Media Matters Whine about Hillary's Now Lack of "Inevitability"

Media Matters is now complaining about Hillary's freefall in the polls to be the front runner Democratic candidate for 2008 by blaming the media for building up her "inevitability" to become the 2008 U.S. president and then tearing her down.

So what was all that talk about "inevitability" really about?

Maybe it reflected the impression the Clinton campaign itself was trying to create; political reporters and pundits have long ascribed that strategy to the campaign even as candidate and staff insisted they weren't taking anything for granted.

I don't think it was the Clinton campaign, well maybe to an extent thinking Hillary did that on her own with Bill's help, but perhaps it's Robert D. Novak's doing back in 2005 on talks about a pre-planned "inevitiablity" by "well placed Democrats" that Hillary would be the president in 2008:

Robert D. Novak:
Savvy Dems in LA say no to Hillary run
By ROBERT D.
NOVAK

BACK EAST, well-placed Democrats have agreed that the party's 2008 nomination is all wrapped up better than three years in advance. They say that the prize is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's for the asking, and that she is sure to ask. But here on the left coast (Los Angeles), I found surprising and substantial Democratic opposition to going with the former first lady.

Remember the Plame story? And whose supposed fault that was? And now will they try and place the pin on Novak as the originator on the concept of "inevitability" and planted it for the media? I guess Liberals and their favorite MSM outlets will soon find a reason to go after Novak again as their favorite whipping boy.

A Deficit Thinker?

The term “deficit thinking” came out during discussions on “deafhood” last year which has become the latest buzz word, in some circles, especially when people use it to lob at other people accusing them of having “deficit thinking.” Now, exactly what is a “deficit thinker”? Well, it’s a person who practices “deficit thinking.” Ok. What’s “deficit thinking” then?

According to a book on “The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice” (by Richard R. Valencia, which is an interesting read on the history of how that concept came about) the definition of “deficit thinking” is:

“Deficit thinking is tantamount to the process of ‘blaming the victim’. It is a model founded on imputation, not documentation.”

Imputation essentially means acts of accusation.

And further in the book it also defines “deficit thinking” as a form of oppression:

“..that deficit thinking is a form of oppression – that is, the cruel and unjust use of authority and power to keep a group of people in their place.”

John makes an arbitrary and vague charge against those who harbor “deficit thinking” ought to be removed is in fact highly ironic considering the definitions of what “deficit thinking” means. Though the book also talks about "deficit thinking" as a form of "psuedo-science."

"process of false persuasion by scientific pretense"

Now, DeafRead is free to do whatever they want on which blogs or vlogs to accept and publish the links when it comes to deafness related issues. I have no real complaints or qualms on what they do. Just as vloggers and bloggers are free to post what they want and moderate comments as they see fit.

Ain’t free expression great in America?

But to promote or instigate for the limitations on the free exchanges of ideas and concepts just because people happen to not like what’s being discussed sets a dangerous precedence. But that’s only if government does that and interferes with that freedom of expression and speech. Personal ownership, however, of a blog or website, the person is essentially free to do what he or she wants when it comes to discussed contents. But if people are not allowed greater access that can help lead to discussions about certain ideals, concepts and even myths then how can people learn? Isn’t this about learning and being fully informed in order to make an informed decision on what’s going on? Separate what's real and what's not? Who decide for who here? Isn't this all about balance?

Perhaps it's time that John (and others who are behind him on that idea) needs to point out publicly in his blog on exactly who those “deficit thinkers” are and explain to DeafRead editors or the owner why they must be removed from DeafRead and on what grounds. Which blogs need to be removed because of the contents? Which blogsites need to be removed? Which bloggers need to be removed or banned because discussions happen to revolve around topics that they do not like surely must be big enough of an excuse or justification for removal or banishment? Is John (and others) advocating to DeafRead editors and the owner that their policy or guideline ought to be revamped? And include a section that “Deficit thinking is not allowed”? Exactly what do you mean by "deficit thinking"? Who is really being desperate here, John? Is this imagined futility that bad when it comes to discussing various deaf or deafness related topics?

I’m sure readers of DeafRead will want to hear more about this suggestion of yours, John. And I'm sure readers will be looking forward to your list of names of those you (and others) feel need to be removed or its blog/vlog content removed because it rankles you.

The ball is in your court. You made the first imputation. Use your time wisely.

Bali UN Climate Conference Fails Global Warming Screamers

What’s classic about the mainstream media news reporting when it comes to global warming is the continued misinterpretation or even, daresay I, dis-reporting such as the Bali UN climate conference by trying to frame it to make it look like a victory that President Bush caved in. Think Progress (though not a news media) managed to do that, laughingly so. And at the same time managed to fool those who are not intimately familiar with the Kyoto Protocol and the United States going back to the Clinton administration which started this whole resistance thing on joining in on the emission negotiations.

This is not surprising when you have readers who are content on believing a story byline and body of article but for others they would prefer to dig deeper to see exactly what’s going on and the real story. The bonus for me is that I am already familiar Kyoto protocol and the history it had with the United States. I knew right away the Think Progress story was nothing more than skunk reporting.

So, allow me to help you if you’re not familiar with all this thinking that Bush caved in. Heck, it's hardly the case while I slap my knee! It's the other way around folks. I suggest you read my blog or else you might end up looking more like a fool.

Let’s start with Associated Press who used a simple but somewhat misleading subject headline “Bali Climate Talks Reach Agreement” (the red bold is my emphasis) as well as a misleading body:

World leaders overcame bitter divisions Saturday and agreed to reach a new deal on fighting global warming by 2009, turning a corner in mankind's race to stave off environmental disaster caused by rising temperatures.

The contentious, two-week U.N. climate conference on the resort island of Bali ended with the United States, facing angry criticism from other delegations, relenting in its opposition to a request from developing nations for more technological help fighting climate change.

And then we have CNN with an outlandish and decidely misleading subject headline, “U.S. Agrees to Bali Compromise” along with, again, a misleading body (again, bold red is mine for emphasis on the misleading written material):

The United States made a dramatic reversal Saturday, first rejecting and then accepting a compromise to set the stage for intense negotiations in the next two years aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

The U.N. climate change conference in Bali was filled with emotion and cliff-hanging anticipation on Saturday, an extra day added because of a failure to reach agreement during the scheduled sessions.

The final result was a global warming pact that provides for negotiating rounds to conclude in 2009.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the pact "a good beginning." "This is just a beginning and not an ending," Ban said. "We'll have to engage in many complex, difficult and long negotiations."

But let's look at Time’s reporting which describes accurately what had transpired today. Read carefully what the victory was about which was a victory for Bush (and even the Clinton administration). If you know your Kyoto protocol history and the United States you’d understand (which I will explain next and look at the bold red to see where this agreement was about). Time’s subject headline “Who Won and Lost at Bali”:

The roadmap is essentially the beginning of a beginning. The negotiations to come have a specific end date - 2009 - and for the first time, dismantles what the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change executive secretary Yvo de Boer called "the Berlin Wall of climate change," the idea that only the rich nations need to take responsibility for fighting global warming. Both developed countries [sic]

The two sides still have different responsibilities, with developed nations ready to take on more quantifiable emissions cuts, and developing nations preparing to take on less specific national actions, but no country is left behind. That matters because the majority of future carbon emissions will come from the developing world, and no climate deal can work without the participation of China and India. "The developing nations of the South are on the same road as the North," says Peter Goldmark, director for the climate and air program for Environmental Defense. "They're using the same roadmap."

