Hamill Overwhelmed with Support from Bisping Fans

Key points:
You wouldn't think that fans of Bisping would actually go up to Matt Hamill after the fight in show of support that it was he who won the fight and not Bisping. It actually happened.

Back at the host hotel following the bout, the people showed how much they cared for Hamill, who was treated like a conquering hero by London fans despite the decision.

“We went back to the hotel and I said, ‘shower up, we’re going down to that restaurant, we’re gonna have a nice dinner and we’re gonna celebrate because you won that fight, you know it, and everybody else knows it,’” said Hamill’s trainer and manager Duff Holmes. “And we went and sat down, and there was a line at his table. People came up and said ‘we’re Bisping fans, but we just want to let you know that you won that fight and you’re in our hearts now.’ It was just great for Matt, because I was telling him all along during the fight ‘you’re winning this fight, you’re winning this fight.’ After the fight was over, I grabbed him and said, ‘you won that fight.’ And when the decision went the other way, we were just in shock. But having the people say that he won the fight was great. I told him to keep his head high and that I’ve never been more proud to be a part of his team.”

The loss still stings though.

“I was obviously disappointed with the decision,” said Hamill. “But I'm not one to complain or question judges. If they said he beat me, I accept it and move on. I know in my heart I won that fight.”

Pretty surreal and touching at the same time about those Bisping fans acknowledging that Hamill won the fight wouldn't you say?


Here are the key points in the UFC official website article:

Hamill is overwhelmed with the support he received from Internet/people who feel he deserved the win.

Bisping continues to think he won the fight.

Bisping was surprised at Hamill's strategy to go out striking.

Hamill was working on stand-up nonstop for last 18 months

Jeff Mullen, who was one of the judges who favored Bisping, explains his scorecard (pretty detailed).

Dana White reiterates that he also think it's a bad decision, and that is why he urges fighters to never leave it to the judges (in other words FINISH fights).

Bisping's fans actually approached Hamill at a restaurant and told him he won the fight in their eyes.

Bisping says Hamill is the first one to have went the distance with him (it is true.... Bisping has always submitted or TKO/KO'd others in the past).

Hamill doesn't mind having a rematch.

Overall a great article to read! And apparently we'll see lots more from Dana White on ensuring that Matt Hamill deserve the continuing chance to fight in the UFC. Hamill has already shown he has that fighting caliber when Bisping was his punching boy that night. And that's an understatement.

Good man that Dana guy.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Video - American Hero Matt Hamill defeats Michael Bisping

A cool video recap of the fight between Matt Hamill and Bisping with Matt standing while an American flag wave behind him at the beginning of the video. The rockin music called "Born in the USA" sung by Bruce Springsteen. Watch, listen and follow the song's lyrics at the same time. You can only smile seeing Bisping running around trying to avoid Matt's relentless forward attack. If that is what you call a "win" for Bisping, you're absolutely nutz.



Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"
Went down to see my V.A. man
He said "Son, don't you understand"

I had a brother at Khe Sahn fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone

He had a woman he loved in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms now

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years burning down the road
Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.

Hat tip: Mattwins


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Dana White Sez "No Brainer" on Rematch for Hamill

Looks like Dana White, president of UFC, has answered our questions about the Bisping/Hamill fight result and felt that two rounds ought to have been given to Matt and not Bisping.

And, while they're at it, the UFC honchos should mandate a rematch between Bisping and Hamill.

White said the rematch is "a no-brainer and I'm going to be on it right away."

Having them fight again in a place where an official athletic commission will oversee the affairs is the only way to remove the stench surrounding UFC 75.

I agree with Dana. The only way to remove this stench surrounding the UFC 75 fight debacle is to do a rematch. If that is the case UFC will have to offer a lot more cash to Bisping in order to try and entice him to come over to America where the fight is better regulated. But here's my prediction. I predict that Bisping won't take the offer saying, delusionally so, that he won the fight "fair and square." And probably use Hamill's own "fair and square" post-fight remark as a reason why he don't need to go for a rematch. He said so right after the fight that the issue between him and Hamill is done with. If Bisping can be that brash and delusional at the same time, not to mention the wanton use of obscene gestures to his chagrin against those who don't agree, then certainly why should Bisping risk losing face with another rematch against Matt knowing full well he got lucky the first time? Why risk it?

Ok. Suppose Bisping takes up to the challenge (of course his asking price would be ten times the amount by then since he's now a "star") for a rematch. He loses to Hamill. Would it then be fair for Bisping to demand another rematch for the best out of three?

All in all, Bisping has shown to be a classless act that night and that leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth, including many Britains.

Hat tip: CF


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

U.S. Newspapers Say Hamill was "Robbed"

Not a surprise. Newspapers and online news across the country are starting to feel the rumble of MMA fans who say that Matt Hamill was robbed of his victory in the much anticipated Bisping/Hamill UFC 75 fight in London last night. Right now the Baltimore Sun is the first to report on this robbery and I will look for more as they come up.

Baltimore Sun - "UFC 75 Recap: Rampage on, Hamill robbed, Houston we have lift off."

Read the comments on this blog and other blogs and forums throughout the Internet and one thing is clear -- almost everyone outside London thinks Matt Hamill won his fight against Michael Bisping. And I agree with them.

I re-watched the fight this morning and rounds one and two easily go to Hamill. Round three could be seen as a toss-up because Bisping had a couple of nice flurries early on in that round. But, Hamill scored a couple of takedowns late in the third round and controlled the second half of that round. I scored the fight 30-27 for Hamill. Being generous to Bisping, one could argue it was a 29-28 fight for Hamill. Either way, Hamill should have walked away a unanimous-decision winner.

At worst, Hamill neutralized Bisping standing up (at best, Hamill controlled the Octagon and landed some very nice punches) and clearly dominated the ground game with numerous takedowns and total control on the ground. I don't remember seeing a single Bisping takedown. Was Bisping's striking that overwhelming to two judges that they gave him two rounds? I just don't see it.

The result brought up another interesting question in my mind -- is MMA judging so subjective that three judges watching the same fight can score the fight so differently? This is an issue that needs to be resolved in the sport in general (I saw the same thing at IFL's team semifinals in August) before people start thinking of the dreaded b-word (boxing) when it comes to decisions. However, these decisions do remind fighters that the only true way to control one's destiny is to win by stoppage. If a fighter doesn't want to lose by a controversial decision, then go for the stoppage!

I've also been asked by a number of readers what UFC president Dana White can do to rectify this decision. In my mind, there's very little he can do. Occasionally, we see decisions like this in the sport (Ortiz-Griffin comes to mind.) However, I do think Dana White can somewhat help the situation by treating both fighters as if they won or at least fought to a draw. Don't punish Hamill and don't give Bisping credit with respect to future matchmaking. And, in the end, maybe the only proper solution is a rematch.

