The Death of Deaf Echo......

No rhyme, no reason on the somewhat "sudden" disappearance of Deaf Echo which ceased operations sometime earlier this year after. It was an editorial website similar to DeafDC which began in 2005 and has been defunct since 2010 hosted several culturally deaf writers for their many deaf-related articles. Just like Deaf Echo you can still see DeafDC in the archive section in the Wayback Machine. Deaf Echo began in 2007 but slowly and quietly, if not without a whimper, abandoned the editorial writing scene earlier this year after years of providing editorial articles written by culturally deaf people for culturally deaf people. No farwell fanfare. No long goodbyes. No explanations on why it decided to cease operations. Maybe it was best to not say anything and let it die a natural death on its own accord. Eventually all good things come to an end with the opportunity to seek better things in life.

Adios Deaf Echo. The reverberation has now stopped.

Persona non grata or pettiness?

It has been several months since I accessed Deaf Echo's website which is a holdover from their old DeafDC site. It has been over a year since Oct 9, 2011 when I realized that I was really persona non grata on participating in their discussion when I discovered I could no longer post comments in the "The YouTube Video You Don't See" article piece written by Chris Heuer, (an associate professor at Gallaudet University who teaches some great courses, btw). His article was about Sarah Churman's video that went viral when her implantable hearing aid was turned on for the first time. The comments are no longer there ever since Deaf Echo upgraded/renovated their website. However, comments can still be seen archived through the Wayback Machine. 

My comment did go through at first as you can see in my screen capture

Well, the video went viral with no fault of Sarah. No one expected it to go viral. She never expected to go on the Today Show and Ellen DeGeneres show, and get featured in CNN with Anderson Cooper. Never expected to get her money reimbursed. Yet, she's taking the brunt only because the video went viral and been interviewed by some of the major networks. Had it been only 200 or 2000 views, this would've been a non-story.
 

My post came approximately 14 minutes after Dianrez's posted comment. Approximately 83 minutes later I checked again only to see that my comment disappeared. That's when I realized and assumed on Oct 9, 2011 that I was persona non grata from participating in any of their discussions on their Deaf Echo website. I first got the boot in February 21, 2011 (see Mod's issuing a ban against me) but I had no idea my ban was permanent until my comment go removed did I suspect the permanency of my ban on Oct 9, 2011. That was the second time my comment was removed. The first time my comment was summarily removed was on April 12, 2011 after only several minutes as you can see in the screen capture. Nice cover-up and no attempt to answer a simple question.

Here's where I made an interesting discovery almost a year later just this week.

I found out I was unable to view/access Deaf Echo's website at home and instead got a DNS error message (i.e. "This page can't be displayed") on my browser. The same thing on my wife's laptop. But I can still view it at home on my laptop through a different channel and noticed that Deaf Echo's website is functioning fine and not simply down. I asked my friends if they could access it and they all said yes. I asked if they could view D.E. through my links on my blog pieces. Not a problem. All that led me to believe in their own pettiness (again, it IS their website, you can be petty all you want) Deaf Echo decided to block my IP address in the effort to prevent me from viewing their public website.

Excuse me?

Prevent me from viewing it? Really go that low?

Deaf Echo is not a private website but certainly a public website open for viewing.

I expected more professionalism from Deaf Echo but I suppose they do have the right to throw essentially a tantrum by putting up a wall because they didn't like what I wrote in my blogs, if that really was the case. I sincerely hope not and I hope I'm quite wrong but it's looking more like the other way.

I believe the owner of Deaf Echo eventually discovered my blog piece I did on March 12, 2011 essentially challenging Deaf Echo on the whole Wisconsin union protest and Gov. Scott Walker.  Or maybe it was this blog piece where I noted them for censoring me in a piece called "AGBell are now officially Deaf people" on Sept 8, 2012 as a reason for the blocking? I am pretty sure I was able to access their website a few more times after Sept 8, 2012 but it was just this week I discovered I was unable to access their website through normal channels on my laptop via my internet provider.  Something happened between Sept 8, 2012 and this week.

I'm fine with the ban on participating in their forum discussion. They have their own justification for doing so, however petty it may seem. But what I find incredulous is their attempt to block me further from viewing their Deaf Echo website. And the reason is....what?  This?  This?
This? This? Or this?

Dunno. Whatever the reason it's a petty thing to witness.