Bringing the developing nations on board made it possible for the U.S. to join. (per the Byrd-Hagel resolution - Kokonut)

As I said before this is really a victory for Bush (and even Clinton) because in the first Kyoto Protocol attempt the Clinton administration, with support from then Vice President Al Gore and 95 senators, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. And now we have developing nations that are agreeing to participate in emission cuts.

India and China, which are exempt from Kyoto's emissions cuts, have no plans to submit to those mandates any time soon, though China is the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. has also consistently rejected Kyoto. This has been true throughout the Bush years, but it was equally so during the Clinton ones. In 1997, the U.S. Senate adopted the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton Administration not to sign any climate-change protocol that "would result in serious harm to the economy." In 1998 Al Gore signed the Protocol. Yet President Clinton, who was in Montreal yesterday to scold the Bush Administration for its inaction, never submitted it to the Senate.

Hagel explains it well here:

Questioner: Back in 1997, you were a co-sponsor of a nonbinding resolution in the Senate. Did you mean, then, to kill the Kyoto climate treaty, or did you mean to change it?

Hagel: Well, if you go back to that time when Sen. [Robert] Byrd [D-W. Va.] and I introduced the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, it was to put the Senate on record as to what kind of environmental treaty the Senate would ratify and what kind of an environmental treaty we would not ratify. It's a very simple, straightforward resolution. It says the Senate will not ratify an environmental treaty ... if it does not include all the nations of the world in some way, and second, if it does economic damage ... to our country. Those are the two guidelines.

It was not set out to specifically kill Kyoto. Most of us knew at the time that Kyoto wasvolunteered to work against Kyoto." And he came up with the phrase "Kyoto is not fair," which was an effective way to talk about it. Did you think at the time that Kyoto was not fair?

Questioner: You did. We spoke to Frank Luntz, pollster and strategist, and he said, "I volunteered to work against Kyoto." And he came up with the phrase "Kyoto is not fair," which was an effective way to talk about it. Did you think at the time that Kyoto was not fair?

Hagel: I did think it was not fair, because it did not include all the nations of the world. ... Only 30 nations of the world, essentially, were given mandates as to roll back their manmade green[house] gas emissions to some 5 to 7 percent below those 1990 levels. But it did not include nations like China, South Korea or India. Most nations of the world were left out. So how was that fair?

The obligation was all on nations like the United States. Many European nations were essentially held harmless because, for example, the British were using natural gas and discarding coal because of the large natural gas fields of the North Sea. And they were under the 1990 levels, emissions levels, by a significant percent. Many of the nations in Europe, their economies were way down, and so their emissions were way down. It was nations like the United States that really would have been hit hard on this. And so yes, I thought it was unfair.

The media will typically downplay all of this by not acknowledging that this was really a win for the Bush (and Clinton) administration and America, because it was they who insisted that developing nation participate and make any agreements on emissions cuts in the future by coming to the table, such as China and Indian who are big polluters. It’s about unfair economic advantage to any one nation.

As a note, China is now the number one polluter of the world, and not the U.S. And if you notice the picture, I challenge you to find a city in the United States that spews so much gunk out where China has a serious respiratory health problems as a result of the massive polluting that comes with rapid growth. The same kind of growing pains the United States had from the early 1930s through the 1970s. We’re better off now than we did during the 1970s and we continue to improve as we go along.

Let’s continue with Time’s reporting on Bali which included more information that most media have thus so far ignored! (note the bold red which are my emphasis on exactly what the conference resulted in which had nothing to do with agreed to specific emission cuts or figures):

The Bali roadmap contains no specific commitments or figures on the emissions reductions that developed countries will need to take, beyond language that "deep cuts" will be needed. Earlier in the week the EU fought hard to include a specific target of 25 to 40% cuts for developed nations by 2020, and a need to halve global emissions - two figures cited by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest assessment of global warming science. Neither made it into the final text, thanks largely to determined opposition from the U.S., although a footnote points to the IPCC report. For environmentalists who had hoped that the recent avalanche of data underscoring the rising crisis of climate change might prompt tougher action, Bali was a disappointment. "It was a rather weak deal," said Meena Rahman, chair of Friends of the Earth International. "It's compromised."

Not everybody was happy with the result. Canada was especially disappointed with the conference result as reported by The Canadian Press with the subject headline “World reaches vague climate deal after day of high drama at UN talks” (look for my emphasis in bold red):

Canada helped gut some of the substance from a world climate-change deal and then expressed regret Saturday when the final agreement was ultimately watered down even more than it had hoped.

Environment Minister John Baird hailed as a positive step a United Nations agreement to seek a new global climate-change treaty by 2012.

But he expressed regret that the agreement was almost completely stripped of any reference to numbers and targets which would have been the starting point for the discussion.

So, we had 4 news media outlets reporting on the Bali UN climate conference with one reporting it, surprisingly so, accurately on what the whole story was about which would be Time Magazine. The other two (AP and CNN) made it as if Bush caved in. Hardly. And then the The Canadian Press reported accurately the disappointed by those realizing that no emission numbers and targets were reached in this conference.

Now, I can understand that many are not familiar with the Kyoto deal and why the United States refused to participate in the first place which started with President Bill Clinton first. It’s no wonder that Think Progress tried to make this as if it were a victory for Bali UN climate conference but in all actuality it was a victory belonging to President Bush (and Clinton). It was they who didn’t see the purpose on joining in on talks on reducing emission because other developing countries were exempted from emissions cuts. That was the key why the Kyoto protocol was never agreed to. There were shortcomings. Before the U.S. would participate in the NEGOTIATION the agreement was that China and India, and other developing countries, should not be exempted from future emission negotiation set to expire by 2012.

And now you know the whole story. A lesson in all this? Know your history first and realize that the mainstream media have a way of distorting and mis/disinforming readers on what the whole story was about. Those who have sniggered in (false) glee about the supposed “victory” today thinking that the U.S. caved in need to learn to hold their glee. The victory was really the other way around. The U.S. made no agreements or concessions on numbers, figures or targets when it comes to cutting down on emissions.

The U.S. only agreed to come aboard and negotiate further because the Bali UN climate conference agreed that developing nations ought to be partipants in negotiating their own emission cuts. And this opens the door to further negotiations on global climate-change treaty by 2012. And this doesn’t mean that the United States will agree to such cuts either. Just the fact they are now agreeing to come to the table for future talks on possible emission cuts.

Now, if you think I'm done. I'm not. More than 100 prominent scientists from around the world signed their name to a letter to the UN climate conference in Bali about the futility in trying to stop global warming through CO2 reduction efforts (bold red emphasis is mine).

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ]

The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."

"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ]

I agree. It's akin to you stepping onto the train track to try and stop an oncoming train by yourself. Putting a thousand people on track won't help either. It's better to adapt than to change something that's beyond our control which something what scientists said in a signed letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the UN climate conference in Bali.

Being ignorant doesn't help. Being properly informed helps. Jumping in with glee about the Bali UN climate conference thinking President Bush caved in doesn't help either but only makes you more of an uninformed fool. Learn to stop while you're ahead.

