A simple poll: Do you support the protest at Gallaudet University?

Here's a simple poll you can take. There are 4 choices. If you are not sure what's this is all about check out the many blogs and the news for more information.

Note!: Be sure to contact your friends, relatives and whoever that may have an interest on the current protest situation at Gallaudet University and send them this link. This way, a better and bigger picture can be assessed on where everybody stands on this protest.

Do you support the Protest at Gallaudet University? Yes No I have not decided I don't care Free polls from Pollhost.com

Violence...who is really accountable?

It's sad. It's ugly. It's unfortunate. And when you're involved in an emotionally charged event things can easily get out of hand. And before you know it sensationalism plays its cue card when people use hyperbole as a weapon of choice because it helps raise the spectre of excessiveness. And thus help increase paranoia to another level by delving more into the realm of conspiracy theory status. Call it an illusion of sort. Half-truths. Half-false (is that even a word?) or it could be utterly false. Though it could be more true than not. Maybe even the truth is actually the case! Still, the use of hyperbole doesn't quite give readers the full picture because every story has two sides. But in this case we may be seeing more of subjectivity outweighing any form of objectivity. Not everybody is immune to this kind of emotional appeal. Even me. But recognizing this can help form a better objective response of the things that are going on.

Now, don't get me wrong here folks. And my apologies for those who may feel hurt or insulted in what I have to say questioning whether protesters actually committed any acts of violence. They haven't but in a way they have and it all pretty much started with what you call "passive violence." Let me explain.

I do have these questions. They're legitimate ones and I try to view these observations of mine without the ugly emotional attachments which can cloud rationality and objectivity. What I'm talking about is the latest string of events concerning the Gallaudet protest. Namely the HMB incident where DPS officers responded to a bomb threat phoned in had no choice but to enter the HMB building in order to search for suspicious packages according to an independent investigation.

Now, you are probably asking yourself what is "Passive Violence?" Sounds like a contradiction in terms. However, it is not when you look into it more deeply and the people who actually commit them. But what does it mean then? From the Victory over Violence website:

According to Gandhi and his grandson Arun, passive violence are the things that we do to disrespect other people's (and our own) lives, such as name-calling, teasing, judging and criticizing. These small and often inconspicuous acts that we commit are actually a form of violence.

On a deeper level, many people, including great leaders of our time, have said that a lack of self-identity can lead to passive violence. In other words, without a strong sense of confidence in knowing who we are, we can end up feeling insecure and even develop an insecurity complex. As philosopher Daisaku Ikeda put it, "When you succumb to a complex, you are likely to see everything about yourself in a negative light. When something doesn't work out for you, you tend to blame it on those things which make you feel inferior: 'It's because I'm short' and so forth." Lacking a solid sense of who we are makes us feel insecure, and this can cause us to compare ourselves to others and even criticize or judge others because they are different from us. Gandhi was referring to judgment and criticism when he stated that passive violence leads to physical violence.

Mahatma Gandhi also said,

"passive violence fuels the fire of physical violence; and if we want to put out the fire of physical violence, logically we have to cut off the fuel supply."

And that brings me into this observation of mine. You are probably reading my mind but who are these people who have done this "passive violence" and continue to do so? These things are much more prevalent in the written form seen in blog sites and websites by people engaging in a series of ad hominem attacks, petulent name-callings, and obtuse thinking day in and day out. And to boot, these attacks are often times compounded with the use of hyperbole just for good measure in making a story sound that much ominous than not. And then getting obnoxiously dirty with outright lies, innuendos, slander and such. This has gone on, especially so, since Jane K. Fernandes was selected for the 9th president. All one has to do is read some of the Deaf/deaf/hh/hearing blogs, websites and even forums covering the protest.

And so it comes down to his where we need to appeal ourselves to common sense to help ground us from slipping into absurdity.

Let's look at the FSSA's recent "Press Release" yesterday:

The crisis on the Gallaudet campus is worsening by the minute and the students will not back down.

