Bleached article

Reading this bleached article piece again and again I can only conclude it to be a non sequitur piece. It made no sense, intellectually so. What I saw is an emotional piece in the guise as an intellectual discourse simply because of the attempt to insert the idea of "neglect" into the whole picture when it comes to parents' decision on implanting their deaf child. That agenda is clear. A subtle message without overtly saying it. Hence, my question to the author. What is he trying to say? What is his official stance on cochlear implantation for children?

You have parents making an informed decision on getting a cochlear implant for their deaf child versus making an uninformed decision of Jamaican parents who apply bleaching agent to their children's dark skin in the effort to lighten their skin color.  The former is not a neglect or child abuse issue while the latter is definitely considered as a neglect and child abuse issue because of the increased inherent medical risk, health issues and side effects to the child where it can disfigure the skin on the face, the most prominent feature to be bleached. An attempt to play "doctor" while using unsafe chemical products on the skin.

It's not even close between the two examples. Nothing to compare when it comes to parallels.

One is based on an approval from doctors and specialists before getting a cochlear implant while the bleaching example has nothing to do with any medical issue but about vanity and peer-pressure. The decision process on getting a cochlear implant is a long one that require many visits and researching before deciding on implantation. As for the bleaching part, it's an impulse decision without any regard to the child's own health and well being.

Again, no parallels. Nothing to compare.

The bleaching of skin is a fad much like tattooing. Cochlear implantation is not a fad. Bleaching is not a medical issue while getting a cochlear implant is a medical issue. No different from getting Lasik surgery for your eyes to help improve vision or getting the right prescription glasses for those blurry eyes. There is something to be said when senses are impaired do people seek medical correction or assistance.  Changing the color of one's skin isn't a medical correction or a need but purely a cosmetic one, just like using Botox to enhance the face.

Again, nothing to compare.

The bleaching of skin is due to peer-pressure based on the need for social acceptance and survival. Getting a cochlear implant addresses the need to access sound and not about peer-pressure or survival. However, cochlear implantation does allow the opportunity to develop listening and speaking skills over time. Bleaching one's own skin does not improve anybody's skills but it's purely on the basis of social acceptance. You cannot compare between the two as having parallels. Simply irreconcilable. 

Getting a cochlear implant does not preclude a child from learning sign language. Nor does it preclude a child from a social aspect on the opportunity to mingle among his or her signing, deaf, hh or hearing peers. You have a child's right to hear from the very beginning when the opportunity to develop listening skill would be at its peak (0 to 4 years old). Once that opportunity is past then it is too late to have that upper hand for the rest of the child's life.  It's purely a medical fact. Timing is everything when it comes to the brain's development on learning new sound and words. Having said that, the introduction to deaf culture can occur anytime during a child's life from birth to adulthood should child decide later or get introduced with the help of his or her parents.

Again, noting to compare when it comes to parallels.

That blog piece appears to covertly impart guilt on parents by using emotionally laden words like "cultural genocide," "neglect," and "criminal" and parallel them with the bleaching of children all in the guise of an intellectual discourse as far as I'm concerned since the author refuse to clarify his reason for that blog piece. I am left to make this observation on my own.  It turns out to be a non sequitur piece since one example is considered to be a medical issue while the other is obviously not. 

Marlee Matlin stands out....literally.

Here's a tweeted note from Marlee Matlin thanking Donald Trump for allowing her the opportunity to raise $1 million for Starkey Hearing Foundation and a shout out thanks for the stunningly beautiful dress she wore at a recent award event.

MarleeMatlin 

So indebted @marcbouwer for my BEAUTIFUL dress http://tinyurl.com/3sf92px & @DonaldJTrump for allowing me to raise $$ for @starkeyhearing

All I can say is, whoa!

What beautiful music! But I can't hear it.

Indeed, words can be powerful such as in this short video clip of a blind man quietly begs for money as he sits on a city sidewalk with a sign that says "I'm blind. Please help." Very few coins were tossed his way until a lady comes up and changes the wordings on the backside of his cardboard sign with a positive message, "It's a beautiful day and I can't see it." The resulting effect was an increase on the amount of money given to him by strangers passing by. The power of words has changed for the better for this blind man who sat quietly and without complaints.

Imagine this next scenario.

You have a troupe of musicians nearby in a park playing some beautiful music that wafts through the warm summer air while a deaf beggar sitting on the ground with a sign that says,

"I'm deaf. Please help me."  

 Pretty typical signage, wouldn't you say?

But suppose a music conductor walks by and sees the situation and the pitiful amount of money so far collected in the deaf man's collection can. He gesture's to the deaf man telling him that he has a better idea for his sign hoping it'll net more coins for the deaf beggar.

And sure enough, coins and bills began dropping into the deaf beggar's can like summer raindrops.

How different would this situation be from that of the blind man?

Equating cochlear implantation of kids with bleaching?

It's sad that it had to come to this but I asked for clarification from an author in Deaf Echo who wrote a piece called "Jamaican Skin Bleaching… Parallels with Cochlear Implantation?" on exactly what was his definitive stance on cochlear implantation for kids. And there was a reason for asking. This was in response to an article where the author attempted to draw parallels of parents getting cochlear implants for their kids to that of black Jamaicans with very dark skin on their efforts to bleach their children so their skin color would appear much lighter in the name of "cultural acceptance." A rather odd approach I thought and wondered exactly what was his official stance regarding kids with cochlear implants. A legitimate question.

And the response?

And in a space of several minutes apart, too.

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong on asking for clarification from an author on where he stands regarding cochlear implantation in children in light of that recent blog piece, um..... article. It's pretty fair question to ask for a more definitive statement than to make an assumption. Wouldn't you say? Perhaps he was playing the devil's advocate?  Or maybe the author is neutral on this? I don't know. But asking that question earned me another ban instead of hoping for an honest, forthright and open dialogue.

This wasn't the first time, either, in Deaf Echo which left me and others puzzled by that action as well.

I don't know who removed my comment and banned me. Although I must emphasize strongly to my readers that any comments in blogs or website's commenting area is a privilege and not a right. And a blogger has every right to decide on deleting comments or ban participants in his or her own blog space. Although I'm not exactly sure what rule I broke as you can see here folks.  It was certainly not harassment because I was asking for clarifications in light of that article seeing it as not a "neutral" piece, or so it appears.

I agree that the debate on cochlear implantation on kids is a controversial one as explained in Deaf Echo.

If you’re familiar with the Deaf community at all, you probably already know how ferocious the debate can become on the merits of getting an implant (and especially having a young deaf child implanted).

But does that warrant deletions or bans if one disagrees, or have additional questions? 

Anyways,  this whole cochlear-implantation-parallels-to-bleaching article thing seems to hinge rather on a more emotional level than not. The two are not the same. But since Deaf Echo left me with no recourse to participate as equals, I must address it here in my own blog, unfortunately. I had hoped that I would've gotten a clarification first so I can respond accordingly and appropriately.  But that opportunity is gone, however, I do have a recourse in here.

Cochlear implantation involves a decision process that requires more research along with multiple meetings with specialists, educators, doctors, other people such as those who have CI, culturally deaf people, and so on. It is a process that takes many months before the actual implantation takes place if parents ultimately decide to do so as part of their informed decision process. It is quite obvious this is certainly not the equivalent of doing a procedure on yourself or on your kids on a moments notice.

