For historical blogging purposes and convenience I decided to place all of the interview links of Matt Hamill into one place from 2006 to 2011. Four of those interviews were done by myself while others were done by somebody else.
Funny thing tho, I continue to get a lot of hits on one of the Matt Hamill interviews coming from a Wikipedia source on Matt Hamill (see reference #27) with a reference to a Matt Hamill interview blog piece I did in 2006. People are always looking up in Google or Bing info on Matt Hamill and get directed to one of my blog pieces on him.
Probably no surprise but I'm one of the very few deaf/hh bloggers who have done interviews with Matt Hamill. It was great interviewing him at the time. I was honored when I was given several photos of him practicing his sparring from Matt Hamill including exclusive photos of him joshing around with Tito Ortez and others. He gave me permission to use them in my blog.
Kokonut Pundit's Exclusive Interview #1 with Matt Hamill (with exclusive photos from Matt Hamill)- June 27, 2006
Kokonut Pundit's Exclusive Interview #2 with Matt Hamill about his 2008 Olympics dream - July 3, 2006.
Another Matt Hamill Interview (with picture) - July 16, 2006
Kokonut Pundit's Exclusive Interview #3 with Matt Hamill - July 17, 2006
Kokonut Pundit's Exclusive Interview #4 (post fight) with Matt Hamill - September 29, 2007.
Matt Hamill post fight video interview - captioned. Oct 24, 2010
Matt Hamill - pre-fight video interview - May 27, 2011
Showing posts with label wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wikipedia. Show all posts
Sunday, April 07, 2013
Friday, October 19, 2012
Is Wikipedia accurate about Gallaudet 2006 protest?
I went to a Wikipedia page that covered the 2006 Gallaudet University protest and was curious whether the historical depictions were accurate? Of course, as people would already know Wikipedia is a source to be wary with since it it editable by anyone who have access to it. Whatever leaning a person has and whatever bias he or she may hold it'll get reflected in the writeup. So, perception of history can easily be changed with a few words or omissions of certain facts. But is it accurate? What is missing?
Questions abound such as who really started the push for "Unity for Gallaudet" protest which is an altogether an oxymoron combining "protest" with that of demand for "unity." Reason I'm bringing this up is because of the recent revelation brought up by Dr. Angela McCaskill in a Tuesday press conference where she stated that:
Yet the irony in all this bullying was discovered when I found out that President Hurwitz requested that Gallaudet University establish an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students back in 2011 stating (see page 2):
Looks like it got a whole lot worse straight up at the faculty level and from a person who high on the authority list as one of the faculty Senate member of Gallaudet University. More on that later below.
Who knew that their very own Dr. Angela McCaskill, Chief Diversity Officer, would become a bullying victim from faculty members who squarely have set agenda against her from the beginning which brings me to Celia May Baldwin who was a victim of bullying during the 2006 protest. I saved Baldwin's 2006 memo outlining her reason why she resigned from the Board of Trustees stating that she received threats during the 2006 protest.
Question for ya'll.
Where were the faculty members who were in support of the 2006 "unity" protest when these threats occurred? Who stood up and said that issuing such threats to members of the BoTs and said that it "ain't cool." Who publicly voiced that they do not condone such actions against BoT members?
Where was M.J. Bienvenu when that happened?
Did she not care about threats made to certain members of the BoTs?
Where were the 145 full-time regular faculty in 2006 who were in attendance for the no-confidence vote, out of a possible 220 but made the vote count appear bigger when it wasn't since 145 faculty members in total for the special meeting were in attendance. A total of 140 voted on the "no confidence" vote where there was a 93 to 47 vote where of "No confidence" in Fernandes with a difference of 46 votes. 140 out 220 voted attended the "no confidence" vote which means only 63% of the faculty voted on the subject which leaves 80 faculty members who refused to attend the special meeting or could not attend the special meeting. It wasn't a faculty Senate vote but a non-binding vote in a special meeting during the height of the "Unity for Gallaudet" protest. And this calls into question the validity of the whole vote when you have barely 60% of the faculty members attending for a special vote by which they admitted it was not a faculty Senate vote.
Jumping back to Celia May Brown.
Did faculty members who were in support of the 2006 protest ignored threats that were made to Celia May Baldwin? Was this a classic sign of allowing bullying to happen by keeping quiet about it? How come the 21-member faculty Senate never voted on the "No confidence" vote? Wouldn't that yield a more powerful, official vote and voice against J.K. Fernandes? How many of those 21 members of the faculty Senate actually participated in the non-binding vote in a special meeting that day? Who were those 21 members of the faculty Senate back in 2006?