ADDENDUM: Joeseph Pietro Riolo made a good comment on a piece I did on April 12, 2011 about the removal of my comment by a moderator and the sadness of seeing such attitudes.

I saw your comment over there at Deaf Echo and later on, much to my surprise, your comment was gone. I questioned myself whether you removed your comment on your own or the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo deleted your comment.

Now, I know you did not.

This whole thing saddens me. I had high respect for Deaf Echo and I am trying to stay positive about it. But, this is the second time that your comment was removed. But then, as you wrote, the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo has the complete prerogative in controlling the comments and I could not argue against it. Is Deaf Echo becoming another yet platform for bashing cochlear implantation and by extension, people who have cochlear implant? I hope not.

(It seems that there is no end in attempting to make an analogy between cochlear implantation and everything else. I came across an analogy between cochlear implantation and circumcision(!) somewhere many moons or ages ago. I dread to see what will be the next analogy.)

Joseph Pietro Riolo

I, too, had high hopes for DeafDC which has morphed into Deaf Echo because many of their articles written by many different deaf authors (any hh or non-Deaf authors?) were very good, insightful and the kind that make you think. Other articles have allowed us a peak into the author's window of their "extremist" thinking. Not that it's bad but it is an interesting realization. Regardless, DeafDC is still worthy of a read but then again only if some of the people over their learn to take their pettiness out of the way and allow diverse views and thinking be a part of the discussion. I think all of this was precipitated by their own hands when I had my own views about the Wisconsin union/Gov Walker debate that were opposite of theirs did they find or at least they thought they did reason and justification to ban me since I was the only one their with an opposing viewpoint when they really wanted was total and uncompromising support instead. All of this this ended with the total IP block to their Deaf Echo website which was the manifestation of their continuing disagreement over my political stance, my way of questioning things and linking to their articles or people who commented over their since I could not do so because I was PNG. I had an opinion and blogged about. Nothing bad or extraordinary about that.

AGBell members are now officially Deaf people

Recently Don Grushkin made an opinion regarding the use of the capitalized "d" for the word "deaf" to mean an all inclusive definition:

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

 Since I'm persona non grata over at Deaf Echo I will as usual make my responses here and write my opinions on what Don Grushkin said. I will disagree with his attempt to move the goal post on what "D"eaf is to mean nowadays.

Noticeably over the past few years a few notable people in the culturally deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people and this was explained by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) on the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society.

Granted. The culturally deaf community was able to grant their own exclusive right to capitalize the letter 'd' in "deaf" to mean one thing and one thing only as exactly as what Carol Padden and Tom Humphries pointed out.  And become members of an exclusive heritage group or so they say. Otherwise by not accepting the very definition set forth almost 30 years ago by Padden and Humphries would mean it could no longer to specifically mean culturally deaf people. It would simply become a generic brand with no identification on culture and language (ASL) that ties itself to a specific heritage group. In fact, that very act would devalue the very word "Deaf" away from the culturally deaf community and disappears altogether with no identity at all. AGBell members who are deaf or hard of hearing who do not know a lick of sign language are now defacto Deaf people. No need to focus on ASL, deaf culture, culturally heritage and language. All that would be rather strange if not outright blasphemous to a lot of culturally deaf people and of all things coming from a guy who is helping run Deafhood Foundation.  Funny how one thinks that by saying deaf/Deaf is "divisive" yet there were ASL-only Deafhood workshops (here, too). So much for the concept of including everybody this "Deaf" idea of Don Grushkin's.

Another thing, there is no common ethnicity that ALL deaf and hard of hearing people share regarding their physical trait on hearing loss.  Ethnic means that a group of people either share a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. Nothing about hearing loss which is a physical trait. The only commonality here we all share is hearing loss whether it is bilateral or unilateral. Whether born with it or acquired hearing loss later in life. And that communication access, as it varies from one person with a hearing loss to another, is the other commonality amongst them as well. Some struggle more than others. Some are fine with it. Some do not have the need to sign while others do require sign language to communicate.

What has been divisive is some of the nonsense deaf politics that have been going on for years rather than over two simple words, deaf and Deaf. There are two groups. The culturally deaf group and the not culturally deaf group. You have hard of hearing, deaf, and culturally deaf. And that's a fact of life.

Deaf Echo Attack Website?