English Only and Philly Cheesesteak

Yummm. That's the two things I like, English and Philly Cheesesteak. Michelle Malkin reminded us today about a story she covered last year about the persecution of Joey Vento in Philadelphia by city government crackpots who are trying to force Joey to remove the "English only sign" at his place of business. Joey is the grandson of Italian-born immigrants who owns Geno’s–the world-famous cheesesteak joint. As a U.S. citizen, private enterpriser and owner of the famous cheesesteak joint he's a stauch believer in the "English only" by hanging up a sign telling customers:

“This is America. When ordering, please speak English.”

No problem. But for some, it is. Boo hoo. But if you look at this picture you can see the sign that says "Management Reserves the right to refuse service." It's been in his window for 20 years. It's a typical sign seen in many restaurants all across America. They do have the right to refuse service. After all, it is their business. But the city is making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to Joey's "This is America. When ordering, please speak English" sign which does not imply that services will be refused if one doesn't speak in English. How will you know until you try? Although he's asking customers to please speak in English and take into consideration the fact that they are, after all, in America. Just as you would in France, please speak French, after all you are in a country that speaks French as a national language.

And in the spirit of "English only" story, I, too, have instituted another rule for people who comment in my blog by putting in a "comments in English only" rule. Now, granted. No one has tried to comment other than English but suppose one did, I would then reserve the right to delete it. After all this is my blog and this is America. And English is the majority and national language of use.

God Bless America! And Semper Fi!

A Gratitudeless Campaign?

Recently I came aross this wonderful website called "Gratitude Campaign" that began in November where it provides appreciative people a way to say "thank you" to our U.S. soldiers without saying a word by signing. I found it to be a wonderful way of expressing thanks to our U.S. troops and I have no problems with the current signing/gesture of thanks. But I was dismayed upon learning from the author of that website that he received some nasty or hostile emails from Deaf people who complained like stuck pigs on the use of the sign saying it is not the same as in ASL "Thank you" even though his sign/gesture was in the context as saying "thank you from the bottom of my heart."

The author of the website and I exchanged emails regarding the signing question and his efforts to reach out to people on showing another way of saying "thank you" to the U.S. troops . The exchanges were, of course, positive, encouraging, and above all courteous. It was clear that the video already made isn't going to change seeing that the number of hits has taken off over the last few weeks. More people are blogging about it as seen here, here and here. In other words, the train has pretty much left the station. At least Scott, the author of the website, was able to clarify in his website that the signing wasn't meant to be the ASL "Thank you. "

Please note that there has been some debate as to whether this sign is a recognized sign from American Sign Language. With the utmost respect to those who know and use ASL, we are currently consulting several authorities on ASL to come to a resolution on that issue. We will update this page with our findings. In the mean time we would suggest that you use this sign only to thank those who serve, and do not assume that who use ASL will recognize this sign.

In the video it showed people using the sign, the nodding of the heads in appreciative approval, smiling, and even mouthing the words "Thank you" as a gratidue of thanks to U.S. soldiers in view of them. It is those positive combinations that make them understandably clear on what the gesuturing/signing is all about. A show of thanks coming from the bottom of their hearts.

I have seen hearing people use their hand(s) over their heart as a way to express gratitudes and thanks so it is no surprise that hearing people do have their own brand of gestures and signs such as Chinese or Italian. But will Deaf people complain about other signs or gestures like the "hang loose" sign (shaped like the letter "Y") that can be used as way to say "thanks"? Maybe we should use that sign instead for the troops? Cannot hearing people come up or use their own variations of signs and gestures to suit their own expressive needs? Or must they contact authoriative sign language linguists before going forward with their own homemade signs? Or are Deaf people trying to make a statement that they are the owners of signs and gestures and hearing people must seek their approval first? Do they have a corner market on signs and gestures? Just thinking out loud here. Though I believe it wasn't Scott's intention to "slur" the use of certain ASL signs. To him and many others, it made a lot of sense to sign that way as way of saying thanks from the bottom of their heart.

Now, for those who sent out nasty, hateful or hostile (not negative but just plain hostile) emails to the owner of the website, The Gratitude Campaign, perhaps they ought to take the time to write and apologize to him for sending him rude emails. At least Raychelle was courteous during her email exchanges with him in the hope to make a difference. But as I have gathered already, the train has left the station and that the sign/gesture for "thank you from the bottom of my heart" will remain on The Gratitude Campaign website as far as I can tell.

By the way, the picture seen at the beginning of my blog? It's an Italian sign/gesture for "che puzza." Just don't make too much hay out of that picture. I just added it for effect.

In a galaxy far, far away….

Last night while I sat and wondered about the heavenly body above me seeing clearly so many stars twinkling in the night time sky out in the desert where I live. Some stars I saw are actually galaxies containing billions of stars. The stars and planets are exceptional to see where I live due to the fact there is little or no light pollution that would visually limit the number of stars I’d see high up on the desert floor at an elevation of 4300 feet. Last night I watched a movie called “K-PAX” where “prot” described a highly advanced civilization by million of years located in our own galaxy hundreds of light years away begged the one question I had that night. Are there any deaf aliens out there?

Whooooooo! (alien noise)

Earth resides in a galaxy called “The Milky Way” where our Solar System with our sun (it’s a star, too, folks) is home among billions of other stars going about spinning together on a pinwheel shaped galaxy. One galaxy has billions of stars (or suns). But there are possibly billions of galaxies in the universe according to many astrophysicists. That would be, using our math, billions times billions make what? A lot of stars. Something like a septillion stars (that’s a “1” followed by 21 zeros) out there. We don’t even have that many sand particles on our planet that even come near it. It is just unfathomly huge. So, what are the odds of finding a similar planet among all those stars that has a similar Earth-like system containing carbon-based life forms? Or home to beings similar to us? Do they even exist? And if the possibility that they do exist where a whole different race of highly intelligent beings may be intellectually light years ahead of us then chances are, of course, that no Deaf/deaf people would exist on that planet. But why would that be the case? Could it be that since they’re a highly advanced race of people they would view deafness as unnecessary and perhaps even cruel to have? Perhaps it’d be a civilization so advanced that equality is required for all where no forms of disability would exist (i.e. no Alzheimer, Parkinson, paralysis, hearing loss, blindness and so forth). Maybe they’d be so advanced that everybody communicates telepathically instead and that the ability to hear or speak would not be required? Or perhaps instead they have a universal spoken language that everybody uses. I can’t see how or why an advanced race of beings with their scientific and technological knowledge thousands to million of years ahead of us would allow a variety of disabilities to exist or persist.

Something to ponder, folks. Meanwhile, I have a light beam to catch. And keep your snit level down to a minimum, folks.

Arctic Ice Re-freezes In Record Time

You know what these global warming screamers and worry warts remind me of? Oscar the Grouch from Sesame Street. Oscar would be the temperamental character with a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior according to Oscar's psychological profile that was psycho-analyzed recently. Yet, people would run around and use the latest news like how the Arctic ice saw massive melting of ice this year that worried even a few scientists to no end. Even to the point of blaming anthropogenic global warming for the rapid ice melting even though past history through millions of years Arctic ice waxed and waned when humans never existed who couldn't have contributed carbon dioxide. Still, some worry warts were bold to predict that there would be no ice in the Arctic ocean by 2040 and some say even earlier! But at the same time these same worry warts continue to ignore (or most likely don't know) recent history as far back in 1903 as far as record keeping goes the North Pole's ice were never always completely covered and that ships made out of wood were able to navigate across a portion of the Arctic ocean through the Northwest Passage.