Me wonder.
And now, today, we have faculty members who used Angela McCaskill's petition signature as a blunt weapon to bully against her by essentially forcing president Hurwitz into a corner to try and get her fired. Some faculty members who may have been key in helping start the 2006 protest may have been the ones who pushed students out in front and center to get them to protest in their favor. Who, as far as we're concerned, never condoned the threats that were made against Celia May Brown back in 2006.
Now here is what gets interesting.
Kendra Smith and M.J. Bienvenu are members of the 22-member faculty Senate for the 2010 - 2013 term. Those two are involved in the whole McCaskill/Gallaudet University mess as charged by Dr. Angela McCaskill. Kendra Smith represents Graduate Studies group while M.J. Bienvenu represents University Faculty Officers and as University Faculty Vice Chair. A powerful position with a lot of pull.
The roles, responsibilities and authority given to these members are described in the faculty Senate page:
Charge
The principal decision-making body of the faculty:
1.Review and advise the administration on the relative merits of creating new administrative structures, revising existing structures, and re-defining the purposes and functions of existing programs.
2.Make recommendations to the administration regarding the academic calendar.
3.Establishes courses of study, requirements for admission or transfer, and requirements for graduation for degrees; determines academic discipline.
4.Reviews faculty grievances and makes recommendations to the President.
5.Verifies faculty eligibility for promotion and tenure.
6.Recommends to the president and Board of Trustees candidates for degrees; and regulates faculty status and conduct.
This Committee has the following authority:
•Principal decision-making body of the University Faculty. Oversees quality of academic programs. Recommends candidates for degrees.
•Advises Provost, President, and BOT
Powerful responsibilities and the delegation of authority to those Senate members. This has an air of conflict of interest at work in the effort to oust McCaskill. Also, does this reek of "deafhoodism" all over again but in an all different format at the political level with a twist that it's become a good ole-girls network (14 out 22 are women in the faculty Senate) with Bienvenu near the top of the authority delegated to her?
Also, is Bienvenu a tenured professor?
And so all in all we can only surmise what has been going on now since 2006 with McCaskill bringing it up. Perhaps this goes back much earlier than 2006. And exactly what kind of a professional relationship there was between McCaskill and Bienvenu all those years they've known each other?
It's obvious that Bienvenu has an axe to grind toward McCaskill for some reason or another that she was willing to push such an agenda in a very public way. Perhaps time will tell eventually this sordid tale yet to be told. The 2006 chapter thought closed is now open again. What really went on and why?
Maybe it's time to add and revise some of the Wikipedia entry on "Unity for Gallaudet" protest?
Questions abound such as who really started the push for "Unity for Gallaudet" protest which is an altogether an oxymoron combining "protest" with that of demand for "unity." Reason I'm bringing this up is because of the recent revelation brought up by Dr. Angela McCaskill in a Tuesday press conference where she stated that:
"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."There must be more to this charge. What does McCaskill know that we don't know since she had access to faculty members in 2006 and saw what went on on the inside. I think she saw enough of what went on that simply disgusted her. Enough so to make such a charge in a live news conference.
Yet the irony in all this bullying was discovered when I found out that President Hurwitz requested that Gallaudet University establish an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students back in 2011 stating (see page 2):
We are currently developing an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students. A brief video, “It Gets Better,” was made by Gallaudet students and is available at http://youtu.be/WoaYsF_OzXU."It gets better?
Looks like it got a whole lot worse straight up at the faculty level and from a person who high on the authority list as one of the faculty Senate member of Gallaudet University. More on that later below.
Who knew that their very own Dr. Angela McCaskill, Chief Diversity Officer, would become a bullying victim from faculty members who squarely have set agenda against her from the beginning which brings me to Celia May Baldwin who was a victim of bullying during the 2006 protest. I saved Baldwin's 2006 memo outlining her reason why she resigned from the Board of Trustees stating that she received threats during the 2006 protest.
May 9, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Graham, Board Secretary
FROM: Celia May Baldwin
SUBJECT: Tenure on the Board of Trustees
After many sleepless nights and much reflection these past several days, I regret to tell you that on Sunday night I came to the decision to resign from the Gallaudet Board of Trustees. The presidential search and the controversy that has ensued have put enormous strain and stress on me. I simply could not ignore the numerous aggressive threats I have received over the past weeks.
I cannot express how disappointed I am that it has to come to this point. However, I trust that you will give me your full support and understanding in my decision.
