DPN1 vs DPN2

What's the difference between Deaf President Now 2 (Unity for Gallaudet Movement, 2006) protest that began on May 1, 2006 and Deaf President Now 1 that began on March 6, 1988? The difference is that Gallaudet University celebrates and remembers DPN1 every year but hardly even celebrates or remembers DPN2 (Unity for Gallaudet Movement, 2006) anniversary. Why is that? If DPN2 was such a "unity" protest that sought to have a truly, proper Deaf president, the native born kind that many wanted to see ended up getting a "Deaf-centric" president after all but not publicly celebrated each year? A Gallaudet University president who fit the bill as a "strong Deaf center" as Bridgetta Bourne-Firl once said per the screen capture from the Deaf Professional Network website (now defunct) article "Chronicles of Deaf Higher Education: Search for the Next Gallaudet President" written by Alison Aubrecht and Julie Bourne (posted on April 30, 2006 - full copy of the article is available):

The irony is that Bridgetta Bourne-Firl (sister of Julie Bourne who was one of the editors that wrote the article above) was one of the four Deaf President Now (DPN1) protest leaders in 1988 who mentioned in 2006 that it was time to have someone with a "strong deaf center" (i.e. "Deaf enough" or "Deaf-centric").  That was the general mindset on Gallaudet University campus prior to and during the DPN2 protest. The end result was the protesters got what they wanted, a president who is "Deaf-centric."  And that was Dr. Alan Hurwitz.  Although he was not the first "Deaf-centric" president to operate Gallaudet University. That distinction belongs to Dr. Davila who was the ongoing interim president for the next two years until the Board of Trustees could "properly" and officially select their next "Deaf-center" president.

On December 10, 2006, the Board of Trustees announced that Robert Davila would serve as interim president for a period of up to two years.[34] He was formally installed on May 9, 2007, during a ceremony that included a speech by D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who spoke positively of the 2006 protest.[35] He stepped down on December 31, 2009.  

On June 29, 2007, in the aftermath of the controversy over the university's presidency, Gallaudet was temporarily placed on probation by its accreditation organization, the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.[36] It was also reported that in 2006, the Office of Management and Budget had found that "Gallaudet failed to meet its goals or showed declining performance in key areas, including the number of students who stay in school, graduate and either pursue graduate degrees or find jobs upon graduation."[37] In January 2007, former president Jordan wrote an editorial on the topic that appeared in the Washington Post.[34] The Middle States Commission later reaffirmed Gallaudet's accreditation on June 27, 2008.[38]  

On October 18, 2009, the Board of Trustees announced that Gallaudet's tenth president will be Dr. T. Alan Hurwitz. He began his tenure on January 1, 2010.

Many considered the 2006 DPN2 protest as an "unity" moment when unity wasn't really the case although many vehemently disagrees. Ok. If that's' the case then why not Gallaudet University help recognize and celebrate annually the "Unity for Gallaudet Movement"? A watershed moment when a deaf person who was "sufficiently Deaf enough" became the next Gallaudet University president?

Another irony or twist to this is that the celebrating and recognizing DPN with their first deaf president, I. King Jordan (a late-deafened person who lost his hearing in his early 20s after a motorcycle accident), wasn't considered to be "sufficiently Deaf-centric" enough by their standards.  Although I.King Jordan during the DPN2 protest was sufficiently demonized and hated by many protesters.

What was shocking in this day and age was that DPN2 was also seen as racist moment when leaders and protesters of DPN2 shifted away from recognizing and supporting Dr. Glenn Anderson as the only African American to be selected as one of the 6 six semifinalists but was not the 3 semifinalists during the week of April 9th through 15th of 2006 for the president position.

Oh, absolutely. I’m guilty of being oppressive and part of that is taking ownership and responsibility. Back in May, when I told a specific group of people that they couldn’t speak in front of the student body [during the initial protests against Fernandes]. It was the black group of students who wanted to speak. …That wasn’t the best decision I’ve ever made, so I’m definitely guilty of that oppression. At the time my thinking was that I didn’t want to have a message that was confusing.  

Many students of color objected to the whole selection process, not just the appointment of Fernandes. Did they get much help from the other protesters?  

The white students didn’t do anything to support students of color and work together. [The black students] wrote a very powerful letter, and the board didn’t respond, and the SBG didn’t support them in this process.