Also, I don't see it as a neglect issue when cochlear implantation is concerned but rather on what happens afterwards. As long as parents are active participants in an implanted child's life on helping develop language and communication skills then there is no neglect at all. Is it neglect if culturally deaf parents implant their deaf child? But by reading that blog piece you would think so yet the blog piece falls into the category of plausible deniability on making that inference. Hence, again, the reason why I asked that question.

Here's what Russell, a deaf parent with cochlear implant with an implanted son, had to say:

This is living proof Cochlear Implants works! The sound quality is beyond exceptional. Currently, my aided digital hearing aid is barely producing sound. My CI has taken over and it's indescribable what it's like to hear at the 15db to 20db range. It hasn't been 2 weeks since my activation and it is a life changing for me that I'm looking forward to.

Children ages 6 months to 4 deserve to get one without question. It's selfish to deny anyone the right to hear especially our children. The hoodized Deaf population needs to refrain from using myths, lies, and deception to prevent those who can benefit from CI's, particularly parents of deaf children.

Speaking of myths, lies and deception.

I understand the attempt on outlining those parallels in Deaf Echo but I must question first the reason behind it, hence, which is why I had to ask first about the author's stance on cochlear implantation just to be sure.  Now I'm left with an even bigger question mark.

As for my stance, I made clear many times that as long as parents make an informed decision on whether or not to implant their deaf child then I'm fine with it. The decision belongs to the parents, and not to the culturally deaf community or anybody else, hearing or deaf.  I'm not afraid to make a statement as a matter of record and clarification to my readers. But I tell you this, the opportunity to hear is a serious consideration not to be taken lightly where it has the potential to open up even more opportunities and skills in life. That decision alone does not preclude a child from learning sign language or the opportunity to meet with others in the deaf culture community.

The Growing Cued Speech Advocacy

One of the best way to encourage the growth and use of Cued Speech is have native cuers who grew up using Cued Speech help spread the message. They are now the first generation of native cuers in their twenties and thirties.

In the video below shows several young adult cuers getting together at a retreat on strategies to help spread the word about Cued Speech. This is one of the true examples of a positive grassroots in action at the regional and local levels in workshops, conferences, exhibits, cue summer camps (more here), and community of cuers on helping spread the use of Cued Speech. It has been proven to be highly successful and beneficial when it comes to helping improve English literacy. I'm quite encouraged to see these young adults taking the reign on helping spread the message about Cued Speech and an interest on improving English literacy.

For more information on CLEAR (Cuers for Leadership, Education, and Advocacy Retreat) or visit their Facebook page.



History of Cued Speech

• Cued Speech was developed by Dr. R. Orin Cornett at Gallaudet College (now Gallaudet University) in Washington, DC in 1966. 
• The National Cued Speech Association was formed in 1982 and now has numerous affiliates across the country, including Cued Speech of Colorado.
• To this date Cued Speech has been adapted to over 60 languages around the world.

Before you say anything else, do yourself a favor and read this position statement by NCSA on Cued Speech and sign language.

Hood

I already know the slang for "hood" and it's certainly not the kind of word you want attached to your good name be it from a professional or personal  point of view.

From the Urban Dictionary, which of course is not the kind of dictionary you want to use in Scrabble for scrabblenoggers, on slangs has a few definitions for "hood":

1. The ghetto.
2. Someone who is from the ghetto.
3. Someone who acts like they are from the ghetto.
4. neighborhood; ghetto; project

In other words, having all this "hood" thing going on will certainly not make "deafhood" a more attractive concept nor would it make it any more understandable. Perception is everything and for people to make it appear more "darker" and even "gang-like" will certainly have people (parents, deaf, hh or hearing) questioning those behaviors, agendas, and motives by those not familiar with deaf culture. Nothing worse in trying to put a positive spin on a concept by making it even look more "cultish" (here and here) or have a club-like appeal where a certain sine non qua would be expected.

Those behaviors could easily be misconstrued as to mean something else when it's not by people not familiar with the whole movement and concept that involves specifically on deaf culture and "membership" and nothing about a personal journey. Doing the "hood" thing there is always the possibility for abuse used in such a way by "members" to harass or intimidate other people.  It is known that wearing certain colors or even specific clothing items are used to "self-identify" and even to "warn" others on who they belong to when that's the intention in the first place. Just look at some of the photos and you'll see some "members" posed in foreboding, dark or intimidating looks compared to those with a happy look that invites people.

Why the foreboding looks? What are the intentions behind that? Was it to appear more threatening? Menacing? A way to some how intimidate people who may not agree with you? A warning? Look around and you'll see what I mean.

But one thing for sure, I bet you anything that the president of Gallaudet wouldn't be doing that sort of thing and wear a hood. And I think you honestly would know why but won't admit it.

Hood? No thank you.

Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group? Potentials, myths, problems and slippery slope

There's an article that came out this morning called "Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group?" An issue brought up by Richard C. Pillard, a School of Medicine professor of psychiatry, saying that the (culturally) deaf should be recognized as a distinct ethnic group. That argument raised (and will raise even more in the coming days) a lot questions, issues, potentials (positive) and myths. But one of the things I noticed is Pillard's bias (just like Harlan Lane who is hearing) against cochlear implant.

For people unfamiliar with them, the implants sound like a medical marvel. But they are problematic, he says. “They work poorly, and that’s something worth emphasizing. You get 24 channels for different octaves and tonal recognition, but the price you pay for that is you’re a kid trying to play soccer and so on with this business strapped to your body.” And the implants, designed to be optimal when used in both ears, destroy residual hearing in people who were not completely deaf before the implants. “It seems to me that what we’re doing is transforming someone who could have a perfectly healthy ethnic identity and turning him into a marginalized kid who can’t speak or hear well, but could learn to sign beautifully,” Pillard says.

Pillard uses a typical red herring tactic by bringing in sports as a reason to not get a cochlear implant implying that such an implant will severely restrict a child's sports activity thereby dooming him/her to a childhood life without sports. It's also a non sequitur because soccer isn't the only sports a child can participate in. It's also incorrect to say that a child with cochlear implant cannot play soccer. This is an attempt to use unfounded fear as a reason not to get an implant. A child with cochlear implant can play soccer without worry using a protective head gear as a recommendation. Just as well, one can even play football just like Adam Strecker who uses his specially designed football helmet adapted for his cochlear implant while wearing it.

Using sports as a reason not to get a cochlear implant is an extremely poor argument to use. Don't go there.

Another argument used is "They work poorly." That is an entirely subjective argument either because Pillard is not overly familiar with the design, up to date procedures and processes involved with a cochlear implant and the implantation itself.  There are varying successes on the beneficial use from this implantation ranging from poor to highly successful.  Various factors play a role in determining success such as parents' participation, the age of implantation, educational input, enthusiasm, and support as well as the integrity of the implant itself.


Adrià and the music of his dreams by octaviroyo

The above video is an example of how a cochlear implant works extremely well as opposed to "they work poorly."  This is only one of the many videos seen on the internet that show children with cochlear implants, implanted at an early age, who have acquired successful listening skill giving them the ability to discern, understand and respond to a spoken language without even looking.  This is complemented with their excellent speaking skills that are equal to that of their hearing peers. If those are the successful cases of cochlear implants working "poorly" then I can't imagine what it'd be like if cochlear implants were to work extremely well. Here's one video of a girl who was implanted at 22 months old with her talking and listening at age 16 years old who wants to be a cochlear implant surgeon.



Over the past few years insertion techniques as well as new cochlear implant electrode design have improved to the point where it doesn't destroy residual hearing.

