Sarah Churman responds to questions....

It was a matter of time until Sarah found the time to answer some questions pertaining to her ability to speak clearly and how she hears before and after getting her implantable hearing aid. It is really astounding to read comments from people saying how it's an impossibility for one to develop a clear voice with no deaf accent. Here's Sarah Churman's money shot on one of the  most asked question,"How do you know how to talk?":

Anyway, everyone is different. Everyone heals differently, everyone learns differently, and everyone excels at different things. I personally have always LOVED to read and write. English and Grammar have always been something I have enjoyed. I also enjoy talking! (Big shocker to those who know me huh? NOT! Lol.) I have worked very hard to overcome and to speak well. I went to deaf ed school when I was very young, then on to public school where I took speech classes and therapy. I don't think people realize how intently I read lips. When you read lips, you are studying how people move their mouths, where they place their tongue (and for those of you with tongue rings, yes, you trip me up) and their teeth. It's a skill I have had 29 years to hone.

Next question: "How did she know what the doc was saying without looking at her mouth?"

Um. I got my ear turned on :) How do YOU know what people are saying? You HEAR them. I don't mean to be rude, but really? I don't know, I can't explain the brain or how it works. I just know my ear works and I heard her clear as a bell. (which was awesome) I've always been able to hear some noise if it was loud enough with my hearing aids, just not able to make a distinction as to what people were actually saying. If you covered your mouth, I couldn't read your lips. The best way I know to explain it is like this.; if you went to a foreign country and someone spoke to you, you'd know they were talking because you can hear something, but you have no idea what they are actually saying. Hope that helps.

With hearing aids, noise distortion is always an issue which is why sometimes hearing people talk can get muddled. Sounds are electronically amplified but gets distorted. But with the Esteem implantable hearing aid this distortion gets eliminated because it uses the ear's "eardrum as a natural microphone, picking up sounds through the ear canal, thereby using the body’s natural anatomy to reduce the background noise, distortion, and acoustic feedback that people experience with conventional hearing aids."

It's pretty galling to see people dismiss the very notion that deaf people cannot have the ability to speak clearly. I don't think the motto "deaf/hh people can do anything except hear" precludes the ability to speak clearly. Some require more intense speech therapy and training while others not so much. It all depends on amount of hearing loss, types of frequency loss, early intervention, amount of speech therapy and probably the most important of all is the love to talk constantly and not be afraid to find ways to improve speech diction. Although I believe that we can have the ability to hear just not close to the level of a hearing person but that Esteem implantable hearing aid sure comes pretty close.

The elimination of a scourge....

An organization in New Zealand is setting out to eradicate this scourge that affects an estimated 284 million people worldwide. Approximately 80% of the cases are due to causes which could have been prevented, treated or cured in the first place. This scourge cost the New Zealand society some $2.8 billion dollars in 2009. Multiply this cost in all of the countries worldwide and you'll see how exacting this condition affects society. This organization makes a point that this "is a scourge to be avoided at all costs." Just like the scourge of polio that is now a thing of the past. The irony here is that no outrage will be directed at this organization's ultimate goal in New Zealand on finding ways to eliminate this "scourge."

And then you have Dimity Dornan who says that deafness is scourge and that one day it will disappear just like polio. Yet you have some Deaf people in an outrage over this attempt at eradicating the condition of hearing loss whether it's mild or profound hearing loss.

Funny thing, if you were born with a hearing loss or became deaf pre-lingually and later in life as an adult you lose your vision completely but you'd be the first one to step up to have your eye-sight restored once a cure for vision loss becomes available. The irony would be that you'd object to a cure and the eradication for hearing loss but not for eradicating vision loss. Me think some people out there are hyperventilating a wee bit too much.

An example of a successful hearing loss organization

If you haven't heard of Hearing Loss Association of America you will now. This is an organization that has been around awhile since 1979 when they were known as SHHH (Self Help for Hard of Hearing) aimed at mostly the hard of hearing segment of society. It has grown today into a nationally known organization that is representative of the hearing loss population seen in the United States with 36 million people with hearing loss. In 2006, they began a Walk4Hearing project as way to raise funds. In it's first year it was a smashing success surpassing expectations on the money raised when they hoped to get $25,000 and instead got $300, 000 that year. This year their goal is to raise $1.2 million dollars and they are already on track to reach that goal with $1.07 million dollars already raised so far. A remarkable feat in such a short time. A testament to their marketing skills, support and advocacy.  The Walk4Hearing is national event that takes place in 24 cities throughout the year providing constant awareness about hearing loss and their organization. It is the largest walk of its kind in the country that raises awareness and helps to eradicate the stigma associated with hearing loss.

The organization's mission is to help people rather than create enemies. Their organization's leaders do not disparage people, create an oppressive "political atmosphere," attack companies, mess around with their bylaws or go after organizations because of a philosophical difference. Their philosophy is different. Their goals are different. Their mission is to is to open the world of communication to people with hearing loss by providing information, education, support and advocacy. Because of that people become receptive of that approach in seeking their support and help.

On one end you have deaf organizations (e.g. CAD, NAD, DeafNation, etc) that are completely and exclusively for the most part Deaf people that have a totally different way of interacting socially and with a different mindset. Now, if you have ever attended Hearing Loss Association of America workshops, visited their chapters (like I have) or conventions and met people there you'd find out it to be a completely different environment because you'll come across people with all forms of hearing loss from mild to profound wearing hearing aids or cochlear implants. Many of them do know sign language while a majority of them are people who speak and listen. This is especially noticeable at the Walk4Hearing if you ever get a chance to participate and interact with them. It's an almost completely different social camaraderie atmosphere compared to an exclusively Deaf environment. Those at Walk4Hearing are people that are representative of the hearing loss population in the U.S.

Watch this captioned video about the Walk4Hearing and the people involved. There are some signers in this video, too.

Deafhood? No Thanks.... revisited

People continue misunderstand about this loosely affiliated "group" on FB called "Deafhood? No Thanks" thinking it's based on the denial about ourselves regarding our hearing loss and who we are.

That's the furthest from the truth.

Rather it's our polite way of telling people that we do not subscribe to a closed society's approach using peer pressure, the incorporation of 'deaf power' movement or the flavor of it, the 'one communication option' approach, or using the movement to bully others through fear or use of oppressive tactics. Yet probably the most important of all is that we don't subscribe to playing the perennial victim card.  Subscribing to those approaches is a sure way to alienate further hearing parents of deaf/hh children, hard of hearing and deaf people, and even Deaf people. We don't subscribe to a victim mentality. We don't subscribe to the philosophy of exclusion and judgements regarding deafness.  We don't subscribe to going after parents who make alternative decisions for their deaf or hard of hearing children. We favor open society approaches such as equality for all deaf and hard of hearing people regardless of their backgrounds, communication methods and technology options. We invite anyone and make no judgements when it comes to deafness and their choices.We give them our support regardless the choices they make on deafness related issues.

We don't go around and mock other people's ability to speak calling it "yowling." We support them if they prefer to use their voice or not. Sign or not. Cued speech or not. Use of pen and paper or not.  Use SEE or not. Use ASL or not. Use CI or not. Use implantable hearing aid or not.  Prefer a hearing society over a deaf society. We don't go around wishing people harm or death because of philosophical difference or disagreement regarding deafness or their communication preferences. We don't harass people and sic the CPS on them. Or call their employers. And most important of all, we don't see ourselves as victims lamenting about the cruel fate of life, the unfairness of it all. The woe is me shtick. We don't need more labels. We don't need the stereotypes. We define it for ourselves as each of us see fit. Our journey is already deeply personal to begin with. A mere label doesn't do justice. And many of us simply do not care for it. While others may like the label and use it as they see personally fit, which is fine but I leave a caveat.

You may say it's simply a journey when it comes to "deafhood" but to go further by tacking on that label with a political ideology will only serve to alienate people further. Using the term to advance a political agenda and a springboard to attack individuals or companies while hiding behind an obvious facade.  Hypocrisy shines through when those things happen. We may be deaf or hard of hearing but we ain't blind. The concept of "deafhood" has de-evolved away from the concept of diversity and simple acceptance into the maws of power, politics and even greed. If it were about diversity and simple acceptance it would have been plainly obvious for all to see. But the mask has long since fallen off.

