Gears of paranoia

During the days of the anti-AB2072 protest there were several articles (here, here, and here for example) that were against the California AB2072 bill where they have reached Godwin's law status. Words were peppered with analogies of Nazi's own eugenics experiments as being the equivalent to what was happening with the AB2072 bill. Not only was this wrong but it's an insult to those who have died from such experiments of the Holocaust Days. Not only does this reek of paranoia it also potentially left a bad taste in many people's mouths about the Deaf community (in general) in California. It certainly didn't help for one Deaf organization in California that sent a flyer to California senators basically accussing them of eugenics if they support the AB2072 bill. Not a smart tactical move there. How would you feel if you got a letter saying if you don't support us then you're a Nazi sympathizer! Or something to that effect.

What would hearing parents of deaf/hh children think of the Deaf community in general now? What are hearing people's own perception in California after they watched the news on their television sets, accessed the internet, read the articles or saw Edwin Black do a lecture and become familiar with the whole AB2072 brouhaha? In Russell's own words in one of my blog comment section he said this.

You're right about parents accessing internet and would say WTF. More than half of the parents that I've talked to for the last 3 months were aware of AB 2072 fiasco. Most feel disturbed about the opposition of the bill and they questioned why they're always negative when there's an opportunity for everyone.

My experience from their reaction was not positive. The image of the community does taint into parents' minds. That's beyond my hands

I think those articles have hurt more than it has helped. Such use of Nazi analogies shouldn't be used. Even Dianrez agreed with this notion back in 2008 and it should not be any different in applying that opinion to that of today though she is curiously quiet about this part in relation to the AB2072 protest and use of Nazi analogies in the Deaf community.

Let’s not use Nazi analogies in our Deaf community. No one is plotting to exterminate us. Even exterminate ASL, since that has endured over 100 years despite oralism.

Saying otherwise would be an example of paranoia manifested in the form of hateful use of Nazi analogies and words of eugenics tossed carelessly about. The difference between a sane person who knows with utmost confidence about their own culture and language in its ability to survive and expand while gaining acceptance versus a desperate person who resorts to ad homenim attacks and Nazi analogies who thinks nothing but the worst that the Deaf community and its culture will come down to a crashing halt. What drivel. Signs of desperation and lack of faith.

The gears of paranoia churn in the heads of many. It's fine to be concerned but it gets to the point of ridiculousness by jumping into a sea of hyperbole in order to try and scare people over something that's not. And when that happens you'd have multitudes more gullible people believing in such nonsense information.

The missing ASLrocks.net video pages.....how to find them

Just recently I heard about the numerous complaints of videos disappearing from ASLrocks.net. And how some are calling it "unfair" or violation of their "freedom of speech". This "freedom of speech" violation is laughable because the owner owns that website and can do well what he or she pleases when it comes to operating it. Nobody's "freedom of speech" was violated there because it's a priviledge posting there, not a right. Please know your rights first. This is not one of them.

There's a very simple trick to all this if you want to see the old videos along with the video comments made. No mystery here but a very simple trick. This is what you need to do first.
Go to the original vlogs in YouTube's site and the videos in question that disappeared from ASLrocks.net pages. Be sure to write down the full title of that original video in YouTube.

Go to Google.

-Type in the words like - "ASLrocks.net" and be sure to put them in quotes.
-Then type in exactly the words of the name of the original video in YouTube that's gone missing in ASLrocks.net. For example, "Tidewater & USA" and make sure it's in quotes.

It'll look like this in Google search result.

And then click on one of the search results cache link which will finally get you to the cache page that captured the last snapshot of the missing videos that were removed. This includes all of the video comments from other participants as well you will see. Those video comments work fine if you want to view the video responses and the original video.

You can repeat this using other original video titles that have gone missing in ASLrocks.net. Make sure you put them in quotes "" and make sure you include "ASLrocks.net" at the same time in the Google search engine. Everything is there as far as I know. You can only view them and you cannot respond but they are there for your enjoyment.

Enjoy!

BTW, if you're wondering, I don't go to ASLrocks.net to watch. I like my DVTV when I'm in the mood. Sorry to disappoint ya guys.

An intellectual exercise on "Deaf statistics".....

In Deaf Sherlock's blog he wrote "28 Deaf people arrested in a year." Now, it was the VRS scam that netted 26 arrests with many notable Deaf names like Jon and Joseph Yeh. Y ou can see the list of 26 names here. We already know what the other two separate arrests that happened this year but that's not what I want to discuss. Among the 26 names only several names are recognized as Deaf people. The other names could very well be hearing people. So, it'd be incorrect to say a total of 28 Deaf people were arrested this year. Also, some of them just received a subpoena and not arrested. Unless there is proof that each of the person in the list is in fact a Deaf person who got arrested then I have no problem with the "28 Deaf people arrested in a year." But in reality it is more likely it's much less than "28 Deaf people" arrested in a year as seen in Deaf Sherlock's example.

Now, an interesting question comes to mind here. How many Deaf people get arrested each year? Whether they get arrested for DUI, domestic abuse, failure to appear in court, rape charges whether it's campus rape or not, rioting, protests (remember DPN2 arrests?), drug possesion, trespassing, stalking, vandalism or other more serious crimes. This includes Deaf juveniles such as teens who get arrested. Whatever the reason for the arrests but it'd be nearly impossible to find the average number of Deaf people who get arrested each year because such statistics are extremely hard to find and gather.

In the Sherlock's use of "28 Deaf people arrested" cannot be used as an absolute total number of Deaf people arrested so far this year. For all we know it could be 200 Deaf people arrested. It could be 50. It could be 1,000. Or it could be 10,000! We don't know for sure exactly. And to compound that we have people who are deaf/hh and not Deaf who get arrested each year as well. Although in the past I have blogged before on Deaf prisoners but that's not helpful in what I'm trying to do here.

The number of Deaf people in the U.S. varies between 600,000 to 1,000,000. Let's take a middle number like 800,000 Deaf people in the U.S just for simplicity sake. There are 310,000,000 people in the U.S. The ratio of Deaf people to hearing would be about to 1 out of 400. The number of arrests for all offenses each year for all people using a 2005 statistics from the FBI is approximately 14,000,000 arrests. Despite this it's best to look at the rate of arrests per number of inhabitants.

Nationwide, the 2005 rate of arrests was estimated at 4,761.6 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants..

We can expect that some of 4,761 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants (or 0.047 arrest rate) which we can conclude safely that it does include Deaf people that were arrested. When one says "arrest" it doesn't mean convicted, prosecuted, and/or imprisoned. Just arrested for a crime to be booked. Many are released and not face jail time and instead be on probation or pay a penalty fine. Many, if not most, do end up in jail or incarcerated.

Since people are human and the crimes are the same regardless if a person has a hearing loss or not and that we're all equal as far as human frailty is concerned, the rate of arrests nationwide is 0.047 or 4.7 percent. That means we can expect 37,000 arrests out of a Deaf population of 800,000 every year (simple math, 0.047 times 800,000 equals 37,000). Remember, arrests can be for minor charges to the more serious. Some arrests are multiple arrests for the same person. Again, let me stress this to you folks before you go all hyper on me like you usually do. 37,000 arrests DOES NOT MEAN 37,000 Deaf people arrested each year. It means possibly that up to 37,000 arrests on average are expected each year in a Deaf population of 800,000. It'd be impossible to know exactly the average number of Deaf people that get arrested each year but we can make some assumptions on the average number of arrests in a Deaf population. A different thing here. If you are getting angry at this 37,000 arrest number then you need to either re-read what I just wrote or have someone else explain it to you.