It is my sincerest hope that you feel I have served Gallaudet University to the fullest in the years that I have been on the Board. I admire and respect each of my colleagues on the Board and am glad that I had the opportunity of working closely with several of them in the recent months as the Interim Chair. I also appreciate all the assistance I received from the President's Office. I am truly saddened by recent events.
I am confident that we all share the same goal of working towards the best possible future for Gallaudet University. Thank you for allowing me to serve this fine institution.
Question for ya'll.
Where were the faculty members who were in support of the 2006 "unity" protest when these threats occurred? Who stood up and said that issuing such threats to members of the BoTs and said that it "ain't cool." Who publicly voiced that they do not condone such actions against BoT members?
Where was M.J. Bienvenu when that happened?
Did she not care about threats made to certain members of the BoTs?
Where were the 145 full-time regular faculty in 2006 who were in attendance for the no-confidence vote, out of a possible 220 but made the vote count appear bigger when it wasn't since 145 faculty members in total for the special meeting were in attendance. A total of 140 voted on the "no confidence" vote where there was a 93 to 47 vote where of "No confidence" in Fernandes with a difference of 46 votes. 140 out 220 voted attended the "no confidence" vote which means only 63% of the faculty voted on the subject which leaves 80 faculty members who refused to attend the special meeting or could not attend the special meeting. It wasn't a faculty Senate vote but a non-binding vote in a special meeting during the height of the "Unity for Gallaudet" protest. And this calls into question the validity of the whole vote when you have barely 60% of the faculty members attending for a special vote by which they admitted it was not a faculty Senate vote.
Jumping back to Celia May Brown.
Did faculty members who were in support of the 2006 protest ignored threats that were made to Celia May Baldwin? Was this a classic sign of allowing bullying to happen by keeping quiet about it? How come the 21-member faculty Senate never voted on the "No confidence" vote? Wouldn't that yield a more powerful, official vote and voice against J.K. Fernandes? How many of those 21 members of the faculty Senate actually participated in the non-binding vote in a special meeting that day? Who were those 21 members of the faculty Senate back in 2006?
Me wonder.
And now, today, we have faculty members who used Angela McCaskill's petition signature as a blunt weapon to bully against her by essentially forcing president Hurwitz into a corner to try and get her fired. Some faculty members who may have been key in helping start the 2006 protest may have been the ones who pushed students out in front and center to get them to protest in their favor. Who, as far as we're concerned, never condoned the threats that were made against Celia May Brown back in 2006.
Now here is what gets interesting.
Kendra Smith and M.J. Bienvenu are members of the 22-member faculty Senate for the 2010 - 2013 term. Those two are involved in the whole McCaskill/Gallaudet University mess as charged by Dr. Angela McCaskill. Kendra Smith represents Graduate Studies group while M.J. Bienvenu represents University Faculty Officers and as University Faculty Vice Chair. A powerful position with a lot of pull.
The roles, responsibilities and authority given to these members are described in the faculty Senate page:
Charge
The principal decision-making body of the faculty:
1.Review and advise the administration on the relative merits of creating new administrative structures, revising existing structures, and re-defining the purposes and functions of existing programs.
2.Make recommendations to the administration regarding the academic calendar.
3.Establishes courses of study, requirements for admission or transfer, and requirements for graduation for degrees; determines academic discipline.
4.Reviews faculty grievances and makes recommendations to the President.
5.Verifies faculty eligibility for promotion and tenure.
6.Recommends to the president and Board of Trustees candidates for degrees; and regulates faculty status and conduct.
This Committee has the following authority:
•Principal decision-making body of the University Faculty. Oversees quality of academic programs. Recommends candidates for degrees.
•Advises Provost, President, and BOT
Powerful responsibilities and the delegation of authority to those Senate members. This has an air of conflict of interest at work in the effort to oust McCaskill. Also, does this reek of "deafhoodism" all over again but in an all different format at the political level with a twist that it's become a good ole-girls network (14 out 22 are women in the faculty Senate) with Bienvenu near the top of the authority delegated to her?
Also, is Bienvenu a tenured professor?
And so all in all we can only surmise what has been going on now since 2006 with McCaskill bringing it up. Perhaps this goes back much earlier than 2006. And exactly what kind of a professional relationship there was between McCaskill and Bienvenu all those years they've known each other?
It's obvious that Bienvenu has an axe to grind toward McCaskill for some reason or another that she was willing to push such an agenda in a very public way. Perhaps time will tell eventually this sordid tale yet to be told. The 2006 chapter thought closed is now open again. What really went on and why?
Maybe it's time to add and revise some of the Wikipedia entry on "Unity for Gallaudet" protest?