This just happened not too long ago and it concerns me a great deal regarding the security and protection for my laptop when I attempted to access Deaf Echo's website and got this warning:

I'm not sure exactly what's going on over there and people should be made aware of this. I have visited the Deaf Echo numerous times yet this Attack Page warning pop up concerned me greatly. I'm not sure what to do at this point whether to continue on or not. The Safe Browsing Client by Google in the Safe Browsing diagnostic page explains why the warning was put up.

Some of you might be wondering if this blog is a malicious blog piece aimed at the owner despite our differences. Hardly the case when I'm given the Safe Browsing diagnostic page on explaining the warning. I'm sure the owner is not aware that there might be some programs installed on his Deaf Echo community blogsite that may not be healthy for computer laptops of those visiting their website. The owner will need to rectify this problem on his own accord. Once the problem is corrected I will provide an update. I sure do like to visit Deaf Echo again.

Any computer nerds out there that can add to this piece of warning info? This is the first time a warning like this has ever happened.

UPDATE: The Google search page for "Deaf Echo" has put out a warning, too. The owner of the Deaf Echo website needs to correct whatever is causing that problem quickly.

UPDATE II:  Looks like whatever caused the warning has now been corrected.

Echoing Sentiments

Chris Heuer produced a piece in Deaf Echo basically lamenting over Sarah Churman's YouTube video that went viral by going over his own little history and hinting that he may just take back his sincerity about Sarah Churman.

Sarah Churman, if you’re reading this, let me start out with a disclaimer. What I’m about to write isn’t about you. If your implanted hearing aid works for you, that’s great. For the moment I say this with all sincerity.

Some of you, including Sarah Churman, might be wondering what I mean by that remark: “…for the moment.” By way of an explanation, let me tell you a story.

The one thing that many, many people continue to forget about the viral YouTube video of Sarah Churman was that the Churmans never expected it to go viral in the first place. In the first 8 days since YouTube aired, she has been on the Today Show with Matt Lauer and the Ellen DeGeneres show, and was featured on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Webwise, she was all over the place as well. Pretty good in just a few days time. Technically it'd been about 5 or 6 days time rather than 8 days because it took a few days before the video went viral and that's when the media caught wind of it, both the web and on TV. It went viral with no fault of Sarah's own. She didn't put the video up, her husband did with the encouragement of his mother so that their families and friends would be able to witness Sarah's reaction to her implant being turned on. The video captured accurately that Sarah was hearing herself for the first time. And now some people are heaping scorn at her for a variety of reasons. 

Strange world indeed.

Why is it so hard to congratulate a grown deaf adult seeing the immediate (and emotional) success from her implantable hearing aid in a video? A result that took Sarah by surprise at the clarity of sound that was coming in. Why reserve such congratulations to her and instead lament about one's own history struggling with his hearing aid wishing his story was video-taped and had gone viral, too? Had Sarah Churman's video received only 2000 views, all of this would've been essentially a "non-story." But instead it churned out some 7.2 million views/hits so far in less than two weeks.

Of course, I don't expect that everybody will share the same sentiments echoing mine when it comes to congratulating Sarah on her successful use of her implantable hearing aid. My approach is to separate myself from Sarah's and leave it at that because I recognize that each of us is different when it comes to our hearing loss, our experience, our upbringing, our preferences to communicate, and whether we successfully used our hearing aids, cochlear implants, other implantable hearing devices (e.g. Baha, Envoy, etc) or none at all (e.g. signing) to our benefits.


Off topic:
I'm disappointed and sad to report this but I am left with no recourse but to report this behavior and continued misunderstanding.

I left a comment at Deaf Echo on a blog piece about Sarah Churman just a few minutes ago. I went back to see if any responses came up (Patti's came up) only to see that my comment was once again removed. I am guessing this has to do with a disagreement and misunderstanding over what I wrote, my opinion several months back (and here) in Febuary 2011.  But I wasn't sure if I was still on the banned list (seven months later) and made a screen copy of my comment submission just in case. Sure enough, I'm persona non grata (the new commenting rules can be seen here while the old seen on Feb 2, 2011 can be seen here) for petty reasons, I suppose.