Now, having said all that. Since the Deaf population is a recognized minority group that's quite distinct due to its uniqueness as a culture group any high profile arrests of Deaf people that gets splattered across the news headlines will probably get more notice than not. For example, the VRS scam involving many notable Deaf names. And are much more likely to have an impact on the image of the Deaf community than not simply due to its being a recognized and unique minority group.

So, it's rather a gross and rookie mistake to use the "28 Deaf people arrested in a year" to figure out the statistics on the number of Deaf people arrested in a year. Right, DonG? Doing so is nearly an impossible task to try and do in the first place since there is no database that I know of that collect that kind of rather personal and specific information.

The Deaf Dr. Evil Plot......exposed!

Interesting to see the responses in Dianrez's recent blog. One thing I'll have to correct her is her assumption that my recent video was about saving face. Hardly. If she had bothered to pay close attention it was about the ridiculousness of assuming that my quote "Heh heh...my plan is working flawlessly" is meant that I'm somehow planning to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community like some people actually believed here, here, here and most recently today seen here, for example just to name a few. In fact, some people were already proposing these wild conspiracy theories at the very beginning that there were these "super-secret" meetings between me, Barry, Paotie, and whoever else. Before I even started doing the whole Dr. Evil routine quote.

That conspiratorial thinking probably started about more than two years ago when Barry first came on the blogging scene in 2008. So, if people were willing to believe some conspiratorial nonsense about us conspiring together for the ultimate destruction of the Deaf community, I decided to have some fun beginning in Paotie's blog in June 2008 doing the whole Dr. Evil act. And again here. I repeated that again probably 3 or 4 times in my blog as well. If people desperately wanted to believe in their own conspiracy theories about me and other Deaf, deaf, hh people getting together to conspire to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community, I decided to play along since they desperately wanted to believe in it anyway.

Get it? I hope you do, Dianrez.

Hence with all the recent conspiratorial nonsense thrown about at me as seen in my blog comments lately were probably manifested as a result of my Dr. Evil comment started over two years ago and have since floated throughout the minds of many Deaf readers up to today. Which is why I keep saying, "Remove those insipid thoughts of any lingering conspiracy theory about me. You'll sleep better at night." In other words, you'd be playing yourself for a fool to even suggest such that there is such a plot on taking down the Deaf community. It's just plain common sense.

And, Paotie, I know you're laughing already.

So, the big secret is out! Only that I didn't need to explain all this to you, Dianrez, since the very notion that I'm out to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community would have been absurd to you in the first place. Right? Yet, somehow I have the feeling you didn't quite understand all that simply because of the fact of you calling me out as "saving face" in my latest video vlog which was totally incorrect. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to this whole "Dr. Evil" scenario I played with the pinky finger in the lips thing on several occassions over the last few years but it's certainly not about saving face. It's about the ridiculousness of how some people actually believe in this whole conspiracy nonsense from the very beginning. Even some "leaders" fell for that nonsense, too. Sure. We expected that people would because they wanted to desperately believe in that.

About Barry and to help calm the nervous minds out there.

The first time I heard of Barry was back in early 2008 when he did his first blog. I enjoyed and liked his philosophy on many things, and so naturally I saw the things he said and agreed with many things on what he said. I think it was the fact that I publicly agreed with him in his blog comments did people began to speculate about us. And since people were already into this conspiratorial thinking mode that somehow we were in collusion on the planning for the ultimate destruction of the Deaf community, the DBC, AFA, Deafhood, and whatever-Deaf-organization-you-can-think-of! Sorry to disappoint you folks but that's pure bunk. Stop being so paranoid as I have said. We do have strong opinions about some of these Deaf organizations, the Deaf "leaders," their way of doing things, and differences in our philosophies, and so on. That pretty much sums it up. But just because we disagree strongly with other notable Deaf people doesn't mean we're out to destroy the Deaf community. That's pretty much common sense right there and I shouldn't even have to explain all this, either, incredibly so.

I decided to sign since I have discussed this before elsewhere on the ridiculousness of that assumption. I see paranoia and suspicion as an ongoing problem in some segments of the Deaf community. Just a tiny fraction, mind you, of those who are actively connected to the internet. This sort of paranoia could be seen in several articles on the AB2072 issue by invoking Godwin's Law along with eugenics and the Nazism labels in articles written by Deaf supporters of AB2072! I blogged about that saying it doesn't make any sense to use Nazi analogies and people shouldn't be using Nazi labels in such a way within the Deaf community. It reflects poorly on them in my opinion. And by pointing that out it's not attacking the Deaf community as some people are wont to believe but about how those articles reeked a sense of desperation.

I'm curious now. Exactly what was Dianrez's view of using Nazi analogies in those articles at the height of the AB2072 brouhaha? Did she at all speak up on that? She was strangely quiet about that over the past several months. Dianrez, was it appropriate to use those Nazi-labels, connotations and or implications in those AB2072 articles written up by Deaf people, even by the chapter president (Sacramento) of CAD in order to advance their cause?

Have a good night, folks. Sweet conspiratorial dreams.

My Plan is Working Flawlessly! *rubs hands*

Here's a little video message to some people in the Deaf community and how their paranoia shows everytime they use my "famous quote" thinking its real. Some of you gotten to the point of surreal daftyness thinking my goal is to "destroy" or "hurt" the Deaf community. *laughs* And I'm signing in ASL, too. My advice? Leave your paranoia and conspiracy theories at home. You'll sleep better that way.

A psychological conundrum

Now, for my "intellectual" look on what's has happened in my recent blog regarding my questions where many refused to even answer. Instead, some chose the conspiracy theory route that I'm somehow out to "destroy" or "hurt" the Deaf community which is nothing but a surreal assumption. Laughable. Yeah, I am a one man-wrecking army set out to see the collapse of the Deaf community. So, what were the main crux of my questions that gotten some of them up in arms so quickly?

All in all, when combined with these past events did they help tarnish the image of the Deaf community in various ways and perception? What are the lasting effects?

These may be uncomfortable questions to some people but they shouldn't be. These are honest and hard questions. A way to elevate the community's thinking and discussion. If you don't have an answer then say it rather than have these knee jerk responses peppered with conspiracy theory thoughts. Even Tayler Mayer and Errigo understand me in their signed video responses to O'Lois on what I do with my blogging and it has nothing to do with underming the Deaf community. No armchair psychology analysis from them. And there is no need to be defensive here, either. Just answer the questions as honestly as you can. That's all.

Now, don't force me to use my "look" with my glasses the next time.

I'm warning ya! It's deadly......

ADDENDUM: From Dianrez this morning:

Tsk, McConnell. With your record of repeatedly going on attack against Deaf people and their efforts to raise consciousness about issues such as AB2702 or Deafhood or infant ASL, it's no wonder your spotlighting Deaf criminals in your blog would provoke controversy. There are readers, like me, who feel you get your kicks stirring the pot and poking around repeatedly to try to get the answer you want. If a different blogger raised this topic, it would certainly not engender the response you have.