The term "deafhood" will never be accepted by the larger population of people with hearing loss. This is a population with some 33 million people with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound hearing loss. The majority of people are those with mild and moderate hearing loss.  A smaller percentage of that population are people with severe to profound hearing loss. Smaller still are people considered to be culturally deaf with ASL that makes up roughly about 2 percent of the total population of people with hearing loss (~600,000 or so).

It's like trying to incorporate "blindhood" and say that it's for all people with any kind of vision impairment who are undergoing their own journey, even those with easily correctable vision. But ask them if they are blind and they'll emphatically say they are not while others with more serious vision loss or impairment may say they're legally blind to those who have no vision at all are completely blind. The same with "deafhood" when it comes to people with mild or even moderate hearing loss who function fine with hearing aids (or even in some cases without hearing aids) and ask them if they are deaf and they will emphatically say they are not. Hard of hearing sure. Some hearing impairment? Sure. Have a hearing loss? Sure. But don't tell them they're deaf. That is the reality. That is how they wish to identify themselves as.  I'm not in the position to tell those people that they are wrong if they see themselves as deaf, hard of hearing, Deaf, partially deaf, partially hearing, hearing impaired or simply a person with a hearing loss. It's an individual thing.  Respect that.

Deafhood? No thanks!

New CAD by-laws continues to discriminate and profile?

Without much fanfare or notice to the public the California Association of the Deaf  (a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, incorporated in the State of California) managed to slip in their newly updated and redacted CAD bylaws dated August 13, 2011.  The old CAD Bylaws (link is no good but I do have a copy if you want to look at it) in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 (see archived bylaws here) mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.

Section 25.3  Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents.  Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that discriminatory language in place for over 6 years. And because of that change Barry produced a video thanking CAD for the revision.  CAD may have changed its language in the new by-laws because of the recommendation from the California Department of Justice or from somewhere else. It doesn't matter. What matters is that CAD made the effort to correct a past mistake, however.

The new CAD by-laws appears to favor culturally deaf people, again, only because the term "Deaf" (upper case "D") is not defined and there are profiling and discrimination questions as well.  The term "Deaf" is used almost exclusively throughout the new by-laws.

For example:

Section 2.1 PURPOSE
The mission and advocacy of California Association of the Deaf is the promotion, preservation and protection of the civil rights, social, cultural, health, educational and economic well-being of the Deaf.

Section 3.1 MEMBERSHIP, DUES, AND TERMS
The Association is a membership organization with members having either voting or non-voting privileges and shall be open to all subgroups within the Deaf Community without discrimination as per Article II, Section 2.1 Purpose.

Section 3.3 HONORARY
Persons eminent for distinguished services to the Deaf may be made honorary members of the Association. They shall be entitled to all privileges of the Association.

Section 7.1.10: Communications/PR Committee
Communications/PR Committee shall support Association purposes with informational activities and increase public awareness of Deaf issues; inform members, as well as the general public, of developments in legislation and administration programs; promote communication and coordination between other organizations affecting Deaf issues; and work with Public Policy Committee on any announcements pertaining to advocacy issues. Shall also work to ensure that Deaf individuals living throughout California who may not know about the Association become familiar with who we are and what we do so that they may consider becoming a member and participating in the various activities that are offered.

Over the past few years notable people in the Deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people. According to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) explains the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.

What is obvious is that there are deaf people who may not know sign language, are not affiliated with Deaf culture, have other preferred means to communicate such as speaking, use Cued speech, or use Signing Exact English.

In the August 2011 CAD by-laws Policy and Procedures Guidelines it uses both terms "Deaf" and "hard of hearing" but offered no definitions or meanings for those terms. The only definition offered in the new CAD by-laws is "Deafhood."

PPG:1:2011 Definition of Deafhood:
The phrase “Deafhood” was coined by Paddy Ladd and was adopted by the membership of this Association in 2007. First posted as a counter to deafness, it describes the life-long process by which Deaf identity can be cultivated, maintained and deepened. It is a philosophical search for Deaf community and culture.

In the past CAD omitted the terms "deaf" and "hard of hearing" in favor of using the newly invented term "Deafhood" in their 2005 CAD by-laws. It was a term not found in an approved dictionary (e.g. Merriam-Webster). It was a term that could not be enforced should it get legally challenged because there is no legal definition.  In the new CAD by-laws update the upper case "D"eaf is used extensively throughout its by-laws language as the dominant term used.  This alone gives the appearance of profiling and discrimination that favors heavily culturally deaf people or Deaf people.  In my opinion, CAD needs to redact or revise their August 2011 by-laws and provide the proper definition or clarification for terms "Deaf," deaf, and" hard of hearing."  Not doing so will undoubtedly assure that the CAD by-laws will continue to favor heavily Deaf (culturally deaf) people. Even the CAD's Mission Statement as seen currently in their website,

The mission of the California Association of the Deaf is to protect the civil rights of the movement (empowerment) of Deafhood and promote the social (American Sign Language), cultural, health, educational, and economic well being of the Deaf (Californians) Community in the state of California.

is exactly the same one used in the old 2005 CAD by-laws but not used in current and new 2011 CAD by-laws with the exception that the old 2005 CAD bylaws use the term "hard of hearing" throughout. The new 2011 bylaws does not.

Seeing all this would make it appear that CAD is in an exclusive organization aimed at Deaf people rather than those who are not culturally affiliated (e.g. deaf, hard of hearing), those who do not know sign, or those who prefer to communicate by talking and listening and are comfortable in a hearing community. The California Association of the Deaf needs to re-think, again, their language as it is written currently in their by-laws so as to keep their credibility intact and be taken seriously once and for all.

The Sarah Churman Saga Continues.....

Since I am unable to contribute on Deaf Echo (for their petty reasons that's seven months old) and respond to comments over there I will do so here on my blog regarding what Mishkazena said:

"i'm glad for sarah churman. i wish her the best of luck. however, the title 'hearing her voice for the first time' is misleading. many people deny this, insisting one can develop a clear voice with no deaf accent without hearing one's voice in the past. it's an impossibility. yet our experiences and knowledge are dismissed. we're ridiculed and painted an anti implant group by the adoring and awe-struck hearing audience. this had been reinforced by several deaf people with a chip on their shoulders against culturally deaf people taking this as yet another opportunity to attack these deaf people."

I think it all boils down to the missing context of that YouTube title which says, "29 years old and hearing myself for the 1st time!" which could have been meant to say "29 years old and hearing myself clearly and loudly for the first time."  We don't know who put that title in but it was Sarah's husband who videotaped her. It was her husband who put that video on YouTube which means it was probably most likely her husband who wrote down that title.  But what we don't know is that there could be some truth to that title that Sarah was hearing her own voice for the first time. Unless you have her audiogram and a complete picture of her history, I suggest people withhold judgement until it becomes clear on Sarah's hearing loss.

Having said that, people with high frequency hearing loss can and do have a harder time hearing one's own voice, especially if the person is a female such as in probably the case for Sarah Churman. I don't know. Instead of saying it's an impossibility that she could speak so clearly and say she's deaf consider the option of keeping an open mind. Sarah already explained to Ellen DeGeneres that she cannot explain completely why she can speak so well and gets asked with that question all the time. She told Ellen that she accredited her good speech to deaf ed, speech therapy and her love to talk alot. But somehow people seem to try and paint her as a liar and not telling the truth. 

Next we have Dianrez's blog who continues to misunderstand and even twist on what I've said in the past.

People who have even a slight amount of hearing at some point, or who were born with hearing, are able to make the most of it in many cases and these are the ones most helped by hearing aids or later cochlear implants or the new implantable middle-ear device. Those with excellent auditory memory do the best of all. That the media and some bloggers continue to categorize them as "deaf" is misleading: these people are not, NOT deaf.

There are so many different types of hearing LOSS. I used this word deliberately. They are people with auditory memory going way back, even unconsciously; they have brain pathways in the speech range that worked at one time, and may still work. Then they "suffered" a LOSS. The memory traces are still there, however.