Success in conservation of residual hearing after cochlear implantation has benefited patients with high levels of residual low frequency hearing who were not previously considered for conventional cochlear implantation. Technological developments play a key role in minimizing trauma to the cochlea during placement of electrodes.

Wearing a hearing aid or even a cochlear implant does not preclude anybody from learning sign language whether it's SEE, PSE, or ASL. Many hearing parents of deaf children with cochlear implants do include sign language as part of the whole communication and language package.

Increasingly you have deaf parents of deaf/hh children where they are cochlear implant wearers, fluent in sign language and are a part of the deaf culture such as the Artinians (from the show Sound and Fury) with the mother who wears an implant after their daughter getting one and the Errigos where both the mother and father wear their implants while their son wears one since age 2.

If the idea is to grant culturally deaf people the status as an ethnic group then, too, culturally deaf parents and their deaf child who all wear cochlear implants and are fluent in sign language should be given that same status as well. There is nothing to say upon granting the status this new ethnic group designation for culturally deaf people that they cannot wear hearing aids or, in this case, cochlear implants. Nothing about the status implies that an "organic" case must be met. There are no disqualifying criteria on signing and talking/mouthing the words at the same time. And if these criteria are to be made absolute then enters the slippery slope problem here on who gets "admitted" into this special ethnic group designation.

More on that later.....

When deaf people play Scrabble

When you play Scrabble there is a hard and fast rule about using accepted words to the play the game. According to Scrabble's rules:

Accepted Scrabble Words

Players may place any word which can be found in a standard English language dictionary. Official Scrabble dictionaries also can be found in bookstores and online.

Types of words which cannot be used are abbreviations, prefixes and suffixes. Words that require a hyphen or an apostrophe cannot be played. Words that are spelled with a capital letter cannot be used.

Generally speaking in an English-language game of Scrabble, foreign words cannot be placed on the Scrabble board. If those words appear in a standard English dictionary, then the word is allowable. This is because the word is spoken often enough by native English-speakers that it has become a part of the English language.

On the Scrabble website there is an online Scrabble Dictionary word search. Plug in a word you think it exists (this is called "scrabblenogging") and hit the return key and see what it says. If it comes up saying that the word "does not appear in Merriam-Webster's Official SCRABBLE® Players Dictionary, 4th Edition" then that word is unplayable and does not count for points.

And so, that got me thinking. Suppose you have a group of people who are deaf, hard of hearing, hearing and culturally deaf people. One person puts down a long 8 lettered word "deafhood" that nets a good number of Scrabble points but the group challenges the person saying the word doesn't exist.  A quick trip to the online Scrabble Dictionary search gets this result:

If this were to be a real Scrabble tournament that word "deafhood" would not be accepted  and cannot be counted. The same thing goes for other made up words that might come to your mind. Something like the a-wordism, for example.

Scrabble rules are clear and firm. Let's not be the selfish scrabblenogger and do things "unofficially" when it doesn't count in the real game of Scrabble.

Let your standard dictionary be your friend. When in doubt, always refer to the online Scrabble Dictionary to do the search for you.

NAD...less?

NAD as an organization provides a valuable service for deaf and hard of hearing people but there's a caveat here. It's not like I want to see NAD go away. No, nothing like that at all. They provide a valuable service such as advocating for more captioning service and so on yet they are seen as an organization that caters mostly to a specific group of people, culturally deaf people who signs in ASL (or at least when they think they sign in ASL but it's more of a mixed sign than not with strong English word order and format).

Problem here is that NAD does not have a position statement on accepting and respecting all forms of communication and languages including SEE, PSE, cued speech just as ICED recently made clear on respecting and accepting all forms of communication and languages. NAD does have a position statement on ASL and that was to be expected since they are focused on a particular group of audience than to a wider audience, something that HLAA caters to anyone with a hearing loss.

Some people tend to jump the gun and think I'm about advocating for the loss of "ASL" or the collapse of NAD and so forth. No. What I write are what I'm observing and provide talking points on those things. Just because my title says "The coming collapse of NAD" does not mean that I'm hoping it collapse.  I made clear on the problems on what is NAD is facing and not about hoping for an eventual collapse.

Will NAD "collapse"? No. But certainly there are competitions out there and for people who feel they are not being well represented and will look elsewhere for support and the opportunity offer their contributions to the cause. The majority of people with hearing loss in the United States are not even a part of the deaf culture or have very little association with those culturally deaf organizations and/or culturally deaf people. Roughly 2% of the 36 million people with hearing loss are people who are considered to be culturally deaf. This is primarily the group that NAD caters mostly to seeing that their BODs are entirely made up of culturally deaf people and their interests mostly revolve around culturally deaf people and ASL, and how issues affect them. They essentially made their own "glass ceiling."

What I have observed, and I'm not alone in this observation either, is this "glass ceiling" effect that NAD imposes on itself whose organization looks to be more specialized than inclusive.  And nothing more beyond that. Jumping the gun about what I wrote doesn't help, folks.

To me, anybody that signs whether it's in SEE, PSE, mixed sign, ASL or what have you I see it as a language they are using to communicate. This is simply because of the fact that when people say they sign in "ASL" they are probably most likely signing outside of the recognized semantics, grammar, syntax, morphology, and phonology that defines specifically what ASL is about. Or in another word "pure" ASL, for the lack of a better word here. So, I don't feel the need nor the desire to analyze whether a person signing is in fact a language or not. He or she is communicating in his or her own special way of signing. For them, they consider their own signing as a language in its own right. I think it boils down to pride and arrogance to go around and say, "Your signing is a language. Yours is not. Yours is almost there. Yep, yours is definitely a language."

So, in retrospect there is nothing "speshul" about ASL in terms of whether its signing is considered to be a language or not. Rather an arrogant view to say which signing is the only acceptable "language." All of the various modes of signing are special in their own right and if people feel it's a language to them and how it benefits them with their daily communicating and learning, so be it. All the more power to them! And for the record, I'd say that SEE, for example, is a language. It's a visual language since it uses the complete English language in all of its grammar, semantics,  syntax and meanings in a very accessible visual format.

My point is this. Any signing, I say it's a language in it's own right by those who use it for their own benefit.  A visual language, that is. As for NAD, good luck to them. In the end, what counts are whether people with hearing loss feel that they are being cared for, catered to, or feel that they are getting the necessary support without the need for petty politics or favoritism.  Whatever works, support them for that and you'll go farther than ever before.

The coming collapse of NAD?

Interesting bit of analysis directly from the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education with a piece called "Inclusive Deaf Studies: Barriers and Pathways" (published July 2009) written by Jane K. Fernandes. Starting on page 9 under the subsection "A Reactive Version of Deafhood as a Legacy of Audism and Racism"  (or go here for the abstract and links to papers) she brings up her analysis on NAD, DBC, the problem of diversity, the continuing misunderstanding of culturally deaf people and the continuing marginalization of groups of deaf and hard of hearing of various hearing loss background, communication preferences and of people with various ethnic background not part of the traditional "White Deaf people" circle. Jane K. Fernandes makes these observations on the resulting effects and their sine qua non (note the bold words I outlined below).

