depriving a deaf child of ASL is equivalent to “mental harm” on the child. However, the child is usually not a member of Deaf culture if the parents are hearing or are of the Hearing culture. Just because a child is deaf does not mean that he or she is automatically a member of the Deaf culture. In this interpretation, the parents do not violate anything in the convention if they decide to raise their deaf child in a Hearing culture without using sign language.

Two points here as seen in the above underlined bold words. First, there is no intent, systematic or otherwise, to rid or destroy the use of ASL or sign language. Second point is that a deaf child born into hearing parents is not automatically a member of the deaf culture. And that brings up an important consideration about raising a deaf child in a hearing culture without using sign language because doing so does not violate any of the articles or documents I provided in this blog thus far. 

Below JPR explains and clarifies his position which mirrors much like mine in a lot of ways.

1) It is always my personal position that any deaf child – actually, any child – should have the freedom to sign (not just ASL or any natural signed languages but also SimCom, Cued Speech, Signed English and contact languages). But, I would never want to impose my position on any parents. I would write a true story about a deaf child being punished for signing at home; I would write an opinion article criticizing some parents who do not allow their children to sign; I would make a film that tells about a deaf child who run away from draconian parents who do not let him or her to sign; I would search for grants to research on deaf children who are not allowed by their parents to sign; if I were a professional, I would confront the parents and inform them that they are going too far in not allowing their deaf children to sign; and so on.

But, I would never want to create a new right for a deaf child to be culturally Deaf. When we create a new right for a deaf child, we are eroding the parental right. This will give a precedent for the majority (read: Hearing culture) to create another new right for a deaf child to have the access to spoken language through cochlear implant and doing so erodes parental right further more. If the parents of a deaf child refuses to put cochlear implant in the child, the majority will say, “See, any deaf child has the right of access to spoken language and therefore, your child must have cochlear implant. Never mind your parental right to decide how to raise your deaf child. After all, you want bilingualism. Giving cochlear implant to your deaf child will help bilingualism. Your child will have both ASL and the spoken English language. More power to bilingualism!” The deaf child is taken away from their parents for surgery at an undisclosed hospital.

I may go too far in describing the above scenario but it can happen. It is not hard to predict that cochlear implant technology is getting better and better and the success rate is increasing steadily. Before, the success rate was around 1/3 (33%). Now, it is around 1/2 (50%). Maybe, by the year of 2015, the rate may go up to 2/3 (66%). Maybe, by the year of 2020, the rate may go up to 3/4 (75%). It is very tempting for the majority to override the parental right and go directly to the deaf children and have them receive cochlear implant in spite of the objections from their parents.

Creating a new right for deaf child may be cool now but it could give a new precedent for the majority later on.

In other words, be careful on what you ask for.

In my own clarification, I'd be wary of allowing the idea that government be given the consideration to force parents with deaf/hh children on issues regarding sign language, cochlear implant, oral/aural routes and educational upbringing.  Removing parental rights is not the answer. The parents have the right to make an informed decision regarding their deaf/hh child when it comes to mode of communication, the means, language development, and educational upbringing. All we can do is provide all the necessary information for parents and provide them them the necessary resources and support so they can make an informed decision. Just as Rabbi Darby Jared Leigh said in the very beginning of my blog on parents making an informed decision:

Once this is done, others should step back and respect the divine image within those individuals, and allow them the space and freedom to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions.

And so there you have it.

The new deaf generation....listening and speaking.

Cochlear implant technology has enabled a whole new generation of deaf people enabling them the ability to speak, listen and understand the spoken word, and acquire a language. Below are two split videos of a documentary of deaf children who were outfitted with cochlear implants while very young. They were interviewed later on in life as pre-teens and teenagers and talking to them, you wouldn't know they were deaf. These group of deaf people are the next upcoming crop of new generation of deaf people with cochlear implants.

In the documentary, those children and teens are from Australia where all of them grew up with all of the inflection, pitch and intonation in their voices with an apparent Australian accent. When that happens you know for fact that early intervention works and that cochlear implant provides that very access to a world of speaking and listening, and spoken language acquisition. For parents of deaf babies to watch this documentary would prove to be powerfully insightful and full of hope for them that anything else wouldn't be anywhere near as convincing. This documentary points out that cochlear implants do work and that early intervention is the most important key of them all because of the brain's early plasticity development. Parents would be the glue to make it all work.