Hard of hearing people have this, too. McConnell, himself hard-of-hearing, acknowledges that there are different types of hearing LOSS, but he makes the mistake of lumping profoundly deaf people into this group. These are people without any auditory memory from birth, and even with early cochlear implants, may not always develop useful hearing as Heuer points out in his article.

A few profoundly deaf people have cochlear implants and are said to be living as hearing people, such as the Chaikof sisters of Cochlearimplantonline.com. Many, as all of us personally know, do not hear as well and as many stash them in drawers as those that use them. (Heuer)

I discussed in my blogs on the key to early intervention in conjunction with using current hearing technology to make it work, even for those who are profoundly deaf using cochlear implant, and make use of the auditory cortex during those crucial 4 years window of opportunity. I made my point about early intervention numerous times in my blogs, especially on cochlear implants, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many more going back a few years in my blog. The phrase "hard of hearing" does not pertain to db loss nowadays simply because of the advent of cochlear implant technology.  It's the ability to discriminate words, understand environmental sounds and speak intelligibly with the help of current hearing technology along with audio and speech therapies. Cochlear implants make it possible nowadays for those born profoundly deaf get implanted at such a young age and develop the ability to discriminate the spoken words (without looking) and be able to speak extremely well. The key has always been early intervention (rather than "auditory memory") using the existing hearing technology with lots of supports and encouragements. Not every instances are a success for various reasons but successes there are. In fact, Dianrez's own suggestion at the end of her blog supports my argument about profoundly deaf people can be put into the category of "hard of hearing":

Deaf: having little usable hearing for speech. Having little usable hearing for environmental sounds. Having little usable hearing even with devices.

You have profoundly deaf people who were born profoundly deaf whose hearing (what's left of it) is considered still usable only because of the existence of cochlear implant makes it possible to bridge that gap. Young deaf children have usable hearing for listening and speech development if cochlear implant is considered. It still usable hearing when it comes to environmental sounds. In a word, that would fit the definition of hard of hearing for prelingually (profoundly) deaf people who end up benefitting greatly from cochlear implants. Not all would fit into the category as hard of hearing people but many do. Even Jamie Berke of About.com Deafness admitted how the cochlear implant technology changed the meaning of the term "hard of hearing" for profoundly deaf people.

What is the difference between being hard of hearing and being deaf? The answer is not simple, and is getting even harder to define with the growth of cochlear implants.

You have cochlear implant wearers who consider themselves as deaf and hard of hearing just like you have hearing aid users who consider themselves as deaf and hard of hearing, just like me. Turn the device off, you're deaf. Turn it on, you're hard of hearing. Just like Sage in this captioned video below when she was 16 years old who was outfitted with a cochlear implant at age 22 months speaks about her cochlear implant.



There's no doubt that Sage is hard of hearing but then again she's deaf, too.

As for the Chaikof sisters (Rachel Chaikof that runs her own website Cochlear Implant Online) they never made the claims of living as "hearing people" but rather they have the ability to interact and associate with hearing people solely because of the early intervention with cochlear implant and speech therapies made it possible today to interact. Just as I can interact easily with hearing people but I'm certainly not a hearing person. They know they are deaf but see themselves as hard of hearing. Let's not twist words, Dianrez.

Another twist by Dianrez about what I said.

Then we have people who defend the people who are involved in the quest to hear again. Mike McConnell is one. Immediately he jumps on people who point out the flaws in such cures by way of electronic and mechanical devices: "Why is it so hard to congratulate a grown deaf adult seeing the immediate (and emotional) success from her implantable hearing aid in a video?" He has written several consecutive blogs, each insisting that Sarah is deaf four different ways and is still deaf when she turns off the implant. He adds, "Those people need to take their brains out of the gutter and stop with the stereotyping of what deaf people can or cannot do, especially on the ability to speak well. This is especially true coming from deaf people themselves which serves only an ironic and hypocritical reminder. Yet people continue with this conspiracy theory thinking something's afoot. Practically insinuating that she is not deaf because there is no way she can speak that well. No way!! Well, get over it folks, she is deaf."

I've not described nor insisted that Sarah is deaf in four different ways. Please stop with the disingenuous hyperbole and dishonesty, Dianez. I've already explained in the above about the terms "deaf" and "hard of hearing." Secondly, my comment asking why is it so hard to congratulate Sarah Churman's implantable hearing aid success was taken out of a paragraph I wrote while leaving the rest behind that explains my questioning which had nothing to do with about jumping on "people who point out flaws in such cures" (because implantable hearing aids are not a cure). Rather my comment had to do with people lamenting about one's own history struggling with his/her hearing aid wishing his/her story was video-taped and had gone viral, too. Instead of being happy for her you hear lamentations, the whole nine-yards "woe-is-me."

Oppressive Deaf Space?

Something I read (and watched) on YouTube by spdundas37 concerning the a-wordism at Gallaudet University and about "Deaf Space."  Now I understand this concept of "Deaf Space" especially when it revolves around hearing people on the campus of Gallaudet University and even more so while in classrooms. Although I have serious reservations about going after a group of hearing people at a table who are having a private conversation in Gallaudet University cafe dinning room who were signing and talking at the same time (SimCom). I don't know if all of the hearing people knew sign or if they were all students at Gallaudet or there were a few hearing people who didn't know sign which could probably explain the reason for this CODA SimComming. Such information was limited given by spdundas37. If it's a group of people having their own private and quiet conversations at a table and no one is complaining at that table, what right does spdundas37 have from across the room to tell them to stop using SimCom?

Moving on. Let's change the picture some. I have other questions about this "Deaf Space" concept described by spdundas37 when it comes to deaf and hard of hearing students who do regularly sign and use their voice at the same time on campus. Back in my days at Gallaudet University from 1988 to 1991 myself and many of my friends and their friends signed and talked at the same time.  Many of us signed and mouthed the words at the same time, sometimes completely or partially. Many of us simply signed with some mouth movements or none at all. Most of these conversations took place at Gallaudet University cafeteria where we all naturally segregated ourselves into our respective tables and have these conversations. Nobody objected because these were private conversations and we were all in our own very special "Deaf Space" based on our comfort level with each other and our tolerance when it came to communicating. I'm sure today this is still true that many deaf/hh students do regularly sign and talk to each other at the same time while on campus at Gallaudet University outside of the classrooms. I don't know if this would be the minority or majority of the campus population but the point is that it still continues today.

I believe spdundas37 was wrong to intrude onto a private conversation at another table by telling a group of hearing people to stop using their voice while signing.  If that CODA person actually screamed and attacked spdundas37 then that CODA person was wrong to do that but then again I wasn't there and so I don't have the full picture of what really went on. Although spdundas37 made it clear that this group of hearing people was at another table across the room using SimCom which clearly tells us that this was a group of people having a private conversation amongst themselves and to no one else. It wouldn't matter if they were hearing, deaf or hard of hearing. What matters is that they were having a private conversation and bothering nobody. If they were SimComming then what does it matter if they signed and mouthed the same exact words instead without voicing? What does it matter if you cannot hear their voices? Simply put, it was a private conversation that got interrupted because of political correctness.

Echoing Sentiments

Chris Heuer produced a piece in Deaf Echo basically lamenting over Sarah Churman's YouTube video that went viral by going over his own little history and hinting that he may just take back his sincerity about Sarah Churman.

Sarah Churman, if you’re reading this, let me start out with a disclaimer. What I’m about to write isn’t about you. If your implanted hearing aid works for you, that’s great. For the moment I say this with all sincerity.

Some of you, including Sarah Churman, might be wondering what I mean by that remark: “…for the moment.” By way of an explanation, let me tell you a story.

The one thing that many, many people continue to forget about the viral YouTube video of Sarah Churman was that the Churmans never expected it to go viral in the first place. In the first 8 days since YouTube aired, she has been on the Today Show with Matt Lauer and the Ellen DeGeneres show, and was featured on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Webwise, she was all over the place as well. Pretty good in just a few days time. Technically it'd been about 5 or 6 days time rather than 8 days because it took a few days before the video went viral and that's when the media caught wind of it, both the web and on TV. It went viral with no fault of Sarah's own. She didn't put the video up, her husband did with the encouragement of his mother so that their families and friends would be able to witness Sarah's reaction to her implant being turned on. The video captured accurately that Sarah was hearing herself for the first time. And now some people are heaping scorn at her for a variety of reasons. 