Hamill continues to improve from one match to the next and last night he looked more comfortable on his feet than I've ever seen him. As for Bisping, I would like to see him drop down to middleweight (much like Henderson) and help solidify that division. I think Bisping would have a better chance being a contender as a middleweight than he would fighting at 205 lbs. Last night's fight showed us that both Hamill and Bisping are still middle-of-the-pack light heavyweights.

More to add. If you spot one, let me know.

Brit fans boo Bisping after highway robbery

FANS RALLY AROUND HAMILL - "In what ended up being the focal point for the majority of the fans watching UFC 75, Michael “The Count” Bisping won a very controversial split decision over Cincinnati, Ohio native Matt “The Hammer” Hamill, in what will almost surely go down as one of the worst decisions in UFC history. On the other side of the fight, Hamill showed a tremendous amount of graciousness in defeat and should be commended for not being more upset after a horrendous decision. The fans were also very vocal about this particular fight as the callers into MMAWeekly Radio’s post fight show rallied around Matt Hamill in this bout and voted him Fighter of the Night for his performance and grace in the face of defeat after a decision that no one seemed to agree with. "

Breaking Down Bisping/Hamill - "The bad judging was out side of Bisping's control and he can't be blamed for that. But his behavior afterward is a totally different story. My prediction -- Bisping has been exposed and will begin a downward slide. Hamill is on the upward swing and will be back."

UPDATE: There is a petition going on in support of Matt Hamill's fight.

To: Dana White, UFC President

I and innumerable other UFC and MMA supporters were utterly shocked and completely disheartened at the egregious decision that was made by the judges appointed in deciding the winner of the fight between Matt Hamill and Michael Bisping at UFC 75. This is not merely a complaint clouded by favoritism for one fighter or another, but rather, a resounding outcry being lodged by fight fans, both new and old, at a decision that we find to be exceptionally wrong, as well as an absolute blight to the honor of the UFC and the faith of its ever-growing audience. While we realize that the re-evaluation of such a highly publicized fight will prove costly beyond just monetary concerns, please listen to the fans who know and love MMA, and who are undyingly passionate about this venerable sport (just like you), when a decision such as this is so roundly denounced.

I and those who have signed this petition thank you for your careful and gracious consideration to this matter.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Although I don't know what good it is to petition other than to feel better afterwards. What we really need to see is what Dana White (president of UFC) has to say about all this. This is certainly not something to be swept under the rug when you have over 90% of the people agreeing that it was Hamill who won the fight and not Bisping.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Matt Hamill's Use of His Voice - a Controversy?

When is a controversy not a controversy if 30% of the people who voted in my recent poll asking if Matt Hamill's use of his voice was acceptable or not. Why do 30% of them find it controversial whenever Matt decides to use his voice to speak to hearing reporters (or hearing people in general) for the UFC 75 pre-fight taping? Although Matt did sign and talk at the same time in another pre-fight video during the UFC 75 fight show. Does that make it even more wrong that Matt shouldn't have signed and talked at the same time?

Did Ben incorrectly place me (or was he even talking about me as I wonder) as the controversy in his latest DeafDC blog about Hamill's UFC fight loss in his attempt to slam me personally only because I told people to "grow up" with their mentality towards other Deaf people who can use their voice to communicate.? The controversy should be about the 30% who found it unacceptable for Matt to use his voice. Does Ben have a grudge against me or what? Did he post this comment in my blog about that 30% poll survey?

We as a whole didn’t care that Hamill maybe could kind of speak. No one brought it up except for one guy. Matt knew some signs and went through the life as an underdog like us and that was good enough.

Ok. So he has an opinion. So what. Why should *I* be the controversy if I pointed it out to those 30% who find it controversial that Matt used his voice in the first place? Maybe it was because I didn't mince words and spoke my thoughts about this whole thing when I see that people who believed Matt ought to have been signing at all times regardless the hearing environment he's in?

Call it incredulous seeing the poll results. It was.

Or am I hearing that the "30%" result isn't large enough of a percentage to be deemed as a "controversy" in the first place? is that what I am hearing? Well, what is it then? I was somewhat surprised to see such a large result expecting perhaps 5 or even maybe 10% but 30%? C'mon now. Why are people so afraid of criticizing other deaf people for their rigid thinking? I''m glad that some 65% (there exists the other 5% who are not sure) didn't care if Matt used his voice or sign. Granted. Some deaf people are comfortable using their voice. Many are not and choose to sign exclusively. That is not a problem for me and many others. But for many, it is a problem if one decides or prefers to use his/her voice to communicate.

Now, if people really didn't care if Matt spoke or signed 30% of them wouldn't have voted "No" saying that speaking was *unacceptable*. If it didn't matter to them they would've voted "It doesn't matter since I'm not the overly sensitive type about deaf people talking." But alas, there exist overly sensitive Deaf people out there who are against other Deaf/deaf/hh people who can use their voice well to communicate to hearing people. Yet I see them as controversial in their own right and say that they need to grow up and get away from that Deaf militant mindset that signing is to be used at all times.

But wouldn't you think by now that many of Deaf people would have gotten over that mentality knowing there exist within the Deaf/deaf community a complete diversity of communication skills? Why should Deaf people MUST sign at all times in all hearing venues? What about in Deaf venues provided that there are interpreters and real time captioners available? Just like I did when I used my voice at the vlog/blog conference at Gallaudet University earlier this year. I knew it would be a controversy but I didn't care and made my stand to make a point. Only a few deaf people at Gallaudet I know of did that very same thing when there were captioners and interpreters available did they choose to use their voice.

Matt can sign. Matt can speak. Does it really matter on how Matt chooses to use his voice in certain environments? Or does it, folks? Or do you prefer to hold to the rigid Deaf militant thinking that signing is the only optional communication mode by those who have the voicing skill to communicate to hearing people? How many times have you used your voice to communicate to a hearing person yet you voted "No" that Matt shouldn't have used his voice in his pre-fight tapings?

Right. And what does that make you?

Uh huh.

UPDATE: I wasn't sure if Ben was trying to slam me. He didn't. He explained it in DeafDC where I offered my sincerest apologies wondering if he was referring to me or not. Blame it on the coincidence of Ben's comment in my blog and in DeafDC that occurred on the same day covering the same subject.

UPDATE II: Jeff Carlson said it well as a guest blogger on Ridorlive (of all places) after seeing it on Deafread did I finally take a peak after one urged me to take a look and realized it was he who wrote that blog piece:

The key to see progression in our deaf community is encouraging rather than ripping them apart, using the term “unacceptable” to describe other people’s choice. That’s counterproductive. It’s almost too typical to see that in deaf community. It’s like a crab-theory in work. It’s time to move forward.