Repeatedly attack Deaf people? That's a pretty wild claim there. Is this an example of a conspiracy thinking going into overdrive? I made my disagreements and agreements known in my blogs about the whole AB2072 controversy but rarely do I ever "attack" Deaf people in my blogs. I am usually critical just like Dianrez is doing this to me. Should I call her recent blog as attacking me? No. Rather it's just a critical opinion piece about me just as I have been critical, for example, of Tim Riker's attempt to criticize an oral deaf person for using his voice when he used his. Be careful of that word, "attack," Dianrez. That stuff usually falls into the realm of conspiracy thinking attitudes. There are indeed times when people do viciously attack but being critical of something takes on a different approach. But you are free to express your opinion. Some people are merely more sensitive when their own sensibilities get offended than others. Others recognize my work in what I do in order to raise questions and consciousnesses of the collective deaf and hh communities that might otherwise be "uncomfortable" to some. And sometimes I'm the only one who would even dare try and challenge people's thinking or comments in my blog (e.g. Tim Riker criticizing an oral deaf man for using his voice) when no one else would do so.

Of course, anything that's controversial will get people to ask questions that will surely and undoubtedly be seen as stirring the pot. Minestrone soup anyone? Maybe Dianrez is suggesting that it's better not to ask some of these questions and stick our heads in the sand? Until we ask questions we won't know. There are people who are curious of the answers, like me. But one thing for sure, it'd be best to remove those insipid thoughts on any lingering conspiracy thinking before making assumptions about my postings.

Dianrez, thanks for the advice but I'll blog my way, and you blog your way. I don't go around telling people how to blog do I? But you have no problem doing that to other people do you? *looks over my glasses at you*

ADDENDUM II: A refresher and some helpful advice on what I blogged three years ago called, "When Sensibilities and Senses are Challenged." Enjoy.

Image of the Deaf community - tainted?

Boy, a lot has happened over the last several months beginning late last year. I can think of four major controversies or events that have happened. The arrest of 26 people in the latest VRS scam with notable Deaf names like John Yeh (owner and CEO of Viable), Joseph Yeh, Anthony Mowl, and Donald Tropp; the arrest, jailing and sentencing of Micah Brown who was at one time an adjunct professor of Gallaudet University and at one time a well known Deaf Democrat blogger who is now a registered sex offender; the AB2072 bill brouhaha in California that were rife with conspiracy theories about "evil" audiologists and California Legislature members; and the arrest of he-who-shall-not-be-named for charges that remain unclear at this point who is also probably the best known Deaf blogger and vlogger around whose trademark is to trash Deaf, deaf and hard of hearing people and call them names. Everyone of them, high profiled events with well known names associated with them. All within a span of 11 months.

So, which ones are the more damaging to the image of the Deaf community? That depends on who you ask. But the damage has already been done. And one of the effects of getting arrested is if you have a blog or vlog and it is not set on moderation people will take advantage of that like in the recent he-who-shall-not-be-named YouTube site. The latest news of his arrest will continue to reverberate in the Deaf community for some time, especially it being the growing number one controversy discussion in YouTube by various vloggers.

All in all, when combined with these past events did they help tarnish the image of the Deaf community in various ways and perception? What are the lasting effects? No one knows for sure. Paper bag anyone?

Karma's a bitch?

The news about a recent jailing of he-shall-not-be-named is starting to spread since it was announced yesterday on YouTube. And that reminded me of a cartoon I did a few months back about Karma, the dog. Now, when you're in jail it doesn't mean you're guilty. In a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty. Although his mugshot doesn't inspire much confidence in that theory while he's held in custody for reasons that are unclear at this moment. I am basically indifferent and in short don't much care for all this which is why I am writing this blog today. For years I had hoped he would change his behavior instead of "machine gunning" people down at Deaf, deaf, and hard of hearing people he doesn't like hoping to get a response from them. And many do respond angrily to his delight. That was his trademark, and a bad one at that. And because of that he was then persona non grata in my vlogs and blogs for the past few years now. He just wasn't worth it. I even approached him in person 4 years ago and told him that his blog has so much potential if only he knock off the continual attacking and disparaging remarks.

Prior to my initiated handshake with ***** I told him that his blog has lots of potential but if he keeps it up by disparaging other people including their families, somebody else will go after him.

And now, suddenly, he's in the glaring spotlight in such a surreal way. And I'm sure many are jumping with glee and joy that he finally got what coming to him, the guy that everybody loves to hate. Yet I don't take joy in all that just as well when Micah Brown was arrested earlier this year and found guilty for his crime. It just makes me shake my head in all this. Until more information on exactly why he's in jail I will have to wait and see. Just hope he will come out for the better, unharmed and humbled by all this experience. I'm writing this if people are wondering about what I think about all this and I'm setting the record straight here. That's all I have to say for now.

ADDENDUM: He came out of jail. Something to do with an error on mandatory court appearance and miscommunication. Yet, he hasn't been humbled by all this.

As a deaf/hh person, where were you when 9/11 happened?

Where were you when 9/11 happened? I remember exactly where I was that day when I received the news that one of the towers collapsed did I realize the enormity of this tragic event unfolding. About two hours earlier as I drove my way to a fishery dam that I was supervising which was going to be breached and deconstructed in order to restore channel flow, in my vehicle I briefly heard on my radio that a plane flew into one of the New York city's building. I immediately had the impression that it was a small commuter airplane that erroneously and tragically flew into a building just like the one time in 1945 a plane flew into the Empire State Building. Two hours later while I was supervising the deconstruction a fellow worker came down and told me the bad news. After that I dreaded going home and see it all on television after I listened to the radio during my two hour drive back home listening to the heart-breaking story.

Most Americans problably remember exactly where they were when the first heard or saw the tragic event. As a deaf or hard of hearing person, tell us where you were on that tragic day exactly 9 years ago on 9/11. Do you remember it vividly?

Kathy Buckley - a deaf comedianne.

Here's Kathy Buckley, a well known deaf comedianne in a signing video at the world premiere opening of SEE WHAT I'M SAYING at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood.




It's rare to come across deaf comedians/comediannes nowadays but surely and slowly we are seeing more of them hitting the comedy circuits whether as a novice or an old pro. Although I did a bit of comedy skits myself in the past. How about my recent video parody of a Pepsi commercial "Uncle Bob's House"?



Heh.

The role of audiologists

From American Speech-Language-Hearing Association they produced a 2007 position paper called "Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs" that was adopted by a joint committee on infant hearing. Below is the position statement:

The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) endorses early detection of and intervention for infants with hearing loss. The goal of early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) is to maximize linguistic competence and literacy development for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Without appropriate opportunities to earn language, these children will fall behind their hearing peers in communication, cognition, reading, and social-emotional development. Such delays may result in lower educational and employment levels in adulthood (Holden & Diaz, 1998). To maximize the outcome for infants who are deaf or hard of hearing, the hearing of all infants should be screened no later than 1 month of age. Those not passing screening should have a comprehensive audiologic evaluation no later than 3 months of age. Infants with confirmed hearing loss should receive appropriate intervention no later than 6 months of age from health care and education professionals with expertise in hearing loss and deafness in infants and young children. Regardless of previous hearing-screening outcomes, all infants with or without risk factors should receive ongoing surveillance of communicative development beginning at 2 months of age during well-child visits in the medical home (American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] Medical Home Initiatives, 2002). EHDI systems should guarantee seamless transitions for infants and their families through this process.