Strange world indeed.

Why is it so hard to congratulate a grown deaf adult seeing the immediate (and emotional) success from her implantable hearing aid in a video? A result that took Sarah by surprise at the clarity of sound that was coming in. Why reserve such congratulations to her and instead lament about one's own history struggling with his hearing aid wishing his story was video-taped and had gone viral, too? Had Sarah Churman's video received only 2000 views, all of this would've been essentially a "non-story." But instead it churned out some 7.2 million views/hits so far in less than two weeks.

Of course, I don't expect that everybody will share the same sentiments echoing mine when it comes to congratulating Sarah on her successful use of her implantable hearing aid. My approach is to separate myself from Sarah's and leave it at that because I recognize that each of us is different when it comes to our hearing loss, our experience, our upbringing, our preferences to communicate, and whether we successfully used our hearing aids, cochlear implants, other implantable hearing devices (e.g. Baha, Envoy, etc) or none at all (e.g. signing) to our benefits.


Off topic:
I'm disappointed and sad to report this but I am left with no recourse but to report this behavior and continued misunderstanding.

I left a comment at Deaf Echo on a blog piece about Sarah Churman just a few minutes ago. I went back to see if any responses came up (Patti's came up) only to see that my comment was once again removed. I am guessing this has to do with a disagreement and misunderstanding over what I wrote, my opinion several months back (and here) in Febuary 2011.  But I wasn't sure if I was still on the banned list (seven months later) and made a screen copy of my comment submission just in case. Sure enough, I'm persona non grata (the new commenting rules can be seen here while the old seen on Feb 2, 2011 can be seen here) for petty reasons, I suppose.

Before at 9:50 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):

Removed at approximately 10:10 AM PCT (Oct 9, 2011):

As you can see my comment was deleted. Nothing demeaning, hateful, derogatory, or abusive about it as you can clearly see from what I wrote seen in the screen capture. No ad-hominem attacks.  No foul language. And certainly not a spam. I think whoever removed my comment needs to have the cojones to look past his/her own petty feelings when it comes to a difference of opinions instead of hiding behind claims of "abusive comments" as reason for the continued blocking. Incredibly, the moderator(s) still refuse to point out exactly which or what comment of mine back in February 2011 was considered as an "abusive comment" which can, frankly, be anything they would want it to be and call it justified.  All of my comments have not been abusive nor disrespectful as Candy pointed out before as a witness to this whole charade. Clearly my recent comment seen in the screen capture above is not abusive nor disrespectful at all.  Folks, let's learn to let go such pettiness since after all Bobby (one of the moderator of Deaf Echo) said:

We love a good discussion that drives things forward, and we act aggressively to maintain a good environment for our readers and writers.

I've always loved having a good discussion that drives things forward in my blog and in other discussion forums, too. Nothing in my responses were shown to breach that "good environment for our readers and writers" as you can see in my latest comment that was conveniently deleted.  But then again, it's their blog and they have every right to do what they feel is right even if it means letting misunderstanding getting the better of them. Yet, I find all this incredulously humorous. And I certainly have a right to blog my opinions on people who simply cannot accept alternative viewpoints and opinions who are unable to simply agree to disagree. Agreeing to disagree is a show of professionalism. Pettiness is not.

Captioned Video: The Doubters of Sarah Churman

Remember the phrase people, deaf people can do anything...even speak really, really well just like Sarah Churman. Even hear pretty good, too! But we still have a hearing loss at the end of the day when we turn off our hearing aids or cochlear implant.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Churman

I predicted this would happen a few days ago that Rush Limbaugh would discuss about the YouTube viral sensation of Sarah Churman and the Esteem implantable hearing aid remarkable result and impact on her and to the rest of the viewers. I heard Rush discussed the whole thing over my radio this morning. And his transcript can now be seen on his website.

The video of it on YouTube has gone viral. Millions of people are watching it. They got one thing wrong. She was not deaf. For the Esteem to work, you have to have some hearing. If you're a hundred percent deaf it won't work because it restores your natural hearing using your own eardrum. It's a prosthetic hearing implant, just became available last year, totally invisible. If you were to meet her today you would not see it. The Esteem works with her natural hearing to restore it to near optimum levels. The video I mentioned, you can actually see Sarah, the minute the Esteem is turned on she can hear herself laugh for the first time. She can hear her own voice clearly for the first time. She's so overwhelmed by all of this, something that we all take for granted, that she starts to cry.


Now, the video's only a minute and a half long, but it's a couple-Kleenex video. She's crying and laughing so hard, she goes through several tissues. Her husband, Sloan Churman, videotaped the moment for her, and he posts it for family and friends to see that could not be with her in the doctor's office when they turned the thing on. So one person tells another, the video starts to go viral and a week later six and a half million people have seen it or there have been six and a half million views of the video and what made it all possible was the Esteem from Envoy Medical. Now, you can see the video on YouTube, and we're gonna post it at RushLimbaugh.com, too. You can see the Esteem at EnvoyMedical.com, or call them, 800-518-7320.


But you should see this video. The moment it's turned on for the first time in her life she can hear, and it's an amazing thing. If you've never lost your hearing you have no clue what it's like and it's just an amazing thing to see, and it's a fabulous product, and when I saw the video, I said, "That's it! That's the Esteem, that's our client, that's our sponsor." I was proud as I could be, as we only associate with the best.

One thing Rush got wrong was that, yes, Sarah was born deaf. Maybe Rush was thinking in the context as stone deaf but yes, she's deaf and even hard of hearing, too. And now, she's easily hard of hearing to the point when people would automatically assume her to be hearing the way she would speak so clearly.

Congratulations, Sarah!

The Sarah Churman Effect

It was amazing to watch a YouTube video of Sarah Churman having her implantable hearing aid called the Esteem turned on for the first time and see her reaction to the clarity of sound around her. Her husband, Sloan, video taped the whole thing and was reluctant to put it on YouTube since it was supposed to be a private moment like getting married or having a baby as Sloan said.

There are one of three things I'm seeing in YouTube comments and elsewhere from people who objected to the whole video taping thing:

1) It's fake. The whole thing was acted out in order to help promote the Esteem implantable hearing aid.
2) The title of the YouTube video was "misleading" and that she didn't really hear her voice for the first time.
3) Her voice sounded too "hearing-like" and could be heard clearly raising questions if her hearing loss is really severe.

First off, check out Sarah Churman's first blog soon after her Esteem was activated describing her awareness about the new sound around here.

Anyway, I'm supposed to hold the remote up to the device implanted in my skull to activate it and I kept moving it which delayed it being turned on. Just about fainted, then 'viola!' it was on. For you mothers out there.......it was like that moment where time stands still as your baby slips into this world.......I just started crying, then crying more because I could hear myself crying. Then laughing, then freaking out over my laugh. That lead to the shakes and partial hyperventillating. Sloan's boisterous laugh and the grins from the docs was the icing on the cake. Then the tapping of the keys as the nurse lady did something on the computer, followed by the remote being set down on the counter.......I could HEAR it!!! Felt like quite the idiot as I left the center (OMG, Sloan just sneezed in the shower, too funny!) grinning ear to ear.........worse case of 'perma-grin' I've ever had! Stepped outside while Sloan was telling me I was whispering, and walked to the car taking it all in. Foot steps, car doors, engine starting, already tired of hearing myself swallow. Lol. I kept asking "Is this normal? Do you hear that? Does that always do that? Is there a cup rattling around in the back of the car? (WHOA). Made my first phone calls. Called Lari and immediately heard the girls in the background. *Let me take this time to apologize to anyone I've ever called while the girls were chattering..............how the heck do you 'normal folks' hear anything with them in the background?!? Lol. She had Oli tell me "I love you Mommy", then Elise said "I ove you".......I started bawling and had to hand the phone off to Sloan. THAT was an awesome moment. Called my Mom and she was like "Are you talking to me now with the new ear?!?" Called my Dad and if I'm not mistaken I think I heard him get a little choked up. Got to Outback to eat with Alexis and was blindsided by the road noise upon stepping out of the car. The place was on a service road and WOW the highway is NOISY! Hurried up and got inside to get relief from the noise. Could actually hear the servers speaking instead of doing my usual routine of smiling politely and praying to God that they haven't said something I've ignored or not answered. When the waitress brought our drinks on the table I asked Sloan "Do you think she'd find it funny if I asked her to stop slamming the cups and plates on the table?" (I of course knew she wasn't actually slamming anything, I just found it amusing) Real shocker was when she brought my salad and I started to eat. WOW was that loud..........eating a crouton is like fireworks going off. I was certain people 5 tables over were thinking 'you hear that cow chewing?' Sloan and Alexis assured me that no one could hear me chew. Sloan got much satisfaction out of the fact that I promptly started eating with my mouth closed. I've been an avid 'smacker' my whole life.........