I'd say it's better to respect an adult's communication choice and by doing so can produce positive results. And to think if I hadn't put out that poll result and commented on it Jeff wouldn't have made his blog piece on that very same subject. Go figure.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Bisping Highly Controversal Win over Hamill

I keep seeing forums after forums and now news articles popping up questioning the win judges (2 out 3) gave to Bisping against Hamill in the UFC 75 in London last night. From a British newspaper the Lancashire Telegraph:

Before Saturday's fight, Bisping, 28, of Clitheroe, had vowed: "I will submit him or knock him out", but the fight lasted the maximum three five-minute rounds and the Brit only had his hand raised in victory following a split decision by the three judges.

Many pundits expected the judges to pick 'The Hammer' Hamill and even Bisping appeared momentarily surprised when he got the decision.

Even Bisping was surprised by the decision. I saw his expression on tv last night. If he was surprised by the decision and the majority of people are saying that Hamill won the fight, shouldn't that be a clue that there's something wrong with the judges' decision? It was obvious that Matt did most of the punching and take downs against Bisping while he ran around trying to avoid his relentless approaches.

And now what Bisping said after the fight.

"I know he's a tough fighter so was expecting it to go the distance - it is all good experience for me - but I held out for the win.

"And obviously I am happy.

"Now though, I want to put The Ultimate Fighter show behind me. I proved that title is mine and it is time to put this thing to bed once and for all."

I don't think so, Bisping. Looking at the fight it was obvious that Matt was dominant in Round 1 and 2. And the judges gave points to Bisping for Round 1 and 2? One judge gave all rounds to Hamill but the other two judges gave points to Bisping for Round 1 and 2.

From NBC Sports:

Hamill looked impressive with an improved standup game that never saw him give ground to his opponent, and he also managed several takedowns that should have scored points. One judge scored all three rounds for Hamill, but the other two scored the fight two rounds to one for the hometown hero.

Hey. I'm not alone in this travesty. Some 90 to 95% believed Matt won. And that even came from British and Bisping fans, too. Take a poll on who won that fight and see what others have said. Or take the Sherdog's poll.

I think, according to Sherdog forum covering the Bisping/Hamill fight (over 100 pages!!) that this thing isn't going to go away easily. I see a rematch in the future. I'm sure Couture, Liddel, and many other professional UFC fighters will nod in agreement that Matt clearly won the fight.

What say you Dana White , president of UFC, about the fight? A rematch? Or are you going to ignore 90% of the UFC fans who say that Matt Hamill won?

It's your move, Dana. Make it a smart one.

UPDATE: There seems to be a gathering storm of deaf/hh bloggers saying that Hamill won the fight and he was robbed of that win. Even by those who hated Hamill said that it was obvious that Hamill won the fight. You can't argue against more than 90% who say that it was Matt who won the fight.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Matt Hamill Loses Fight Against Bisping!

Matt Hamill loses!

Matt kept moving in while Bisping tried to avoid his forward assault. Matt threw lots of punches. Several take downs. Matt was dominant in round 1 and 2, or so it seems, and probably a tie for round 3 which Matt showed a bit of slowing down. But round 1 was given to Bisping. Round 2 to Bisping and round 3 to Matt (did I get that right?) Anyway, a very narrow win for Bisping.

You did a great job Matt. Don't give up! Get the fire in your belly.

UPDATE: People are saying the decision was rigged. I thought that Matt did very well in the first two rounds. I was quite surprised to see that the judges' decision went to Bisping. Of course, the event took place in London. Wonder what would happen had Matt won the decision? A riot? Even the fans booed at Bisping after the decision in support of Matt obvious win.

UPDATE II: Go to Sherdog forum (beginning on "page 42") where they are discussing the Bisping/Hamill fight. Lots of discussion taking place and most of the postes are in support of Hamill thinking the judges rigged the fight when clearly it was Matt Hamill who dominated the first two rounds. People are absolutely disgusted with the judges. It'll be interesting to see what Dana White (president of UFC) will have to say about this one. This is sounding more and more like a big uproar coming down the pike.

UPDATE III: "I a fan of bisping but i just have 2 agree and say hamill was robbed... I couldnt believe it, u could see the relief in bisping when it was announced.........." (page 42)

UPDATE IV: In another poll about 95% believed Hamill won the fight. This is not about America vs Britain but solely on the merits of the fight itself.

SIGNED by YAHOO SPORTS

Brit fans boo Bisping after highway robbery By Kevin Iole

Saturday, Sep 8, 2007 5:13 pm EDT LONDON -- A sellout crowd at the O2 Arena roared its approval of everything light heavyweight Michael Bisping did Saturday during his fight with Matt Hamill.

Until, that is, the scores were announced. And though the hometown boy, Bisping, won a split decision, more than half those in the crowd booed the decision lustily.

Judge Chris Watts gave all three rounds to Hamill, scoring it 30-27. But judges Cecil Peoples and Jeff Mullen scored it 29-28 for Bisping. I had it 30-27 for Hamill, believing his takedowns and his standup were the difference.

In the first round, Hamill's standup was surprisingly effective. He bloodied Bisping's nose and cut him by the left eye. He also took him down repeatedly.

Bisping never mounted any consistent offense, though he did manage to connect with his jab more in the final two rounds.

The two were heated enemies from their time together on Season Three of The Ultimate Fighter and both talked big prior to the fight.

But the fight didn't live up to the heat and what fight there was seemed to be provided by Hamill.

There's gotta be a "rematch" in there somewhere.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Hey! I'm Talking to You! Grow Up!

There is one poll I found to be absolutely appalling and that is seeing one survey result where nearly 30% who participated in the poll voted "No" saying what Matt Hamill did when he used his voice to talk to reporters was "unacceptable."

Now, who are these people? If you are one of those people who voted "No" thinking that talking is wrong then who the hell do you think you are anyway? Matt Hamill is an adult and he chose to use his speaking skill to talk to reporters about his up coming fight against Michael Bisping which will air tonight on SpikeTV at 9 PM ET. This is well within his right to speak with his voice. You people, on the other hand, need to grow up.

For you to say that it was "unacceptable" for Matt Hamill to use his voice at the pre-fight meeting with reporters makes ya'll a bunch of "Deaf militants." Yes. "Deaf militants." Are you guys are a bunch of Deaf bigots, too? Mewling and complaining that Matt Hamill choose to use his voice is "wrong".

What Matt Hamill did was appropriate only because it was his right to choose on how he wanted to communicate. It was appropriate for Matt to use his voice in a venue which was, a no brainer here, full of hearing people. If he decided to sign, then that would be find as well.

These "Deaf militants" who voted "No" need to grow up. Seriously. And recognize individual choices and rights when it comes to mode of communication with other people. You guys need to get out of your fantasy little Deaf world thinking that signing is only allowed at all times for it to be "acceptable." Never mind the fact you have Deaf people with all kinds of communication skills who can hear, listen, speak, talk, sign, use the phone and so on.

Hey! I'm talking to ya! G...R...O...W UP!

BTW, good luck to Matt Hamill on his fight tonight. It'll come on in 3 hours from now. Don't miss it!