Be sure to watch all of the video documentary before commenting so that you can be properly informed on what was covered in the video.

Part I
http://youtu.be/0lmCuyrgc80

Part II
http://youtu.be/ttd2l9J9oqE


When I watched that documentary I was simply amazed at the children and teens' voices and I could actually hear their full inflection, pitch and intonation of their accented (Australian) voices as opposed to hearing American kids with cochlear implants (they do just as well, btw). The difference was hearing their Australian accent vs American accent. Which means one thing, cochlear implant does work even to capture the accent of their (hearing) native spoken language. Not only just speaking but listening as well. The boy with the rocket ship doesn't need to look at his teachers' mouth (i.e. lip reading) to have a conversation. He even understood the electronic voice in the space rocket announcing a countdown (5, 4, 3, 2, 1...blast off!) and the boy would hear that and lifts the rocket up.

Early intervention is the key and parental involvement must play a huge role in this. Not doing those things would simply be left to chance. All this is from an aural and oral development point of view I acknowledge readily. I still see that signing such as SEE, SE, PSE or ASL can play an important role for deaf and hard of hearing children although perhaps in some areas not as critical to others (e.g. profoundly deaf vs those with mild hearing loss at 30 db). It's simply up to parents to make an *informed decision* before moving forward. And we must accept those parents' decisions. The decision does not rest with anyone else. Yet this documentary video will prove to be compelling to parents of deaf babies by providing them the biggest hope and a confirmation that it does work.  How can you compete with that when it comes to speaking and listening development?

The Growing Cued Speech Advocacy

One of the best way to encourage the growth and use of Cued Speech is have native cuers who grew up using Cued Speech help spread the message. They are now the first generation of native cuers in their twenties and thirties.

In the video below shows several young adult cuers getting together at a retreat on strategies to help spread the word about Cued Speech. This is one of the true examples of a positive grassroots in action at the regional and local levels in workshops, conferences, exhibits, cue summer camps (more here), and community of cuers on helping spread the use of Cued Speech. It has been proven to be highly successful and beneficial when it comes to helping improve English literacy. I'm quite encouraged to see these young adults taking the reign on helping spread the message about Cued Speech and an interest on improving English literacy.

For more information on CLEAR (Cuers for Leadership, Education, and Advocacy Retreat) or visit their Facebook page.



History of Cued Speech

• Cued Speech was developed by Dr. R. Orin Cornett at Gallaudet College (now Gallaudet University) in Washington, DC in 1966. 
• The National Cued Speech Association was formed in 1982 and now has numerous affiliates across the country, including Cued Speech of Colorado.
• To this date Cued Speech has been adapted to over 60 languages around the world.

Before you say anything else, do yourself a favor and read this position statement by NCSA on Cued Speech and sign language.

Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group? Potentials, myths, problems and slippery slope

There's an article that came out this morning called "Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group?" An issue brought up by Richard C. Pillard, a School of Medicine professor of psychiatry, saying that the (culturally) deaf should be recognized as a distinct ethnic group. That argument raised (and will raise even more in the coming days) a lot questions, issues, potentials (positive) and myths. But one of the things I noticed is Pillard's bias (just like Harlan Lane who is hearing) against cochlear implant.

For people unfamiliar with them, the implants sound like a medical marvel. But they are problematic, he says. “They work poorly, and that’s something worth emphasizing. You get 24 channels for different octaves and tonal recognition, but the price you pay for that is you’re a kid trying to play soccer and so on with this business strapped to your body.” And the implants, designed to be optimal when used in both ears, destroy residual hearing in people who were not completely deaf before the implants. “It seems to me that what we’re doing is transforming someone who could have a perfectly healthy ethnic identity and turning him into a marginalized kid who can’t speak or hear well, but could learn to sign beautifully,” Pillard says.