Never mind the fact that this is a "peaceful" protest but when you see protesters who aggressively took over Hall Memorial Building (HMB) and formed a human chain and put tents in front of every entrance are all an act of defiance. But you can't help question whether such an action constitute as encouraging institigation. Basically daring anybody to try and stop them. An intentional act on creating more crisis upon a crisis with the full knowledge that this type of action by its own design gives it, the crisis upon a crisis, the ability to instigate a negative and sometimes dangerous response. In short, protesters knew it was a likelihood that force may be used against them. If protesters were to say that they never expected such a negative response are either naive or incredibly stupid when they decided to hijack HMB. And then when they are actually confronted with "violent" responses who do they blame? Yes, the tried and true tactic of blaming everyone else except themselves. Accountable to nothing. Accountable to nobody. But believe it or not, accountability goes both ways here for both parties involved because we have two parties who disagree with each other on various levels. It doesn't help to assign blame as did in Leah Katz-Hernandez's latest letter from the FSSA.

This attack from DPS was totally unprovoked. Students were PEACEFUL. This protest was always about peaceful, nonviolent messages.

Indeed it may have been an unprovoked attack but I couldn't help notice that DPS officers peacefully made several requests that the protesters vacate the HMB building that they forcibly hijacked. There is a term called "passive-aggressive" response. You know the kind. A good example is having a car in front of you on a road who is purposely driving slow just to make you mad because you want to go faster and that the slow driver was provoked somehow into doing this as a response to your angry response. And then I noticed another thing in a BisonTV video clip near the end the clip of images of protesters following and, no less, attacking a single Gallaudet University Security Officer in a non-physical confrontational way who was trying to leave the building. It's the "in-your-face" type of attack by following him. This is not to say that the DPS officers didn't commit any physical form of aggressive actions on protesters who wouldn't leave peacefully when requested in the first place.

And then I note more ironies of pleas from protesters to the public to contact Congress in light of the protest.

GALLAUDET IS A FEDERALLY FUNDED INSITUTION, AND CURRENTLY, IT IS VIOLATING SEVERAL UNIVERSITY POLICIES.

While failing to note themselves that they've broken laws already by hijacking the HMB building.

As for non-violent messages, I am wondering to myself how many of those protesters actually have a blog or made comments in other deaf/hh blogs or forums (e.g Gallynet-L, DeafDC, etc) who have violently attacked, in name, against the Jordans, the Administration, Jane Fernandes and the BoTs by calling them practically every name in the book along with hyperbole after hyperbole.

And then we get into the realm of actual encouragement and instigation of further violence, even in the form of physical violence against IKJ which many have said happened yesterday during a building ceremony in honor of I. King Jordan.

My friend just went to see Tent city in DC and informed me that some deaf protestors threw water bottles at IKJ family including children and grandchildren. A bottle hit IKJ right in his head!

Even Washington Post reported it but said that juice or water was thrown in the crowd. No doubt it was directed at I. King Jordan.

All in all, everybody is at fault to one degree or another for this fine mess. But to say that Gallaudet University has made them violent is beyond incredulity. How can you look for the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the stick in your own eye?

Indeed.

Accountability is everybody's responsibility. Strive for positive results so that everybody wins.

Hodge Podge Again

Well, whadya know. I've been tagged as a "highly-respected deaf blogger" by another blogger in his/her blogsite over the discusson between Elisa and I. I guess I am now one of the many faces on "Blogs with a face" blogsite. Eh.

The image of civility among protesters at IKJ building dedication.

They were yelling so loudly, said some who couldn't get through the crowd, that deaf people outside could feel the vibrations in the glass windows. Someone threw water or juice into the crowd.

A student leader then asked protesters to quiet down and show more respect at the next ceremony, which named a student center for I. King Jordan.

They crossed a line, said Margaret Weigers Vitullo, chairwoman of the sociology department, who said the Jordan family was at the event."Students are there saying awful, horrible things to people, in front of their grandchild. . . . It was unbelievably vile."

Note the delicious irony here:

Student: I was there. I understand that emergencies occur, and he (IKJ) did check his pager right before he left. However, to get up and leave in the middleof a very important meeting without even saying "excuse me" is incredibly rude.

Yeah. Incredibly rude. Not to mention students being incredibly loud and incredibly rude. At least a few of the protesters chided others to try and be respectful for the special ceremony occasion. And after protesters had their chance of at being uncivil you'd think they walked out of the dedicated building after the ceremony? No. Not exactly. They went after the free food instead. Nice strong statement they just made. Freebies. You can read more here. The article seems to be a fair and balanced report. No? Or maybe this one here is better? No vandalism....yet.

Any Bill Gates fans? Uh huh. Uh huh. I know exactly what you're thinking now. So, don't do it.