UPDATE: After getting reviews, comments and criticisms I realize as I look back that my tone was indeed overly harsh. I am very supportive of deaf/hh people who are comfortable using their voice to communicate. And I was utterly aghast by those who would go to the distance to try and deny a deaf/hh adult the right to speak and use his voice to communicate. Instead of "grow up" it should've been replaced with the fact that I wished those people would have an open mind instead about adult's choices and rights to use his/her own voice to communicate and doing so the person shouldn't be demonized for doing that at all.

It is amazing to see how a deaf person who can speak well enough to be understood without ever hearing his own voice! It is MY belief that communication preferences are varied among us and we shouldn't demonize no one for their communication choice and preference, even if it means just speaking alone. So, in the end, and I'm big enough to see why people may be upset about my blog piece, I would like to apologize for the improper wordings and tone. As I look back it does look a bit harsh perhaps too much since negative experiences could play a big factor in why one picked "No." However, having said that, I am having trouble over the idea when people use his/her own experience as an excuse to deny other's their own adult's right to use his/her own voice. That simply does not compute.

Lastly, my blog poll piece about the Hamill's use of voice clearly was about those 30% who voted "No. " My blog piece has never been directed at the whole deaf community. Please get that straight, folks. In fact those 30% who voted at this time consisted of only 27 out of 100 participants so far. The 27 people who voted "No" is in no way representative of the larger deaf population. Please keep in mind, my comments were directed at those 27 (and counting) who voted "No" and not against the 900,000 or so Deaf people in the United States. Commenting against those 27 is not the same as scolding the entire deaf community. Please understand the difference here.

Hamill vs Bisping Pre-Fight UFC Videos - Captioned!

Get ready to watch the UFC rumble between Matt Hamill and Michael Bisping tomorrow on Saturday at 9 PM Eastern Time. The show titled "UFC 75: Champion vs. Champion" will be free to watch on SpikeTV channel. Don't miss the fight!

Here are two pre-fight videos about Michael Bisping and Matt Hamill by SpikeTV. Mike McConnell produced the captioned text in the first video seen below for your viewing pleasure. Stop by and pass along a thank you to Mike for his effort on producing a captioned video portion of Matt Hamill and Michael Bisping.

The captioned video of Hamill and Bisping starts at 6 minutes and 38 seconds into the video. You'll have to fast foward to the time stamp at 6:38.




The second video with subtitles produced by SpikeTV called "Matt Hamill's Unfinished Business."

Heavyweight Matt Hamill talks about his upcoming fight with TUF 3 winner Michael Bisping at UFC® 75. Where does Hamill plan to take the fight and how important is it to him? You can see Hamill vs. Bisping free on Spike TV Saturday September 8th @ 9PM.

Now, in the second video "Unfinished Business" Matt Hamill was using his voice to talk to reporters rather than signing. Should Matt have signed instead of talking? Or that doesn't matter to you? Choose your answer in the poll below.

In the second video Matt Hamill was talking and using his voice but not signing, is that acceptable?
	Yes
	No.
	I'm not sure.
	It doesn't matter since I'm not the overly sensitive type about deaf people talking.
pollcode.com free polls

Here's a poll for you UFC fans.

Who do you think will win? Matt Hamill or Michael Bisping?

Who do you think will win at the UFC 75 fight?
	Matt Hamill
	Michael Bisping
pollcode.com free polls

To see all blogs and interviews of Matt Hamill in my Kokonut Pundit blogsite please go here and you'll find a Google list of Matt Hamill related blogs.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

UPDATE: There were unconfirmed reports that several Deaf people purposely voted "No" in one question ("In the second video Matt Hamill was talking and using his voice but not signing, is that acceptable?") with the claim it was done to "rile" me up and make this into a "controversy." If this is true then we have several very dishonest Deaf people who managed only to hurt themselves and perhaps the Deaf community. Currently 28 (out of 116 votes currently) voted "No" which makes up 24% of the total votes. If several Deaf people voted "No" on purpose (when they really would've voted "doesn't matter") it would bring down the percentage to only about 20% or so. Which means 20% of the 116 votes, currently. It does not mean 20% (or 30% in this case previously) of the Deaf community that voted "No." Please understand the differences, folks. We're talking about the current 116 votes and not the whole Deaf community population.

For those who voted honestly I would question them if they are actually being closed minded about Hamill's right to use his voice at the MMA fights (both pre-fight and post-fight examples). Hamill already apologized to those who felt upset when he choose to use his voice to talk. Hamill was the bigger man to apologize to those who disagreed with him using his voice (and even to guys who believed in playing the dishonesty game in the poll vote). The statistical percentages will still stand and evolve while people continue to vote. And, if this is true, then those Deaf yahoos who played around in that poll vote will now see the consequences of their action knowing that the public will see that 24% result when it could have been only 15% or even 10% of those who participated voted "No."

Nice going them guys. If this actually happened then they certainly deserve the Darwin award. I expect people to be honest with themselves rather than play games of dishonesty when it comes to these things.

Democrats Stunned by Accuracy in Deaf Repblicans Website

I couldn't help but chuckle when I came across "Into Dean's Cyberspace," a Democrat blogsite, about how they were "stunned" by Deaf Republicans accurate claims on what Republicans have accomplished for deaf and hard of hearing people, and people with disability.

I got this e-mail from a friend of mine. I read them very carefully, and the list those accomplishments on disability issues were passed by all Republicans really stunned me. I always have been a democrat. I never realized they are all Republicans who passed them. I wonder of those accomplisments are accurate information? Have any Democrats passed any disability issues? Anyway, I thought I would want to post to let the readers read about this…

And I scrolled down to see if anybody made any comments on the accuracy of Deaf Republicans' claims...... none replied.

Enough said.

UPDATE: Correction about the blogsite. I was informed by the owner that the blogsite that he isn't a Democrat. Not sure what party affiliation he's with but certainly nobody expressed any interest on discussing the details.

Any Deaf Black Republicans Out There?

I'm sure there are some deaf black Republicans out there somewhere since there are in fact many black Republican bloggers such as here, here and here which is just a short list of names. There are even black Republican organizations such as the "National Black Republican Association". And recently there's a new national magazine called "Black Republican" where you can download and read the first and second edition online magazine. And read articles with titles like,

• Seven Keys to Financial Independence for Black Americans
• Prominent African Americans Break from the Pack
• Black Politicians Are Switching to the Republican Party Across the Country
• Hillary’s Plantation: Democrats Trap Urban Blacks in Poverty
• Democrats:“By Their Fruits,Ye Shall Know Them
• Rev. Wayne Perryman Sues Democratic Party for Reparations: [Democrats Admit Racist Past in Court]
• CONDOLEEZZA RICE:Most Powerful Woman in the World.

In the National Black Republican Association website they have articles, video or radio ads that discusses,

• Republicans Promote Prosperity - Democrats Promote Dependency
• MLK was a Republican
• The KKK: The Democrats' Terrorist Arm
• Democrats Demean Blacks
• Democrats Take Black Votes For Granted
• Democrats Owe Blacks An Apology
• Democrats - Apologize NOW!