The changing ice conditions in the Arctic are poorly understood by scientists. Now they have to contend with the fact that from late October into early November of this year (2007) the Arctic had a record-setting pace of re-freezing of ice!

...according to the NASA Earth Observatory. Some 58,000 square miles of ice formed per day for 10 days in late October and early November, a new record.

Welllll, I'll be durned! Record re-freezing of ice! Now what will these scientists say about that? And for the Northern latitudes (that's us and all the way up to the North Pole for you Santy lovers) winter is just barely getting started and the freezing will continue in the Arctic ocean until Spring.

This is all about the media's ability (with nods from their political friends) to manipulate public perception since they are basically an easy and ignorant lot to begin with. Dr. Tim Ball says it well:

Exploitation of fear by environmental groups was explained well in Crichton’s book, State of Fear. He could also have written a book titled, State of Knowledge. Most people know very little about the natural world and how it works. This lack of knowledge is easily exploited and coupled with fear makes it an even more powerful manipulative tool. The idea that knowledge is power isn’t new, but that is the positive side. Lack of knowledge is the negative side and makes you very vulnerable. As Derek Bok said, “If you think education is expensive - try ignorance.” Ignorance allows presentation of natural events as unnatural or normal events as abnormal.

While the media were out preying on public fear on the gloom and doom on disappearing Arctic sea ice they conveniently ignored reports that the Antarctic (i.e. South Pole) winter sea ice extent was the greatest on record. Now, will the sea ice extent for the Arctic become greatest on record, too?

So much for all the Oscars out there who continue to do the chicken little dance. But knowledge is power, folks.

UPDATE:

Climate changes constantly and I don't see anyone disagreeing on that aspect. Yet there is a difference between local and regional pollutions that affects us readily. This is something we can do about (i.e. air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, etc). What many people do not know is that scientists (over 19,000 American scientists - see here and here, and here in a letter ) signed a letter that question (or don't believe) CO2 as being the main driving agent on climate change and cause catastrophic climate results. There are so many factors and parameters involved on the interplays that influence climate change. We are still "green" on learning these hugely complex interactions. And this is an emerging science.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas that makes up much more of the atmosphere than CO2. Yet we don't understand fully how these things work and why, and how it affects other climatic patterns. It's deeply complex and anyone who says they understand everything that need to be understood is lying through his/her teeth. And the funny thing about CO2 being labeled as a "pollutant" because it isn't. We exhale (and the animals, too) CO2. Maybe we need to slap a carbon tax on people for breathing too much CO2? No more exercises for you exercise freaks! Or tax overweight or out of shape people who exhale too much CO2 after walking around some.

Using scare tactics in order to pass laws and introduce taxes to force people to reduce CO2 will not work. Especially if scare tactics are based on false premises and disinformation. Just plain disengious and sets a dangerous precedence. It's like shoot first and ask questions later.

For those people who utter the words "choose carefully" are nothing more than hypocrites themselves. They are polluters. too. If they exhale CO2, then they are polluters. Use plastic? They are polluters. Burn biofuels? They are CO2 polluters. Buy food? You're a polluter of CO2 and everything else. It'd be better to "choose carefully" on who are neighbors will be and I'd be more concerned about nuclear/chemical/biological war than global warming which has been warming and cooling for eons. Way before man was around. People don't even see that logic at all. Because they choose to be ignorant on earth science, be knee jerkers and let politics be their "truth." A bad combo.

Michael Crichton (best known for his novels but also a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a former postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies) warned his audience of the dangers of "consensus science" in a 2003 speech,

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Indeed. It's not about "deniers" but about questioning CO2 as compared to, for example, water vapor in the atmosphere.

With all the attention given to the CO2 content of the atmosphere it is purplexing that the water vapor content is ignored when a change in the water vapor content from 3.0 percent to about 2.96 percent has the same effect on global warming as if all the CO2 in the atmosphere disappeared. If in fact the water vapor content of the atmosphere does fluctuate between 2 percent and 4 percent the attempt to relate global temperature to the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere is hopeless without information on water vapor content.

The situation is even more extreme than what was presented just above because the greenhouse gases vary in their effectiveness in absorbing thermal radiation. A molecule of H2O is 50 percent more effective or efficient in absorbing radiation than a molecule of CO2. If the molecular compositions are weighted according to their relative radiative efficiencies this is what the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere looks like (see graph colored in blue).

Just be careful on how you choose words like "deniers" which conjures up images of the Holocaust and how people have denied it ever happened. And be careful on justifying the use of emotion over logic in a debate. It reflects poorly on you as a knee jerker. There is no "consensus" in science. Just verifiable and reproducible results. It's all about manipulating perception of an already clueless public.

EcoDeaf or EcoHype?

It’s great to see groups who have concerns about the environment. Everybody wants clean air, clean water, forested mountains, and clean living along with common sense conservation practices. But a recent blog by EcoDeaf discussed a global warming (as supposedly caused by human beings) awareness campaign by linking to a website “Fight Global Warming: Keep Winter Cold!” But looking at that website only caused me at shake my head at all of the inanities. Now, I wonder, are there any deaf/hh Earth scientists on board with EcoDeaf? Is there a group of Deaf/deaf/hh people that discusses verifiable, scientific facts in regard to global warming (as supposedly caused by human beings)? Is EcoDeaf simply a new knee-jerk grassroots environmental organization for Deaf/deaf/hh people to join?

Now, don’t get me wrong. Recycling makes sense. Practicing conservation and requiring efficient use of energy make sense. Fighting local and regional pollution that have more immediate effects on people’s health make sense. But to go out and protest or bring about awareness on global warming (as supposedly caused by human beings) does not make any sense at all because the dynamic interaction is extremely complex and unknown between sun, earth, water, wind, and the land in terms of heat exchanges, latent heat, deep ocean water circulation, climate patterns, upper layer circulation, water vapor (which is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere), the sun’s fluctuating energy output which is cyclical, how precipitation affects temperature which acts as a cooling agent for surface and atmosphere, and so on. Carbon Dioxide is never known to be a climate driver. Ice cores have shown that it was temperature that goes up first, which causes CO2 to rise as well. There are so many problems with this global warming (as caused by human beings) climate scare that people simply do not think but rather prefer to follow lemmings instead without discussing the rational for doing so along with supporting arguments. As a start people can look here about global warming (as not caused by human beings).

I’ll be looking more into this EcoDeaf and I welcome any members of EcoDeaf to discuss this global warming (as supposedly caused by human beings). It’s better to be informed and aware than not.

ASL is Growing According to Latest Study

For all you Naysayers about how ASL is declining, you might want to reconsider that thought for now.

According to a 2000 survey of state education departments there were 456 high schools that taught ASL. But by 2004 the number had jumped to 701. “As of 2006, 41 states had approved of adding ASL to the foreign-language curriculum, with Nebraska being the most recent addition.”

Why the rise?

Geoffrey Poor, associate professor in the department of sign language and interpreting services at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf in Rochester, N.Y., said in an e-mail that in the linguistics community, the issue of ASL as a foreign language was "laid to rest" with the publication of A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles in 1965 by William Stokoe, a sign language teacher at what is now Gallaudet University, the world-renowned university for the deaf in Washington. But in popular culture, he said, those who accept ASL as a foreign language are harder to come by.