Pillard uses a typical red herring tactic by bringing in sports as a reason to not get a cochlear implant implying that such an implant will severely restrict a child's sports activity thereby dooming him/her to a childhood life without sports. It's also a non sequitur because soccer isn't the only sports a child can participate in. It's also incorrect to say that a child with cochlear implant cannot play soccer. This is an attempt to use unfounded fear as a reason not to get an implant. A child with cochlear implant can play soccer without worry using a protective head gear as a recommendation. Just as well, one can even play football just like Adam Strecker who uses his specially designed football helmet adapted for his cochlear implant while wearing it.

Using sports as a reason not to get a cochlear implant is an extremely poor argument to use. Don't go there.

Another argument used is "They work poorly." That is an entirely subjective argument either because Pillard is not overly familiar with the design, up to date procedures and processes involved with a cochlear implant and the implantation itself.  There are varying successes on the beneficial use from this implantation ranging from poor to highly successful.  Various factors play a role in determining success such as parents' participation, the age of implantation, educational input, enthusiasm, and support as well as the integrity of the implant itself.


Adrià and the music of his dreams by octaviroyo

The above video is an example of how a cochlear implant works extremely well as opposed to "they work poorly."  This is only one of the many videos seen on the internet that show children with cochlear implants, implanted at an early age, who have acquired successful listening skill giving them the ability to discern, understand and respond to a spoken language without even looking.  This is complemented with their excellent speaking skills that are equal to that of their hearing peers. If those are the successful cases of cochlear implants working "poorly" then I can't imagine what it'd be like if cochlear implants were to work extremely well. Here's one video of a girl who was implanted at 22 months old with her talking and listening at age 16 years old who wants to be a cochlear implant surgeon.



Over the past few years insertion techniques as well as new cochlear implant electrode design have improved to the point where it doesn't destroy residual hearing.

Success in conservation of residual hearing after cochlear implantation has benefited patients with high levels of residual low frequency hearing who were not previously considered for conventional cochlear implantation. Technological developments play a key role in minimizing trauma to the cochlea during placement of electrodes.

Wearing a hearing aid or even a cochlear implant does not preclude anybody from learning sign language whether it's SEE, PSE, or ASL. Many hearing parents of deaf children with cochlear implants do include sign language as part of the whole communication and language package.

Increasingly you have deaf parents of deaf/hh children where they are cochlear implant wearers, fluent in sign language and are a part of the deaf culture such as the Artinians (from the show Sound and Fury) with the mother who wears an implant after their daughter getting one and the Errigos where both the mother and father wear their implants while their son wears one since age 2.

If the idea is to grant culturally deaf people the status as an ethnic group then, too, culturally deaf parents and their deaf child who all wear cochlear implants and are fluent in sign language should be given that same status as well. There is nothing to say upon granting the status this new ethnic group designation for culturally deaf people that they cannot wear hearing aids or, in this case, cochlear implants. Nothing about the status implies that an "organic" case must be met. There are no disqualifying criteria on signing and talking/mouthing the words at the same time. And if these criteria are to be made absolute then enters the slippery slope problem here on who gets "admitted" into this special ethnic group designation.

More on that later.....

ICED....over II

From what JPR said this morning on what he saw last night April 7, 2011:

I thought I would share this news with you.

Last night, I watched Dr. Jane K. Fernandes' presentation at NTID (National Technical Institute for the Deaf) on the topic of inclusive Deaf Studies. A little bit after she was introduced, she mentioned about the past ICED and how it recognized that the Milan resolution was in error. Then, she mentioned about respecting all languages and forms of communication. She mentioned that she was giving her presentation in honor of that respect for all forms of communication. The main thrust of her presentation was that the discipline of Deaf Studies should be broadened to include the diverse deaf people outside of the standard ASL deaf signers in the Deaf culture. I am sure that this is familiar to all of you.

I thought that it was neat and nice that she remembered and recognized the importance of the respect for all languages and forms of communication that she decided to honor it with her presentation. Given that this happened in close proximity with Mr. Mike McConnell's and Candy's blog, I wanted to share this news.

(She and other co-author wrote two articles whose web links are shown at the bottom of the webpage at http://www.rit.edu/ntid/lyon/speakers/jane-k-fernandes-phd ).