This was a 2007 position paper where a number of revisions were made to improve it from the 2000 position paper. One thing that was updated can be seen on page 2 in the Early Invention section:

• Early intervention services for infants with confirmed hearing loss should be provided by professionals with expertise in hearing loss, including educators of the deaf, speech-language pathologists, and audiologists.
• In response to a previous emphasis on “natural environments,” the committee recommends that both home-based and center-based intervention options should be offered.

And on page 3 on Communication that was updated for 2007:

• Families should be made aware of all communication options and available hearing technologies (presented in an unbiased manner). Informed family choice and desired outcome guide the decision-making process.

Throughout the position paper it brings up sign language several times such as this one on page 23.

Early intervention professionals should follow family-centered principles to assist in developing communicative competence of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing (Baker-Hawkins & Easterbooks, 1994; Bamford, 1998; Fischer, 1994). Families should be provided with information specific to language development and access to peer and language models as well as family-involved activities that facilitate language development of children with normal hearing and children who are hard of hearing or deaf (Marschark, 1997; Thompson, 1994). Depending on family choices, families should be offered access to children and adults with hearing loss who are appropriate and competent language models. Information on spoken language and signed language, such as American Sign Language (Pollack, Goldberg, & Caleffe-Schenck, 1997) and cued speech, should be provided.

And then we get to what the role is for audiologists from the National Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 2007 Position paper on EDHI programs. The National Joint Committee is a multidisciplinary committee.

An audiologist is a person who, by virtue of academic degree, clinical training, and license to practice, is qualified to provide services related to the prevention of hearing loss and the audiological diagnosis, identification, assessment, and nonmedical and nonsurgical treatment of persons with impairment of auditory and vestibular function, and to the prevention of impairments associated with them. Audiologists serve in a number of roles. They provide newborn hearing-screening program development, management, quality assessment, service coordination and referral for audiological diagnosis, and audiological treatment and management. For the follow-up component, audiologists provide comprehensive audiological diagnostic assessment to confirm the existence of the hearing loss, ensure that parents understand the significance of the hearing loss, evaluate the infant for candidacy for amplification and other sensory devices and assistive technology, and ensure prompt referral to early intervention programs. For the treatment and management component, audiologists provide timely fitting and monitoring of amplification devices. Other audiologists may provide diagnostic and auditory treatment and management services in the educational setting and provide a bridge between the child/family and the audiologist in the clinic setting as well as other service providers. Audiologists also provide services as teachers, consultants, researchers, and administrators.

The position paper also states at the end in the document (page 32) on who adopted the position statement by naming joint committee members (and please note the bolded words).

Joint committee member organizations that adopt this statement include (in alphabetical order): the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the American Academy of Audiology, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the Council on Education of the Deaf (see individual organizations listed above), and the Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies.

What's interesting is to see that members of this joint committee include the Council on Education of the Deaf, and Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
with names like:

Beth S. Benedict, PhD
Galluadet University
Washington, DC

Bobbie Scoggins, EdD
Sioux Falls, SD

Judy Harrison, MA (AG Bell Staff)
Washington DC

Recognize Bobbie Scoggins? She is the president of NAD. And you have a representive of Gallaudet University that adopted the position paper as well along with a representative from AG Bell on the role of audiologists.

I think the audiologists' role seem to be well defined here as seen in the position paper along with some broad defining roles added to it. I think the CAA has a legitimate concern over the revised August 20th AB2072 bill from that of the August 17th bill which they accepted seeing how their role as audiologists was compromised in this most recent AB2072 bill revision. There should be some flexibility to what an audiologist can do along what it cannot do rather than assuring that they be completely constrained.

Now, I've read Marla's Musings seeing how she seemed have twisted some words regarding CAA, the Mendoza letter and the audiologist's role. Some responses had no real bearing on the role of audiologists since for infant hearing screening they help ensure early intervention through referrals to early intervention specialists, including access to ASL. Regardless, I think this will get addressed soon enough.

Questioning DBC's hit counter... an illusion?

My thoughts about my recent blog on fake award badges (of which Fookem & Bug finally removed their questionable "Top Blog" award badge) turned me to thinking about the Deaf Bilingual Coalition's website. I couldn't help but noticed DBC's visitor hit counter prominently shown near the top of their website. The number I saw just a few minutes ago had a hit count of 2,495,575 hits. That got me thinking. That number literally does not add up since I know that DBC website first went up in late spring or summer of 2008 using the Archive.org site to ascertain the initial date of that website going public. And with my curiousity piqued I did a little investigation.

I used Google's search engine to use its cache feature to see what was the visitor count according to Google's last "snapshot" of that website. The Google cache captured the DBC website on August 31, 2010 showed a hit counter at 2,489,421. That's 6 days apart from Google cache record to today's count with a difference of 6,154 hits. Assuming this counter is true in over 6 days worth that's about 1,000 hits a day. Even this number might be questionable as well when compared to my website where I normally get anywhere from 400 to 800 hits a day.

Using the Alexa traffic rank website my website has a traffic rank of 3,894,629 (as of September 2010) while the DBC website has a traffic rank of 14,204,188. My blogsite is almost 7 years old with over 800,000 hits. But DBC is about 2 years old with supposedly 2,495,575 hits yet it ranks much lower than mine? With 2,495,575 hits in 2 years that's the equivalent of 104,000 hits a month yet in six days it racked up about 6,000 hits (assuming this is even true) which would leave about 30,000 hits in a month. Supposing the "2,495,575 hits" is true then certainly Alexa's website would've easily shown that.

This analysis of mine has nothing to do with who has the bigger number of hits. That's besides point here. It's about the obvious discrepancies I am seeing with DBC's own visitor counter number. And frankly, my conclusion is that whoever put that counter up with the high hits isn't being honest.

The hating of Russell Errigo....

Interesting comments seen below under Russell Errigo's YouTube "AB2072 - You Don't Own Deaf Babies!" which were pretty much an attempt to take pot shots at Russell. This got me thinking of why some of these people do these "loathings" in the first place. First, let's look at the word "self-loathing" which means to "self-hate." In Russell's case Annonymousasl claimed that Russell "self-hate" his own identity. Yeah, don't laugh folks. Keep your giggles to a minimum.

(by Annonymousasl) - It is amazing how much self-loathing you have for your identity. I finding it IRONIC that you are using the same communication method you tend to bash to get your point across. This last vlog of yours really shows the real you, not by what you say, but by that disillusioned face you show through your entire vlog. You may SIGN whatever you want, but that face reveals your true feelings.

Go ahead, respond with one of those defensive answers of yours. May you be happy with who you truly are.

And Russell responded

Obviously, you have some difficulty accepting that options are here to stay. Options shall be respected regardless how you feel about it. When you say something like this in a negative matter, you're putting the hearing parents in a position for not wanting to be part of deaf community. You're setting yourself as an example.

My video has shown a positive reenforcement for everybody. And, your comments have proven a narrow one sided viewpoint.

One more thing...we knew it's going to be like this when we made a decision to implant our son.We knew people like you will loathe us. We knew people with their viewpoint like yours will always be an issue.