A Reactive Version of Deafhood as a Legacy of Audism and Racism

Originating the concept of Deafhood and introducing it in his book, Understanding Deaf culture: In Search of Deafhood, Ladd (2003) defined Deafhood so as to contrast it with the medical diagnosis of deafness as a loss of hearing and with negative social constructions of deafness such as the idea that it is better to hear and speak. In contrast, the concept of Deafhood promulgates the information that deaf people can and do use Sign Language as their native language and thus have the ability to speak and be intelligent. Rather than being an undesirable physical condition of loss, then, being deaf is a source of pride and affirmation. Achieving this healthy outcome—a fully realized Deafhood— involves a deaf person’s constant introspection and long process to reconcile being deaf in positive terms. Ladd posits that every deaf child, every hearing family with a deaf child, and every deaf adult make this Deafhood journey. On the one hand, Ladd seems to suggest that various kinds of deaf people, whether they sign or speak English, may make a journey to reconcile themselves to being deaf and being proud of it. Yet, there also seems to be the suggestion that the best circumstance for adopting such a positive self-conception is when a deaf child is surrounded by other deaf people who use sign language. In contrast, if surrounded by hearing family and hearing people in school and community, there is the suggestion that a deaf child often internalizes hearing people’s negative views of deaf people—which equates with an unrealized Deafhood. Whether Deafhood is an open process resulting in a variety of ways to be deaf or in a single outcome has confused many. However, two examples make apparent this confusion in the U.S. version of Deafhood. The first one makes clear issues of race and exclusion intertwining with Deafhood in the 2006 positions of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) board on Deafhood and diversity. The second one reveals division and confusion that came to the fore in 2008 concerning a U.S. organization called Deaf Bilingual Coalition (DBC).

Let me interrupt here for a moment. In the bold above is quite true. I outlined this very confusion when Genie Gertz made her statement in her attempt to clarify what "deafhood" is about but only managed to further confuse people on the constant changing of the little "d" and big "D" back in May of 2006 when I blogged about it. It's still true today but this "deafhood" agenda has become more and more solidified as their sine non qua becomes obviously clearer despite their attempts to appear otherwise.

The publication continues....

As a result of the NAD’s maintenance of the status quo focus on the concerns, understanding, and interests of its White Deaf traditional base, deaf people of color are now considering withdrawing from the NAD and forming a separate coalition of minority deaf organizations that will address the needs of many other deaf people with diverse life style choices deemed deficient by NAD’s brand of Deafhood (Anonymous, personal communications, various between July 1,2008, and April 26, 2009). Although the splintering of NAD into identity groups (National Asian Deaf Congress, National Black Deaf Advocates, National Council of Hispano Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and Intertribal Council) is not new, what is new is the notion that all of these marginalized people might form a new organization inclusive of all.

The key word is "marginalization" and uses NAD as an example of how those things happened.

Deafhood and Diversity at the NAD

At the 2006 NAD conference in Palm Desert, California,a strong movement emerged to acknowledge deaf people’s racial and ethnic identities, particularly those of people of color who experience exclusion and marginalization within this national advocacy community. In part a consequence of heightened racial awareness generated by the 2006 protest at Gallaudet University that same year, a panel of presidents of national deaf organizations of color was one of the most talked about panels during and after the conference. Moreover, because the traditional process of electing the NAD Board of Directors invariably leads to an all-White Board, the NAD decided to appoint two deaf women of color to the NAD Board of Directors to represent the views of deaf people of color. The inclusion of the deaf women of color on the Board was well intentioned but nevertheless fraught with difficulty. For instance, a request for the two women of color to pay their own way like other directors awkwardly assumed a camaraderie that did not exist for everyone equally: The White Board members frequently acted as if the appointed members of color were not even present—talking over and around them and not acknowledging their contributions or presence in follow-up written communications (Anonymous, personal communication, February 19, 2007).

The Board also dealt inadequately with recommendations for diversity policies and activities, created with painstaking care over a 2-year period, by their own Diversity Strategic Team (DST). One of the DST recommendations involved the adoption of a "zero tolerance" policy against racism within the NAD. Unfortunately, the NAD rejected the "zero tolerance" policy toward racism substituting instead the more subtle goal of striving for "higher standards of diversity and inclusion." Another recommendation the DST made was that DST members provide direct diversity training to the NAD Board and at NAD regional conferences. This recommendation summarizing 2 years of work failed to get support, whereas a relatively more last-minute motion that all state association members receive Deafhood training passed. Not coincidentally, Deafhood is the foremost interest of the traditional, White Deaf members. The NAD’s rejection of the DST’s recommendations although supporting Deafhood training left many deaf people of color skeptical about whether the NAD is serious about addressing racism within its own ranks (Anonymous, personal communication, July 1, 2008). Furthermore, the 2008 NAD conference did not include a single workshop or activity on racism.

Now, remember. This was submitted probably in May 2009 and her papers were eventually published in July of 2009. Submitting papers for publication in peer reviewed publications normally have a long lull wait until they are accepted and finally published. But contrary to what JKF said above NAD did discuss racism in the July of 2008 on "Diversity Focus at the NAD Conference."  Although it appears they did address racism within its own ranks, to a degree I suppose, but unsure whether any "zero tolerance" on racism was ever met with any seriousness consideration or not. The current 15 NAD Board of Directors as it appears to the naked eye may appear overwhelmingly white with the exception of two directors (African American/Black) and one Latino of a Peruvian descent. For the two African American/Black they make up 13.3% of the diversity compared to African American/Blacks U.S. population of 12.9%.  A good representative for the NAD BoD's ethnic plurality make-up. But if there are issues of subtle racism still within the ranks of the BoDs perhaps consider electing the first black president on the National Association of the Deaf to help quell this image problem? That is, if there is in fact a continuing image or internal problem on ethnic plurality.

The publication continues....

As a result of the NAD’s maintenance of the status quo focus on the concerns, understanding, and interests of its White Deaf traditional base, deaf people of color are now considering withdrawing from the NAD and forming a separate coalition of minority deaf organizations that will address the needs of many other deaf people with diverse life style choices deemed deficient by NAD’s brand of Deafhood (Anonymous, personal communications, various between July 1,2008, and April 26, 2009). Although the splintering of NAD into identity groups (National Asian Deaf Congress, National Black Deaf Advocates, National Council of Hispano Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and Intertribal Council) is not new, what is new is the notion that all of these marginalized people might form a new organization inclusive of all.

This exactly what happens when marginalization occurs such as the attempt to form a "deafhood" organization that caters specifically and overwhelmingly to a culturally deaf group. Their hypocrisy is noted when saying one thing on "inclusivity" and "diversity" such as Genie Gertz's explanation "It is not a measurement who is Deaf and who is not" which is fine. However, the problem reveals itself as to their true agenda becomes increasingly apparent through actions and attitudes in terms of the now current sine non qua of being "organic."

Such tripe it has become.

No wonder deaf and hard of hearing people do not take this so called "deafhood" seriously. It an ideological concept born of a culturally deaf person specifically and targeted to mostly a limited culturally deaf audience.

In the next sub-subsection of this publication JKF uses the Deaf Bilingual Coalition as example of how splintering happens when cultural needs are the actually the main agenda that drives it rather than the philosophy alone (although what I'm about to show you here JKF gets it wrong saying that DBC disbanded and reformed into another group called AFA but be mindful of the fact that JKF submitted her papers in 2009 at the time of that upheaval when DBC members quit or were pushed out -see here and read #25 on the links on who resigned or were pushed out in2008) on helping expose the positive side of ASL for deaf and hard of hearing kids but "deaf politics" ensured that it get top billings.