Now, again, I'm sure there are many deaf black Republicans out there somewhere. Yet I wonder if any deaf/Deaf black Democrat/Libertarian/Independent know about these magazines, black Republican organizations and some of the racist history (e.g. Democrats murdered black Republicans) of the Democratic party and its people in the past (and even into today)?

Now, what will people say about Republicans who happen to be black or African American? That they're a bunch of Uncle Toms? What if they're deaf/Deaf black Republicans? That they all are nothing more than "token" people? If you believe that then you better start reading "Black Republican" magazine before you open your mouth the next time. They are just as capable as any white, purple, yellow, green, or blue people out there to do what they want and succeed in life. We're no better than they are but as equals.

A Poll: Deaf Owned P0rn Company be Allowed at Deaf Expo?

Here's the question: Should a Deaf owned Deaf p0rn company be allowed at Deaf Expo as long as nudity and offensive language are not used? Yesterday, I ran a blog piece about my discovery of a Deaf owned p0rn company that I accidentally came across on YouTube after I punched in the key search word "deaf". And because of my blog piece I was recently informed via email about how a different Deaf owed p0rn company called "Polecat Pictures" was promptly thrown out of the Deaf Expo despite, from what I could read in the old Deaf Weekly newsletter, the agreement they had with Deaf Expo officials that no nudity and language were to be used at the Deaf Expo booth. Although this happened about three years ago.

The exhibit booth of a deaf-owned company promoting its new porn flick "Sexy Sign Language" was shut down by Deaf Expo officials last Saturday. PoleCat Pictures said in a press release that it paid its booth fee and had been welcomed for its diversity to the Nov. 12-13 event in Anaheim, Calif. The company agreed in advance to exclude nudity and profanity from its booth, yet show officials ordered the removal of all flyers and signs in the booth, and finally told PoleCat to "pack up and leave" at noon Saturday, the press release claims. Deaf Expo director David Rosenbaum told Deafweekly he worked hard with PoleCat reps to address the "unfavorable comments and grave concerns" of attendees, exhibitors and sponsors, but was not successful. "As a result and by mutual agreement, the exhibitor vacated his exhibit," he said.

Interesting story. The agreement was made on no language and nudity (I'm guessing for the sake of minors who would be among the attendees at Deaf Expo), the booth already paid for but it was the people who attended the Deaf Expo had these "concerns" which prompted officials to ask this porn vendor to leave. I wonder, did the porn vendor get his/her money back?

And so this leaves me thinking by setting this poll up.

Should a Deaf owned Deaf p0rn company be allowed at Deaf Expos or conventions as long as nudity and offensive language are not used?
	Yes!
	No!
	Yes but with more restrictions.
	I am not sure right now.
pollcode.com free polls

If yes but with restrictions you choose, what would those restrictions be? Being the only adult (ie p0rn) vendor in a mostly family-oriented (ie kids are there, too) type Deaf Expo, how would this "diversity" of Deaf owned companies be allowed to show their wares and services to the deaf and hard of hearing public? Would this be any different from religious "zealots" (for a lack of a better word) at these booths who are hocking their wares or information that some/many attendees would find such a booth a bit offensive, too?

A Deaf P0rn Company?

Went to YouTube and punched in a keyword "deaf" to see what's up and then I saw a recent video that was put up 11 hours ago by a new porn company called "Deaf Bunny Productions." Now, it's not a surprise that it'd be a matter of time until we see the first ever Deaf p0rn company complete with signing "actors." I'm sure there's a market for this kind of thing since when sex doesn't sell? But doesn't this bode bad news and more trappings for Deaf people? What are the pros and cons on having a Deaf p0rn company? Acceptable or not? A need for Deaf smut? Although I do wonder, does the bunny symbol used by this Deaf company infringes on Playboy's famous bunny trademark since it has the "look and feel" like the famous Playboy's bunny image? And are those "actors" really Deaf or hearing?

Hands and Voices

Karen Putz did a story on me for Hands and Voices a few months back that appeared in the printed version. The article is now available on their website titled, " 'Renaissance Man' in Pursuit of
Personal Goals." A good little read on what I have done and the goals I continue to pursue. Although I am not currently trying to raise money for a new piano via my blogsite, as reported in Hands and Voices. I advertised my donation request via buying my Ragtime products was done as a lark just to see what kind of reaction I'd get from people reading my blogsite. I'll get my piano of choice in due time and get back into practicing 2 to 3 hour everyday once again honing my ragtime piano skills. How many deaf/hh Ragtime pianists do you know anyway?

A New Kokonut Pundit 's Milestone

As I make my way thru the blogosphere I noticed that sometime today or last night my blogsite hit a new milestone of 200,000 hits. Not bad considering that I cover a wide variety of topics of interest to both hearing and deaf readers and with special thanks to many political blogs that linked to my breaking political blog topics. Over the past year has been my best! My recent first 100,000th hit occurred last year some 10 months ago. Many thanks to those who continue to read my blogs while I continue to be a positive and contributing member of the blogosphere, politics and everything else.

Deaf, Illegal Alien Charged With Murder

There's a big illegal immigration problem here in the United States. Anyone who enters the United States without proper documentations (or none at all) is breaking U.S. laws. They are in essence serious law breakers. These includes deaf illegal aliens as well and all illegal immigrants should be reported and deported back to where they came from.

Now, with this story we have Oswaldo Martinez, 36, who is charged with capital murder, rape, robbery and forcible sodomy in connection with the murder of a 16 year old girl, Brittany Binger, in January 2005.

Martinez, a deaf-mute illegal immigrant, has been learning American sign language at Western State since late 2005.

Experts have said that at the time Martinez was arrested in February 2005, he could not read, write or use sign language.

During a competency hearing in May, it was revealed that after a year and a half of instruction, Martinez could effectively communicate with doctors and staff at Western State.

Williamsburg-James City Circuit Judge Samuel Powell III ruled that during the next six months, Martinez's attorneys, Tim Clancy and Beau Webb, begin meeting with him in an effort to determine his ability to aid in his own defense. The move to the regional jail will make those meetings possible.

What makes this so unique is that Martinez lacked any effective communication to offer his own defense after investigations found his DNA in the form of scraped skin under Brittany's fingernails when she tried to fight him off. The culpability is there with the DNA evidence to charge Martinez with murder and more.

These things shouldn't happen. There are millions of legal immigrants who came to America using proper and legal means to enter and eventually become American citizens in Newark, NJ. Americans deserved to be protected from illegal aliens who break laws or committ murder against American citizens.

So, how many deaf illegal immigrants are out there in the United States? If there are an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States, I'd say the number of illegal deaf immigrants may be around 60,000 based on my own earlier population study. It could be much more than that since there are no real credible studies in this area as far as I know determining the number of deaf illegal immigrants in the U.S. Yet we do hear stories from time to time on how illegal deaf immigrants were captured like the ones reported here, here and especially here.