But that's another story for another time just to give you the idea the whole supposedly "unity" of this DPN2 protest.

The big question.

When will Gallaudet University publicly celebrate the victory of DPN2 (Unity for Gallaudet University) on the proper selection of a president that is "sufficiently Deaf centric" on the same level as Deaf President Now (1988)? Isn't rather curious that this is kept at a much lower profile than DPN1 when I. King Jordan wasn't really "sufficiently Deaf centric" enough for many of them but enough to get the ball rolling?  Isn't it curious that Gallaudet University has a dedicated page on DPN1 outlining the protest leaders, history and timeline but not DPN2 (Unity for Gallaudet University)? Why is DPN2 not important enough for Gallaudet University to recognize another watershed supposedly student-led protest moment?

Dr. Angela McCaskill: "I quickly looked back to the protest of 2006 (see video on Unity for Gallaudet with MJ Bienvenu in it). Several radical people pushed the students to the front to debate student's agenda. It was not the student's agenda. It was not student's agenda back then and it is not student's agenda now."

Why does Gallaudet University not recognize "Unity for Gallaudet Movement" as another watershed moment when a "sufficiently Deaf centric" president was officially and "properly" selected?  Why not have a dedicated website for DPN2 like DPN1?  Did you notice that 3 days ago marked the 25th anniversary of the DPN protest movement?

Happy 25th anniversary DPN!

I was there, too. But that's another story, too.

Combat with Grizzly Bear

A statue of two Indians fighting a mother grizzly bear in her effort to protect her two cubs was created by Douglas Tilden, a world renowned deaf sculpture, stands at the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, California.  The sculpture is called "The Bear Hunt."  It is also known as "Combat with Grizzly Bear" as explained by Jack Gannon.

Born May 1, 1860 Douglas Tilden lost his hearing at the age of 4 due to Scarlet Fever. Two years later his parents enrolled Douglas at the California School for the Deaf at UC Berkeley. He became an honor student and graduated from the school in 1879 at the age of 19. He soon accepted a teaching position CSD where he stayed there for eight years. It was during the summer vacations his artistic talents began to flourish.

Summer vacations were spent studying drawing and painting. In the summer of 1883, he discovered the joys of sculpture. He returned to teaching in the fall but continued making models in his leisure time. He dreamed of studying in Paris, then the mecca of most would-be sculptors. His clay model Tired Wrestler, a young, athletic, male nude figure, impressed the Board of Trustees of the California School for the Deaf enough that they gave him a loan of five hundred dollars for study in New York. In 1887, he resigned his teaching post and left California. 

Thanks to a grant of $600 per year from the Durham Fund, administered by the California School for the Deaf, Douglas embarked for Paris in May 1888. After visiting the Salon des Artistes Français on the Champs-Elysees, he went to work on the Baseball Player. With his unorthodox, purely American motifs, Tilden was the first California-born sculptor to win recognition outside of the U.S. by being accepted in the Paris Salon in 1889, then again in 1890, 1891, 1892, and 1894.

 And thus Douglas began his career as an internationally known sculptor.

But another battle is brewing at CSD and that is the effort to get rid of "The Bear Hunt" sculpture on the CSD campus grounds stating that the statue is racist in nature "racist imagery" according to the latest online petition that began on June 28, 2012 calling for the removal of Tilden's statue:

We feel that while Tilden is indeed a respected Deaf artist in our community, he remains a white male from the 19th century and the sculpture still represents generations of dehumanizing violence towards Native American communities. Such depictions have no place at a school, particularly if a school aims to uphold principles of racial and ethnic justice.

Though “The Bear Hunt” has stood at the front of campus for years, this “branding” situation served as an opportunity for us activists to challenge our social consciousness in how we have perceived and now perceive this statue. How long has the statue stood in front of campus without being challenged? How long have some individuals’ misgivings about the statue were ignored? We are working on collaborating with Native American Deaf and Deaf People of Color organizations on this issue in order to mobilize community dialogue regarding the statue.