One organization with a number of members also presenting on Deafhood (Sewell, 2008) in the United States is DBC (2008). Mostly over the summer of 2008, reports in blogs and vlogs of communications from and within DBC indicate tense cultural processes at work that explain the fracturing of the coalition and eventual collapse (Recently, the group has resurrected the organization and renamed it Audism Free America). A well-known deaf blogger who goes by the name of Mishka (2008) reported contradictions among various public messages and blogs:

DBC stands by its mission and continues to promote a clear vision that we support ALL Deaf infants and children to have access to ASL from birth and to be fluent in ASL and English (bilingual). DBC is not against speech and listening training as long as it is partnered with ASL. . However, in the Milwaukee article, a DBC spokeperson [sic] indicates there is more to DBC than the promotion of ASL alone: "The two groups will bring their competing agendas to Milwaukee in separate national conferences this week: one that views cochlear implants and auditory-based therapies as a way to give children access to the wider world; and the other that sees them as unnecessary and an affront to who deaf people are as individuals. . We’re concerned about the audism behind the implants— this belief that hearing is more advantageous than being deaf. It’s the same as racism," she said. "You’re only learning how to speak, to regurgitate the words, and only a small percentage of deaf people are successful at that,"....

Mishka Zena concluded, "This contradicts with [sic] the mission statement at DBC website, promoting ASL while not opposing speech and listening training, as long as they are partnered with ASL." DBC originator John Egbert (2008) remonstrated in response to Mishka Zena’s blog, "And let me emphasize that DBC is not against ci [cochlear implants] or speech or hearing aids" (Msg. 95, para. 5). However, besides the statements Mishka Zena found that contradicted this position, Hokocan (2008) also verified rejection of this kind of technology (Msg. 94). Although some insisted the comments were taken out of context, another response (Florin, 2008, Msg. 192) stated that the media did not take the statements out of context: "She [the DBC spokesperson] did actually say those exact words in front of my eyes at a recent convention. They are bad news for promoting ASL/English bilingualism. They have their inner agendas." In addition, a former member of the core committee wrote: "...I was condemned by [a] DBC leader for discussing DBC business in details via . [written English].I was asked not to discuss anything on email because the leader could not process her thoughts in. [English]. She went on to instruct me to use e-mail only to set up VP appointments" (Sewell, 2008).

Again, JFK observed this happening in 2008 and somewhat into 2009 prior to her submitting her papers for publication in 2009. It is a fact that fracturing and splintering did occur and that's well documented by numerous witnesses but it did not "collapse" as JKF said. She assumed or thought it regrouped and took the form of AFA. Not so. But the point that JKF (and even mine) is making hinges on actions of what some culturally deaf people or groups say such as CI or hearing aids do not matter, etc, etc, but their actions, attitudes and eventually their own words say an entirely different thing and paints a totally different picture about their organizations and agendas.

And so I say this. Cow patties are all organic, too, but I'm sure nobody wants to step on them and trudge their dirty shoes throughout their own house.

Will NAD "collapse"? No. But certainly there are competitions out there and for people who feel they are not being well represented and will look elsewhere for support and the opportunity offer their contributions to the cause. The majority of people with hearing loss in the United States are not even a part of the deaf culture or have very little association with those culturally deaf organizations and/or culturally deaf people. Roughly 2% of the 36 million people with hearing loss are people who are considered to be culturally deaf. This is primarily the group that NAD caters mostly to seeing that their BODs are entirely made up of culturally deaf people and their interests mostly revolve around culturally deaf people and ASL, and how issues affect them. They essentially made their own "glass ceiling."

Submitting papers to Deaf Studies publications are a powerful way for issues and questions to get noticed, spotlighted and shined upon and be widely read and accessed by interested parties and researchers who will take those questions and issues a step further in their own analyses.

ICED....over II

From what JPR said this morning on what he saw last night April 7, 2011:

I thought I would share this news with you.

Last night, I watched Dr. Jane K. Fernandes' presentation at NTID (National Technical Institute for the Deaf) on the topic of inclusive Deaf Studies. A little bit after she was introduced, she mentioned about the past ICED and how it recognized that the Milan resolution was in error. Then, she mentioned about respecting all languages and forms of communication. She mentioned that she was giving her presentation in honor of that respect for all forms of communication. The main thrust of her presentation was that the discipline of Deaf Studies should be broadened to include the diverse deaf people outside of the standard ASL deaf signers in the Deaf culture. I am sure that this is familiar to all of you.

I thought that it was neat and nice that she remembered and recognized the importance of the respect for all languages and forms of communication that she decided to honor it with her presentation. Given that this happened in close proximity with Mr. Mike McConnell's and Candy's blog, I wanted to share this news.

(She and other co-author wrote two articles whose web links are shown at the bottom of the webpage at http://www.rit.edu/ntid/lyon/speakers/jane-k-fernandes-phd ).

Joseph Pietro Riolo

Interesting development. I wrote my blog on April 4, 2011 and she gave her speech on April 7, 2011 on basically about diversity and respect for all communications and languages per the ICED recommendations.

Thank you for the heads up, JPR.

Cool tech at Walk4Hearing

Technology on communication access continues to improve especially for people with hearing loss. At all of the Walk4Hearing events this year you can get streaming live captioning on your smart phone.

Attention Walkers! Remember to bring your smart phones with you to the Walk because we will be streaming live CART to web-enabled smart phones. All pre-Walk speeches will be captioned on your iPhone, BlackBerry*, or Droid. So don’t leave your smart phone at home!

On Walk day all walkers who have their smart phone can go to www.quickcaption.com. There on the website homepage will be a large purple Walk4Hearing icon. Simply click the icon, click the "CC" icon next to your Walk location, real time captioning will be enabled and displayed on your smart phone. This great service is provided by Quick Caption.

*To view the captions on the BlackBerry, you will need to be running the BlackBerry OS version 4.6 or higher, enable JavaScript, and set the browser type to BlackBerry. Then open the live event with the BlackBerry browser.

This is truly an example of diversity and understanding the needs of people with hearing loss when it comes to communication access.

Walk4Hearing....coming to a city near you.

Do you like to walk or even hike? Do you have a hearing loss or knows someone with a hearing loss? Would like to join hundreds of thousands of people across the United State the chance to walk for hearing that may be coming nearby to your city? And help raise money? The first walk starts on June 5, 2011 at Long Beach, California. Find your city and walk dates here. I know I'll be there.
Will you?

2011 FUNDRAISING GOAL: $1.2 MILLION

Currently the Walk4Hearing has raised almost $160,000 so far for this year. That's 13% of their goal. Let's get down and break all expectations and go beyond the $1.2 million dollars goal. Let's break the bank! If Marlee Matlin can bring in $1 million dollars for Starkey Hearing Foundation and break all expectations on what's possible, so can the people who will go to the Walk4Hearing event. 



Learn more about Walk4Hearing.

The Walk4Hearing, produced by the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), is the largest walk of its kind in the country that raises awareness and helps to eradicate the stigma associated with hearing loss. The HLAA Walk4Hearing is held in multiple cities across the country. Since 2006, over 18,000 walkers have stepped up and helped raise money for programs and services for people with hearing loss and their families. Money raised is shared between the national organization and local Walk sites. Examples of how funds are used include:

National Programs

• Advocating for the rights of people with hearing loss
• Information, referral, education and coping resources through www.hearingloss.org, the Hearing Loss Magazine, the annual HLAA Convention, and the HLAA electronic newsletter
• A nationwide network of 200 chapters providing personal support
• 14 state organizations advocating for expanded state services
• Support for parents of children with hearing loss at www.kidsandhearingloss.org
• Outreach to veterans returning with hearing loss
• Social networking site for young adults with hearing loss at www.hearinglossnation.org

Local Programs

• Captioning and hearing assistive technology at chapter meetings to make them accessible
• Scholarships for students with hearing loss towards college tuition
• Funding for hearing aids and devices for people who cannot afford them
• Installation of hearing assistive technology in public places
• Captioning of live theater productions
• Seminars on coping with hearing loss for families

Why We Walk?