Joseph Pietro Riolo

Interesting development. I wrote my blog on April 4, 2011 and she gave her speech on April 7, 2011 on basically about diversity and respect for all communications and languages per the ICED recommendations.

Thank you for the heads up, JPR.

"Hoodless"....

It was a sad day to witness the beginning on the calling of deaf/hh people as "hoodless."  I warned people in my blog 5 years ago about the dangers of judging people for what they "have" or "don't have" when it comes to "deafhood." Which was why many of us made the point of saying "Deafhood? No thanks" and joined the DNT Facebook for that very reason. We continue on with own our unique but deeply personal journey in life as people with hearing loss and how we identify ourselves as and whatever makes you happy. We recognize the value of diversity, and that we support and respect all forms of communication and language.  We say "no thanks" to "deafhood" because we recognized right away it would lead to acts of discrimination and segregation. It has simply become a glorified ideology specifically and mainly for culturally deaf people, and nothing more. That's the problem. It's not really about for anybody with hearing loss. There's a certain sine qua non when it comes to "deafhood," believe it or not. We don't presume who has "deafhood" and who doesn't, and that was the trap we recognized at the very beginning.  We prefer to move forward and not backward and instead would rather follow ICED recommendation to accept and respect all forms of communication and language whether combined or used alone be it PSE, ASL, SEE, cued speech, oral-aural, oral, the use of hearing aids and cochlear implants to help with the communication, or plainly just do without them.  We have respected those differences since day one even before ICED came out with their own recommendation.

I'm sad to say this but I continue to be correct on this.

I will continue to say "no thanks" and just simply accept you as for who you are, and not about what you are.  That's a simple recipe for happiness.

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*

Deafhood - religion like?

Recently over the last few days based on comments I received in my blogs I had the realization about how some people follow "deafhood" to such an extreme. How extreme? That depends. One commenter named "Kim" had this to say about "Deaf culture" in one of my most recent blog where she discussed "deafhood" and religion:

Language and religion are definitely huge. While we can't say that Deaf people have their own separate religion, their fervent belief in the Deafhood experience almost seems like a religion sometimes.

There it is. Religion and "deafhood" in the same sentence. So that got me thinking.

Kim soon clarified the next day on what she meant by what she said earlier.

Judging by v/blog posts (and comments) it seems like there's this strong fanatical, almost religious-like movement of Paddy Ladd worshippers who spout passages from his book like it's the Holy Bible of Deaf existence. So when people like Mike here ask questions, such as "is there a Deaf culture," there is a tendency among those "few" to over react, and sometimes they accuse him (and others) of not being Deaf since he doesn't seem to believe the right thing.

Candy also followed up about the whole oralism thing segueing into "deafhood" in that same blog.

This one need to be documented and published in the deaf blog as part of deaf history of deafhood and how they really are taking Paddy Ladd's colonialism too far. I suggest you all view Ella's comment number 41 in ASLrocks. It is a must viewing to see how delusional this deafhood thinking is. There is this evidence right there that indicates that dh is all about going after this oralism system rather than a personal journey to find one's deaf center.

Is there a conflict of interest here regarding certain "deafhood leaders"?

Let's look behind Curtain #1 about the Deafhood Foundation and you'll find a familiar name as who those board members are, and quickly you'll get to the "Vision" part where it says:

The Deafhood Foundation will provide financial, educational and social opportunities to end the economic exploitation of Deaf people. The Foundation aims to free the world from a*dism and recreate a society where everyone experiences full humanity and celebrates Sign Language.

So, this "deafhood" isn't about celebrating individual's own identity and personal journey wherever it goes even if it means identifying and embracing oralism and excluding ASL but about the attempt to wipe out oralism, avdism and have sign language to take its place instead according to one "deafhood leader"? Even though oralism has shown to be beneficial in many cases (even I have benefitted tremendously from it, too):

Deaf individuals who use Oralism have "proficiency with spoken language and . . . have an average reading ability . . . of thirteen to fourteen-year-old levels, which is approximately double the national average for all children who are deaf" (Stone 2). Furthermore, programs using Oralism generally have strong academic curricula resulting in high achievement levels and more students who go on to complete secondary or higher education programs (Schwartz 167-168). This also results in "more social, educational, and work opportunities . . . [and] to a more fulfilling and independent adult lifestyle" (168). With such results, it can be understood why those who value education truly approve of Oralism. These benefits of Oralism allow deaf individuals to reap the educational benefits and equal opportunities that people such as Mary Wollstonecraft strived to obtain and society, particularly the Oralists, continue to cherish.