Before at 9:50 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):

Removed at approximately 10:10 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):

As you can see my comment was deleted. Nothing demeaning, hateful, derogatory, or abusive about it as you can clearly see from what I wrote seen in the screen capture. No ad-hominem attacks.  No foul language. And certainly not a spam. I think whoever removed my comment needs to have the cojones to look past his/her own petty feelings when it comes to a difference of opinions instead of hiding behind claims of "abusive comments" as reason for the continued blocking. Incredibly, the moderator(s) still refuse to point out exactly which or what comment of mine back in February 2011 was considered as an "abusive comment" which can, frankly, be anything they would want it to be and call it justified.  All of my comments have not been abusive nor disrespectful as Candy pointed out before as a witness to this whole charade. Clearly my recent comment seen in the screen capture above is not abusive nor disrespectful at all.  Folks, let's learn to let go such pettiness since after all Bobby (one of the moderator of Deaf Echo) said:

We love a good discussion that drives things forward, and we act aggressively to maintain a good environment for our readers and writers.

I've always loved having a good discussion that drives things forward in my blog and in other discussion forums, too. Nothing in my responses were shown to breach that "good environment for our readers and writers" as you can see in my latest comment that was conveniently deleted.  But then again, it's their blog and they have every right to do what they feel is right even if it means letting misunderstanding getting the better of them. Yet, I find all this incredulously humorous. And I certainly have a right to blog my opinions on people who simply cannot accept alternative viewpoints and opinions who are unable to simply agree to disagree. Agreeing to disagree is a show of professionalism. Pettiness is not.

Bleached article

Reading this bleached article piece again and again I can only conclude it to be a non sequitur piece. It made no sense, intellectually so. What I saw is an emotional piece in the guise as an intellectual discourse simply because of the attempt to insert the idea of "neglect" into the whole picture when it comes to parents' decision on implanting their deaf child. That agenda is clear. A subtle message without overtly saying it. Hence, my question to the author. What is he trying to say? What is his official stance on cochlear implantation for children?

You have parents making an informed decision on getting a cochlear implant for their deaf child versus making an uninformed decision of Jamaican parents who apply bleaching agent to their children's dark skin in the effort to lighten their skin color.  The former is not a neglect or child abuse issue while the latter is definitely considered as a neglect and child abuse issue because of the increased inherent medical risk, health issues and side effects to the child where it can disfigure the skin on the face, the most prominent feature to be bleached. An attempt to play "doctor" while using unsafe chemical products on the skin.

It's not even close between the two examples. Nothing to compare when it comes to parallels.

One is based on an approval from doctors and specialists before getting a cochlear implant while the bleaching example has nothing to do with any medical issue but about vanity and peer-pressure. The decision process on getting a cochlear implant is a long one that require many visits and researching before deciding on implantation. As for the bleaching part, it's an impulse decision without any regard to the child's own health and well being.

Again, no parallels. Nothing to compare.

The bleaching of skin is a fad much like tattooing. Cochlear implantation is not a fad. Bleaching is not a medical issue while getting a cochlear implant is a medical issue. No different from getting Lasik surgery for your eyes to help improve vision or getting the right prescription glasses for those blurry eyes. There is something to be said when senses are impaired do people seek medical correction or assistance.  Changing the color of one's skin isn't a medical correction or a need but purely a cosmetic one, just like using Botox to enhance the face.

Again, nothing to compare.

The bleaching of skin is due to peer-pressure based on the need for social acceptance and survival. Getting a cochlear implant addresses the need to access sound and not about peer-pressure or survival. However, cochlear implantation does allow the opportunity to develop listening and speaking skills over time. Bleaching one's own skin does not improve anybody's skills but it's purely on the basis of social acceptance. You cannot compare between the two as having parallels. Simply irreconcilable. 

Getting a cochlear implant does not preclude a child from learning sign language. Nor does it preclude a child from a social aspect on the opportunity to mingle among his or her signing, deaf, hh or hearing peers. You have a child's right to hear from the very beginning when the opportunity to develop listening skill would be at its peak (0 to 4 years old). Once that opportunity is past then it is too late to have that upper hand for the rest of the child's life.  It's purely a medical fact. Timing is everything when it comes to the brain's development on learning new sound and words. Having said that, the introduction to deaf culture can occur anytime during a child's life from birth to adulthood should child decide later or get introduced with the help of his or her parents.

Again, noting to compare when it comes to parallels.

That blog piece appears to covertly impart guilt on parents by using emotionally laden words like "cultural genocide," "neglect," and "criminal" and parallel them with the bleaching of children all in the guise of an intellectual discourse as far as I'm concerned since the author refuse to clarify his reason for that blog piece. I am left to make this observation on my own.  It turns out to be a non sequitur piece since one example is considered to be a medical issue while the other is obviously not. 