"For a long time people figured, out of ignorance, that it was just miming, broken English, etc.," he said about ASL. "However, there is no deaf cuisine or clothing or country," which, Poor believes, is why "many people have resisted giving it a foreign-language status."

But the question a lot of us ask today is that will this trend continue? And for how long? Will technology and biotechnology of the future change all that despite the continued rapid advancements that could make ASL into a limited-use mode of visual language/communcation among toddlers who are hearing or were once deaf until they are ready to talk? But for now, ASL is enjoying the continued increasing trend as a foreign language requirement at high schools, community colleges and universities as well as the growing Deaf population. Still, in the back of many Deaf people's mind, will it take 100 years for it to "disappear" as one Deaf blogger said earlier?

The Case for Free Expression

Lately, free expression over the internet such as blogging is becoming harder and harder to defend. Well, maybe not that much harder but I suppose you get the idea on where I might be going with this.

As we all should know, bloggers, deaf or otherwise, have the right to their own free expression, including how they see fit in moderating comments in their own blogs which may include editing, deletion or have the commenter's IP address banned. That is their right as a blogger. But lately there seems to be a rash of six year old kids running around crying foul just because some blogs got a hold of their sensibilities upsetting their foundational/core beliefs. They may cry foul the form that their brand of free speech or expression ought to be protected all the way down to the blogger's comment section. Not only is this stupid it also breaches the very notion of individualilty and choices given to each of us. A blogsite is a personal one. He or she decides how to run it. Commenting in other people's blog sites is simply a privilege and never a right or freedom of speech issue. But the attitudes I have been seeing lately by those who get their panties in a wad just because somebody else's view about deafness, Deaf culture, sign language, cued speech or whatever not do not jive with their beliefs do they demand and cry foul that certain blogsites need to get removed or banned from a blog aggregator site like Deafread. Pitchfork and torches? Now really. Some people just need to learn to calm down and bask in the glory of each blogger's own freedom of speech and expresssion. Don't like? Then do you own blogging.

Deafread has taken to their own entreprenurial spirit by turning their website into a human controlled, blog aggregator site. Yet they have rules and guidelines to go by on what's acceptable and what's not. Even though unacceptable cuss words and perhaps vulgarities are still getting through when #2 of the guidelines explains the acceptability of cuss words. Just saying. Nobody's perfect. We know that.

Deafread's human editors screen out numerous blogs each day deciding which ones are acceptable or not. They have that right. After all it is their own blog aggregator website. It simply becomes a priviledge to be listed on their website as registered bloggers even though Deafread borders nearly as a "deaf only" (note the smaller cap "d" letter) blog aggregator site if you read their small print.

Posts by hearing authors are welcome but face a more stringent standard.

Just noting the obviousness here. That's all.

But the gist what I'm trying to get at is that though there are some Deaf people out there who believe that certain Deaf/deaf/hh blogs need to be banned from Deafread only because they present alternative or differing views apart from the mainstream Deaf population (or even according to a few extremists' own views). Even though these bloggers haven't violated any of Deafread's guidelines that would warrant expulsion or removal of registration. Just that some people's sensibilities may be a wee bit warped demanding certain Deaf/deaf/hh blogs be banned because they don't suit them?

Looking back, I did a poll in June asking Deaf readers this question:

In a Deaf world, if you had unrestricted power to censor any Deaf/HH blogs or blogsites because they may have “ethically violated” certain Deaf “protocols," “rules,” or even "standards" whenever deaf-related issues or viewpoints presented are not accepted by the majority of Deaf people’s opinions, would you go ahead and remove that blogpost or blogsite completely from the internet leaving no trace of its existence? In short, if you had the power to remove blogposts and/or blogsites from the internet would you do it?

My poll result showed (so far) that 36 out of 116 who voted would do that if given the absolute power to access any deaf/Deaf/hh blogsites or its comments. Now, no polls are accurate and mine, of course, shouldn't be construed as one. There could be some people who misunderstood my question skewing the poll results. But this poll is not meant to be "scientific" but it does show an interesting side when (assuming Deaf people answered the poll and assuming Deaf people voted honestly in this poll) a poll results showed that 31% would use their given power to shut down other Deaf, deaf, or hoh blogsites who have contrarian views that do not suit their own sensibilities.

A scary scenario.

Now, I'm talking about those 116 who voted and this is not to be extrapolated to the larger Deaf population. People need to understand that. Also, the sample size isn't big enough for one thing to make any kind of inferences. And again, it's not meant to be a "scientific" poll to begin with. Just an ad hoc one.

But my poll results do beg the question though. Would some Deaf people actually do that if given absolute authority and power? Do they really believe in the free expression of ideas and exchanges even if it means they may turn out to be contrary to their own views or find them however unpalatable? How would any disagreements justify hate? Violence? Banishment? Or are we dealing with a sort of forward "cultish-thinking" crowd here? Again, I'm speaking about the very small minority of people out there and not about the whole Deaf/deaf/hh community. Yet when does personal hate cross the line? Would that be evidence of a lack of open-mindedness? Insecurity? Or a simple knee jerk reaction? Or is this an English issue that causes one to misconstrue what was said? Perhaps it's a political one? A combination of all those things? What would some of the factors be that causes some people to behave in such manners?

Just doing my usual analysis here. Exploring. Probing. Poking. Learning. And realizing the certain elements of truths that exist out there.

I know. I know. It's a funny world out there. Different strokes for different folks. So, let's not get too caught up in all this. And simply agree to disagree, and move on. Though I'm glad there is a place on the internet where a person can freely express their thoughts online. But once people start to demand and see that free thoughts and expressions curtailed and controlled against bloggers then that's when you should start to worry and question the sanity of those people making those demands.

That's all I have to say. Food for thought and enjoy your Thanksgiving holiday.

The New eBook

Has the e-book finally matured? Will Kindle become the de facto standard on the future of e-book reading? Certainly looks it. And if you're deaf and cannot enjoy iPod, this little baby will be the next best thing to portable electronic reading. No longer will you be needing that little light thingy attached to your book at night so you won't disturb your wife or husband. Check it out on the video on the Amazon website.

*Revolutionary electronic-paper display provides a sharp, high-resolution screen that looks and reads like real paper.

*Simple to use: no computer, no cables, no syncing.

*Wireless connectivity enables you to shop the Kindle Store directly from your Kindle—whether you’re in the back of a taxi, at the airport, or in bed.

*Buy a book and it is auto-delivered wirelessly in less than one minute.

*More than 88,000 books available, including 100 of 112 current New York Times® Best Sellers.

*New York Times® Best Sellers and all New Releases $9.99, unless marked otherwise.

*Free book samples. Download and read first chapters for free before you decide to buy.

*Top U.S. newspapers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post; top magazines including TIME, Atlantic Monthly, and Forbes—all auto-delivered wirelessly.

*Top international newspapers from France, Germany, and Ireland; Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine, and The Irish Times.

*More than 250 top blogs from the worlds of business, technology, sports, entertainment, and politics, including BoingBoing, Slashdot, TechCrunch, ESPN's Bill Simmons, The Onion, Michelle Malkin, and The Huffington Post.