Who says you have to go to Gallaudet University to get an education?

Martel Van Zant, a junior cornerback from Oklahoma State, plays despite being deaf after he was born without eardrums as a result of his mother's chicken pox during pregnancy. A management student, he works with an interpreter who accompanies him to classes, football meetings, practices and games.

Hmmm, quality education and football. Find more about Martel Van Zant here.

Identify the art work above, and tell me which building this artwork was first displayed at Gallaudet University for many years?

Vandalism Next at Gallaudet University??

I hope the FSSA is listening but this is really sad, folks. After reading this one guy's blogsite who is obviously encouraging his protesters who may be reading his blogsite to commit certain acts of violence and criminal activities on the campus of Gallaudet University. Any acts of violence should it occur even once or a few times will certainly undermine all of the protesters' efforts since this May who have been trying to get their own message out in a peaceful way.

I urge the good students of Gallaudet University to vandalize the name with spray paint. Just conceal your face while you are at it. This f*cking bullsh*t must be stopped. I'm serious. If I am in DC right now, I'm gonna re-decorate the building to send him the message.

I'm sure this kind of idiocy will solve a lot of problems by committing property damage and defacement. This is not an act of wisdom but utter folly on how some people are willing to do these things for all the wrong reason. Will the FSSA stand up and condemn any bloggers who may try and incite criminal activity on the campus of Gallaudet University? Will the FSSA intervene somehow and relay their message to protesters that this type of violence is not the answer and totally unacceptable? Will they even listen to the FSSA who specifically said earlier that they do not condone acts of violence against any person or group? Remember Celia May Baldwin? But this time, it's the encouragement to cause damage and defacement of private property on the campus of Gallaudet University.

If you are thinking about defacing Gallaudet University's properties then you better read Gallaudet University's policy on vandalism.

Vandalism/Theft - All members of the community will not tolerate vandalism because it lessens the enjoyment of the University environment. Participation in any act of destruction could become grounds for dismissal from the University. The cost of repairing damages shall be billed to all students involved.

And lastly, will this protest go down in history only to be known for its acts of criminal activity and vandalism? Should this get out of hand it would be worse than the few students who broke a few local laws during the Deaf President Now back in 1988. Will the FSSA publicly condemn bloggers who incite and encourage acts of violence to protesters who may read their articles of incitement?

I say to the FSSA, do the right thing.

UPDATE: Indeed, "reports of incivility" did occur but it's not what you may think. Though Michael Moore, interim provost, encouraged everyone involved to be on their best professional behavior especially for those who will get invited to meet and discuss their issues with the BoTs.

Silent No More!

Although, I’m not sure if this “Elisa” is the Elisa Abenchuchan that we know well. Regardless who the person was but thanks for stopping by. Here’s my response to Elisa's response regarding my previous blog post.

We all know that a deaf or hard of hearing person can have a host of communication skills under his/her belts and if that skill happens to be an oratory one, then that it is. A useful skill. If the person's skill is good and can confidently be used, then certainly no one can deny that person that skill should it be his or her communication preference. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

The key thing is this. As long as there are ample communications for everybody, then everybody should be able to respect that person’s own communication preferences. In Brueggemann's case at the Gallaudet University graduation ceremony, the audience had three available avenues on communication access that they could rely on.

1) ASL interpreters on stage captured via video and displayed on a very large screen.
2) Real time captioning that offers text translation.
3) Voice from Brueggemann while she speaks into the microphone.

It shouldn’t matter who is up on the stage doing the speaking whether using sign language or the spoken voice. Right?

Brenda Brueggemann should be respected (and even applauded) for her decision to use her voice that day without fear of intimidation or threats. She was bold to go up there and speak in her own voice. And by her presence on that stage that day, she made an obvious point for all to consider and that there is another kind of diversity that do exists on campus and throughout the deaf and hard of hearing community. What I’m talking about has nothing to do with the color of the skin. It’s not about ethnic culture or where we came from. It’s not about the various languages one is brought up on. The diversity that I’m talking about are those who have the skill and preference to use their voice or even use their whatever hearing they have to their benefits because it works for them.