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Wikipedia Entry
Now, as I reflect on this Wikipedia entry when I pointed out to readers that a few entries were made that included a few Deaf organizations listed under as an "Extremist Groups" and wondered if there was a joke in there somewhere. But then I got to thinking on the word "extremist" and exactly was does that mean? What is the context of that word when used?
Under Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "extremist" as:
Now, for babies born with a hearing loss where 90% of them are born into hearing parents. Looking from the perspectives of hearing parents who have no understanding or concept about ASL, Deaf culture and the existence of a Deaf community and for parents to hear from a particular Deaf group who pushes ASL first or ASL only agenda onto hearing parents could possible see them as an "extremist group." Especially if they advocate such a law that would force parents to take ASL and provide ASL for their own baby born with a hearing loss (regardless on hearing loss amount from mild to profound). Which brings me back to a recent blog piece I did, "F*ck you, Deaf community! ".
That blog piece I pointed out to readers of a forum that is frequented mostly by hearing parents of a child with hearing loss. One parent vented in anger when he had Deaf people come up to him and basically called him a "monster" and other names while in the presence of his deaf child with a cochlear implant. The decision this parent took wasn't easy when it came to choosing cochlear implant but it was his decision. I'm sure no parents would like being told of what to do with his or her child with a hearing loss and infringe on their basic right in making parental decisions.
And here it all boils down to the AB2072 bill. A bill that gives parents the opportunity to be informed of all communication options in an unbiased format such as what is written on a pamphlet for parents of children that were diagnosed with hearing loss. That way they can begin their direction on being fully informed and soon make an informed decision without feeling being pushed, cajoled, looked down upon, feeling lost, pressured and what not.
Remember, a hearing parents' perspective (or the hearing community) is vastly different from Deaf people on how each of them view a world without sound. For hearing people to hear how certain Deaf groups behave in the effort to make hearing parents feel guilty, to try and push the ASL only or ASL first agenda and even the ideological attempt to try and bypass parental rights to make their own decisions regarding which communication and educational paths they feel is right for their child with a hearing loss. That's enough for hearing people to see these groups as crackpots, extremists, a bunch of idiots, yahoos, and whatever name or image it may pop up in the minds of hearing people.
Maybe what this person did in the Wikipedia entry was a joke. Maybe a point was trying to be made there. Who knows. But it certainly not impossible to fathom the idea that many hearing parents would in fact see certain Deaf advocacy groups as being "extremists" in their actions or beliefs. I or other people might not see it that way but I'm sure there are many who do see it that way. It certainly didn't help some Deaf groups' image when they went out in public to protest against ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS in the AB2072 bill. Doing so I'm sure many people would've seen them as going to extremes in not accepting a bill that would allow parents be given information on ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS. Who would be foolish to disagree with such an idea?
Now, I'm hearing murmuring that Deafread should get me "blacklisted." Well, good luck with that as you tried to push Tayler to stop providing links that discusses cochlear implant in Deafread as well as having issues in DVTV in getting him to do your bidding and control his creative work. Tayler already knows in his video about me to O'Lois on how I do my blogging. He understands.
Under Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "extremist" as:
1 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalismOk. "Extreme measures" means what? Well, that falls under "extremism" and the dictionary defines it as:
2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : RADICALISM.So, it's about advocacy and how far one goes to advocating their beliefs and philosophies. But that alone doesn't give us a measuring stick. Let's see what the dictionary says about "radicalism."
1 : the quality or state of being radicalOk. What is a being "radical" then?
I think what we think of radicals here could fall under "b" which is the "tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions.3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.
Now, for babies born with a hearing loss where 90% of them are born into hearing parents. Looking from the perspectives of hearing parents who have no understanding or concept about ASL, Deaf culture and the existence of a Deaf community and for parents to hear from a particular Deaf group who pushes ASL first or ASL only agenda onto hearing parents could possible see them as an "extremist group." Especially if they advocate such a law that would force parents to take ASL and provide ASL for their own baby born with a hearing loss (regardless on hearing loss amount from mild to profound). Which brings me back to a recent blog piece I did, "F*ck you, Deaf community! ".
That blog piece I pointed out to readers of a forum that is frequented mostly by hearing parents of a child with hearing loss. One parent vented in anger when he had Deaf people come up to him and basically called him a "monster" and other names while in the presence of his deaf child with a cochlear implant. The decision this parent took wasn't easy when it came to choosing cochlear implant but it was his decision. I'm sure no parents would like being told of what to do with his or her child with a hearing loss and infringe on their basic right in making parental decisions.