Her blog description of sound around her and her reaction on YouTube video doesn't strike me as a fake video or that Sarah is faking it. What's interesting is that those noise she's hearing are in the higher frequency range.

Secondly, about people who objected to the title of Sarah's YouTube video need to chill since her hearing loss precluded her from hearing anything of clarity and loudness, especially her own voice, despite wearing a regular hearing aid. We don't even know exactly the kind of frequency loss she has (one guy is asking for the whole nine yard requesting more hearing loss details from her). She could have a higher frequency hearing loss which may prevent her from hearing her own voice and would hear better at a lower frequency such as a male's voice, hence her picking up a Texan accent. I don't know but this is not really a case worth arguing over the title of her YouTube video. Some people are just plain picky and overly demanding.

Thirdly, her voice sounded too much like a "hearing person"? So what? She obtained her hearing aid at age two enabling her an early start on acquiring sound around her. Her speech training must've gone extremely well and with family support. Until more details come forth I'm not overly concerned on how well she speaks. What's surprising is to hear from people who are basically saying that it's impossible for a deaf person to speak to clearly and well that one wouldn't tell if the person is deaf. Those people need to take their brains out of the gutter and stop with the stereotyping of what deaf people can or cannot do, especially on the ability to speak well. This is especially true coming from deaf people themselves which serves only an ironic and hypocritical reminder.  Yet people continue with this conspiracy theory thinking something's afoot. Practically insinuating that she is not deaf because there is no way she can speak that well. No way!! Well, get over it folks, she is deaf. She speaks very well. And she has a slight Texan accent. And she wears a $30,000 implantable hearing aid. Her life has improved dramatically with the Envoy Esteem implantable hearing aid allowing her to her the sound around her with increased clarity for the first time in her 29 years of her life.


Congratulations, Sarah!

Dream Team of Scientists Collaborate on Cure for Hearing Loss in Ten Years

Looks like a goal is set by a dream team of stem cell scientists and researchers for hearing loss that sensorineural (nerve deafness) hearing loss would be cured through biological means in ten years from now.

The Hearing Restoration Project (HRP) is a Consortium made up of some of the most talented, creative, inspired researchers in the area of cell regeneration in the ear, both mid-level and senior-level investigators whose work has already contributed significantly to the field. The Consortium is an alliance of scientists working collaboratively and interactively with the goal of developing a biologic cure for severe sensorineural hearing loss in the next decade. At the Summit, experts discussed an area of particular promise: hair cell regeneration in humans.


"Hearing Health Foundation understands that it is important to invest in researchers who are working in hair cell regeneration as this will be an important component in the next wave of hearing treatments," said Andrea Boidman, Executive Director of Hearing Health Foundation. "Hearing research needs to be a national priority, and people need to know that there are treatments on the horizon that could really impact their lives."

In fact, a summit was held in New York city today.

Hearing Restoration Initiative 2011 Summit
The Promise of Cell Regeneration
On Monday, October 3, 2011, DRF will host a Summit on Hearing Restoration at the New York Academy of Medicine, at 103rd Street and 5th Avenue in New York City. As a part of DRF's Hearing Restoration Initiative, this landmark summit brings together the leaders in the field of cell regeneration research in the ear to discuss what it is, where it is going and how one day soon a therapy for cell regeneration in the ear will be a reality.


Doors open at 12pm.
Exhibit Hall hours 12pm to 6pm


Exhibitors include:
- AARP - Caption Call - Caption First


This event is open to the public. Online registration has closed, but you will be able to register on-site.


ASL and CART services will be provided.
For more information, please contact Melody Seiling at mseiling@drf.org.

That's pretty ambitious to say that a biological cure using stem cells for sensorineural hearing loss would happen in ten years time. Certainly would be loads better than an Esteem implantable hearing aid.

When haters gonna still hate....and the clueless ones continue to be clueless...

Amazing and touching video of a young woman turning on her implantable Esteem hearing aid for the first time. This YouTube video has gone viral with 4.8 million views and counting with over 20,000 comments along with over 49,000 likes and over 700 dislikes. Good thing the majority knows better and knows what a good thing looks like. Kudos to Sarah Churman for a successful implant but then the sad thing is that you'll get your usual haters in the comment section as always by a bunch of idiots who don't know any better. And then you have a bunch of ignorant people who can't even understand that deaf/hh people can speak just fine. And if you look further you might find a few gems.You'll have to spend some time to find and read those comments including the Today show. And, of course, you gotta go to this forum with the discussion on whether the video is a fake or not. 

Being ignorant is not an excuse.

Next, I bet with this viral video it will push a 2nd wave of interest from people wanting to know more about the Esteem implantable hearing aid and perhaps get even more investors for the makers of Esteem. Last year Rush Limbaugh helped advertise the Esteem hearing aid and saw a huge wave of interest in this new albeit very expensive hearing technology.

Thanks in large part to Limbaugh's plug on his radio show, White Bear Lake, Minn.-based Envoy recently raised another $16.4 million, including $10 million from hearing aid powerhouse Starkey Laboratories Inc., for its Esteem implantable hearing device.

Nice of Starkey Laboratories to donate $10 million dollars to Envoy as a worthy cause.

And lastly, as I mull this thought, I wonder what are the odds that Limbaugh will read about this YouTube viral on his radio show? I'd say it'd be pretty good odds over the next few days or so for that to happen.

UPDATE: For the naysayers, haters and doubters:

The Texan woman had been wearing hearing aids from the age of two, but had mainly relied on lip-reading, because 'hearing aids only help so much'.

Supportive messages have poured in from viewers, including one who wrote: 'This is one of the most beautiful and moving things I've witnessed. We're all so happy for you.'

Mrs Churman replied on YouTube: 'Thank you for all the positive comments... thanks for all the people who are kind.'

In response to viewers who were amazed at her ability to speak clearly, the formerly deaf woman said: 'My whole life I've been complimented on how well I speak.

'I don't really have an answer for you other than I have always had a passion for reading, grammar, and English.

'My hearing loss was/is considered severe to profound. I've worked very hard to be able to interact and blend in... only thing I can say is 'God is good'.'

When hearing people complain of their communication rights

You think only deaf people do this? Here's a case of hearing people complain about not having communication access with deaf people. In this particular case you had a deaf federal employee who preferred only an interpreter but the interpreter was only available once a week for one hour leaving the rest of the 39 hours without an interpreter during the work week.  This deaf employee has access to a typing communication device that would allow him/her to communicate to a hearing person face to face but refused to use it. Hearing federal employees were all too willing to use the typing device to communicate fully with their deaf employee. The refusal by this deaf employee to use the easy to use face to face communication device puts the work of everyone else in the office on hold for 39 hours. By doing that, the deaf employee also takes away the hearing employees’rights to communicate, ironically so. So, who is hurting who here? A case of a selfish deaf employee?

Comments are now open...again.

Looking at the survey I did last month I realized that there are more people wanting to see my comment form stay open and be available rather than have it closed to the public. And, so, I decided to turn my comments back on.

One word for ya'll.

Behave! And with less mewling, too.