Regardless of how they got there, illegal immigrants simply need to be deported back where they came from. From the countries where these deaf illegal immigrants came from it is that country's responsibility to address the plight of these deaf individuals rather than have them foisted upon American soils because they don't want to address the problem. There are ways where countries can collaborate to help fund or offer expertise to help make lives better in the country from which those deaf illegal immigrants came from.

As a side note, Michelle Malkin is active in this area reporting on our illegal immigrants problem in the United States and how they have murdered and killed American citizens. Her latest story is about an illegal immigrant in connection with the triple slayings of three young people.

Cure Found to Help Deaf Babies Regain Complete Hearing

News!! "A biological cure has been found to help deaf babies regain their complete hearing by those who have nerve deafness, according to scientists who have made this miraculous discovery last year but now have put it to practical use."

Suppose ten years from now you will see that headline, seen above, blare across the front page of every major newspaper across the United States and even the world, what would your reaction be? With that discovery of a cure for nerve deafness (ie sensorineural deafess) for babies, kids, teens and adults, I'm sure parents would show a collective sigh of relief as they stampede toward the nearest audiologist or doctor office to get this newly available yet easy to use biological cure for their deaf babies. Should hearing parents go ahead and use this cure to help restore 100% of their baby's hearing loss and become that hearing person? Click on the poll survey below. There is only a "yes" or "no" answer. There is no "maybe" to choose from for obvious reasons.

Suppose ten years from now a cure has been found to restore nerve deafness completely, should parents go ahead and cure their baby's deafness?
	Yes!
	No!
pollcode.com free polls

UPDATE: Remember, this vote is about hearing parents of deaf babies. But by voting "No!" when a cure is readily available for deaf infants would that be construed as "child abuse" by limiting/denying that deaf baby that option to hear? In other words, are you suggesting to hearing parents that their deaf baby should, under no circumstances, be allowed to hear like any other hearing children when he/she grows up?

Hurricane Readiness Video in ASL now Available

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have just made several Hurricane Public Service Announcements available in American Sign Language. You can also get copies of the scripts of all the videos at this website if you can't understand the audio. All video files are available for Windows Media Player.

ASL Videos include:
Preparing for a Hurricane
Preparing for a Hurricane: Prescription Medications
Evacuating the Area of a Hurricane
Staying Save in Your Home During a Hurricane
Keeping Children Safe from Drowning in Flooded Areas
Avoiding Carbon Monoxide Poisoning During a Power Outage
Preventing Mold After a Disaster
Handwashing After a Disaster

See these videos and more at: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/hurricanes/psa.asp

Greg Gunderson Throws First Pitch For Pro Baseball Team

Greg Gunderson was invited to throw the first pitch at the Sioux Falls Canaries minor league baseball game. The game's theme was NASCAR day. And so Greg Gunderson took place of NASCAR driver Ryan Newman who couldn't make it to the game but his Alltel #12 race car was there for all to see and feel.









Stay tuned to Kokonut Pundit for breaking news on Greg Gunderson while Greg pushes forward to become the first ever Deaf professional driver on the NASCAR circuit.

By the way, have you looked at UbiDuo lately?


UPDATE: Check out this first historical event ever to take place in the ARCA/NASCAR industry to bring the first deaf racing driver to the racing scene. See photos of this historic news.

Deaf Parents Allow Deaf Kids Read Deaf Blogs?

I am just wondering here but would Deaf parents allow their Deaf kids read blogsites laced with profanities and/or lewdness? Which of the deaf/hh blogs out there are "family friendly" and which ones are more appropriate for adults? Which blogs would be more appropriately rated as a "rated R" blogsite? Or how many of these deaf/hh blogs are the more family friendly type or "PG" rated and does not have those foul language clearly?

Who is responsible to ensure that their deaf kids not be exposed to these foul language?

Below are some examples of which words that were used often in Deaf/Hoh blogsites.

Example #1, the use of the "F" word one time too many.

Example #2, the use of the "F" word with "You" just because it's "OK" to say it.

Example #3, when people like to use the stinky excrement word much too often.

Example #4, a word used often to describe a person as the puckered hole of a rear end.

Example #5, another word for intercourse in the active sense.

Example #6, another word of a person who doing the intercourse.

Example #7, using the "G" word in vain.

And so on. And so forth. And so on. Well, you get the idea.

And these blogs are supposed to be "family friendly" enough? Those profanities do appear in Deafread from time to time. Would you want your deaf kids read those blogs knowing it may contain foul words not suitable for them anyway? Would you even say the same foul words in a vlog?

Do Deaf parents of Deaf kids allow them to read such foul use of a word on other deaf/hh people's blogsite.

When Sensibilities and Senses are Challenged

Now, I applaud any deaf or hard of hearing people for their skills when it comes to using their hearing or speech. Or even their bodies as their own "hearing" instrument like some of the guys of Beethoven's Nightmare or Evelyn Glennie as a professional solo percussionist. These skills may be in the form of being able to play a musical instrument(s) using whatever sound they have and play the right pitch or note correctly. Or be able to enjoy and hear the full range of musical notes across the entire piano keyboard hearing each note from low to high just as I can as well as many others who can. Then there are those who can use the phone pretty good or even quite easily, like me and many others. All this really goes against the grain of the famous motto, "Deaf people can do anything except hear." Well, I like to challenge that motto which carries a sort of a defeatist attitude for all people with hearing loss from mild to profound. The very first time I heard that phrase that came from Mr. I.K. Jordan, I sort of shook my head.

Frankly, there are many deaf and hoh people who are proud and thankful of the fact that they can hear and understand spoken words or be able to play a musical instrument properly and for their own enjoyment. Others are not afraid to test their hearing senses like the time a piano tuner came over to tune my neighbor's piano and I asked the tuner fellow if I could try tuning the piano with his tuning forks. He showed me how and I gave it a shot, confidently so. With some concentration I was able to tune a few strings a few octaves apart adjusting the pitch of one piano string and harmonize that pitch to that of a tuning fork much to his satisfaction, and surprise. I am certainly not tone nor pitch deaf. Though doing so did present a challenge to my own hearing senses. I am sure there are many others out there who can do these things just as a hearing person can, even tuning a piano. Hearing loss does not equate as total loss of frequency. These things can be done and have been done. I have shown many examples of such stories throughout my blogs.

Bloggers should not be afraid to ask questions, set up polls, provide their own insights, do stories, talk about theirs and other people's skills and abilities or their experiences involving the hearing senses. Bloggers should not be afraid that they might offend some deaf readers' delicate sensibilities. Just like what Allison Kaftan did in DeafDC. There are many reasons why readers get offended, sometimes all too easily, about a blog entry. It could even be as simple as a picture like the one I have above because it supposedly "promotes" oralism. I laugh at such a thought when people just simply go to far with their imaginations running wild accusing me of such inanities when it was the impressive graphic that got my attention. Let's leave those conspiracy theories at the door shall we?