Equating cochlear implantation of kids with bleaching?

It's sad that it had to come to this but I asked for clarification from an author in Deaf Echo who wrote a piece called "Jamaican Skin Bleaching… Parallels with Cochlear Implantation?" on exactly what was his definitive stance on cochlear implantation for kids. And there was a reason for asking. This was in response to an article where the author attempted to draw parallels of parents getting cochlear implants for their kids to that of black Jamaicans with very dark skin on their efforts to bleach their children so their skin color would appear much lighter in the name of "cultural acceptance." A rather odd approach I thought and wondered exactly what was his official stance regarding kids with cochlear implants. A legitimate question.

And the response?

And in a space of several minutes apart, too.

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong on asking for clarification from an author on where he stands regarding cochlear implantation in children in light of that recent blog piece, um..... article. It's pretty fair question to ask for a more definitive statement than to make an assumption. Wouldn't you say? Perhaps he was playing the devil's advocate?  Or maybe the author is neutral on this? I don't know. But asking that question earned me another ban instead of hoping for an honest, forthright and open dialogue.

This wasn't the first time, either, in Deaf Echo which left me and others puzzled by that action as well.

I don't know who removed my comment and banned me. Although I must emphasize strongly to my readers that any comments in blogs or website's commenting area is a privilege and not a right. And a blogger has every right to decide on deleting comments or ban participants in his or her own blog space. Although I'm not exactly sure what rule I broke as you can see here folks.  It was certainly not harassment because I was asking for clarifications in light of that article seeing it as not a "neutral" piece, or so it appears.

I agree that the debate on cochlear implantation on kids is a controversial one as explained in Deaf Echo.

If you’re familiar with the Deaf community at all, you probably already know how ferocious the debate can become on the merits of getting an implant (and especially having a young deaf child implanted).

But does that warrant deletions or bans if one disagrees, or have additional questions? 

Anyways,  this whole cochlear-implantation-parallels-to-bleaching article thing seems to hinge rather on a more emotional level than not. The two are not the same. But since Deaf Echo left me with no recourse to participate as equals, I must address it here in my own blog, unfortunately. I had hoped that I would've gotten a clarification first so I can respond accordingly and appropriately.  But that opportunity is gone, however, I do have a recourse in here.

Cochlear implantation involves a decision process that requires more research along with multiple meetings with specialists, educators, doctors, other people such as those who have CI, culturally deaf people, and so on. It is a process that takes many months before the actual implantation takes place if parents ultimately decide to do so as part of their informed decision process. It is quite obvious this is certainly not the equivalent of doing a procedure on yourself or on your kids on a moments notice.

Also, I don't see it as a neglect issue when cochlear implantation is concerned but rather on what happens afterwards. As long as parents are active participants in an implanted child's life on helping develop language and communication skills then there is no neglect at all. Is it neglect if culturally deaf parents implant their deaf child? But by reading that blog piece you would think so yet the blog piece falls into the category of plausible deniability on making that inference. Hence, again, the reason why I asked that question.

Here's what Russell, a deaf parent with cochlear implant with an implanted son, had to say:

This is living proof Cochlear Implants works! The sound quality is beyond exceptional. Currently, my aided digital hearing aid is barely producing sound. My CI has taken over and it's indescribable what it's like to hear at the 15db to 20db range. It hasn't been 2 weeks since my activation and it is a life changing for me that I'm looking forward to.

Children ages 6 months to 4 deserve to get one without question. It's selfish to deny anyone the right to hear especially our children. The hoodized Deaf population needs to refrain from using myths, lies, and deception to prevent those who can benefit from CI's, particularly parents of deaf children.

Speaking of myths, lies and deception.

I understand the attempt on outlining those parallels in Deaf Echo but I must question first the reason behind it, hence, which is why I had to ask first about the author's stance on cochlear implantation just to be sure.  Now I'm left with an even bigger question mark.

As for my stance, I made clear many times that as long as parents make an informed decision on whether or not to implant their deaf child then I'm fine with it. The decision belongs to the parents, and not to the culturally deaf community or anybody else, hearing or deaf.  I'm not afraid to make a statement as a matter of record and clarification to my readers. But I tell you this, the opportunity to hear is a serious consideration not to be taken lightly where it has the potential to open up even more opportunities and skills in life. That decision alone does not preclude a child from learning sign language or the opportunity to meet with others in the deaf culture community.