Husband and wife - deaf farmers

In an old Deaf Mosaic video that was produced in 1994 I came across an old married deaf couple who were Oklahoma farmers for over 50 years known as Ruby and Harold Moeller. You can watch the video of the Moellers starting at the 21:19 mark. The Deaf Mosaic video of the Moellers was taken some 17 years ago when they were almost 70 years old. I'm sure they are probably not around anymore. And so the question becomes, where are the next generation of deaf farmers? And exactly how many deaf farmers are there in the United States? To have a deaf farmer, much less a married deaf couple who are both farmers, is a rare thing to come across. Much is appreciated to any and all farmers who help grow our food and other products for the United States. It ain't easy.

Midwest Living magazine

Here's something I found interesting. Dan Kaercher who helped start Midwest Living magazine grew up with deaf parents.

Kaercher compiled his travel notes into a chatty book, "Best of the Midwest: Rediscovering America's Heartland" released this May. His observations and experiences also formed the basis for "Dan On the Road," a one-hour special airing on Iowa Public TV and other Midwest PBS stations this spring and summer. A series of half-hour programs based on the trip will debut this winter.

It was Kaercher's ability to read other signs, though, that fostered such storytelling abilities. Kaercher's parents, Edward and Lillian, both were deaf and mute.

"Some of my verbal skills came from the fact that I was their interpreter many times from an early age," Kaercher says during a phone conversation from his office in Des Moines. "They would call on me to talk to the guy at the furniture store, to call my grandmother in Omaha. I had to develop my verbal skills very early."

It was a unique parent-child bond that came to an end only last summer when Kaercher's mother died at 95 years old—days before he was to begin the second leg of his journey. Lillian Kaercher caught a cold, then developed pneumonia. She spent one day in the hospital before dying. "Somebody who's 95 dying that mercifully and swiftly, if you will, was a blessing to us," Kaercher says.

Still, "it was a shock. It was tough. We buried her in Council Bluffs on Monday and then Tuesday afternoon I had to be in Chicago to start the next leg of the trip. I thought, ‘How can I get through this?' But . . . sometimes parents are helping you along when they're not physically along."

Roots

Married later in life, Edward and Lillian Kaercher were "totally not expecting a child" when their son came along in 1949. "Life was hard for my parents because life was hard for disabled people then," Kaercher says. "It's not easy now. Employment and things like that were very difficult."

Kaercher's father, a Philadelphia native, graduated from Pennsylvania School for the Deaf, Gallaudet College and Lutheran Theological Seminary. He is cited in the book, "Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America," as being the first deaf Lutheran pastor to be ordained, in 1929. Edward later established "preaching points" in various East Coast cities before illness forced him out of the pulpit in 1942.

Sometime after that he came to Nebraska, ostensibly to visit his sister, Hilda, who in 1943 formed Immanuel Lutheran Church in Bellevue. His real motivation was to meet a woman spoken of by a friend from Gallaudet College—Lillian, a Nebraska School for the Deaf graduate and recent widow. "There aren't all that many people to pick from, sometimes, if you have this disability of deafness," Kaercher says. "At that time, a deaf person almost always married a deaf person."

Edward and Lillian did just that, then moved to the Finger Lakes region of New York. Kaercher was born there, in Elmira, N.Y. "Despite that blemish," he jokes, "I can claim safely that I've been a Midwesterner for 52 out of my 56 years. I couldn't have asked for two better parents. Both very loving. My father . . . really opened up the world to me. He loved to travel."

When he was 4, the family "got a fresh start," moving to Omaha. They lived in Logan Fontenelle Homes, segregated public housing in North Omaha. Edward began a new career, teaching at Iowa School for the Deaf. Their son attended Kellom Grade School at 24th and Paul streets. "The project we lived in was segregated until the mid-'50s," Kaercher says. "The school was integrated. The majority of students in my grade school through fourth grade were black, which opened my horizons, too. At the time, I thought it was just normal."

The family moved to Council Bluffs in 1959, Kaercher attending Hoover Grade School and Abraham Lincoln High School (which has inducted him into its hall of fame). At Hoover in the fifth grade he met his wife-to-be, Julie. The two didn't begin dating until their senior at A.L., however. They graduated in 1967, Dan heading for the University of Omaha, Julie for Iowa State University.

Just to let you know that Julie and Dan Kaercher donated money to the Iowa School for the Deaf and was mentioned in the 2009/2010 newsletter. But upon researching the video magazine of Midwest Living as seen in YouTube isn't captioned which is strange considering Dan Kaercher's background on having deaf parents. I wonder if he realizes that there are over 30 million people in the United States with hearing loss that could benefit a lot from captioned videos? 

The mummified remains of Deaf Bill and hauntings

Here's an interesting story about Deaf Bill who died in 1915 at age 52 and was essentially "forgotten" when left in a closet and over the years the body essentially "dried up" and was mummified. Many believe Deaf Bill haunts Mineral Springs Hotel where he once worked and lived there in Alton, Illinois.

Comments are now closed

Comments are now closed. It was open for three days over the Labor Day weekend. You had your chance.

Comments are now open.

You can put your comments in now.  Comment box will remain open until Tuesday, Sept 6, after the Labor Day weekend. Say your piece while you still have time.

Bullying and mocking only because they look different?

A recent news of a deaf boy who was bullied and mocked on a school bus only because he was different and wore hearing aids. It got so bad when kids grabbed his two expensive hearing aids and threw them out of the bus window. The deaf boy explained using his clear and articulate voice  on what happened and you can tell he was upset by it all. This reminded me of an incident when I was a sophmore in high school during lunch in the school cafeteria. One hearing guy at the cafeteria table mocked me by putting up an empty paper cup (for ketchup) on his ear as if it were a hearing aid. A fake hearing aid. I wrote that one off as purely a case of immaturity and lack of education. What he did would be construed as a sort of bullying when done in such a mocking manner.

That incident also reminded me of the coda brothers, who are hearing, when they mocked cochlear implant wearers on camera by wearing fake cochlear implants.  There was also another video example with one of the coda brothers who mocked by pretending to be an oral deaf person by making exaggerated lips and mouth movements, and talking loudly thus painting a false stereotype of deaf people who prefer to talk or can speak.  There are deaf and hard of hearing people who talk just fine (for example, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).  They may look different, they may speak differently, but so what? Why the need to mock and bully deaf people for who they are?

Watch the video below and turn on the CC button to get the captioning on the main YouTube page by clicking on the YouTube icon first.



Now, you wouldn't like it if hearing people go around on videos and mock deaf people by doing a bunch of fake signing, would you?

I hope that deaf boy's mother will get her money back for buying those expensive hearing aids and there'd be some justice in all this.

Meeting halfway....

I don't really get it when you have people who make the claim on how easy it is to set up an electronic face to face communication method such as using one or two laptops or tablets to communicate with a hearing person but do deaf people really take advantage of that technology? Instead I think many deaf people would rather opt out for a paper and pen situation in a family, social setting and make excuses for using such a method. From Deaf Echo one commenter gave an example of that of the pen and paper limitation.

I brought a bunch of notepads and pens to a family Thanksgiving dinner once and at the start of the evening, politely informed everyone that I didn't want to miss anything, so would they please write to me? I got two messages the entire night (both from the same distant cousin). One was "How is school?" and the other was some other statement I don't remember anymore. Very superficial. I responded in voice... was perfectly willing to meet everyone halfway... didn't happen. That was the last big family gathering like that that I ever attended. No bitterness or anger... I just stopped going. The burden of communication shouldn't be only on the deaf person. It should be shared by everyone, especially by those who profess to love that deaf person the most (his or her family). If that's not going to happen, especially if the deaf person in question directly ASKS for that, then there's no point in keeping up with pretenses. Just my view on it.

Using the paper and pen route isn't exactly an ideal way to communicate effectively, especially in this day and age of communication technology, with your family members and not have real conversations using one liners which makes the whole conversation a tedious and boring process.  Not a very engaging and interactive way of communicating.  For example, read what Richard Hurst, Clois James, and Ashleigh Smith had to say when they took advantage of an existing communication technology in social settings with their family members using a face to face communication device.