Still, these responses could range from legitimate concerns to outright petty jealousy. Or perhaps some lash out because subconsciously they are bothered by it because of their inability to exhibit that same skill or ability. I don't know. Calling names along with personal derisions in the commenting page directed at the blogger, guest bloggers or other commenters are by no means equivalent to a well thought out argument. If people believe that a blogger must try and please every readers' satisfaction then they certainly have rocks in their heads. It is just not humanely possible to do that. People have different viewpoints, opinions and perspectives just as bloggers do. What makes blogging great is that you get a variety of views, opinions, experiences, and perspectives to choose from the many bloggers out there. Just like television shows, if you don't like what you see, don't watch it. Flip it to another channel if your prefer the more sensational or the more mundane shows.

Profoundly or Severely Deaf: How Well Can You Use the Phone?

Profoundly or Severely Deaf: How Well Can You Use the Phone?

Did you ever wonder what it would be like to work at a pizza joint like, for example, Dominos Pizza? Ever wonder if you think you could do the job working the phone line taking orders on a busy Friday night while some 120 pizzas are cooked every hour? The constant but loud ringing of the phones while order takers answer the calls when accuracy of orders are essential for a business to survive. Do you think you can do the job working the phone line? Have you ever worked as one or something similar?

Well, I worked both as a Dominos Pizza driver and phone order taker when I was 19 years old in a town called Duluth, Georgia. Worked there for about a year or so until I found a better paying job. About when I was 27 years old in 1992 I worked as a manager for Dominos Pizza in the Maryland area like Edgewater, New Carrollton, and Bowie whose pizza stores were owned by one owner. I ran the stores, manned the phones, hired/fired people, ordered food and sodas for the store's walk in refrigerator, did my daily accounting, made the pizzas, cut the pizzas during peak periods (120 to 140 pizzas per hour), barked out orders to drivers, helped new drivers with the map on where to take the pizza. I even made a few trips to unsatisfied customers when I would deliver the pizzas myself while the asst manager ran the store. And so on. My hearing loss is between moderate and severe. Though all that work was an iteresting experience that went on for almost two years until finally I got accepted into graduate school at University of Idaho to get my M.S. degree in Geophysics. It was time to move on and move up.

Do you think you could do that job? Handle phone calls from many different strangers?

Now, what got me thinking is what would be a good litmus test to rate how well one can converse over the phone and with who. I figured I'd use the Pizza Joint Litmus Test. If you say you can use the phone would it be only with voices you'd recognized. Or with certain members of family only? Or it can be with anybody, even strangers and even those with a heavy foreign accent? Would you be that confident enough to take orders through the phone knowing that the pizza joint depends on accurate orders for their business survival, would you be able to do it?

Below are two polls. If you are profoundly deaf (anything greater than 90 dB loss) and wears a hearing aid, please answer the poll.

The other poll under the "Severely Deaf" caption are for those who have severe hearing loss (70 to 90 dB) and wears a hearing aid then please answer the poll there.

Profoundly Deaf: How well can you use the phone?
	I could easily take phone orders while working at a pizza joint.
	I may be able to take phone orders but only under limited conditions while working.
	I could take a few pizza orders but only if my family calls or voice I recognize.
	I would unable to do such a job.
pollcode.com free polls

Severely Deaf: How well can you use the phone?
	I could easily take phone orders while working at a pizza joint.
	I may be able to take phone orders but only under limited conditions while working.
	I could take a few pizza orders but only if my family calls or voice I recognize.
	I would unable to do such a job.
pollcode.com free polls

UPDATE: For those who are in the profoundly deaf category and clicked on "I could easily take phone orders while working at a pizza joint" or "I may be able to take phone orders but only under limited conditions while working," I would very much like for you to contact me, via email (see address at top of blogpage) so we can exchange cell phone numbers and talk this over the phone. Thanks.

A Deaf Judge, Deaf Defendants, and ASL

Just when a few Deaf people actually believed that there'll never be a time to see a deaf judge signing in ASL to deaf defendants in his own court room.

During his time as a municipal judge, Carson has come across at least three defendants who were deaf. In those cases, the deaf judge and deaf defendants communicated in sign language.

"The deaf defendants seem pretty surprised the judge could use ASL (American Sign Language) and, of course, there was nothing for the captioner to type because there were no words spoken," Carson said, adding that his municipal court is not a court of record where transcripts are required.

Miguel Matos has been Cibolo city prosecutor for about a year and wasn't sure what to think when told he would be working with a deaf judge.

"I was a little apprehensive about that and because I am a pretty new attorney," Matos said. "But from the moment I met Judge Carson I found him to be warm and pleasant, and I am incredibly impressed with his ability to read lips in court and he uses the coolest technology to help him.

It wasn't too long ago I reported on the rising number of deaf judges and deaf attorneys but amazingly so there are some Deaf people who actually believe that (even bluntly to little Deaf girls who want to become a Deaf judge someday) having a Deaf judge just wouldn't be possible.

Oh, really?

I suppose my blog piece about this deaf judge wouldn't count because he's not "Deaf enough"?

No?

Try explaining that to this little Deaf girl, whose dream was probably crushed horribly, that there is in fact a deaf judge who knows ASL and have signed to Deaf defendents in his own courtroom! In fact, this deaf judge is so remarkable many look to him to study how he runs his own courtroom.

"Judge Carson is one of the best judges you will find because he is so professional, and other cities in our area are studying the way he runs his court to look for ways to improve their courts," Parton said.

Now, it doesn't matter whether these judges are culturally deaf or not. What matters is that we have the communication technology to make this evidentally possible for all judges (and attorneys) from mild to profound hearing loss to function just as well as any hearing judges sitting at the bench.

Now, who will fetch this little Deaf girl and introduce her to this remarkable deaf judge and help reset her path to her dream of becoming a Deaf judge someday? I hope somebody would be smart enough to do something about it.

Hattip: Chuck McCollough from Express-News contacted me about this story he wrote a few days ago.

UPDATE: I guess I was right. According to some people it's all about whether one is "Deaf enough" or not. Thereby disqualifying the judge even though he knows sign language proficiently well despite becoming deaf later in his adult life. Nice to know there are still militant Deaf people out there who don't mind squashing little Deaf girls' dream of becoming a Deaf judge someday. I thought that was the job of hearing people to squash dreams. I guess I was wrong, folks.

UPDATE II: Read Frumious Bandersnatch's comment in DeafDC in response about deaf judges. an excellent response to those who must insist on using the "not Deaf enough" route when it comes to deaf judges. Scroll down about 2/3rd of the way to get to the deaf judge part.

To be a successful deaf lawyer, above all, you do need to be proficient in English. You need strong communication skills, which means, frequently, being able to speak comprehensible English with your clients. You also need to be able to parse complex transactions and events and reduce them to readable English for your clients as well as for the court.