• We walk because hearing loss is a public health issue in the United States.
• 36 million people have some form of hearing loss
• 22 million have noise-induced hear loss that could be prevented
• More than 59,000 military members have disability status for hearing loss from current wars.
• 30 school-aged children per 1,000 have a hearing loss

Join and Walk4Hearing this year and join the diversity of people with hearing loss.

"Hoodless"....

It was a sad day to witness the beginning on the calling of deaf/hh people as "hoodless."  I warned people in my blog 5 years ago about the dangers of judging people for what they "have" or "don't have" when it comes to "deafhood." Which was why many of us made the point of saying "Deafhood? No thanks" and joined the DNT Facebook for that very reason. We continue on with own our unique but deeply personal journey in life as people with hearing loss and how we identify ourselves as and whatever makes you happy. We recognize the value of diversity, and that we support and respect all forms of communication and language.  We say "no thanks" to "deafhood" because we recognized right away it would lead to acts of discrimination and segregation. It has simply become a glorified ideology specifically and mainly for culturally deaf people, and nothing more. That's the problem. It's not really about for anybody with hearing loss. There's a certain sine qua non when it comes to "deafhood," believe it or not. We don't presume who has "deafhood" and who doesn't, and that was the trap we recognized at the very beginning.  We prefer to move forward and not backward and instead would rather follow ICED recommendation to accept and respect all forms of communication and language whether combined or used alone be it PSE, ASL, SEE, cued speech, oral-aural, oral, the use of hearing aids and cochlear implants to help with the communication, or plainly just do without them.  We have respected those differences since day one even before ICED came out with their own recommendation.

I'm sad to say this but I continue to be correct on this.

I will continue to say "no thanks" and just simply accept you as for who you are, and not about what you are.  That's a simple recipe for happiness.

Using your voice to speak

I use it everyday. Marlee Matlin obviously uses her voice at home, around hearing people, on the Celebrity Apprentice tv show and even when she was roasting Donald Trump (see 2:25 mark). I understand that other people prefer not to use their voice and that is their right but lets get real here on a few things.

1. Just because you can speak well and how some people may mistake you based on your voice as a hearing person is not really a good reason to not to use your voice. More like chickening out and do the whole "my dog ate my homework" kind of excuse. Something just doesn't add up if somebody says that.

2. Reminding people that you do have a hearing loss and that they need to communicate with you better so that you can understand them comes with the territory of being deaf/hh. People with hearing loss ought to already know that but that alone shouldn't even be an excuse to not use your voice. Pretty dumb if you ask me. 

3. Fearing that hearing people won't accommodate you with additional communication access if they discover that your speech clear and quite intelligible is pure baloney. Hinges on irrational fear. Having good speech does not equate excellent hearing. It should be quite understandable for them to realize the differences and importance of supplying you with visually oriented communication methods in order to help you understand and be an active participant. That fear or concern is a poor excuse not to use your voice.

4. Afraid of sending out a message to deaf people if you use your voice to communicate? What message? Is that a valid reason or did someone managed to convinced him/herself  of that already? 

5. Here's a good one I heard recently. Using one's voice will cause people to miss the spoken message or the content of that message because they were so enamored by a person's excellent speaking quality the message gets lost. What? You gotta be kidding me. That's the most absurd thing I ever heard.

6. Using your voice equates to the level of intelligence. What!? Gonzo logic there, dude if anybody actually thinks that. Either you are comfortable in using your voice or you're not.

7. If you need help in understanding what's being said then ask the people to change what their doing to better accommodate you. How hard is that? Of course, provided that you have a very understanding group of people.

8. Some people would say that the use of a one's own voice should be viewed as a gift and should only be shared with other people you trust. Lame to even think that, I say. That excuse is more like a reason to not talk in public because of some supposed "inadequacies."

9. And lastly, if one *thinks* his/her voice is just like a hearing person then it could be true. Why does this even matter?

Saying all those excuses is really an attempt to cover one's rear. It's either you can talk, can't talk or are simply afraid to use your voice and live in a prison of your own fear because you might "offend" somebody.

What's the next excuse?

Meep! OMG! LOL! Scrabblenoggers!!! Aarrrggh, matey!

Scrabblenogging - verb, the putting together letters into a new word thinking it exists in a dictionary; the believing that a new word ought to belong into a dictionary. 

Scrabblenogger - noun, a person who tries to force or populate a new word into the general population.

You know the game, Scrabble? Putting together letters into a word and you score points along the way? And remember once in a while a player would put down a word believing it's actually a word unless challenged and the said "word" would be looked up in the dictionary? The challenged player would then be proved wrong. But sometimes a player would be insistent even adamant that the new word thinking it either makes sense and how it ought to be a dictionary or he was sure he'd seen that word somewhere and tries to force players to accept that new word.

That makes him an extreme "scrabblenogger."

Are you a scrabblenogger extremist? Or just a plain ol' scrabblenogger?

Although I may have done some scrabblenogging when I thought a word actually existed in a dictionary but it turned out not to be so. I think many of us have done that if you have ever played the game Scrabble.

Every year new words are added into the Oxford dictionary where words once obscure are now used by millions of people today. OMG! For example, LOL! and meep, are words or acronymns that were very recently added into the Oxford dictionary. Are you following me, yet?

Using Google search engine for "OMG!" turns up 173,000,000 results. "LOL!" comes up with 916,000,000 hits while "meep" gets 1,500,000 results. And, yeah, even high school kids can get into trouble in school for saying "meep" (what is the definition of "meep" anyways?).

Imagine that. 

Now, as a matter of record today, you, the readers, are now my witnesses seeing that I am the inventer of two new words, "scrabblenogging" and "scrabblenogger." Those two words do not exist in any Google search results until today. And I made sure they get added to my blogger.com dictionary database. So there! Feel free to use them as much as possible.

Now, I'm a scrabblenogger. OMG! LOL!

Meep!

So, with all the a-wordism (31,000 results) and "deafhood" (44,900 results) efforts on trying to get them forcefully recognized or else you'll be dangerously labeled with the a-wordist if they don't get tthose words into the dictionary!! I'd say good luck with that. I truly mean mean that. Work hard and get 'er done!

Did you get that message, Beth Scoggins?




I'd just say those words are meeps.

I wonder if they'll stop meeping with themselves? Are you a meeper or a scrabblenogger?

And, so with honor and gratitude I leave you with this video of this Sesame Street character, Beaker, (known for his meeping meeps) singing the song "Ode to Joy" with his meeps. His meeps started many, many moons ago and it took so long until the word "meep" finally landed in the Oxford dictionary a few weeks ago. Don't worry about the song, it's just a bunch of meeps. Just put your own words into his mouth and imagine whatever he's saying since reading his lips would be impossible.

Enjoy your evening, folks!

Hearing blogger hates Marlee Matlin for what she did last night

I'm presuming this blogger is hearing but that doesn't matter. She felt that Marlee Matlin "ruined" her evening (let me get my little wee violin out) and "thousands of other people" (a light chuckle here) because Marlee recommended that Richard Hatch get fired instead of agreeing not to fire anybody that night when given the option by Mr. Trump.