If a technology exist that makes face to face communication possible, regardless what that device is,  then why not take advantage of that technology instead of using the boring pen and paper method? Using such a technology can certainly help make conversations that much more engaging. Hearing people or non-sign language users would be much more apt to converse using a face to face communication technology than the old pen and paper method.

Just getting started

It's been 32 days since I turned off the news spigot save any weather-related news which I need to stay on top of as it's related to my work.  The news generated nowadays are the same old, same old news with some variants in between. Also turned off is the participation or reading any discussion forums which can become an easy way of trapping yourself into a vicious cycle that never ends when it comes to commenting that go nowhere but steal valuable time. It can become an insidious addiction problem if one isn't careful. But that spigot was decidedly turned off months ago for the better.

Looking back, posting on average 5 to 7 comments a day might seem innocuous enough but it's the amount of time on reading that can take up a lot of your time prior to posting comments. Let's take an average 6 posting a day and multiply that by 365 days which will equal to 2,198 posts in a year or almost 11,000 posted comments over a 5 year period. Posting a comment can be anywhere from one line long to 5 paragraphs long. Writing 35 lines of comments is enough to fill one page in a book. Assuming all comments are on average one line long for each posted comment, then over a 5 year period a person would've produced the equivalent of a 300+ page book!

I began in July 2006 in Alldeaf and ended my discussion forum days (so far) in July 2011 after seeing I had over 11,000 posts in 5 years did I realize how much postings I've done. And that comes out to an average of 6 postings per day since July 2006 leaving me with almost 12,000 posted comments. I call that an addictive behavior. Just when I thought 12,000 posts over a 5 year period was too much did I find other members such as Jiro (joined in 2007) and Jillio (joined in 2006) with over 45,000+ and 50,000+ posts, respectively, the last time I remembered before I left in July.   But with 50,000+ postings, that comes out to an average 30 postings per day if you do the math. If I thought posting 6 posts a day on average was too much, imagine posting 30 comments a day on average for 365 days a year. Heck, that's like writing one 300 page book a year!

It's an addiction problem whether one wants to admit it or not. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to figure that one out. Denying it will only make your problems worse.

It's like the realization on the amount of time you sleep on average when added up can become a humble awakening moment that you might be sleeping your life away even though I get my usual 6 to 6 1/2 hours of sleep over the last few decades. I just find the numbers intriguing as the reason for my blog posting. The same goes for realizing the amount of postings I did in a discussion forum but only this time I have the numbers to show for where I believe I exhibited an addictive behavior over at Alldeaf by posting too much over a period of time. But seeing somebody post over 50,000+ posted comments over a 5 year period makes mine look like nothing. Not to say I won't go back but like in life everything in moderation.

Some might become reticent and stubborn, and call their reason for such participation in a discussion forum as part of their socialization needs. The problem is that not everything posted is about socializing but about the psychological and emotional needs to post comments, regardless, and the deep seated need to respond to posted comments at every turn. That's when it becomes a problem. Though I'm not saying that participating in a discussion forum is bad. There's always a balance when it comes to those things, and which area you prefer to make use of your time with. Just be aware of the amount of time spent and realize that.

Long story short. I figure I make better use of my time for other projects and goals in my life.

The "Art of Solitude"

Exactly what is it? What's the difference for a deaf, hard of hearing and hearing person if one wants to practice the "Art of Solitude"? How can it be an "art"? The "Art of Solitude" sure sounds like a book title but it's certainly not something that you have to be a monk to enjoy it.  This is about being in a place without distraction with none of the clatter and noise (the noxious visual, auditory and smell). It's an opportunity to delve into yourself with greater introspection about the world around you. Solitude isn't dependent on having no sound at all such as having a hearing loss. Solitude could mean lying on a grassy bank, under a warm sun while next to a creek listening to the soothing, babbling noise of water flowing downstream. Or it could mean only the sound of nature be the soothing medium. Or it could mean complete and still silence. Solitude means different things to different people. Your solitude is not necessarily my kind of solitude.

First, let's get the definition of the word "solitude." It's defined as 1)The state or quality of being alone or remote from others; or 2) A secluded place.

So, having that solitude doesn't mean going out into the wilderness or forest alone. It can be anyplace where you can be able to shut yourself off and away from the outside world. But if you can get yourself some solitude outdoors then that's probably the best way to do it. I've many moments of solitude such as walking a sandy beach on an island for almost two hours with nary a soul basking under the summer sun. I've hiked the forested mountains alone and not meet anybody for miles but let nature be my companion that soothed my soul. I sat on a grassy knoll at 10,600 feet high after a few hours of hiking just to get that coveted spot and experience the vast openness with the world below me. Hiked the desert full of Chihuahuan shrubs such as creosote bush, mesquite, agave, ocotillo and the lechugilla while I enjoyed the full view of desert life. And swam in a swimming hole 200 feet below into the basalt canyon with no one around save some rattlesnakes, badgers and birds. There are times when solitude meant being by yourself to experience nature around you when you get the chance and opportunity.

Several months ago I watched a show "Flying Wild Alaska" where one guy and his wife lived in a cabin 25 miles inside the Arctic Circle in Alaska for over 25 years. The place is so remote the nearest road is 250 miles away and the only way to get there is by airplane. That couple is the only couple that live year round as a resident of his own home.  If anything, those couple mastered the art of solitude as they call it "home." If you can live there for over 25 years basically alone and not suffer cabin fever, heck, bow to that master of the Alaskan wilderness and solitude.


“I live in that solitude which is painful in youth, but delicious in the years of maturity.” ~Albert Einstein

Why no swear words in captioning?

I wrote an email to the National Captioning Institute asking the question on why swear words are bleeped out on captioned television shows when in the audio portion of the same show you can hear them clearly? The response I got may surprise you as well as raise questions about the not-so-logical reasoning for allowing bleeped out captions.

The policy for captioning swear words is set by each network, not by the various captioning companies. Our standard policy is to make all captions verbatim, so if a swear word is bleeped out, then it is also left out of the captioning. Some networks tell us to never caption a swear word and let them know if one gets left in the audio of prerecorded programs. For live programs, we just have to leave out swear words for these networks. Some networks tell us to caption all swear words. Other networks only allow us to caption certain swear words. I cannot explain why some networks feel that it is O.K. to have swear words in the audio but not in the captioning.

So, in other words, the shows you watch on a network that have a habit of bleeping out swear words when the audio is clearly heard, you'll have to write to that network asking them not to request from their captioning company to bleep out swear words if they allow audio version of it in a a television show. Write to your network and not to the captioning companies that permits the bleeping of captioned swear words.

Noelle's blog

Noelle produced a blog recently on calling out NAD for its association with a seemingly questionable organization who defaced a sign (although not permanently) by covering up the words on an AGBell plaque on the side of AGBell's building in D.C. last month.  Noelle is re-iterating or pointing out that the image of an organization would be perceived negatively or even militant for its approach even though she supports the use of sign language.

Instead of attacking and protesting a rival organization, they should be promoting ASL and the benefits of bilingualism at the local, state, and national level, and asking for it to be included in ALL communication modes in legislation.

Putting it into picture on what Noelle and many others are trying to say is this:

Whether it's SEE, ASL, PSE, or even cued speech, anything that helps with the visual aspect of communicating with a language is a pretty good start for kids with hearing loss. Of course, that probably depend on the amount of hearing loss if we're talking about those with mild versus severe/profound hearing loss.

Sleeping your life away....

Some interesting math for you all on how much of your life you sleep away.

Assume a human's average life span of 75 years. Let's start at age 20, a time when we are working or going to school, so that leaves us with 55 years to mess around with.

For every extra hour of sleep you get you will have slept away 2.3 years worth over 55 years.

1 hr x 365 days = 365 hours divided by 24 hr/day = 15.2 days lost in one year. 15.2 days/yr x 55 years = 836.5 days or 2.3 years.

Let's say people get 7 hours of sleep on average, if you slept 8 hours on average that would be 2.3 years lost through sleeping over the span of 55 years.

If you slept 9 hours on average that would be 4.6 years lost through sleeping over 55 years.

If you slept 10 hours on average that would be 7.9 years lost through sleeping over 55 years.