Deaf Echo Chamber part Deux

In following up with my previous blog Deaf Echo Chamber I did last month where my opinions and discussions were conveniently prevented as I feel was for selfish reasons in Deaf Echo.  Although the moderators have every right to monitor their own blog/website as they see fit, however. Yet, I understand the sensitive issues regarding impacts to deaf education. But that doesn't excuse them from making up a fantasy excuse in the attempt to silence my opinions.

Onward to the Wisconsin protest thingy.

If you didn't know already Governor Walker did sign the collective bargaining bill in a signing ceremony. I have a few questions for you Deaf Echo-ers and readers here. But correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the voters pick Governor Walker?

Didn't the voters understand who they were voting for? Despite fliers circulated during last fall’s campaign by union AFT-Wisconsin who warned voters that Walker wanted to curb the unions’ power to negotiate? But they still voted for him? Why is that?

Maybe the people of Wisconsin want to see their state regain control and get the state's fiscal sanity back for once?

Scott Walker was elected by the people as a fiscal conservative Republican, and he is governing as a fiscally conservative Republican. He is doing exactly what he promised he would do. And because of that campaign platform he won the largest landslide victory of any party in any election since 1928. A 54-45 percent landslide win in Wisconsin.

Isn't that Democracy in action?

And lastly, how it is that public employees in 24 other states — and in the federal government — have managed to survive without collective bargaining rights? Imagine that. 

On collective bargaining when compared to those with no collective bargaining:

The boldest and most effective option is to prohibit collective bargaining entirely in the public sector. Virginia and North Carolina do this. Twenty-two other states forbid collective bargaining for some classes of public employees or allow it only by local option.

Not having to bargain employee contracts makes it easier for elected officials to control employment costs. The Washington Post has written extensively about the different budget environments in Fairfax County, Virginia, which does not use collective bargaining, and Montgomery County, Maryland, which does:

Virginia law denies public employees collective bargaining rights; that’s helped Fairfax resist budget-busting wage and benefit demands. As revenue dipped two years ago, Fairfax officials froze all salaries for county government and school employees with little ado. By contrast, Montgomery leaders were badly equipped to cope with recession.

I strongly suggest you read the link to the The Washington Post above. It's really an eye-opener to understand when it comes to the ability to control cost.

Now, if you want to discuss this, fine. But if you disagree, just say so instead of making up fantasy excuses in the effort to silence me for my opinions. Let's avoid the echo chamber effect.

Deaf Echo Chamber

Yells: "Hello!"

Echos - "hello...hello.......hello.............hello...........................hello."

In Deaf Echo there is an obvious pro-union article called "Madison, Wisconsin - So This is Democracy: An Attack on Education" which soon gotten my attention and decided to contribute to the discussion offering my viewpoints and opinions. But somehow, somewhere down the line, a moderator decided that I was making "abusive comments" in my responses and comments.

*scratches my head*

Hmmm.

Really?

The funny thing is that no where did I make any "abusive comments." I stated my opinions and concerns. In my own blog I hereby challenge the moderator to back up what he's claiming and point out exactly what and where my so called "abusive comments" are. As for me, I see none because I created none.

Now. I know that sometimes for other people to read what I write it may get their ire or misconstrue on exactly what I'm writing thinking it's one thing when it's not. Hence, the reason why I attempted to explain in Deaf Echo which, obviously, didn't go anywhere. 

What I think the problem is that some people are upset because I dared to have a difference of opinion or that I provided links to facts. At least it seems to be that. Bottom line, I see things differently. I attacked no one personally. I made no snarky remarks. I made no emotional, blind rage at any one. Ironically though, some veiled personal attacks against me were allowed. Double standards? You make the call. But all this had me wondering on exactly what bias is being permitted over there. Now remember folks, Moderators have every right to see fit on how to run their own website or blog. That's not the issue here. The issue is the lack of honesty.

Somebody is not being honest on wanting to have a "good discussion." Is it a one-sided discussion the goal or allow discussion from both sides of the fence? Which is it? Will it be driving forward or backward?

This is what one moderator (Bobby) said:

Mike McConnell has been blocked from further commenting on Deaf Echo for repeat violations of our policies. Specifically, writing abusive comments. We do not tolerate this on Deaf Echo. We love a good discussion that drives things forward, and we act aggressively to maintain a good environment for our readers and writers.