Bottom line...it's our decision.

dominicerrigo 2 days ago

So, what is exactly Russell Errigo's identity? No one knows exactly for sure except Russell himself and really it's none of our business because it's a personal thing. Our own identity is defined by many things in our own life and not wholly about our hearing loss. The only person who is having issues about some one else's "identity" is Anonymousasl who is obviously a very insecure person. Instead of applauding diversity or supporting informed parental choices for their deaf/hh children, Anonymousasl goes on an anonymous cowardly rant about how Russell "self-loathe" himself about his own identity. What utter nonsense.

I'd say that for some Deaf people who loathe other Deaf, deaf or hard of hearing people's decisions on their communication methods, their support of parents for making informed choices regarding their deaf/hh children, or the choice on cochlear implant might want to do some serious introspecting of themselves about their hate. This is all about informed choices. As for Russell's videos they are certainly better than a bunch of ranting videos whining about other Deaf, deaf or hard of hearing people and in the process encouraging more vitriol and hate. Such a bore. Although the number one whining video in my view has to do with monopoly money. Can't beat that one.

Did Fookem & Bug get punk'd?

Maybe "punk'd" is the wrong word but I have a few questions about the "award"badge seen on the Fookem & Bug website that they pasted on seen on the right side of their main page near the top (see screen capture of Fookem & Bug with the badge award picture). The blog award badge says "TOP HEARING IMPAIRED BLOG 2010. AWARD WINNER" and clicking on that badge links you to the Medical Assistant Schools "top hearing impaired" web page that lists "hearing impaired"....uh... "blog winners" including some of the well known and recognized blogs like Candy, E?What?Huh?, Jared Evans Global Microbrand, An American Mom in Tuscany, and Dorkette:Exposed.

Eh?What?Huh?
http://www.ehwhathuh.com/

Found in Blank
http://www.foundinblank.com/

The Frost Village Blog
http://frostvillage.com/blog/

Adreanaline
http://www.adreanaline.com/blog/

Grumpy Old Deafies
http://www.grumpyoldeafies.com/

Deaf Special Needs
http://www.deafspecialneeds.com/

Show of Hands
http://aslperformingarts.blogspot.com/

Diversity In Deafhood
http://deafprogressivism.blogspot.com/

Ben Fletcher
http://benfletcher.wordpress.com/

Big Ben Factor
http://bigbenfactor.wordpress.com/

Sharlyn Ayotte's Blog
http://billyclarkstudios51.blogspot.com/

Candy
http://candysweetblog.wordpress.com/

Deaf Chef At Large
http://www.deafchefatlarge.com/

Tactile The World
http://tactiletheworld.wordpress.com/

Just Singin' & Singin' in the Sun
http://danielgreene.com/

Hearing Mojo
http://hearingmojo.com/

Deaf Chipmunk
http://deafchipmunk.com/

Deaf Civil Rights Movement
http://deafcivilrightsmovement.wordpress.com/

Deaf411 Online v\Blog
http://deaf411online.com/blog/

Deafinitely Girly
http://www.deafinitelygirly.com/

Going Deaf
http://denareiter.blogspot.com/

Donald's Deaf\hard Of Hearing Technology Blog
http://prosumertech.blogspot.com/

Liz's Deaf Blog
http://l1zblog.wordpress.com/

My Opinion Here
http://geminisigner.blogspot.com/

Fookem And Bug
http://fookembug.wordpress.com/

Campaining For Deaf Children
http://iannoon.wordpress.com/

J. Parrish Lewis
http://jparrishlewis.com/

Through a Deaf Lens
http://www.thedeaflens.com/

Jared Evans Global Microbrand
http://www.jaredlog.com/

The Deaf Edge
http://deafpundit.wordpress.com/

Deaf Politics Blog
http://blog.deafpolitics.org/

An American Mom In Tuscany
http://rallycapsdotnet.blogspot.com/

Crazy Deaf Joe Blog
http://www.crazydeafjoe.net/

Curse Of Silence
http://ilsordo.blogspot.com/

ABC
http://johnlestina.blogspot.com/index.html

Deaf Women In Film
http://dwif.blogspot.com/

Love Daddy
http://www.lovedaddy.org/

A Deaf Mom
http://deafmomworld.com/

The Dream You Are living Is Your Creation
http://jimikiwi.blogspot.com/

Dorkette:Exposed
http://gnarlydorkette.blogspot.com/

Besides Fookem & Bug that got punk'd there are a few others that also displayed the badge award on their website such as an ASL website called Show of Hands where you can see the award badge seen at the bottom of their webpage, and Deaf Women in Film has that badge award, too. Out of a list of 40 blog "winners" three blogsites actually displayed this bogus award badge that links to a spam/bogus website.

I might understand how others may have put that blog award badge on their blog/website but Fookem & Bug? I'd at least expect these Deaf guys to question such an award badge, especially when it when it comes to controversial words that may offend the sensibilities of some Deaf people like "hearing impaired." And that it came from a website designed to point people as "one-stop" shop on getting your online degree in medical assistance. If you didn't know it you can tell it's a spam website if you spotted the statement on their award page where it says:

These blogs will cover topics ranging from prevention tips to treatment.

That was a red flag right there. Now, tell me. What are the odds that these blogsites will cover medical topics on hearing loss on prevention tips and medical treatments?

Right. It's a spam website.

Also, notice the link address that lists the "Top 40 Hearing Impaired Blogs" and look at the bolded part I outlined:

http://www.medicalassistantschools.org/top_hearing_impaired

From that URL layout and recognizing it as a spam website I did a quick Google search and sure enough there are several other disabilities sites that the Medical Assistant Schools website list as part of their fake "Top Blog Award" campaign effort.

Here's the screen capture of my Google search result.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Fookem & Bug, and others, you've been PUNK'D!

And who would've thought this could ever happen?

Oral Deaf Man Criticicizes Other Oral Deaf Man for Using His Voice

It was pretty incredible, bold, and foolish at the same time for Tim Riker (chapter president (Sacramento) of California of the Deaf) to criticize and demean a deaf man, John Fortius/Fortias, as seen in his response to my blog yesterday for using his voice in show of his support of the AB2072 bill on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing.

(Tim Riker) - I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him.

Since Tim Riker didn't say exactly who but there is only one man who used his voice and supported the AB2027 bill in the video recording of the meeting and that was John Fortius, a volunteer deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County. Tim Riker can only be talking about John Fortius. There can be no other person he could be talking about except John Fortius.

What is galling and irresponsible for Tim Riker is to criticize without any merit saying that John Fortius' (profoundly deaf since birth) speech was "unintelligble." Tim Riker's comment was done in poor taste. It was rather unprofessional for Tim Riker to use his position as chapter president of CAD to go after another deaf man for using his voice when in fact he also used his voice on that same day as well. It is rather an unsavory move for him to use his position to try and convince many others of that false claim in order to push his ASL agenda and lob a few conspiracy bombs about audiologists while he's at it.