Little things add up over time and before you know it, you wondered where all that time went. Enjoy that early morning sunshine folks and make the best use of your time, including me for typing this little nonsense out.

Economic Power

Economic power is what gives you that freedom to do what you want to do. But with economic powers come with greater responsibilities not to yourself but to other people as well who helped. Not too long ago Ryan Commerson produced a video that was published on August 4, 2011 on asking salient questions on the lack of deaf-owned businesses, why economic power continues to be beyond their grasp, how some companies in the telecommunication industry continue to cater to and take advantage of the deaf and hard of people their money with little or no real representation or support on their behalf and noting the fact that there is only one deaf-owned VRS company out of many VRS companies (but certainly there are some deaf-run companies). At one minute and 40 seconds into the video Former executive director of TDI, Alfred Sonnenstrahl, was at a loss for words when asked a question by Ryan Commerson if there are any deaf-owned VRS companies.



Perhaps Mr. Sonnenstrahl wasn't thinking about ConvoRelay which is a deaf-owned and operated VRS company that was founded in March 2009. On the FCC website it lists telecommunication companies that offer VRS (although ConvoRelay isn't on the list).

The FCC over the last few years had to address the high cost of re-reimbursing VRS companies due to in many parts fraud and abuse by recommending a new per-minute rate compensation plan and reform the VRS industry in a July 28, 2011 notice to the public on the potential ruling. Some in the deaf community feared that such a newly proposed compensation rate plan will further diminish the VRS competition field (although Claude Stout, Executive Director of TDI doubt it would cause that as seen in the video). After Ryan Commerson asked Alfred Sonnenstrahl (formerly of TDI), Claude Stout (Executive Director of TDI), Shane Feldman (CEO of NAD), and Gregory Hlibok (Chief, Disability Rights Office) in his video on what they are going to do about the proposed FCC compensation rate and new rules did they all of sudden help write a letter on August 9, 2011 to the FCC which was electronically filed on August 11, 2011:

On August 9, 2011, Claude Stout, Executive Director, Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. ("TDI"); Shane Feldman, Chief Operating Officer, National Association of the Deaf ("NAD"); Andrew S. Phillips, Policy Attorney, NAD; Sheri A. Farinha, Vice Chair, California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. ("CCASDHH"); and the undersigned met with Karen Peltz Strauss, Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau; Gregory Hlibok, Chief, Disability Rights Office; and Diane Mason, Disability Rights Office to discuss a likely
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") about the per-minute rate of compensation mechanism for Video Relay Service ("VRS") and potential alternative compensation mechanisms.


TDI, NAD, and CCASDHH urged the Commission to undertake a Notice of Inquiry ("NO!"), rather than a NPRM, if the Commission wishes to consider possible alternatives to the per-minute compensation mechanism, including a per-user compensation mechanism. They also discussed the Commission's intent to reform VRS services.

TDI, NAD, and CCASDHH emphasized the importance of a compensation mechanism that fulfills the original Congressional intent of functional equivalency as more fully described in the Consumer Groups' TRS Policy Statement - Functional Equivalency of Telecommunications Relay Services: Meeting the Mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act dated April 12,2011 (the "Policy Statement").' They expressed concerns that any reform should first take into consideration feedback from consumer representatives as well as providers to develop solutions to improve VRS. They also
expressed strong concerns regarding the idea of changing compensation from a per minute rate to a per-user rate. A per-user system would create incentives for providers to cut costs and avoid high volume customers and diminish the quality of VRS services and training, thus decreasing consumers' functionally equivalent use of the telephone system.

Further, providers may tweak the system to reduce number/length of calls from customers (i.e., longer answer times). The consumer representatives explained that the business model for the provision of services does not need to be identical to hearing consumers. In VRS, interpreter costs are generally paid by the hour and not a flat fee, whereas hearing consumers generally pay a flat fee for telephone services. The consumer representatives also raised questions about the per-user compensation approach, including what data would be used to calculate a per-user rate. They recommend that new ideas not be introduced in a NPRM, but rather urge the Commission to explore ideas with
consumers and providers through a NOI and workshops.

I can't help but wonder their action to pen a letter to the FCC was on their part and effort to save face after being confronted by Ryan Commerson and after releasing the video to the public last week for non-action.

It is great to voice concerns on how best to explore ideas with consumers and providers but the bottom line is that VRS companies are mostly hearing owned. Despite that I'm sure there are still room for competition to see more deaf-owned and operated VRS companies which will help shift more of the economic power and opportunity over to the deaf and hard of hearing communities. In fact, there are plenty of room to see more deaf-owned businesses that can cater to deaf, hard of hearing and hearing customers and clients. It all comes down to global microbranding your product and services. It's all about the hard work, the long hours, pounding the pavement and slowly build a network of clients and customers. Nobody said it'd be an easy thing.

Global microbrand.

Think about it. What does it mean to have a deaf-owned and operated business? What can a global microbranded product do for potential deaf, hard of hearing and hearing customers or clients? For a business it's not merely about having a product to sell but about believing in a product and what it can do for that potential customer. Believing in the power of transformation and what a product can do for people who can use it are powerful motivations that draw them to that product or service once they see the bigger picture of what success means. It's about making the customers and clients think that they are brilliant in choosing your product and services that keeps them coming back and recommending your product and company to other people, hence the whole global microbranding business.

But is it better to cater to a deaf-owned and operated business that know who their customers and clients really are or would it better to cater to a hearing company that pay lip service? That depends on which companies you feel the most comfortable with and the type of quality and services you get from that company. Just because it is deaf-owned doesn't mean it is the best one to go to.

Back in February 2007 at Gallaudet University's first ever blog/vlog conference I made the point to the internet audience and the people sitting in front of me that for deaf and hard of hearing people to move ahead and achieve success they would require to essentially bootstrap themselves and believe in their work and philosophy by relying more on themselves to get the job done rather than rely on hearing people for their particular products and services. Economic power is the key.

There's certainly a difference on the responsibilities of having that economic power when it comes to helping people attain greater freedom and independence versus wielding an economic power to push an ideology that reeks of office politics.  And grey areas do exist. Running a company for the sake of ideological AND political purposes will only limit your market and the customers you deal with. Keeping your nose clean of politics in a business can become a crucial business strategy in surviving and expanding your business.  The difference can be between having your company look like a feeding ground for militant zealots or not.

Economic power. Your choice, your motivation, your responsibility.

South Korea

Congrats to the Deaf Nation winners for a free trip to South Korea. One of the winners is a good friend of my wife and I was surprised when my wife told me who. I met her a few times when we visited her and her husband. I won't mention her name but I'm sure all of the winners deserved that trip to South Korea. Let's hope those who didn't make the pick were gracious enough to congratulate the winners instead of being bitter about it and target DN. If you ain't gracious about it, then you're bitter. Again, congrats to the winners.

Capitalizing on what works

There's this fixation over the word "fix" when it comes to certain people with hearing loss, especially of those with greater hearing loss.  The word "fix" doesn't necessarily mean a permanent solution but rather a way to utilize a solution that best improve a condition. It's more of a correction and supplement to an existing condition rather than a "fix" per se but I understand exactly where people are coming from when they say that. Just as glasses helps fix poor eyesight or people with a variety of vision loss. You take off your glasses, you still can't see well. You take off your hearing aid or cochlear implant you cannot hear very well or none at all. It's utilizing what senses you have left by capitalizing the power of technology. Each of us has a hearing loss that is different ranging from mild to profound, bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. It's a fix, it's a correction but there is nothing permanent about it when comes to those adjustments being made. The question becomes whether people with hearing loss will capitalize on that or not. Some do. Some don't. Some won't. What works for me, works for me and has nothing to do with you. All we can do is respect the diversity out there. Not everybody signs. Not everybody can hear like the next person. We're all different. It doesn't matter if a person prefers to speak and listen, and don't know sign language, what matters is that we understand that diversity exists and we must respect that and the communication and language options for all those deaf and hard of hearing people out there. What works for me doesn't mean it will work for other people with hearing loss, deaf or hard of hearing with bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. What works for you doesn't mean it'll work for other people as well. I simply capitalize on what works for me.

Fixed

Fixed...a captioned video on disability and super-ability.