And here it all boils down to the AB2072 bill. A bill that gives parents the opportunity to be informed of all communication options in an unbiased format such as what is written on a pamphlet for parents of children that were diagnosed with hearing loss. That way they can begin their direction on being fully informed and soon make an informed decision without feeling being pushed, cajoled, looked down upon, feeling lost, pressured and what not.
Remember, a hearing parents' perspective (or the hearing community) is vastly different from Deaf people on how each of them view a world without sound. For hearing people to hear how certain Deaf groups behave in the effort to make hearing parents feel guilty, to try and push the ASL only or ASL first agenda and even the ideological attempt to try and bypass parental rights to make their own decisions regarding which communication and educational paths they feel is right for their child with a hearing loss. That's enough for hearing people to see these groups as crackpots, extremists, a bunch of idiots, yahoos, and whatever name or image it may pop up in the minds of hearing people.
Maybe what this person did in the Wikipedia entry was a joke. Maybe a point was trying to be made there. Who knows. But it certainly not impossible to fathom the idea that many hearing parents would in fact see certain Deaf advocacy groups as being "extremists" in their actions or beliefs. I or other people might not see it that way but I'm sure there are many who do see it that way. It certainly didn't help some Deaf groups' image when they went out in public to protest against ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS in the AB2072 bill. Doing so I'm sure many people would've seen them as going to extremes in not accepting a bill that would allow parents be given information on ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS. Who would be foolish to disagree with such an idea?
Now, I'm hearing murmuring that Deafread should get me "blacklisted." Well, good luck with that as you tried to push Tayler to stop providing links that discusses cochlear implant in Deafread as well as having issues in DVTV in getting him to do your bidding and control his creative work. Tayler already knows in his video about me to O'Lois on how I do my blogging. He understands.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
"Deafhood," AFA, and CAD linked as "Extremist Groups" in Wikipedia?
There must be a joke in there somewhere. The name "Deafhood" was found in a Wikipedia entry under the listed "Extremist Groups" category as seen in the United States section along with other notable organizations like Church of Scientology, Earth First!, and Aryan Nation. Not only that but AFA and CAD were also found under that list, too. Here's a screen capture of that Wikipedia entry.
BTW, do you take much stock into Wikipedia nowadays?
Yet, when you click on the "Deafhood" it links to it's own Wikipedia entry on "Deafhood." And I couldn't help but noticed this entry.
Interesting. I'm sure entries will change again and again and again and again and again and again....ad nauseum.
Disclaimer: I am only reporting this as I just found out about it. Somebody created these Wikipedia entries and not I.
BTW, do you take much stock into Wikipedia nowadays?
Yet, when you click on the "Deafhood" it links to it's own Wikipedia entry on "Deafhood." And I couldn't help but noticed this entry.
Numerous deaf and hearing people view 'deafhood' as a closed society, largely due to long history of rejections against those who do not practice and use pure ASL (American Sign Language). Those who did not practice pure ASL were generally rejected by people who practice deafhood theory. For instance, numerous deaf people were categorized as 'deafless' because they were not deaf enough therefore they were rejected from the deafhood community. Numerous deaf individuals that choose to wear cochlear implants, hearing aids and use different communication methods / devices were also rejected by the deafhood community. The general deaf community sees deafhood as an extremist group.Again, here's a screen capture of that entry, too.
Interesting. I'm sure entries will change again and again and again and again and again and again....ad nauseum.
Disclaimer: I am only reporting this as I just found out about it. Somebody created these Wikipedia entries and not I.
Monday, March 01, 2010
The dangers of using Wikipedia to look up the word "avdism"
By the way, as an after thought after my recent blog on the banishment of the word "avdism" (misspelled on purpose). Googling in the word "avdism" you will find it at the top of the search result and without thinking or forgetting that you're dealing with a questionable site to begin with you click on it.
At the top of the main page it has these dire warnings:
Also, be sure to check out this Holism blog on why some Deaf organizations and such are a closed society, and this guy is a Deaf blogger/vlogger, too.
At the top of the main page it has these dire warnings:
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)Lack of references or sources and that neutrality is disputed? It certainly makes it questionable on their so-called authoritative explanation of the "avdism" word. So, if you're going to quote something as authoriative please do not use Wikipedia as an example and source.
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2009)
Also, be sure to check out this Holism blog on why some Deaf organizations and such are a closed society, and this guy is a Deaf blogger/vlogger, too.
In the past few weeks I've been receiving answers on why I just don't get along with Deafhood, Deaf Bilingual Coalition, Avdism Free America and their so-called big "D" status. The answer is quite simple. Closed society. That's what these people are.Interesting. Maybe he's an "avdist," too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)