Gallaudet University is a deaf and hard of hearing community campus with a range of communication skills, hearing levels, real life experiences and social and cultural preferences. Any attempt to try and stymie a deaf/hh person from, for example, using his or her own voice while on campus is not showing respect for this kind of diversity in a campus climate that proclaims "unity" and "deafhood". Whether it’s talking on a cell phone, congregating with deaf, hard of hearing or hearing friends in the cafeteria to speak, sign or even use CUED English amongst themselves if they wish, or even talk and banter with a bank teller at the campus bank who happens to be a hearing person. We should feel free and unobstructed on how each of us is able to conduct our own communication preferences.

Now, if you're in a classroom, fine. A student can use his/her ASL/PSE/SEE to communicate and participate in class. But if a student, for example, is having trouble understanding what was signed/spoken in class because of a lack of signing skill then he or she should have every right to request a CART, sign language interpreter (sign to voice), CUED English, FM loop, or whatever in order to fully participate in class as much as possible and not miss out.

Gallaudet University is all about equal communication access for all. Not just sign language alone but any and all communication access because we do have that kind of diversity out there. And choices and preferences are to be respected and honored.

Next, let me ask you a question, Elisa. Was it “audistic” of me to play the piano on the theatre stage at Gallaudet University in 1990 to a small attending audience my Ragtime piano music when I’ve been playing the piano since age 7? Let me answer that question for you. No. It wasn’t “audistic” of me to do that. Why? Because the group of people were hearing, hard of hearing and deaf people sitting in the chairs (I’d say about 25 people were there) who were either students or faculty members who do show an appreciation for music. They recognized my skill and love for piano playing and came to watch and listen.

Many of the people in the audience could hear well, some could not but they certainly learned what Ragtime music was all about for the first time. And since music is a form of communication in its own right it can evoke strong feelings and emotions. A pianist can easily convey his/her own emotions whether it’s joy, sadness, or even anger in the form of music. And the audience listening to it would be able to feel that emotional energy. The same would be true if I were a singer on a stage singing wonderously to the audience is another form of communication. Since a singer would need a great set of lungs coupled with an amazing voice in order to carry sounds across the room with such vibration and energy. So is getting up on stage to address the graduating class of 2005 using your oratory skills with aplomb and effectiveness. Nobody was left out in the process and everybody got her message of congratulations to the graduating students that day.

In light of all that, where would you be willing to draw the line when we have that kind of diversity on the campus of Gallaudet University as well as in the deaf and hard of hearing community? Gallaudet University students, faculty and staff have yet to fully recognize the true diversity among ourselves to give it enough credit and humble respect it sorely deserves.

If I may be so bold and not with the intent to offend anyone but since the majority of students do sign fluently at Gallaudet University compared to the minority student population who are more likely to be hard of hearing and are apt to use their voices regularly. They also stand a greater chance to be ostracized by the more "Deafer" crowd. To me, this is probably akin to black students seeing themselves awash in a sea of white people, where, ironically so, Gallaudet University is practically in the center of a city whose majority population is mostly African Americans. And, to boot, they are mostly hearing people, too. So, I could probably relate on how blacks students must have felt upon entering the school and seeing a bit of a discrimination going on by their own students. Somewhere along the line somebody was not being valued for who he is.

Elisa, I took a poll (several in fact) asking Kokonut Pundits readers about themselves and Gallaudet University in general. It was quite revealing. Although, we need to take these polling results with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, the results proved interesting and beg the question on this very diversity question I am addressing.

One of my polls asks the question “Why did you leave Gallaudet University?” Poll results? 17% of them said they left Gallaudet University because they were “Harassed for not being "deaf enough." There were 35 responses so far.

Poll #2 asks the question, "As a deaf or hard of hearing person were you ever accused by Deaf people who signed "hearing" to the forehead because you can or prefer to speak and/or can hear?" Poll Results? 75% of them said "Yes" while 25% of them said "No". Twenty responses total so far.

Poll #3 asks the question, “If you are or were a student of Gallaudet University, do you support Gallaudet's Cochlear Implant Education Center?" Poll results? 79% of them said “No” while 21% of them said “yes”. There were 58 responses so far.

Poll #4 asks the question, “Should deaf and hard of hearing students on Gallaudet campus be allowed to talk (as in voice) on their cell phones?” Poll results? 82% said “yes” while 18% said “no”. There were 50 responses so far.