Basically Marlee believes that because she went through hell she should pass it on to others. Great message Marlee. That's right...if get shit on I should shit on someone else. And with that disgusting decision you brought anger and chaos and hate and conflict to what could have been a perfect evening. You are no business woman Marlee, heart is what it takes and you have none. And yes while you might be able to earn big bucks for charity there is no charity in your heart. You ruined my evening and thousands of other people who were watching and hoping you'd do the right thing. What was required was to follow the good feeling the sense of charity and of love. YOU DID NOT and this karma is going to come back and bite you in the ass. I personally can't wait.

This show is about competition and for those who don't live up to the team's expectation get the boot. Pretty simple. This is about making sure that the ASAP team can use every leverage it can get to help ensure they get the upper hand. And if Ms. Obs HER Vation missed it last night, Marlee said "Business is business." It's about winning and getting the upper hand to get ahead and win it for their own charities.  And if it's charity Ms O.H.V. want then she must've missed how Marlee wouldn't be able to live with the fact and in good conscious keep John Rich's $600,000 charity amount that he worked so hard for his charity had she NOT shook hands to agree on keeping each other's charity amount they worked so hard to raise. I'd say that's pretty darned charitable if both of them admitted they couldn't even in good conscious do that to each other and keep the losing team's charity money for themselves.

Personally, I think Ms Obs HER vation needs to calm down.

NFL stars hand out Starkey hearing aids in Rwanda

Truly impressive charity work in Africa with various pro football players from different teams came together on a single mission, to help distribute and outfit hearing aids to those who cannot afford them.

A group of National Football League stars has spent the past week travelling through Rwanda and Uganda fitting free hearing aids on people too poor to afford them.

Notable NFL stars on the trip included: Tennessee Titans' Derrick Morgan, Tampa Bay Bucs' Gerald McCoy, Cincinnati Bengals' Roy Williams, former Chicago Bears' Tommie Harris, San Francisco 49ers' Vernon Davis, Miami Dolphins' Vontae Davis and Minnesota Vikings' Bryant McKinnie and Adrian Peterson.

They travelled through remote areas of Rwanda as well as the capital Kigali as part of an effort to distribute more than 22,000 hearing aids to needy people in Africa.

The initiative was organised by the Eden Prairie, Minnesota-based Starkey Hearing Foundation and Pros for Africa, a non-profit organisation based in Okhlahoma City.

And these are truly remote whose families are extremely poor. Even the poorest of towns in the U.S. in Africa would Africans regard them as one of the richest towns in Africa. These are the rays of hope that these guys can give with the help of the Starkey Hearing Foundation.

One single switch of a hearing aid inspires hundreds. Multiply that by 22,000 hearing aids and you have one heck of an inspiration impacting millions of people. Each year Starkey Hearing Foundation give away over 100,000 hearing aids.

Priceless.

No wonder Marlee Matlin supports the Starkey Hearing Foundation.

Cringetastic? Star Jones whispers into Marlee Matlin's ear.

There's a short article in Mediaite with a video showing Star Jones whispering to Marlee Matlin which turned out to be quite an embarrassing moment for Star Jones. But I don't see it as "cringetastic" as some other people might feel. I'd say that the communication was so effective in this Celebrity Apprentice show in Marlee's ASAP team with the help of her signing interpreter that people generally would forget that Marlee Matlin is deaf. Only because people were able to talk and communicate with her without any problems. I look at this as a success that Star Jones actually forgot that Marlee is deaf only because communication was quite effective and that everybody was able to contribute easily.

ICED....over.

As many may not realize that I'm happy with what ICED had to say because they made an important step about the acceptance and respect on language and communication. It didn't call for any kind of restriction and that's good. Very good. Even President Hurwitz was keen on this announcement that he shared the key thing that everybody should agree to. Pres. Hurtwitz re-iterated the key point on what ICED issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf and hard of hearing people.

There were no restrictions or specificity against the use of cued speech, oral-auditory, SEE, PSE, AVT, note takers, CART, captioning, texting, voice to text, use of hearing aids and cochlear implants to help communicate and listen, and so on. Nor did it specify or condemn for using one form of communication method over another. Or whether two or more communication methods can be used or that a single preferred communication can be used.

ICED made sure that the message is to accept and respect all forms of communication be loud and clear. Nothing was said about which ones MUST be used but rather they all MUST be accepted and respected. No specific favoritism from this announcement. All forms of communication need to be accepted and respected.

Very nice.

I can live with that one.

Check out this poll about the $1 million dollars donation to Starkey Hearing Foundation on whether people approve or not the donation for free hearing aids to deserving kids from around the world, I'm sure Marlee Matlin approves.

Hmmm?

A Poll: Approve Marlee Matlin donating $1 million dollars to Starkey Hearing Foundation?

On the Celebrity Apprentice show last night Marlee Matlin was able to raise an astounding $1 million dollars and donated it to her favorite charity, the Starkey Hearing Foundation where thousands of free hearing aids will be donated to deserving kids around the world because of her generosity. For more information and captioned video go here.

Captioned: Marlee Matlin interview on "The Talk" show

Captioning courtesy of Kokonut Pundit.

I spent three hours of my time to get this ready by listening to it on YouTube, writing it down, accessing Overstream.net, editing, and adding captions to it. It is a laborious process but it can be done. If I can do it as a one person effort I'm sure others can, too, whether if videos are done in spoken English or sign language. Travesty is when organizations, small or large, that target the deaf and hard of hearing population won't do their captioning. It'd be even worse among the signing organizations or companies who won't even put in an ounce of effort to include captioning for their signing videos. It wouldn't be just a travesty but plain hypocritical of them to behave like that. No excuse in this day and age when communication access is important over the internet for people with hearing loss. None. No excuse for organizations no matter how small or large to not caption their videos with the intention to reach a deaf and hard of hearing audience. Otherwise these organizations would simply be the selfish ones.


Enjoy the interview.

Meatloaf meltdown over Gary Busey and his hearing loss?

In the upcoming Episode 5 sneak peak you have Meat going into an utter and complete meltdown over Gary (who ironically made a memorable if not funny quote in a previous episode saying, "I am at risk every time I wake up.")  in what it appears to be over the issue of paint. And Mark McGrath had to step in between Meatloaf and Gary before Gary gets another head injury. Lots of expletives from Meatloaf so not exactly sure the real reason of his meltdown but perhaps due to the lack of communication with Gary that he finds so grating.

Now, if you remember from an earlier episode Gary admitted to having a hearing loss and wears a hearing aid upon the advice of Marlee Matlin when his hearing loss was addressed and confronted by her who of all people suggested that he get a hearing aid. Now, I'm wondering whether Gary's hearing loss led to his poor performance as a Project Manager for the Camping World challenge in Episode 3 and by not being able to hear completely what his team mates were saying created communication problems that led to Gary getting bad rating as a Project Manager. His hearing loss is obviously bad when he had to ask up close Star Jones a few times for her to repeat what she said when she said "She's class and graceful" (about Niki Taylor when she was fired in Episode 3). And I'm wondering whether Gary even wore his hearing aid in Episode 4 around the 3:15 mark when he asked Jones to repeat what she said. I've begun to notice how he reacts to people around him in previous episodes and how he seems to think he heard what they said or in this probably doesn't care. This probably explains why Mark McGrath's comment in Episode 4 making the claim that Gary is unable to focus or remember anything. Probably it's because he can't hear much?