*Lighter and thinner than a typical paperback; weighs only 10.3 ounces. Holds over 200 titles.

*Long battery life. Leave wireless on and recharge approximately every other day. Turn wireless off and read for a week or more before recharging. Fully recharges in 2 hours.

*Unlike WiFi, Kindle utilizes the same high-speed data network (EVDO) as advanced cell phones—so you never have to locate a hotspot.

*No monthly wireless bills, service plans, or commitments—we take care of the wireless delivery so you can simply click, buy, and read.

*Includes free wireless access to the planet's most exhaustive and up-to-date encyclopedia—Wikipedia.org.

*Email your Word documents and pictures (.JPG, .GIF, .BMP, .PNG) to Kindle for easy on-the-go viewing.

I want one!

Culture First or Deaf First?

There has been a lot of stories or comments about the belief that Deaf people see themselves as a"Deaf person first" and everything else is second. Or in some cases see themselves as "Deaf first" but is co-equal with another strong identity like "when both his/her identity as a Black person AND ALSO his/her identity as a Deaf person are integral to who they are." But let's challenge one notion that being "Deaf first" is not always the case. Nor would it always be desirable in the sense of identity by seeing themselves as "Deaf first" paramount to other others. Doing so could in fact be unproductive and even damaging as we have seen in my earlier blogs (here and here). There are such things as having a culture that is so strong they see themselves as secondly as a Deaf/deaf person. A case example of this would be deaf and hard of hearing Native American Indians who see themselves as a Native American Indian first and a deaf person second. Mark Azure exemplifies that very example:

"As a child when I moved to a deaf school off tribal lands I couldn’t participate in my cultural rituals such as pow-wows and ceremonies. My life was like a torn piece of paper. When I could reconnect these ceremonies and my ability to be first a Native American and then a deaf person my life came together again.” - Mark Azure, Intertribal Deaf Council

It is interesting to see, understably so, on why Deaf Native American Indians would see themselves strongly as Indians first and not "Deaf first." Many of them had no choice but to learn the "Deaf world's" own language (ASL) and culture separating them from their own Indian culture and language. And sometimes wanting to stay connected to their Indian culture proved challenging when resources to do so prevents them. James Woodenleg offers a classic problem of his upbringing and trying to move forward in his life as an Indian first, Deaf second.

The need for interpreter services is illustrated in the story of James Woodenlegs, a very traditional man who currently serves as the spiritual advisor for the Intertribal Deaf Council. He is Northern Cheyenne from Montana. His first languages are Cheyenne and American Indian Sign Language (AISL). He learned American Sign Language while attending the School for the Deaf. When he graduated from the School for the Deaf, he wanted to get a job on his reservation but was unable to get a job because the tribal vocational rehabilitation office did not have the resources to provide services for him.

James found himself in a dilemma. He moved to Albuquerque and went to an Indian reservation in New Mexico to ask for VR services. The VR office said, “Well, if you're an Indian from a tribe out of state, we can't serve you either. You'll need to go back home to Montana.” He eventually got a job in Albuquerque on his own.

People like James Woodenlegs who grew up using American Indian Sign Language were able to communicate with people in their communities, despite being Deaf. Today, there are very few people with whom he and other AISL users can communicate using AISL. American Indian Sign Language is going more and more by the wayside, so there isn’t as much access with its use.

Those startling words, "Today, there are very few people with whom he (James Woodenleg) and other AISL users can communication using AISL. American Indian Sign Language is going more and more by the wayside, so there isn't as much access with its use."

The article continues.

The term “American Indian Sign Language” is a general concept that includes any of a number of sign languages used by American Indians that are distinctly different from American Sign Language (ASL). The most common AISL used among many tribes that occupied the Great Plains is now referred to as Plains Indian Sign Language. In general, compared to ASL, the use of AISL requires much broader strokes with the hands, greater use of arms, and fewer facial expressions (Thomkins, 1969).

There are Indian people who are Deaf growing up in their communities who don't know important things about their heritage, their culture, and their identity. Sign language interpreters would help these people communicate so that they could learn and take an active part in their community.

There is a need for interpreters who are proficient in ASL, but there have to be interpreters who understand the culture of American Indians who are Deaf. That is an important message for those in the interpreter field to understand. Mr. Dunbar and others conducted an informal survey of American Indians and Alaska Natives from various cultural backgrounds to find out if they would prefer an interpreter who was proficient in the use of sign language and had no cultural understanding, or one who was perhaps not as proficient but had a much greater understanding of the culture. Eighty to 90% said that they would choose a less proficient interpreter who had cultural understanding of the people, more cultural sensitivity, and was able to blend into the community better.

Not many statistics are available on Deaf American Indian populations. However, it is known that Native people are four times as likely to have hearing loss than members of the dominant culture and American Indians and Alaska Natives are the populations least served in terms of disability and rehabilitation services, including those for people with hearing loss. Causes of hearing loss stem from a higher incidence of otitis media among American Indians to different aspects of reservation life that cause head injuries. Also, living and working in remote areas, far removed from medical services, makes medical treatment more difficult to obtain for Native Americans

In one Indian tribe, the Sioux tribe, communicated often using their region's Indian Sign Language. The famous and well known Indian named Sitting Bull had a deaf son named "Blue Mountain" who had no problem communicating with his people. But today, Deaf Indians have lost that status.

Sitting Bull, famous chief from the Sioux Tribe, had a Deaf son whose name was Blue Mountain. The language of Blue Mountain was Indian Sign Language. In that region, it was a very common language, and people were able to freely and openly communicate with each other. In that society, everyone was considered equal.

Today, Deaf Indians have lost that status. They don’t consider themselves equal. That is a goal, to go back to the tribal ways and the traditions of American Indian and Alaska Native people, where all are seen as equals, where everyone is able to communicate and use sign language as a very cherished and important part of the culture.

Blue Mountain was able to communicate with anyone in his community. It gave him the freedom to be or do what any Lakota man had the freedom to be or do. When the Lakota moved on to the reservation, anyone in Blue Mountain’s community could be an interpreter for him in dealing with government agents.

Today, Deaf Indian people who want to obtain employment are stymied by the fact that they don't have interpreting services in their own communities. When public entities are willing to provide interpreters, urban interpreters are often not willing to drive out to remote reservation areas to provide services.
.
.
Sign language is a very important part of American Indian and Alaska Native tradition and culture. From the southwestern United States to Alaska, sign language is included in the dances, songs, and ceremonies of Native people, even though the signs might not be used every day. Alaska Native people sing, dance, and tell hunting stories and funny love stories. Hopi Indians will talk with their hands about planting corn and about the rains. Through the sharing that occurred at the sign language interpreter training program, the IDC, in collaboration with NMIP and AIRRTC, helped preserve some of the tradition and culture of the American Indian people.

And so the story goes. Read more on the written works found in "Wisdom of the Storyteller."

Mark Azure provided workshops that touched upon topics earlier this year like "how communication among Deaf Native American communities varies from communication in the general Deaf community." Topics also include information about Indian Sign Language, of course.

About Mark Azure: He is Chippewa Cree-Dakota and Tsimshain and grew up on two reservations – first on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota and on the Warm Spring Indian Reservation in Central Oregon where his parents worked for the Bureau Indian Affairs and Indian Education. He attended the Oregon School for the Deaf, apart from anyone familiar with the Indian World. Because of this, Mark didn’t practice any Native American traditions until 1995 when he first experienced the Deaf Native American Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Since 1995, he has found rebalance and regained his Indian Spiritual and cultural involvement.