The petition failed to explain exactly how or why the statue is racist other than explaining that the sculptor is a white male who sculpted a statue depicting an ultimate battle and will to live between two Indians and a mother grizzly bear while trying to protect her two cubs .  Exactly how does the statue dehumanizes violence towards Native American communities? It doesn't. It's about survival.  Douglas Tilden explains about his "The Bear Hunt" statue:

In 1892, Tilden finished a huge monument, the Bear Hunt. He wrote, “My Indian and bear present a full front, both in so full a vigor that who wins must forever be a question in the spectator’s mind.” The Bear Hunt arrived at the California School for the Deaf in Berkeley in 1895 after being exhibited for several months at the Art Institute in Chicago. Both the school and the Bear Hunt are now located in Fremont.

In other words, while looking at the statue of a battle between beast and man makes you wonder, who will win the battle?  The Indians or the mother grizzly bear? What is the story behind the fight for survival? Did the Indians accidentally come across the mother Grizzly bear? Or got too close in the bear hunt? However, there is nothing racist about the "The Bear Hunt" sculpture showing two Indians battling to survive a mother grizzly attack while trying to protect her two young cubs. Hunting for bears was common. Indians hunted grizzly bears for food and other materials but at the same time they were revered and respected their fearsome strength, independence and power to the status of being a "spiritual god."

Many Indians feared the grizzly bear but still they hunted the large bears for food, clothing, and even jewelry. Claws were made into necklaces and often worn hanging from their waistband.  Because of the Indians' beliefs that the bear had some spiritual power, wearing a bear claw necklace would mean protection and good health to the Indian wearing it.

Today Indians still wear necklaces of grizzly bear claws but only a few are preserved from the 1800s in museums. One famous bear claw necklace can be viewed at the Peabody Museum at Harvard. Since bear claws were objects that Indians treasured, very few were obtained outside of the Indian tribes.

Shortly after the petition to have the statue removed (only 53 signatures so far) another petition came up to counter the petition for removal in the effort to keep the statue on the campus grounds of CSD.

CAD Bay Area Chapter president, David Prince, speaking... I disagree with DYUSA Bay Area Chapter to remove the Bear Hunt Statue (BHS) off the campus of the California School for the Deaf. The Bear Hunt statue is not a racist; it illustrates us to understand the visual history how the Indians fought against the nature. It demonstrates the visual education to everyone how it looks like in their time of struggle. It was like a battle in nature, Human versus Bear.

So far there are 357 signatures to keep the statue vs 53 signatures to get rid of it. A strong sign that common sense is prevailing.  I see no "racist imagery" in that statue other than a battle of survival between man and nature.  Violence is part of the game of survival in nature. This is all about using emotional gimmickry to play the Deaf political correctness game based on some vague and obscure reasonings. 

What is palpably ironic, at least to me, is that Douglas Tilden's own statue work is facing the possibility of being rejected by the students of CSD and perhaps the school itself. The irony comes from the fact that  he worked at the CSD for several years as a deaf teacher and later on in his life tried to go back to CSD to work as a teacher again but only to be rejected because at the time CSD  stopped hiring and employing deaf teachers.  Douglas Tilden is turning over in his grave seeing that his own work is once again facing rejection.  This Deaf political correctness has simply run amok with no clear thinking whatsoever using false emotional appeal.

Swim or pee at your own risk

Ah, summer has arrived! Temperature warming up this morning and should reach into the upper 70s today with sunny skies. After many months of cloudiness and rain this is welcome news. And as each week passes with more sunshine and increasing temperature until before you know it the temperatures are into the 90s. And this means what? Time to hit my new found and very popular swimming hole on the East Fork Lewis River that's an almost an hour's drive (depending on the traffic) south which is so much better than going to a public swimming pool. All that reminds me of what public swimming pools were like in the past. And the latest round of elitism that's been hitting the golf courses.  What is it nowadays? An open society or a closed one? A "members only" or a place regardless of signing, speaking or hearing ability status?

I think there are plenty of room for people who have communication preferences regardless of hearing loss status in a community of deaf and hard of hearing people.  Focusing on whether people are "Deaf center" enough or not fosters elitism. This can get confused with pride. And to put into perspective for those who "qualify" would be allowed to go to a public swimming pool only that it is not so public to begin with. Might as well put up a sign that says this if one has to go to a rest room:

Just to be fair these things have gone the other way around, too.

At least there wouldn't be any misunderstanding on whose Deaf over those who are deaf and hard of hearing ("not so Deaf"), right?  But if you want to swim at a public swimming pool or need to pee at a public rest room there should not be a sign that discriminates in such a fashion, right?