It is obvious that oralism has its own benefits and that many deaf and hard of hearing people have benefitted tremendously from that. I understand that there are those who fell between the cracks and how beneficial signing is on an emotional and social level. But that's beside the point here. If people simply cannot leave alone the philosophical concept of what a personal journey of a deaf or hh person is like but instead use it as foundation to push their own ideology while espousing for the "death of oralism" and so on certainly does give it a religion-like feel. A fanactical-like following.

If this continues then this whole "deafhood" thing will simply stay within the Deaf community circle that is mostly accepted by some Deaf people rather than seeing it accepted by the rest of the hearing loss population that is 33 times bigger than the Deaf population of some perhaps 900,000 Deaf people.  This acceptance by the bigger population will never happen if this fanaticism continues. This is the perception of what many people would probably see whether they're hearing, deaf or hh who happen to come across this whole "deafhood" drama. Especially seeing how some "leaders" and other "followers" would prop up this "deafhood journey" under the guise of a friendly non-profit Deaf organization while in the background advocate for the "death of oralism," use of ad hominems, harrassment (see Tayler Mayer's example who is the owner of Deafread) and such. No wonder other groups like "Deafhood? No Thanks" cropped up recently as a response to this whole mess.

Many people do cherish the free and independent thinking regarding the many hearing loss issues out there and recognize the fact that there is no one shoe size fits all when it comes to addressing hearing loss, modes of communication, education and language development. Especially in a period of time when technology has been a boon to help address communication, educational and language developments owing to the simple fact is that hearing loss range from mild to profound. The diversity is large and mixed out there.

As a closing, I liked what Kim said in my blog "You have to be hard of hearing to understand":

People like Ella can never understand what it's like to be me. I experienced a life time of hearing before my hearing began to decline. Those experiences made me who I am. Naturally I still identify with hearing people.

Through HLAA and ALDA, I am part of a growing, thriving, powerful mostly oral deaf community, and we don't care what Ella thinks.

And you know what?  Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) would certainly look to be the better organization to join when it comes to advocacy and support in a more neutral manner rather than wade into chest deep the hypocrisy, the conflict of interests, unprofessionalism, rogue followers and petty politics. And I'm certain people wouldn't want to be a part of an organization or group of people that has a religion-like feel to it seeing how some use an inquisition-like process whenever one states a view opposite of somebody else's opinion. And then there comes the auto de fe.

This whole thing simply doesn't feel right.

Special Ed teacher at Birney school shot and killed

A special ed teacher was shot and murdered on the grounds of Birney School in Tacoma, Washington today right before children arrived to school. The suspect was killed in a police shoot-out. A case of a stalker who was infatuated with this teacher.

The school's main webpage has already set up a memorial page for Jennifer Paulson for those who want to contribute and remember her. This is a school known by many former deaf and hard of hearing students over the years. I went to Birney elementary when I was little along with many other deaf/hh kids such as Greg Allison, Amy Mcinelly, Sheila Jackson, Keri Bays, BJ Bopple, Cindy Zaddack, Dorothy Humphrie, and many others who went to Birney elementary's oral/aural program.

R.I.P., Jennifer.

In Praise of the CODA Brothers

I’ve watched some of the CODA Brothers videos (Olsen twins they're not) on YouTube and noticed some of their sight gags while I listened to the video's voice over background while they signed cracking jokes and pretty much ad lib-ing over each other. Though a bit ironic watching a video that came with voice over ASL interpretation to a hopefully receptive hearing crowd to their favor. I wonder why? A disinformation campaign?