In the Spring 2000 newsletter the Intertribal Deaf Council (IDC) stated that “IDC has a commitment to never turn away First Nations Deaf, many of whom have had no access to their culture before becoming affiliated with their own Cultures. Our doors are open to all who wish to come back to the Circle, learn or share their Native Traditions, and to ”WORK TOGETHER” (in Indian Sign Language)...May all Deaf and hearing Indigenous Peoples Walk in Beauty.”

Indeed. How ironic that there was a society such as the Indian tribes of the past who considered their deaf Indians as their equals and communicated with them as equals.

Tom White Horse in ISL - 1930

Here's a YouTube video with subtitle of Tom White Horse using Plains Indian Sign Language in 1930. Seen in the video are sign talkers from 14 different Plains nations gathered at Browning, Montana as participants in a conference organized by General Hugh L. Scott for the purpose of demonstrating their use of sign language. Tom Foley was able to translate PISL into English.



Check out the rest of YouTube videos, though not subtitled, of Indians using Plains Indian Sign Language.

Now, I have a question. Are there videos of Deaf North America Indian signing in ISL?

And then we have John Denver, in 1982, signing "The Lord's Prayer" in ISL. No subtitle though but he is signing.

Native Hand Talkers - Meet One Today!

Yesterday, I wrote a bit of an awareness piece how deaf educators, ASL-advocates, local governments, and the prevalent use of ASL have helped the demise of ISL and Deaf Indians' inability to have continuing ties with their own cultural Indian heritage. Only recently over the last several years has there been an increase in awareness about Deaf Native American Indians who lack the resources to maintain proper cultural ties to their Indian heritage and, of course, their Indian Sign Language which is their first language (or second language) and not ASL.

One good cultural awareness took place in 2003 at the Western Region Outreach Center and Consortia at Western Oregon University where a Deaf Native American Indian, Mark Azure, did a speech, "Native Hand Talkers," about indigenous deaf culture in the United States. It turns out to be an excellent piece (see undedited transcript) about what people are doing to help Deaf/deaf/hoh Indians maintain their cultural heritage and ties while growing up.

I'm a deaf person. I was not born deaf. I became deaf when I was three years old, because of German measles. And I grew up on an Indian reservation in South Dakota. I was near the town of rows bud. It was rows bud reservation. Some of you may have seen the movie dances with wolves. That's where I'm from. Near pine ridge. It's right next to that. That's-so that's where I'm from, rose bud. I spent a lot of time as a youth living in Indian country, until I was about five or six years old, and I went to the city and I felt like I was in the European white world. There was just-I felt like I was on a different planet, and I really felt like I wanted to go back home to Indian country. I was very upset. I would tell my parents I really want to go back, but the problem was I really didn't understand what was happening. I didn't sign back then, I had very little communication.

What we did was we went to the audiologist for a hearing test, and that's sort of where I became involved in the deaf world. So at that point I put my Indian culture aside, until about 1995, at the IDC, Intertribal Defense Council group was established. I think the first was Oklahoma in '94 and then it was in New Mexico in '95, in Albuquerque, and I was thrilled to go there. At the same time I was kind of apprehensive. Because I'd, you know, left the reservation and joined the white world, and since then I'd drawn all these parallels between the two and I hadn't had much contact with that and I was nervous to go back. Why should I feel that way? I should have been proud to reappear but I didn't feel that way inside. I had to really overcome these fears and go ahead and get involved in the Indian deaf world, and I felt like I had so much time to make up for, and it was just very exciting. I felt like a part of my life that was missing was reunited and I was whole again, and my identity was whole.

I teach sign language classes at Portland Community College now, and I also do-work with the interpreter training program, as well. And I have been teaching at Portland Community College since 1979, so it's been quite a while. I'm also involved in the NMIP, the national multicultural interpreting project, and that's based in El Paso, at El Paso Community College. And I've been involved in that project I think for four or five years. We had a grant and the grant money has run out, and we're still continuing to focus on primarily Indian sign language and interpreters. Intertribal Defense Council, we're doing some recruiting for our mentoring program. We're looking for hearing Indians who would like to be involved in the deaf Indian community and to develop those kinds of ties. So that would be a- that's an excellent bridge for people who are in Indian country both on and off the reservation. I'll talk more about that as time permits. And so we'll have a presentation on that after a while, we'll be opening it up for questions. John?

There are lots of ways to help increase cultural awareness but there is one under-utilized resource not yet tapped into. And that would be to have Deaf Native American Indian (DNAI)bloggers/vloggers or bloggers/vloggers interested in issues about DNAI. Other resources discussed in the "Native Hand Talkers" such as the American Indian Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (project already discontinued). Or you can stop by and visit Deaf Native website (i.e. "Intertribal Deaf Council") to learn more.

And lastly, if you are at Gallaudet University or live close to it be sure to stop by at the Kellogg Conference Hotel at Gallaudet today this Saturday, November 17, from 5 to 8 PM and meet with the Intertribal Deaf Council to help celebrate the launch of Eagle VRS. This would be your chance to meet up with a real Native hand Talker. And what you can do to help increase awareness on cultural issues facing Deaf/HH Native American Indians.

Did ASL help Destroy Indian Sign Language?

Native American Indians used their versions of sign language well before Europeans or Spaniards ever touched their land (ie “pre-settlement era") what is now called the “United States” and "Canada." In fact, many of their North American Indian signs are similar to that of ASL. It was used between Indian nations or tribes in hunting, trade, for social interaction and even among deaf Indians. In fact, in one particular Indian tribe hearing loss was found to be much more prevalent than elsewhere.

A sign language different from those found among other American Indian tribes and from those used in the American Deaf community was recently discovered on one central New Mexico Keresan-speaking pueblo (Kelley, 2001). In this particular pueblo, a surprising large number of residents with a significant hearing loss were found; 14 (over 2%) out of 650 tribal members were discovered to have a severe to profound hearing loss, meaning they either have difficulty understanding loud or amplified speech or can not understand speech at all.

Pre-settlement population figures north of Mexico ranged from 8 to 20 million with the majority of them living on the eastern half of the “United States” prior to Europeans and Spaniards settling in. Today’s Native American sign language is used within their Indian nations in storytelling, rituals, legends, prayers, and even by Deaf people.

But there’s a sweet if not sick irony about how Deaf people are proclaiming and screaming that their ASL (American Sign Language) is slowly being destroyed by hearing people and that it is slowly disappearing yet never considered the fact that their insistence use of ASL has actually helped destroy (or is destroying) what’s left of Native American Indian Sign Language (NAISL or ISL) among deaf Indians, especially the young ones, when they are forced to choose between ISL or ASL when it comes to their education. They shouldn’t be forced to make that decision at all.

Both KPISL and PISL have become endangered languages. KPISL is not much used among the pueblo’s younger generation owing to their learning school English, ASL, or signs that follow the spoken English word order. Before the 1990s, American Indian Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing tribal members usually left home to attend a residential school for the deaf located far away (Baker, 1997; Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996).
At the school, there was usually no formal instruction of American Indian or American Indian culture and signs; only Deaf culture and ASL were taught, leading many American Indian students to join the “Deaf World.” After graduation, the students had to make difficult decisions about where and how to establish themselves: on the pueblos with hearing families and friends, in urban areas with other Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing people, or in border towns with limited access to both groups.