I certainly hope so.

Racial and Ethnic Spew Against Gallaudet University President Hurwitz, why?

When a person makes an ethnic or racial slur/claim against Gallaudet University by calling the current Hurwitz administration as being run by an "all Jewish, white men" is not only irresponsible but certainly downright conspiratorial in nature as well as obnoxious. It's even worse if it came from a person who graduated from Gallaudet University. This is a slam against Dr. Hurwitz who  became the first Jewish president of Gallaudet University and was also a past president of the World Organization of Jewish Deaf. Is it a slam against the rest of the Gallaudet University administration by making it as if the university is controlled by a bunch of "Jewish men"? It certainly does bring up questions of whether there were any racist and/or anti-semitic undertones. Although it may have been written as not to mean that but to say "all Jewish, white men" simply begs the question.

First off, the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees is consisted of 10 men of which not all of them are white or Jewish, along with 7 women. This is not counting the two from Congress. The Board of Trustees were the ones who picked Dr. Hurwitz to become Gallaudet University's next president.  As for the "Hurwitz administration" it is consisted of the President's Cabinet and Staff.  The make up of people there are just as varied with men and women of different ethnic and racial backgrounds rather than an "all Jewish, white men" run administration.

The President's Cabinet is consisted of Dr. Alan T. Hurwitz (President), Dr. Stephen Weiner (Provost of Academic Affairs), Paul Kelly (Vice President of Administration & Finance), Eward Bosso (Vice President of Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center - KDES), Lynee Murray (Vice President of Development and Alumni Relations), Donald Beil (Chief of Staff), Cynthia King (Chief Information Officer), Catherine Andersen (Associate Provost of Enrollment Management and General Studies), Ann Powell (Associate Provost for Diversity) and Fred Weiner (Executive Director of Program Development).  The President's Staff, it is just as varied as well when you look at the names and faces of both men and women.

There is nothing in this current administration to show that it is run by an "all Jewish, white men" if you look at Gallaudet University's organizational chart. You can see that the Board of Trustees is at the top of the organizational chart, and not president Hurwitz.  He would be second in line. Those who work directly under president Hurwitz are Paul Kelly, Lynne Murray, Stephen Weiner, Cindy King, Ed Bosso and Don Beil. Certainly not a cadre of people that fits the "all Jewish, white men" ethnic/racial slam.

Such an accusation is simply irresponsible coming from one deaf person who have said such a thing as seen in a YouTube's comment area yesterday. And, no, I won't point out where or who this person is. Use your imagination. It wouldn't take much to figure out who this person is. You-know-who. Yet it is perfectly alright to question a person's line of work but to raise a person's ethnic upbringing (i.e. Jewish, Catholic, etc) or racial profile shouldn't be a part of the discussion in the first place. As for Hurwitz's case, his Jewish background and "whiteness" have nothing to do with running Gallaudet University as a whole. As far as I can tell, Dr. Hurwitz is still committed to diversity. 

There is no place for anti-semitic or racist undertones aimed at Gallaudet University or the president. Not at this day and age. Not ever.

Oh, btw, Merry Christmas!

ADDENDUM: If you are going to respond in the comment section do not use names. 

Avdism

I decided to write the word "avdism" from now on after seeing the Holism blog on the subject. The "v" letter replaces the "u" letter. The original word has been abused too much using it as a weapon of choice much like the word "racism" was used in order to play the race card when there were none to be had in the first place. This not only proves damaging but does nothing to help the situation. "Avdism" has increasingly become an insidious word lately. I'd much rather focus on the inequalities and discriminations rather than become enamored over a single word or two hoping it'd be recognized and placed in a dictionary. I'll also include "avdist" into my own personal "dictionary" seeing that I'm the inventer of those words.

When the "a-wordism" needs to disappear

Sometimes with good intention comes with unintended consequences. In this case it's the invention of a new word, "avdism" (yes, I purposely misspelled that). What's the value I see in it? Probably the same value in where I link it to describe the meaning behind it.

Gamas Wanderings has a nice blog on the word "avdism" and how it should be discontinued because it creates more problems than it does solve them. Namely one of them is the constant abuse of the word used as a weapon of choice to attack rather than to educate about a particular form of discrimination. It would be better to keep it neutral as possible and at the same time educate those who do not understand about the issues of deafness. Pointing fingers at them and scream, "Avdist! Avdist!" like some scene in the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" certainly does not help the situation any more than people use a cop out word "Racist!" It just creates more problems than it does solving it.