So, in reality there are two celebrities with hearing loss on the Celebrity Apprentice show, Marlee Matlin and Gary Busey - who is at risk every time he wakes up or probably more accurately at risk every time he doesn't listen carefully and face the expletive wrath of Meatloaf.

Addendum:

Check out this poll about the $1 million dollars donation to Starkey Hearing Foundation on whether people approve or not the donation for free hearing aids to deserving kids from around the world, I'm sure Marlee Matlin approves.

Marlee uses her voice on Celebrity Apprentice

I've begun to catch up on the Celebrity Apprentice show only because Marlee Matlin is in it. I normally don't watch that show but while watching the episodes I noticed that Marlee has used her voice several times and no signing at all. Sometimes I hear her when she uses her voice talking but the show doesn't pick it up with their captions.

One example of that is captioned as seen in a screen capture of her saying "Okay. We're home" as seen in the screen capture in Season 4, Episode 4 ("Off the Hook") at the 10:05 minute mark as seen on the Hulu video.

Sometimes she uses her voice at the same time with her signing such as in Episode 4 (48:40 mark) during the commercial making challenge for the ACN video phone by voicing to her daughter on how much she missed her.

Now, nothing wrong with her using her voice but I simply noticed this of hers and whether anybody else picked up on that as well. It's good that she is using her voice and not be afraid to use it for fear of some crazy public backlash. Just like not being afraid to show her support for the Starkey Foundation on giving out free hearing aids to kids from around the world, too. She even wears Starkey hearing aids, too. At least she's busting the stereo-type that all deaf people are unable to use their voice to communicate just like most people can.

Episode 5 should be interesting on testing her leadership qualities as the Project Manager. My wife enjoys every bit of any shows or movies with Marlee Matlin in it. After all, both my wife and Marlee Matlin knew each other in high school as school mates and friends while living in Chicago.

Addendum:

Check out this poll about the $1 million dollars donation to Starkey Hearing Foundation on whether people approve or not the donation for free hearing aids to deserving kids from around the world, I'm sure Marlee Matlin approves.

Deaf Twitter Cyberbullies?

This shouldn't be new nor should it be a surprise when online cyberbullying manifests itself in various forms for various reasons. Some of them may be due to hate. Others due to jealousy. Others due to wanting to maintaining certain powers or control and what have you.

You have your blog cyberbullies. You have your typical online cyberbullies. And now it's the Twitter and even Facebook cyberbullies. Sure, this is "old news" but there's a twist in all of this.

The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy on cyberbullying when you have certain, um,  deaf/hh people with an increasingly unhealthy obsession towards a few particular deaf/hh individuals in the deaf/hh community. This is tantamount to stalking which begs that very "cyberbullying" question here.

The irony gets even more profound when one Twitter account under the name of "Safe Deaf Cyberspace" run the gamut of producing links that lead to a site that is obviously libelous (they know that its not true which makes it even worse yet they still left the link in); links from people who deride and mock other people which is nothing more than a stomping ground to encourage people to personally attack individuals which is a form of cyberbullying, by the way; use strong-arm bullying tactics against others who disagree or have other alternative opinions by encouraging people to boycott against DVTV and DeafRead, for example; or make note that  "DVTV is a dysfunctional family" when the same thing could be said about the SDC Twitter account seeing how people respond thinking it's all about cyberbullying but really it's mostly a matter of differences of opinions.

That is an unhealthy obsession on what I'm seeing. I'm sure many others would agree. An example of this is easily seen when there are over 70 references to Tayler Mayer. The irony is palpable when you read through the responses in "Safe Deaf Cyberspace" Twitter page such as actually whining about another person's opinion of how other people whine. Can't get any more gold out of that one.

There is a time when people recognize cyberbullying for what it is and a time when it is not and recognize that it's simply a matter of differences of opinions, point of views and perspectives.  Abusing the use of a Twitter account in the effort to "strong-arm" others into compliance is not only unhealthy but raises plenty of red flags that points to, ironically, the pervasiveness on using cyberbullying tactics as being "acceptable." Complaints become more subjective and not objective.  You have people who condone the ridiculing, the mocking and the personal and sometimes petty nastiness against individuals.

That Twitter account isn't about cyberbullying because it is mirroring itself as one in more ways that one.  Making valid objective complaints are one thing but to condone such questionable responses and elicit certain behaviors to continue its course are another thing. It has ironically become a cyberbullying tool of choice for others by targeting people they simply do not like by encouraging harassment.

Not cool.

In the example of DVTV/DR, it is impossible for that site to please everybody. Like Bill Cosby famously said, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." That's exactly what ASLRocks tried to do and as a result it fell short of its first anniversary but it was fertile ground for massive number of cyberbullying examples that went unimpeded and that people secretly or openly condoned the open cyberbullying atmosphere.

Here's the thing. You become more dysfunctional in the effort to please everybody and end up marginalizing yourself instead.

What kind of a life is that?

If you want a true Twitter page on cyberbullying without all of the innuendos and nastiness but from a more "professional" approach then go here.

Delay in NAD's response to Seattle Police Chief

Took them that long to respond?

NAD wrote a letter on March 15, 2011 for the Seattle Police Chief....7 months after the killing of John T. Williams.

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) sent a letter to the Seattle Police Chief John Diaz regarding the tragic killing of John T. Williams, a hard of hearing First Nation artist, by then Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk on August 30, 2010.

Here's the March 15th letter.

I suppose it's better late than never as they say but I am curious as to the time it took them to write a letter to the Seattle Police Chief.

Marlee Matlin to speak at diversity summit in Portland

Marlee Matlin is coming to Portland, Oregon "to speak at Maximizing the Power of a Changing Workforce: Diversity Summit 2011 presented by Portland General Electric. The event is scheduled for 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday, April 15, at the Oregon Convention Center. Tickets are sold at the PGE’s website.

Although tickets won't be cheap if you want to attend. It'll set you back at $249.00.

Portland General Electric describes Marlee Matlin:

Academy Award®-winning actress, activist and ambassador for the deaf community, shares her personal life story, emphasizing achieving inclusion, diversity and access for all.

Speaking of diversity, Marlee Matlin made absolutely clear on diversity and choices in her recent tweet.

@Starkeyhearing does not deny ASL or deaf culture; they provide hearing aids. BTW, lots of ASL users wear hearing aids.
And just as an FYI @starkeyhearing tests hearing when parents can’t afford tests for kids and gives out FREE hearing aids.
I sign, I support deaf culture. And I support ALL CHOICES of communication, all kinds of people. If you don’t like my choices, well….

One smart cookie. That's diversity for ya! Did you read that? All choices of communication. Sounds familiar?

Yet some culturally deaf people get all snippy about her support of Starkey's philanthropic mission on giving out free hearing aids. They simply do not see the bigger picture here. Amy makes an obvious point about Marlee Matlin:

If you have a twitter account, go and check @MarleeMatlin, and she has 91,772 followers. She has a clout. People started taking ASL classes, parents decided to sign to their young Deaf children, and celebrities complimenting her.

You see. When people see Marlee sign on a tv show or in a movie that get them interested on wanting to know more about sign language. But that's not enough for some die hard nuts on trying to mold her into their own "deaf image." There is no need for them to get all upset because she supports all choices of communication. Those people need to grow up and get with the program.

Good point, Amy.

Go Starkey!