Tim, I can tell you for a fact that John Fortius' speech was indeed intelligible and was understood for perhaps 98% to 99% of his speech. Mind the fact that were two unofficial transcripts (see below) that recorded all of his speech that day. Also, one ASL interperter was able to interpret what he said as seen in the video starting at 20:48. I was able to understand most of his speech just by listening to the recorded video. And he spoke fine to me. There is no need to get into details on how his voice sounded like which is, of course, not like what a hearing person's speech would sound like. His speech was "unintelligble" only to Tim Riker who is deaf and uses a hearing aid. Perhaps he should consider the fact about his own hearing loss and the limitation of how he can discriminate another person's speech? Perhaps he could not understand John Fortius' speech because he has a deep voice? Tim Riker needs to understand that some deaf/hh people are able to hear better when people's voices are in the higher frequency range than lower ones like men's voices. Or vice versa. Or that some deaf/hh people can hear very well in both the higher and lower frequency range of a person's voice. In this case, it was only Tim Riker who could not understand him while everybody else could to one degree or another.

Secondly, Senator Alquist did not interrupt John Fortius "several times" as Tim Riker tried to put it. In fact, she only interrupted him once to ask him to speak from his heart and not look at his notes. That can be seen in the video. You can also see that in the transcript, too. How disengenuous of Tim Riker to say those things in order to push his ASL agenda while as chapter president of CAD, no less. He even contributed to a heavily biased "eugenics" article called California Eugenics-Style Bill Creates Uproar Among the Deaf Community. Anything to do to push an agenda, eh? Kick another deaf man down for using his voice and then try and prop him up saying that the Deaf community would welcome him?

Nice move.

Here's the unofficial transcript below and in the video John Fortius begins to talk at 20:48:

JOHN FORTIUS: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortius, I am 32 years old, and I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I’m here today in support of this bill. At a young age, when my Mom found out that I had lost my hearing, she decided that she was going to do the oral-auditory approach, and this in part because she had prior training to my birth, she had a speech pathologist. As a result of her guidance and some education through oral-auditory school, I was mainstreamed in preschool and on. Some of my [accomplishments] since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Williamette University in Salem, Oregon. Was a college football player, and just a year ago, I recently graduated from law school. And continuously, from the time that I graduated from college, I’ve been continuously employed when not in school. Just most recently I have been working as a deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County as a volunteer. Currently–

SEN. ALQUIST: And why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: Why am I supportive of the bill?

SEN. ALQUIST: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.

FORTIUS: It gives people an opportunity–a chance to [pause] have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be a more [unintelligible] life. It would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not–I’m going off my speech–I’m the first to admit that I am not part of the Deaf Community. I have–I don’t associate with it, but I am an advocate of you know, just the best thing–the best course of action, whatever that might be–for disabled people. And so that is a big part of why I’m here today. And–

SEN. ALQUIST: Just speak to me.

FORTIUS: What’s that?

SEN. ALQUIST: I like what you’re saying. Don’t look at your notes. Just–why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: OK, basically, what I’m getting from, is when we’re faced with such an important decision in our lives, when is not being fully informed the best solution? And it’s logical, it’s common sense, and I believe seriously that being fully informed in any big decision in your life is very important, and so that is a big reason of why I’m here today in support of this bill.

SEN. ALQUIST: Thank you very much.

FORTIUS: Thank you.

This transcript follows almost exactly in another unofficial transcript as well which goes to show that John Fortius' speech was indeed quite intelligible that day.

My advice to you Tim Riker? Leave out your business of criticizing other deaf or hard of hearing people's speech and their choices to use them or not. Not doing so will make you look bad as chapter president of CAD.

And lastly, Tim Riker complained that I used his name without permission of which I find humorous.

Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission.

No permission is required or needed in this case. Tim Riker gave his name and spoke at the June 23, 2010 AB2072 Senate Health hearing which was captured and recorded on video for the public made possible by California taxpayers. This means that the mentioning of his name in that video and what he said are now a matter of public record and for public consumption. What I did was copy the verbatim part of Tim Riker's comment in one of the transcripts. It's all part of the public record, Tim. No permission is required.

I support both John Fortius and Tim Riker's use of their voices regardless of the situation when there are interpreters available. I'm not in the position to criticize other deaf/hh people choice's to use their voice or sign using ASL or SEE (or whatever). The important point here is that deaf/hh people have the right to decide which methods to use to communicate. For Tim Riker to criticize another deaf man's use of his voice is a serious step back on CAD's own credibility as an organization. This time, I and many others doubt Tim Riker's sincerity after he criticized and demeaned John Fortius by saying this:

...there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him

Really, Tim? After what you have done so far? Unity for whom now?

*shakes head*

Tim Riker, chapter president of CAD, respond to Kokonut Pundit

In my blog, "Use of voice is way, way better than ASL! ", Tim Riker, chapter president (Sacramento) of CAD, responded in my blog comment section on why he choose to use his voice at the AB2072 California Senate Health Hearing. I am putting his combined responses here for ease of reading for my readers and a forum for him and others to respond and discuss here. Although for now I am assuming this is him responding unless otherwise notified.

Tim Riker - I had discussed with the people involved with the CDNIAS coalition regarding whether I should speak or sign during the hearing. I had their support to speak. Both ASL and spoken English were at my disposal because of my bilingual education while growing up. The general rule is to first consider the main audience when selecting which language to use. Then if you are able to use that language directly and fluently then use it. If not, then use an interpreter. This applies to any situation and any language. When someone who is fluent in Spanish decides to speak English to a predominantly Spanish speaking audience, then of course that would be considered very offensive. My audience was predominantly English speaking and my choice was appropriate for that situation. Tim Riker.

And another response in the same blog comment section.

First, I want to make it clear that every language needs to be respected, whether it's American Sign Language (ASL), English, Spanish or some other language. To deny any language the equal respect it deserves is called linguicism. Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission. I don't see anyone pointing out that Assembly Member Tony Mendoza or any of the other Hispanic legislators spoke English rather than Spanish in the Capitol. If someone wrote an article celebrating that a Hispanic person chose to speak English rather than Spanish in a specific situation, wouldn't that be an insult to Hispanic people who speak Spanish? I want to note that I am multilingual and select the most appropriate language for each situation. My first languages are both ASL and English and I have my family who used ASL with me and my bilingual education at Maryland School for the Deaf to thank for having multiple languages at my disposal. The fact that I spoke English during the California Senate Health Hearing was because the primary audience I was speaking to were the Senators who voted on this bill-- all of whom speak English. However, the most comfortable language for me in most situations is and will always be ASL. I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him. There are many with that background who have done that and they were among those who fought the hardest against AB 2072. I believe having a strong foundation and immersion in two different languages provided me the versatility I needed for various settings. However, how well I speak does not define who I am or my success. I know many very gifted, educated and successful Deaf people who use ASL to communicate and they don't hear or speak at all. I have nothing but respect for them and their contributions. Tim Riker

He also responded in my blog "Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?"

I discussed whether I should speak English or use American Sign Language while testifying with the core committee. I had the support of the core committee. I think it's a general cultural rule if you're fluent in ASL but choose to speak English to a predominantly Deaf audience, it is offensive. In my case, even though there were many Deaf people watching, the main audience were the Senators on the Health Committee who ultimately had to vote on the bill. As a multilingual Deaf person, I spoke English with the support of other Deaf people because it was appropriate for me in that situation. By the way, please beware of Candy since I notice she will quote what other people say out of context. She did that earlier by quoting only a small part of my comment on another blog several months ago when I explained how audism and dysconscious audism in society creates a hierarchy. It's actually in every person's best interest to promote English and ASL bilingual education for every Deaf child so they can eventually choose for themselves which language they use for each situation. More importantly, when society is equally accepting of ASL, you will shatter this hierarchy which affects everyone regardless of how well they hear or speak. Tim Riker

Use of voice is way, way better than ASL!