It's time to retire the a-wordism once and for all and focus on the actual education of the public through neutral means and less attacking those who do not fully understand the issue of deafness and even the culture behind it.

To criticize Obama is not racist....

Cartoon courtesy of NBRA by Brett Noel.

Whenever there is a commentary in a blog criticizing Obama by taking him to task over certain short-sightedness or policy approach that has nothing to do with his skin color or ethnicity. Nor is it a racist, of course. What it boils down to is the right to freely express an opinion about the President of the United States but Liberals have decided to play the race card to the hilt but it has proven to be disastorous so far, of course. We see people who are being subjected at every turn called a "racist" by liberals' knee-jerking response who the overly protective and zealous Obama adulators. This, I'm sure, has happened many times when Obama first came on the scene back in 2007 onward for the 2008 presidential race and to today which has gone completely overboard with Obama contributing to the race card meme by calling Officer Crowley for "acting stupidly."

This whole racist charge isn't a just hearing people phenomenom thing, either. You have deaf people accuse others for being racist for making critical comments against the president. The first one that I remembered to have lobbed that charge, in so many words, came earlier this year. It was an unfortunate but a laughable charge. Mishka Zena (an Obama adulator?) had the, ahem, audacity to charge (J'accuse!) Rob Underhill in the blog comment over his blog article about Obama's trash after the inauguration stating what he wrote was racist. Mishka Zena made the charge with the presumption that by treating Obama differently is a racist act. Racist? You gotta be joking! Would it be any different had the President been a white Democrat with a green agenda and still saw messy result at the Mall on inauguration day? Ironically, it is the Democrats who are treating Obama differently by holding him up as the "messiah."

Nothing worse than to jump gun and use the color excuse and make a serious but unsubstantiated charges of racism. No matter what you say about Obama when criticizing him you will more than likely hear charges of racism from the mouths of Obama adulators.

There's no getting away from it.

Laugh at a political cartoon showing two cops who had just shot a crazed monkey?

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist!

Compare Obama's ipost inauguration trash in DC to a post 9/12 million plus Tea Party protesters in DC with near clean results?

Raaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!

Obama's political experience is less than Governor Palin.

Raaaaaaaaaaacist!!

Obama picked a tax cheat for Secretary of Treasury.

Raaaaaaaaaaaacist!!

Obama's bailout package with one measure containing $4.2 billion dollars where ACORN (widely know for their fraudulent activities supporting Obama only and not a neutral organization) will be eligible for it...without question.

Raaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!

Obama's ears look funny.

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!

Obama's a mulatto.

Raaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!!

Obama's black and white.

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!!

Obama's is no Martin Luther King.

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!!

Barack Hussein Obama Elected As Our Nation’s First Black President and Our Nation’s First Marxist President.

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!

Well, the bit about MLK, first Marxist President and the cartoon at the top came from the National Black Republican Association website. So, you can't accuse me of being racist which would be mighty stupid of you to try and do so.

So, please. Stop with the constant knee-jerking whenever one criticizes Obama that has nothing to do with the color of his skin or ethnicity but rather by the content of Obama's character and not his skin.

In short.... Mishka Zena, the people in Alldeaf and all others need to get past this myopic view of using race as your calling card which is a feeble crutch of a defense in the attempt to protect Obama at every turn by making baseless and unsubstantiated charges. Doing so shows desperation on your part. Remember, this is 2009. Not 1865. It's the Democrats who ought to owe blacks an apology for legitimizing racist attitudes of the past and even today.

Tiptoe around the president??

An interesting comment from the dregs of Alldeaf:

If people feel that they have to tiptoe around him because he is black, then they must be racist themselves. Otherwise, why the need to walk on eggshells?

I wonder why is that? Is it because any criticisms lobbed in the president's direction would instantly be called a "Raaaaaaaaaaacist!!" every single time? I think it's the Democrats who are doing the tiptoe-ing which means they are racist, to0?

Here's a prime example of calling one a racist that had nothing to do with the president but for having an opinion. And this was in reference to a cartoon of a monkey that was shot which was in reference to an earlier news story of an actual chimp that went mad and killed a person forcing cops to kill the animal. Here's an example dialogue.