In addition, if you want to be a judge, then you need to show some record of public service, legal and professional qualifications, such as bar membership and pro bono activities. You also have to interact with a lot of politicians and brown-nose them for appointment to judicial office. This all requires a good sense of English and good verbal skills (and most definitely, good people skills!), which probably (I don’t say that it’s impossible) rules out a “pure” ASL user. I would venture to guess that the powers that be that appoint judges will not give a second (or even first) glance at someone who uses ASL only and uses an interpreter to voice only to communicate.

So, in order to become that Deaf judge he or she must have a solid grasp and skill in the English language. After all, you have to go to college and take bar exams before you step foot into the area of law. And for anyone who believe differently then their "expectations with respect to deaf judges are rather grandiose and unrealistic."

North Pole Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt

More global warming screamers seen in the Washington Post newspaper:

"...great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

Oh, forgot to tell you. That was from the November 2, 1992 edition of Washington Post newspaper. But interesting to read what the Washington Times had to say about this.

This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

So, whether you believe in global warming as caused by human beings or that oil came from dinosaurs, you're certainly on the wrong side of things. People have been saying about the great warm ups using the same old gloom and doom scenarios back during in the 1920s and 1930s, even before after those decades, and then we had the global cooling gloom and doom of the 1970s fearing the return of the ice age and massive ice sheets covering parts of North America. And now again in the 2000s we have another round of global warming gloom and doom.

Make up your mind you journalist idiots. Or concede that all this is the natural dynamic changes caused by Earth with the help of the Sun's energy fluctuations. And none from the help of mankind.

The Magic Pill – to see again

In DeafDC there was a discussion in the comments page over whether a deaf or Deaf person would take a “magic pill” that can restore hearing loss would that person take it? But another commenter tried to use the old “jelly bean” analogy and that by eating it has the power to turn one non-Caucasian person into a “white, college-educated, upper-middle-class, handsome, successful male” with the “would-you-take-it” question.

I think using the color-of-your-skin “cure” analogy is flawed on so many levels because hearing loss range from mild to profound and people have a variety of experiences regarding sound and how they deal with it makes this particular pill analogy more problematic than it is not. Even from a Deaf culture point of view. The color of your skin is not the disability in question but rather it’s about discrimination, bias and even acceptance. Disability affects all people regardless of skin color.

Let’s take this a bit further by saying that there is a “magic” vision pill that can help restore your vision to 20/20 perfect vision would you take it if your vision is 120/20? 80/20? 40/20? Would you take it if you have Usher Syndrome and get the full peripheral vision back again? What if you were blind for awhile would you take it to have your vision restored again? Honestly now, would you take that pill? How many of you wear glasses wished your vision was 20/20 and not wear glasses or contacts anymore? And so I ask this question, how would this “magic” vision pill be any different from a “magic” hearing pill that can restore hearing loss for people with mild, moderate, severe or profound hearing loss?

I can imagine that most Deaf people would very well likely not take the “magic” hearing pill for a variety of reasons with one of them being the cultural and identity connection. This is completely understandable. After all, taking one would indeed put that deaf person into a brave new world not yet experienced. But that doesn’t mean a Deaf person would not take it. And if one does take it, would he still be considered as part of the Deaf culture or Deaf world even if he continues to sign in ASL?

Now, you’re probably wondering if I would take that pill.

I certainly would. Why should I not given the fact that I have the gift of being able to hear and enjoy a variety of sound, music and people talking?

Why would people even have a problem with that?

Ok.

What about if hearing parents gave that “magic” hearing pill to their deaf baby? What about if deaf parents gave that “magic” pill to their deaf baby? Would you have a problem with that? Why should any of that be a concern to you at all?

Now, many people have their reasons on why they would want their hearing loss restored just as the many reasons why people would want their vision restored. Some would say it’s because of music. Others would take the pill in order to finally hear all the small and enjoyable sounds in the great outdoors. Or be able to converse more freely and without any impediment.

Today, we’re already progressing in the field of hearing loss where we have powerful digital hearing aids with built-in Artificial Intelligence programming, cochlear implants that continue to improve and get smaller to neural hearing implants that’s better than cochlear implant that may likely be available in about 5 years after FDA review. This is not to mention the growing field interest in the use of stem cells to treat and cure nerve deafness such as sensorineural hearing loss. And that one might be about 10 years away before it is finally applied. Those are amazing technological and biological developments. What they have done and are doing is almost like magic itself.

The “magic” hearing pill. Would you take it?

Profoundly Deaf and Can Use the Phone Easily?

Now, this sounds like a big fish story but I was in a board discussion with one hearing mother who claimed that her profoundly deaf son, who is an adult and already college bound, wears his hearing aid and can have conversations over the phone easily. I asked for a few more details asking the dB loss, type of hearing loss (ie sensorineural, meniere, etc..) and the kind of conversation that takes place. I'm still waiting for that answer. I even offered to give him (through his mother) my email address so we can exchange cell phone numbers.

Now, I don't know what the mother's definition of what constitutes a normal phone coversation but it certainly does not entail repeating everything constantly or even loudly. Or even avoiding conversations with other strangers over the phone whose voices are not familiar to begin with. But color me skeptical on believing a person with profound hearing loss who wears a hearing aid can have normal conversations over the phone. Certainly those with moderate to severe hearing loss have a better chance on having normal phone conversations while wearing a hearing aid than those who have profound hearing loss. If one can converse normally over the phone also means he/she has a high word discrimination ability and that would generally be into the 90s percentile range.

Does anybody who knows someone who is profoundly deaf, wears a HA, coverses easily over the phone and understands clearly the other person's voice?

Anyone?

And if so, send him or her my way and I'll call that person up myself.

New Law Requires Captioning for Political TV ads

For those who live out in Rhode Island:

A new law requires candidates who use public matching funds to provide captioning for their televised campaign ads. The law is designed to help those who are deaf and hard of hearing to participate in the political process.

Besides captioning on TV ads, candidates will have to provide a written or text format for radio ads -- if requested by the listener. The law, which was signed by Governor Carcieri, goes into effect on January First.

It's a start.

Videophones to be Installed at Chicago Airport

If you're deaf and known sign language and you're flying into or out of Chicago O'Hare's airport, then be sure to look for the newly installed videopones over there.

Chicago O'Hare and Midway airports plan to install 11 videopohones for the deaf and hard of hearing. Through a live sign-language translator, users can request airport services and receive tourist information. They can also call friends and relatives who have videophones.

The first kiosk will be installed later this month at O'Hare in Terminal 3 near gate K-1. Eight
more kiosks will be installed at O'Hare in the upper and lower levels of the
terminals and at the shuttle center. Midway will have two kiosks

Now, that takes care of one segment of the deaf and hard of hearing society, we still have the other 29 million people with hearing loss to deal with who don't know sign language. I'm sure that'll change quickly someday soon.