Of course, these polling results are to be taken with a grain of salt due to the open nature of the poll over the internet with the hope that Kokonut Pundits readers followed the honor system by replying accordingly. But at the same time these results shouldn't be dismissed out right either. However, there is this issue that I've gone over where many people are unwilling to discuss or even acknowledge to a substantially large group of people who are a proud bunch with what skills they've developed by saying that the status quo doesn't mean that they have to be quiet, too.

As with any and all long-winded response, which is a bad habit of mine, I'll end this blog piece to let my readers think about on what I've just discussed today by saying - "I think I'll stop here."

Credibillity Gaps - Chasms of Denials

Are people actually against the concept of equal access on the distribution of information such as transcripts and videos so people can make an *informed* decision on what actually transpired between two seemingly opposing parties in a meeting on a magnitude as serious as this?

The issue is not about requesting a simple transcript beforehand per se but about assuring that factual reporting from both sides of the parties involved do take place so as not allow one or the other to "cherry pick" information. The transcript and video documentation would force both parties on not to subvert each other's tactics should there be any.

This is not an uncomplicated issue on what's going on here, folks. It's vast. It has many agendas. It's loopy. It's ugly. It is politically complicated. And people all want a part of the pie. And to the FSSA credits, they sometime sound like chickens running around saying the sky is falling. And now we're seeing students run around all wild-eyed saying they're purposely being poisoned by lawn fertilizers by the IJK's secret police is even more nuttier. Talk about hyper-sensitivy here where common sense is practically thrown out of the window here, folks.

I and many others are not interested in wild eyed emotions, conspiracy theories, gossips, rumours, mud-slingings, petty 5th 2nd grade name callings, character assassinations, and fantastical claims of utter oppresion that would rival even the Gulag prisons in Russia. What I and many, many others are interested in is the pure, unmitigated facts that can easily be substantiated, corroborated and confirmed to everybody's satisfaction. If you let your emotions get the best of you in so many ways on so many levels, ya'll not going to succeed. PERIOD!

Transcripts and video-taping documentations are exactly what both parties need. This is done to ensure that proper documentation takes place on who said what in light of the context being discussed in a meeting. This is history in the making. Document it correctly and without bias. This is exactly what courts do to prevent any misunderstandings on what was actually said or done by having court reporters do their shorthand thing and record what was said.

This is an historical event that has taken place and continues to do so. And what you guys are going to end up doing is explain forever to the outside world who have no concept or idea of what the deaf/hh/Deaf community is like and they will always ask why on earth are deaf and hard of hearing students upset over the fact that a first ever deaf woman was selected for president of Gallaudet University who was, not surprisingly, selected by a mostly deaf BoTs.

If the FSSA want greater credibility and believability in their actions and reporting to the masses, they had better provide something a bit more substantial with their own reports on their meetings between their own FSSA and Gally Admins. The same for Gally Admins, too. Everybody will have their own reasons for suspicions either against the FSSA or against the Admins. But the various, long standing issues do need to be addressed in the most cordial and productive way. That's a given. Everybody knows that.

Both parties will have to agree to this method if both are going to meet or else this will continue on spiraling downward... hurting everybody in the process. We all must share this burden.

Each and everyone of you, me, the Gallaudet University admins, alumni, students, staff, faculty members along with the ingrained politics and culture deeply rooted for years and years and years from all sides are the source of the blame for this galling and ugly event that took place this past May and it continues to this day. Nobody wanted to see this happen. But it did. This is not unity folks. This is emotion running amok like a banshee. Now, everybody will have to roll up their sleeves up, pitch in and help clean up this god-forsaken mess that everybody help create in the first place!

Yes, everybody.

New Blog and Feeds Search

Get this. Here's a newly improved blog and feeds search engine by Ask.com

Check out some of the search engine results. Deaf. Hard of hearing. Hearing impaired. Gallaudet. You can even check out my blogsite Kokonut Pundits results. Or what about stem cells that may cure deafness someday? Or even UbiDuo that can help shrink that communication gap between deaf and hearing people? And how abouot the funniest one I found via ASL deaf search? It was in the James Randi Educational Foundation forum site under a topic called "Science Hoax: Simian Sign-Language - Greatest Science Hoax Ever?"

I'm continually surprised to discover how many educated and informed people believe that gorillas and chimps have been taught sign language. Yes, some primates have been taught to make gestures, and to get what they want by using them, but this is a trivial trick that can be done with all sorts of animals.