DM: Exactly. Other presidents have been portrayed as a certain animal in other assorted political cartoons, but Obama gets a pass because hes black? F**k that.

J: Spoken like a true, narrow minded racist.

DM: I dont understand how I could be racist when I wanted Obama to win the presidency. I just dont believe in special treatment to people because he's a certain skin color. So cry foul all you want.

J: That's the whole point. You don't understand. Covert racism is rarely recognized by those most guilty of it.

No matter what you do or say, anything remotely critical of the president (even if it's not even directed at him) means that racism lies covertly in your heart. Because you see, "you don't understand," according to Newsweek all whiteys are born racist. How convenient and intellectually vapid, and not to mention utterly boring as well.

Crybabies or overly sensitive people??

A Foxnews video about the biggest crybabies at the White House is what spurred me to think about Alldeaf, DeafTV, audism, racism and including what Barry said over at his Holism blogsite.

Recently I decided to play the devil's advocate in Alldeaf where I essentially asked the question whether saying "I'm proud to white" would be any different than saying "I'm proud to be black" or any other ethnic background one could be proud of. Since Alldeaf is overwhelmingly a liberal forum with at least one liberal moderator who actually thought that a photo of a cat dressed up as an al Qaeda suicide bomber pictured in the jokes section of Alldeaf was considered as an "offensive" photo. No, I'm serious. Laugh if you will but that's how lame it was. But back to the devil's advocate position I took. I went out there and said "I'm proud to be white." Now, to a liberal they'd find it horrifying since it would bring all kinds of connotations though what I said had nothing to do with white pride like the KKK, skinheads and such. Yet at the same time avoided the question on why it's ok for others to say "I'm proud to be black"? It was a honest question. Hard hitting but honest. I was questioning the double standards. I also asked them whether if they are proud to be white as well? As expected, they evaded the question saying it didn't matter. Or one would say he is proud of one's heritage or ethnicity but at the same time blurt out that it doesn't mean that he is ashamed for being white, either.

Okayyy. They won't say it. Pretty obvious at that.

Say anything else for fear of getting labeled as a "racist," which is ridiculous in it's own right. Even though there's a good chance that for a white or black person to have other ethnic blood (Indian, European, African American, Asian, etc) in him though diluted with each passing generation. AD members began to joke and say, "I'm proud to be a mutt" but the irony is that Alldeaf banned me for a day for using the word "mulatto" to describe Obama as the "first mulatto president," a president of mixed black and white heritage. Entirely acceptable when there is even a mulatto.org group that pride themselves as mulutto people and see Obama as an example of that.

Trust me, it gets surreal in there. Like having a hearing mother make a claim that her profoundly deaf son with a hearing aid can talk and listen over the phone with anybody with ease in an attempt to save face and credibility.

And so by asking the hard question about "I'm proud to be white," I get banned again for "Trolling; Provoking; Enticing; Racism." Bottom line, Alldeaf is essentially calling me a racist for asking the tough questions. They used a coward approach by implying that I am a racist as one of the reason for being banned. Remember what Barry said over at Holism about DeafTV, audism and racism? Or perhaps Krauthammer said it best about using the "racist" charge:

"The accusation of racism is a sign of desperation by people who know they are losing the national debate and they want to hurl the ultimate charge in American politics."

It gets old. You can actually see desperation unfolds when people do that.

Now, are they crybabies? Limp-wristed, overly sensitive people? What do you think? If they ban words like "Deafreedom" in your Personal Message or find a picture of a dressed up cat as a suicide bomber as being "offensive" in the jokes section, no less, then certainly we're dealing with a few loose screws. Kind of like hearing through the filter the den of screams of anguish with the gnashing of the teeth over DeafTV by people who are basically accusing the Deaf owner of DeafTV of "audism" for not defending against "audism" which is equally amusing though I have no interest in the whole affairs anway.

Though it does get old. It becomes an indefensibly and intellectually dishonest approach.

Sensitive people need to suck it up. And argue on the merit itself rather than the route of feigned or mock outrage, and continued ad hominem attacks which a 7 year kid can do that.

It does get old.

I'll be back to ask the hard questions once again as I descend into the voids of liberal thinking tomorrow. A little challenge doesn't hurt anybody, except for the really sensitive ones.