Now, using sight gags in order to take advantage of the current sentiments with the Deaf crowd is one way of trying to be funny just to be on their “side” which comes with the territory I suppose. But it is another thing knowing how such sight gags can affect others who don’t exactly see eye to eye such as using gags like an overly used and much abused hyperbole. For example, one sight gag in this video doing a cochlear implant impression by using what looks like sawed off portion of a small aluminum can seeing how it protrudes quite noticeably from the side of their heads and with great effects I should say. Nice visual gag by making fun of those who wear CI like this screen capture of the video gag below.



I know. I know. CODA brothers meaning no harm. Just “joking,” right? Kind of like when a bunch of hearing students at a regular high school making fun of those that wear a hearing aid by using a ketchup cup over their ear to imitate a hearing aid at a school’s cafeteria. Yeah, that happened to me one time when I was in high school. Did I think it was funny? No, but I had to tactfully inform my friends on what they did showed ignorance and disrespect. And I pretty much took care of that problem right away, and they apologized afterwards, too, realizing their mistake and ignorance. Doesn't hurt to quickly inform people of their mistakes. Right, CODA brothers?

Next sight gag on the CODA brothers video? Remember the hyperbole remark I mentioned earlier? Well, let’s take “oral” Dan in this video who went to great lengths to imitate a deaf oralist but with exaggerated lip movements, the thick “nerd” glasses, the deep “duh” voice while signing haltingly so reminisce of what a beginner signer may behave while wearing, no less, an AGBell t-shirt (though not everybody is a product of AGBell anyway, at least I wasn't).



It’s one thing when there are some deaf people who may have the tendency to talk in an exaggerated fashion although no fault of their own. Others do not even come remotely close to "oral" Dan. Even more bizarre is that these guys are hearing who do not have these “impediments” in the first place. Oh, I know. I know. It‘s just a “joke” and people shouldn’t take “offense” at this but I am sure the CODA brothers know better. And I’m just rolling with the punches here. I'm sure the CODA brothers will find this video here breath-takingly funny as well with comedians in the "Absent Minded Comedy" show signing and mimicking like an expert ASL interpreter.

Keep it up, CODA brothers. Hope you roll in tons of money off of this venture of yours. And you have a DVD, too! Congrats.

Here's a video message for the CODA brothers.

A Champion of Oralists?

Recently in Mr. Sandman’s blog suggested that I’ve become “a champion of the decidedly tiny minority of oralist/oralist-leaning blogosphere” and I want to take a short time to discuss this and clarify a few things for him and many others.

Whether I’m a “champion” or not is beside the point in what I believe in or advocate as a person with hearing loss who wears a hearing aid which have benefitted me enormously in my life as a Ragtime pianist, my career, and my life. I do support those who choose to use their voice to speak as their primary means of communicating, even if it means not knowing how or the need to sign. Though not just for those “oralists” who cannot hear well or at all I support but those who do hear well with their hearing aids or even cochlear implants nowadays. Talking has always been an effective means of communicating among my hearing or hard of hearing peers.

There’s a second term called “aural” that is often overlooked by the Deaf community of which the deaf and hard of hearing community is intimately aware of. Though some people often take the word “oral” to mean “aural” as well but not every oralist is an “auralist” or an "oral-auralist" (if that is even a word) . The word “aural” relates to the ear on the ability to hear, discriminate and understand words and sound while "oral" relates to the ability to speak and proper enunciation of words. For me, I've used mostly aural approaches to get where I am today only because of my ability to discriminate speech is high with thanks to early use of my hearing aid at around age 3. My speech discrimination score for spoken words stands at around 94% when a word is spoken alone but it goes up to 97 or 98% when spoken in the form of a sentence. Hence, my ability to use the telephone or cell phone with ease. So, in the case of being a "champion" I see myself rather as a huge supporter of those who can benefit immensely from the use of their hearing aids or cochlear implants knowing that many do cherish the world of sound. So, in retrospect, I'm more of the oral-aural supporter than oral. Still there is nothing wrong with speaking just like this deaf, motivational speaker, Stephen Hopson who is an oralist.