Until the moderator can actually point out exactly which comment I wrote that was "abusive" then that's the challenge for him to answer my call. Otherwise, I think this is a matter of protecting somebody or at least assert some kind of control on what's being allowed to discussed, perhaps keeping it pro-union as possible?? Maybe I'm wrong though the response and action made by the moderator was rather curious. Although I'm not alone in seeing the problem of this so called "abusive comments." Candy agreed that she also saw no abusive comments were being made from me.

I don't see any abusive comments by Mike. Gotta have two polarizing sides to have a good discussions and sometimes some things just don't "drive things forward." I don't see his comments creating a bad environment. Just sayin' Then again, it is your blog.

Yes, it is his blog. No doubt. And he has every right to maintain control as he sees fit. Curiously though, no one responded to what Candy said. BTW, thank you, Candy. We can always agree to disagree. 

But I think the ban had to do more with the link I provided in reponse to a moderator's "Greedy" picture cartoon he left. And so in response to that I left a link as an attempt to put into perspective the teacher's average compensation package (salary + benefits). The "Greedy Teachers" picture in the link that came with it was not the intention but the figures I wanted to present so readers can be well informed. That is certainly not considered as an "abusive comment."  In all honesty, I'm guessing exactly which comments the moderator found "so abusive" to warrant a ban. Curiously enough the moderator is also pro-union as well which could put into question the whole neutrality of that moderator.

No snide comments were made from me.

No snarks.

No abusive comments.

Just my opinions, perspective, understanding, knowledge and facts of the matter at hand. No one wants to see jobs lost. I'm not making fun or light of that, obviously.  I don't think people want to see deaf education or any education suffer, I've not hinted at nor made fun of that.

Deaf Echo, let's have the cojones to be honest and forthright than to hide behind some so-called policies and claim that I was making "abusive comments." There is no evidence of that at all. If Deaf Echo doesn't want to hear the other side, then just say so rather than hide behind an excuse!

As for those who attempted at making these veiled potshots at me, let me say this.

What the author wrote in Deaf Echo isn't lost on me on his care for Deaf Ed and his job. No one is saying what he says is unwarranted or to be easily dismissed. I have not made any emotional or personal pot shots at the author nor anyone in that forum. What I provided are some facts to add to my discussion. And, certainly, I am leery of unions as well since we already have laws that protect us and our rights. This isn't 1959 any more. 

Next, what I've stated in Deaf Echo is that if the spending problem isn't corrected or resolved somehow at the state level (even at the Federal level!!!) it will soon hurt a lot more of us than we would ever dreamed of.  And if Wisconsin or any other states see a 30-fold increase in their deficit increase in two years time then no amount screaming will help to save all of deaf education. We all can see that coming from miles away. ALL OF US. At least that's what I'm seeing now.

I asked in my earlier comments on how can one reconcile that problem and still help deaf education? How can one reconcile with that and compete against others who want to see education remain intact in public schools? And so on? I'd like to see it reconciled but then again reality is starting to bite hard and that has become scary. Just like suddenly seeing your years of abusing your credit cards to such extreme debts do you find yourself in a pickle of a situation that will change your life forever.

What about California?

Their budget deficit is much worse than Wisconsin's. How are they going to eventually face that and even try and reconcile with their deeply red deficit problem and attempt to keep the education system afloat, especially schools for the deaf? And at the same time compete against everything else on what money's is left on the table? Is it a spending problem? Lack of control? Too much control of union bosses or reps? Not enough taxes? Too much taxes? Not business friendly enough? And so on. There are many questions here.

And finally, most people seems to be saying in Deaf Echo that money or job isn't the issue but it's about the retention on their collective bargaining status. But why do some of them keep reverting back to saying, yes, it's about keeping jobs when facing the "chopping block."

Which one is it?

I'd rather have a job even if it means not having health care and other benefits than no job at all that will help keep the money flowing. When it really comes down to it, that would be it. It's about money and control for all of us. It's certainly about the battle for survival and it just so happens that the state holds the purse string and if there isn't enough money to go around, so what are we to do?

And lastly folks, learn to leave the veiled emotional pot shots out the next time. I'm not interested in infantilism. But when it comes to interesting discussion, I'm for that whether you agree or disagree. At least have the temerity to agree to disagree.