What a shame or so it seems. How irresponsible of those ASL-only advocates (sarcasm). Destroy one culture while trying to preserve another culture, namely ASL. But do Deaf people have no shame? Why insist or force Deaf Native American Indians to learn ASL when they should be using their own native Indian sign language and help preserve their heritage and culture that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years? This is almost exactly how our English language and culture helped nearly destroy North American Indians’ own heritage and culture by forcing them to learn English and assimilate into American culture in order for them to “survive.” Forcing young Deaf North American Indians use ASL is doing the same selfish act.

Although, each individual Deaf Indian person varies in the identity formation and self-identity, there are several common themes that have been recounted in personal anecdotes within the Indian Deaf groups such as discriminatory behaviors experienced at schools for the deaf, a loss of cultural language, knowledge and affiliation in educational environments, the lack of American Indian Deaf role models and teachers. At the IDC conference each year, a “Talking Circle” allows individuals a healing chance to express their unique experiences from a traditional upbringing to those with lost identities to receive community understanding and support.

The prevalent or wide use of ASL among Deaf American Indians (and Alaskan Native Deaf) is noted in another similar study on its disastrous effect it had on Deaf Native Indians in terms of Indian culture and heritage:

- Literacy and language skills vary widely.
- Many American Indian/Alaskan Native Deaf know only ASL.
- Some American Indian/Alaskan Native Deaf know both ASL and reservation influenced “signing.”
- Many have various degrees of fluency in their tribal language.
- A few are fluent in ASL and Plains Indian Sign Language (i.e. James Woodenlegs).
- Many have language difficulties due to limited or restricted educational opportunities such as,
1. Use of tribal languages and Indian Sign Language (ISL)
2. Use of ASL and English
3. Use of specific ISL vocabulary

Ironically, Deaf North American Indians’ first natural language is their own ISL and not ASL.

Indian Sign Languages are still used today. Indian individuals who are D/deaf may have acquired it as a first language or may code-switch with ASL and/or English signing systems.

Who would have thought that Deaf people (along with hearing educators) would exhibit their own cultural discriminatory behaviors toward Deaf Indians by not allowing them to have their own ISL but are "forced" to use ASL? The study continues on the educational aspect:

D. Educational experiences of American Indian and Alaskan Native Deaf children.

As with other areas, there is little research on the experiences of the unique experiences of American Indian and Alaskan Deaf children. Some themes do emerge from the literature as well as from the experiences of NMIP consultants and Indian Deaf Community individuals. The IDC newsletters contain several articles contemporary issues of raising Indian children and maintaining the Traditional cultural linkages with family and community. Indian Deaf individuals who attend IDC conferences often have shared experiences of having a lack of cultural support during their school years; having a lack of Indian Deaf role modals or staff; remembering the curriculum as Euro-centric “Columbus discovered America;” remembering prejudicial treatment such as being “deloused” or having one’s hair cut without parental permission. These influences resulted in a disconnection or dissonance from community life and language; and a lack of recognition of cultural value’s and languages that the individual possessed. At the other end of these experiences are individuals who due to the early influences of Indian Sign Language had direct access to the cultural knowledge and teachings of their nations. Each individual experience is unique based on all of the factors of deafness such as age of onset, degree of loss and in addition the cultural acculturation and assimilation influences experienced by other Indian peoples. These individuals often walk in three worlds and three distinct cultural experiences.

Many Indian children live in remote locations. Other children live in urban settings or on reservations and pueblos nearer to deaf education programs. In more recent times, state schools have become more attuned to the multicultural issues within their school populations and have attempted to provide a more culturally relevant education. However, it is almost impossible within a “pan Indian” context to impart the specific language cultural traditions that come from life within a family and community context. Many parents are exploring ways to have Indian Deaf children receive an appropriate education nearer to home. Thus interpreter services become a required resource. It is important for the profession to provide Indian individuals opportunities to become education interpreters for both urban programs as well as community based schools. Current efforts are being made to support American Indian Deaf students that attend post secondary programs at Gallaudet University, the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, or attend other community colleges such as Pima Community College in Tucson.

At least Project Gutenberg has put together a compilation called “Sign Language Among North American Indians Compared With That Among Other Peoples And Deaf-Mutes,” by Garrick Mallery (year 1881) in the effort to help preserve the history of Indian sign language. It’s a huge file so allow yourself a minute for it to download onto your computer. Contains lots of drawings, stories and how a Deaf-mute Indian interacted with other Indians or non-Indians. Also, there is another historical collection entitled “AMERICAN INDIAN - UNIVERSAL SIGN LANGUAGE.”

I believe this would be required reading among all Deaf people, especially among those who are complaining mindlessly about how ASL is “disappearing” when in fact it’s the NAISL that is disappearing (or have already disappeared by now in some cases in different tribes). With thanks to schools, educators, local government and ASL-only advocators insisting that Deaf North American Indian youngsters learn ASL firstly rather than to encourage them to stay with their own native sign language such as ISL. ASL is NOT their native sign language in the first place!

Now, wouldn’t preventing ISL be considered as one of the "world’s greatest irony" by ASL advocates? Preserve ASL but forget NAISL or ISL when it has been around much, much longer than ASL? And seeing how ironic when NAISL was referenced in a book called “Forbidden Signs American Culture and the Campaign against Sign Language” when there is no way for young Deaf Indians to continue their own ISL naturally but are forced to abandon their own cultural sign language in order to use ASL while in Deaf schools. This is very sad, disturbing even and highly ironic considering the screaming as of late on how ASL is slowly “disappearing.” Better look at what most Deaf people did, collectively speaking, to the sign language culture of Deaf North American Indians. It's nearly gone!

So, if you are feeling a little bit guilty on your indirect (even direct) role on the elimination and destruction of Indian Sign Language then stop by at Gallaudet University tomorrow (November 17, 2007) at the Kellogg Conference Hotel from 5 to 8 PM and meet with the Intertribal Deaf Council to help celebrate the launch of Eagle VRS. News of this announcement was brought to by those who run Deaf Native website.

Perhaps someone out there will finally realize some role ASL has had on ISL and do something to ensure that Native American Deaf Indians’ first language is ISL only (and not ASL only) and help them preserve their thousand years worth of cultural heritage to grow and flourish.


UPDATE: Another link on Sign Language Among North American Native Indians. Pretty impressive stuff!

UPDATE II: Some more on how the English language (ie through American culture and beliefs) nearly killed off Indian's spoken (and ISL) language during the late 1800s and early 1900s.

"Specifically, the native children were taught English only and in most cases were forbidden to follow or practice their cultural traditions (e.g., Prucha 1986). Along with the decline of children's native language and culture, in most cases, was no doubt also the loss of sign language as an alternate means of communication. This is evidenced in the early ethnographic work and motion pictures produced by Hugh Lennox Scott (1931), which are well preserved in the National Archive in Washington, D.C. In the introduction to the film showing chieftains and elders from thirteen different tribes using sign language, Scott tells the chieftains that "it is important to preserve your signing through film because your sons are not learning the sign language."

UPDATE III: Check out "Native Hand Talkers - Meet One Today!"