Browneyedgirl65 made a comment in her blog on not caring about the ability to hear birds chirping or hear a Mozart symphony which is fine. However, there are those who do cherish sounds much more than Browneyedgirl65 and that they are thankful with technology (i.e. hearing aids, cochlear implants) giving them the ability and the miracle to hear beautiful sounds or the ability to understand the spoken words. Even I am grateful and blessed with what I have. Not even Deaf politics can take that one away from me. Being able to hear and understand words and sound are important to a lot of people with various levels of hearing loss. For others, it is not. I guess you have to hear the nuances of sound in order to understand where I'm coming from and really understand and appreciate the value and quality of sound to be enjoyed as a gift to those who can hear.

But here’s another myth. The so-called small blogosphere of oralists, which I will include "auralists" who are also "oralist," isn’t so decidedly small but rather a large group, much larger than you think. Rather, it’s decidedly larger than the Deaf community. Look around and you can see why but this is so only if you look carefully enough. Why we don’t hear from these hard of hearing bloggers? It’s because many don’t delve into the world of Deaf politics, ASL and bickering dominating their Deaf blogspace. For the most part they're not interested in Deaf culture or ASL. They have other interests not always deaf-related for the most part. You have to know where to look in Google and it isn't always patently obvious on where to look like you could with a Deaf community of bloggers.

Of course, you won't see them in YouTube videos mimicking a barking seal like a bad oralist ability to speak like one Deaf vlogger did as a sign of intellect even though he's going for his graduate degree right now. Yet this video has now been conveniently taken down. But then you have a Deaf person who mimic badly on the way some oralists may supposedly speak with exaggerated lip movements. Stephen Hopson he isn't - a recognized motivational speaker and oralist who is deaf. But if you think those videos were funny then I suppose this video is funny, too, on how people sign? Or if you really want something that's funny and a knee-slapper visit comedians making fun of sign language at the Laugh Factory with a "sign language interpreter" doing his job. Keith Wann he isn't. I guess the old mantra is that if you can't take a joke, take hike applies here, too?

Just as there is a “World Federation of the Deaf” there is an “International Federation of Hard of Hearing” organization that began in 1977 based out of Germany. And a few weeks ago they held their 7th IFHOH Congress in Vancouver, Canada. You can look and see the papers that were presented as well which is an interesting list of topics covered. Organization members of IFHOH in the United States are NTID, ALDA (The Association of Late Deafened Adults), HOHA (Hard of Hearing Advocates), SHHH (Hearing Loss Association of America), ATA (American Tinnitus Association), and AGB (Alexander Graham Bell). You can see a list of those members in other countries as well. It's quite a comprehensive list.

With 31 million people with hearing loss in the United States the decidedly much smaller community would be in fact the Deaf community consisting of some 900,000 Deaf people. So, if I'm going to be a champion of something it'd be for a much bigger picture than a narrow one.

Deaf Children Can Learn to Talk

While growing up at around age 6 or 7 years old I received my second hearing aid after having worn my first one since age 2 1/2 years old. It wasn’t the behind the ear hearing aid but a body aid. I’ve gotten a lot of good mileage out of my old hearing aid. Obviously so because without that hearing aid of mine I wouldn’t be here where I am today. Successful. And it has helped me with my ongoing Ragtime and early Jazz piano playing, too, ever since I was seven years old when I began playing. I am proud about all of my past hearing aids to the present because I have used them with great benefit.

Below is a picture of my hearing aid inside a protective case. It’s a Zenith. Along with a Battery Membership card, and that special yellow button as you can see what it says.


(see a larger picture here)

It’s so well preserved though I am sure it can work if I put in the right kind of battery in. But is my old hearing aid considered as an “antique” one since it’s approximately 38 years old? And that got me wondering. Is there a hearing aid museum somewhere in the Untied States? I was pretty sure there ought to be a few of them around. And sure enough there is one.

Pretty fascinating on how hearing aids (even cochlear implants!) have helped so many people with hearing loss. Isn’t technology great? And soon enough well have biotechnology to finally help restore hearing loss someday.

WARNING: - If you go into an apoplectic fit after reading this, read it again just to be sure. Step back and breathe slowly before responding. And please leave your conspiracy theories at home about me and this blog piece. Thank you.