There you go, this has taken me four years to get to this point where I can now use three different actual situations from three different people who are Deaf, deaf or hard of hearing and were either raised orally or orally-aurally (the pronunciation of words plus auditory feedback) and their choices between using ASL or voice. In each situation the venue had the proper number of ASL interpreters along with either having real time captioner available for the audience. The core understanding is that for each of them they had the right to choose between using their voice or sign in ASL to the audience. But because of their choice their reasons shouldn't matter because supposedly the enlightened Deaf crowd ought to know already that it shouldn't matter why voice was used but that they should be respected for their choice since their message was never lost that day.

The three people are:

1) Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, a deaf person who was the interim Acting Chair of the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees and chair of the ASL Department at Ohio State University chose to use her voice that day as the Commencement Speaker at the 2006 Gallaudet University graduation ceremony. But you have to read her story on why she used her voice before jumping to conclusions and make any further wrong assumptions.

2) Mike McConnell, a hard of hearing person who graduated from Gallaudet University in 1991 was one of the several panel members at Gallaudet University's first ever vlogging/blogging conference in 2007 that was televised live in front of an internet audience and the audience that were physically present. I already explained why I chose to use my voice that day.

3) Tim Riker, a Deaf person who is the chapter president of California Association of the Deaf decided to use his voice (English) at the committee meeting in the California Assembly building on June 23, 2010 in the effort to raise ASL by pleading and making a case through voice (English). Although Tim Riker has not yet offered his reason on why he chose to use his voice that day.

All of them are deaf.

In all three situations there were professional ASL interpreters available. In two situations there were real time captioners available at Gallaudet University's graduation ceremony where Dr. Brueggemann did her speech and at Gallaudet University's vlog/blog conference. In all three situations each of the person had their own personal reason for their decision to use his or her voice. It didn't matter if you think it was a "wrong" decision to do. What's important is that they had that right to choose between ASL or voice when it was made available. They all chose voice for a variety of reasons. And that should be the end of it. People should just simply respect their choices instead of going all nutso for not signing or go into some deep analysis to arrive at four different conclusions (that were never the correct ones) as to why the person did not use his or her voice is a waste of time and frankly quite inappropriate and none of their business.

So, kudos to Dr. Brueggemann and Tim Riker for paving the way when it comes to choices (I can't really kudos myself can I?) and not be afraid to use his or her voice instead of signing in ASL! And that, yes, deaf people can talk!

Dr. Brueggemann eloquently said four years ago,

"there also does need to be some flexibility and respect for all abilities and kinds of language and communication."

Amen. And that's true in this day and age. So true.

As for for my blog title, "Use of voice is way, way better than ASL." It's all about personal choices and not whether voice (English) is the better language and/or modality than ASL. It's just a preference.

Can you guys finally calm down now?

Deaf Gally Board of Trustee Used Voice at Gally Graduation Ceremony!

You remember. I'm sure you have. Or at least many of you did. It was supposedly one of the more remembered so called "scandal" at Gallaudet University in 2006. We had Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf and was the Commencement Speaker for Gallaudet University's graduating class of 2006, use her voice instead of ASL. She was at the time the interim Acting Chair of the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees. She took Celia May Baldwin's position after she resigned because of threats against her by some nutty pro-DPN2 protesters.

After many sleepless nights and much reflection these past several days, I regret to tell you that on Sunday night I came to the decision to resign from the Gallaudet Board of Trustees. The presidential search and the controversy that has ensued have put enormous strain and stress on me. I simply could not ignore the numerous aggressive threats I have received over the past weeks.

Celia May Baldwin was supposed to be the 2006 Commencement Speaker at the Gallaudet University graduation ceremony and she would have signed in ASL, too. Instead she resigned a few days before the graduation date. The Acting Chair position soon fell into Dr. Brueggemann's lap a few days later. Thus making her to be the 2006 Commencement Speaker.

Oh, what joy!

Below is an email response from Dr. Brueggemann. Both of us exchanged emails in my conversations with her to understand what went on with her after the DPN2 protest and why she used her voice that day. I emailed her yesterday and got her permission to print this email response explaining why she used her voice for the graduating class that day on May 12, 2006. Below is the email from Dr. Brueggemann dated November 28, 2006 (the first link below is mine in order to point out what Dr. Brueggemann was referencing to).

I'm glad you made your communication preferences very clear at the outset of the development of this event at GU on Feb. 3. (I know both who Jill Bradbury and Christian Vogler are) I have found that lately--say, the past 4 years especially--the "policing" over the use of ASL at GU has grown considerably. I think there are some good and "right" reasons for that. But meanwhile, there also does need to be some flexibility and respect for all abilities and kinds of language and communication. Amen.

Your choice to use your voice sounds much like what I would say. I make the comparison often that if I were going to Germany (which I did a few summers ago) and asked to give an academic or public lecture there I would always chose to do so in English, if I could, first and foremost because it is my "native" language and the one I feel most comfortable and expressively capable in. Now, I can carry on a halfway decent conversation in German (I used to teach it back when I was a high school teacher) and probably even muddle, painfully slowly and simply, through something like a "lecture" in German if I had to. But if I have the chance to use my native language for major events like this, that's always what I would choose.

Meanwhile, I do also completely understand the reason and "right" for using ASL more and "better" --especially at places like Gallaudet. My ASL is only about half-good right now--not even as good as my German probably. But I can have conversations. I did so all the time as Board Chair with King and other Gu administrators directly on VRS (not using interpreters). I get by. And had I had any time to actually prepare my remarks for the GU graduation last May, I probably would have signed them more or at least part of them. But I didn't have that prep time. I was dropped into the Acting Chair's position on May 10, to be exact--once CM Baldwin resigned. And I was handed the remarks she was supposed to deliver (already scripted) for graduation on May 12. In fact, they didn't even give me the script until the morning of May 12. And it still had her name at the top of it! So, using oral/spoken English, I could feel comfortable enough to develop a few of my own "touches" in the prepared script. But I sure couldn't do that trying to use ASL....

When I delivered the remarks at the naming of the Linda K. Jordan Art Gallery on Oct. 5 I actually WROTE the remarks myself (not from a prepared script someone in the GU President's office prepared for me... as they almost always did for Glenn Anderson, the former Chair) and then I also had plenty of time to practice turning them into some ASL. And I did so. Rudimentary though it was.

I always struggle to accept that some people in the community can be, well, so militant about ASL use now and actually "hold it against me." Should I really be blamed for the fact that I grew up in the 60s and 70s in very very rural remote western Kansas and my parents made choices for me that then meant I did not even really know about ASL or Gallaudet U until it was 1988, DPN was happening, and I was taking my first sign language class in the basement of a Baptist church in Louisville Kentucky (at the age of 29, as a Ph.D. student). Is that really MY fault?

Well, that's my soapbox for the day. I've written about some of these things in my published essays as well....

Good to "chat" with you.

Best, Brenda

I don't blame her. Such a short window of time to do her speech and even less time to practice her speech in ASL where she hadn't gain complete fluency yet. It's understable now why she used her voice. I already knew that for more than four years now. Yet how so wrong most of you were about her decision to user her voice. Such bad assumptions. And even worse is to attack her for using her voice. So, shame on you!

At the time in 2006 several bloggers, even some of the well known ones, excoriated her derisively, mercilessly and even cruelly for using her voice to speak at the graduation ceremony. One blog called Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi took it personally and was offended by Dr. Brueggemann's choice and that she shouldn't have used her voice and that it was plainly wrong.

People in our community are free to choose what language they want to use in various situations - I absolutely agree with that. Dr. Brueggemann's choice, however, went far beyond the bounds of diversity and was, in my view, a grave offense. I took great affront at her choice that day...

Oh really? And yet all of your conclusions never came close as to why used her voice and the reasons behind it.

Perhaps it's time that you (Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi) and many other bloggers who wrongly attacked Dr. Brueggemann in 2006 ought to make a public apology to her. An apology for your false charges, derisions, insults or make these unwarranted attacks against her just because she decided to use her voice that day. Her reasons were valid considering the constraint she was in as you can tell in her email to me back in 2006.

Again, it took a blogger like me who took the time to email (back in 2006) Dr. Brueggemann to ask her questions regarding the use of her voice instead of ASL at the Gallaudet University graduation ceremony. It may have been four years later but I think it's high time now that you, the public, the readers, some of the harrassers, the nutjobs who threatened CM Baldwin, and whoever could benefit from this would finally understand exactly why she used her voice that day.

Remember what Dr. Brueggemann said (see picture above the captions) in her Commencement Speech video starting at 45:15:

"Keep an open mind when you meet people and ideas that are new and different."

So, true. Keep an open mind. Not everybody is fluent in ASL. Not everybody who is deaf knows ASL. Many do prefer to use their voice rather than sign. And so four years later in her email to me today she has another quote and message for all of you readers.

"Hey, I like my voice!" I'm proud of it. It's unique, it's mine, I like it. I think I'll use it! - Dr. Brenda Brueggemann. Sept 1, 2010.

Yeah, me, too.

So now you know the rest of the story.

Related blog - Voice is way, way better than ASL!

Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?

I've waited to see if anybody had actually objected to Tim Riker, the chapter president of the California Association of the Deaf (Sacramento chapter), who used his voice at the AB2072 Senate Health Hearing on June 23, 2010 instead of signing in ASL as seen in the Calchannel.com (June 23) along with a partial transcript below on what he said which starts at 31 minutes and 40 seconds into the video:

Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur (actually, it's Tim Riker), I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter. I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy. We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the positive changes to the current mark up language of the bill, and it means progress, but the language of the bill still needs a little bit more work to make it so that we can really put the focus on the deaf children and getting the parents access to the information that they need. I wanted to point to a 2003 state senate resolution number 20, it formally apologized for the outrageous attempt to *socially engineer people out of *existence. The regional version of Mendoza’s AB 2072 bill leads us towards a slippery slope of *eugenics. So the proposed amendment is a very good step in the right direction. It is fair, if we have a few changes to the amendment. The proposed amendment by the health committee, it still threatens the fundamental values of a deaf education and language development, by giving audiologists the power to discriminate information for which they are not trained or licensed. The audiologists’ training gives them the buyer that’s inherently unacceptable, if the audiologist ought to have a role, it must only be to identify that child is deaf, as soon as possible, and then refer the parent to an appropriate professional or entity with a focus on the educational aspect of raising a deaf child. That needs to be determined by the panel of people who are, represented by people involved with the...

How come no outrage from people in the Deaf community for Time to use his voice when the issue was about getting ASL into the spotlight? With Tim Rikier's refusal to sign and use of his voice, was it to try and appear more "intelligent" and more "educated" hoping that linguicism would prevail on the part of the committee looking favorably at Tim's pleas and be impressed with him?

A) When a Deaf person is able to speak English with his voice, or write excellent English, he gets lauded as intelligent and well educated. This person is considered successful in life.

B) When a Deaf uses ASL (no matter how fluently), but writes mediocre English, and cannot speak English, he is considered intellectually inferior, ill-educated, and guaranteed to fail in life.

On linguicism:

SCENARIOS:

Two persons are talking. During the course of this conversation, one of the persons is assessing the other’s wealth, quality of education, status in society based on the other person’s use/choice of language or dialect.

A) If the other person shows an excellent command of English, the assessor assumes he is quite well-educated, possibly from a wealthy family, which then indicates an elevated status in society.
B) If that other person shows poor command of the English language, or uses another language, the assessor assumes that he’s ill-educated, poor, possibly from a ghetto and therefore from the lower classes in society.

What I don't understand is that since Tim Riker is deep within the world of Deaf culture and community as chapter president of CAD he uses his voice.... instead of signing using his proud and preferred language, American Sign Language. I kind of wondered what exactly was Tim's strategy in doing that. What was his goal to use his voice that day as chapter president of CAD? There were voice interpreters there that day and would have interpretted his signing yet he choose to use his voice that day, on live tv, in front of thousands of Deaf people tuning into the AB2072 soap opera. Not one single outcry from a Deaf person, community or group objecting or asking why he used his voice instead. Not one (as far as I can tell so far).

Why the silence? Is this another example of hypocrisy at work?

Now, I'm in favor of a person in choosing how one prefer to communicate. I won't discriminate anybody for doing that. It's really none of my business. There were ASL interpreters available for both voice and ASL translation at the meeting it wouldn't matter to me. I am not opposed to Tim or anybody else who choose to use his/her voice or sign. I'm just noticing the obvious disconnect between what Deaf people say about using voice over ASL when it comes to choice. And it's usually a negative one.

Now, when I choose to use my voice at Gallaudet University's first ever blog/vlog conference where it had ASL and voice interpreters, and real time captioners available for the live internet audience, I had gotten a few grumbling complaints and objections from some Deaf people saying what I did was rude and so on. And of all places on the sacred grounds of Gallaudet University did I dare use my voice in front of Deaf people. Oh well.

What I'm presenting here or trying to say is not about the complaints per se although I am wondering about that too but it's the irony in seeing a chapter president of CAD who is Deaf use his voice in front of thousands on live streaming tv (which is now recorded for history) in order to elevate the status and use of ASL. Did he unwittingly lowered the status of ASL as not important and choose to use his voice instead? Did he unwittingly elevated the use of voice over ASL that day? Those are the interesting questions I have here.

ADDENDUM: If you have no objection (I don't) to Tim Riker's using his voice then you should have no objections to Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf and knows ASL, using her voice at Gallaudet University's 2006 graduation commencement speech?

ADDENDUM #2: In a blog called Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi blogger discussed the Breuggemann's use of her voice and agrees strongly that she shouldn't have used her voice and that it was plainly wrong. Oh really?

People in our community are free to choose what language they want to use in various situations - I absolutely agree with that. Dr. Brueggemann's choice, however, went far beyond the bounds of diversity and was, in my view, a grave offense. I took great affront at her choice that day...

Too bad this blogger doesn't know the true reason why Brueggemann decided to use her voice in an email exchange that Brueggemann and I had at the time. I wonder how this blogger feels about Tim Riker's use of his voice being that he's a chapter president of CAD? In both situations both had ASL interpreters at the time with the exception of Gallaudet University that had both an ASL interpreter and real time captioner for the large video screen at the graduation ceremony.

Related blog - Voice is way, way better than ASL!