And here's another really funny one in that same forum.

One of the most damning critiques of the claims of the early primate sign language researchers, which is reported in Pinker, comes from a deaf signer on the team that worked with Washoe -- the only person on that team who was a native speaker of the ASL that they were supposed to be teaching the chimp:

"Every time the chimp made a sign, we were supposed to write it down in the log ... they were always complaining because my log didn't show enough signs. All the hearing people turned in logs with long lists of signs. They always saw more signs than I did ... I watched really carefully. This chimp's hands were moving constantly. Maybe I missed something, but I don't think so. I just wasn't seeing any signs. The hearing people were logging every movement the chimp made as a sign. Every time the chimp put his finger in his mouth, they'd say "Oh, he's making the sign for drink," and they'd give him some milk ... When the chimp scratched itself, they'd record it as the sign for scratch ... When [the chimps] want something, they reach. Sometimes [the trainers would] say, "Oh, amazing, look at that, it's exactly like the ASL sign for give!" It wasn't."

Maybe those chimps actually use SEE instead?

Be sure to look around. Check on the upper right hand side where it says "Top Feeds." One blog came up was a science subject, a favorite one of mine, about how to control the speed of a photon light by slowing it down from speed of light to a crawl...and, now, move it backward. Huh? You'd have to scroll it down to find the link but read it here. It's interesting. And guess where the experiment took place? University of Rochester.

Doh!

I Hear Deaf Voices! Please, Make it Stop!!

It is not surprising to see a general bias along with a certain convulsive reaction from many in the Deaf community towards hard of hearing or deaf people who can talk well. Especially by those who value oratory skills.

I have seen these general BS remarks from time to time by Deaf people whenever they make generalizations about HH people's ability to talk equivocating as just as disturbing as listening to someone rake their nails over a chalkboard.

Listen here as an example. Please turn up your volume high, it's kind of hard to hear this "squawking".

Sorry, wrong one.

A bit of an exaggeration there. I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm trying to get at. But people sometimes describe "deaf voice" as "squawking" or "yowling" or even a "nuisance", or whatever words that may fancy them that are wrongly applied to people who do speak very well. Then there are instances where some do speak atrociously, admitedly so. But many have the desire to continue improving their voices and that shows guts and determination in using one of the many tools in their communication tool box. However, when one says “deaf voice” it’s in the category of having that monotonal voice with little or no intonation or inflectional qualities.

The problem is this. There seems to be a general labeling by many people in the Deaf community regarding how hard of hearing or deaf people talk. As always, hard of hearing people includes those with mild to moderate, or even moderate-severe hearing loss with decibels ranging from 20 to 85 db. We're talking about a population out of 30 million people with hearing loss in the United States. That’s a pretty big population to try and label people as having a "deaf voice" and they are "hard" to hear or even understand.

Watch Kathy Buckley’s video clip. She is deaf. She uses her voice and she does sign a little in her comedy standup she's well known for. Although she does have a very pronounced “deaf voice” but it is certainly not a “nuisance”. Her voice and words are clear and understandable. Even the audience can understand her and laughed at her jokes.

Brenda Bruggemann? Have you listened or seen the video clip of her May 12, 2006 graduation commencement speech at 45:15 into the video (and compare that to I. King Jordan throughout the video)? Her voice was incredibly crisp, clear and very understandable. Even both the interpreter and captioner heard every word clearly. If you listen very closely, you can tell she does have a bit of a “deaf voice” but her voice still contains the inflectional and intonational qualities even though she is deaf. But by all means her voice was extremely good and would even pass as a hearing person’s ..well….almost. But you get the idea.

Those are the limited examples of deaf people with hearing loss on the extreme end of the hearing loss scale of hard of hearing or deaf. Let's look at the other end of the hearing loss spectrum by those with better hearing.

Steve McQueen, a well known actor. He was hard of hearing. Ronald Reagan in his formative years during his presidency was hard of hearing. Leslie Nelson from the movie "The Naked Gun" is hard of hearing. And a whole host of people you can find in here - although not all of them are deaf or hard of hearing.

Now, I have friends, co-workers and such who do have mild to profound hearing loss. Many of them are HHs. And they all speak fine with a variety of accents and inflectional differences but certainly not a “deaf voice”. My deaf friends with much more severe hearing loss are a different story but I wouldn’t call their deaf voices a “nuisance” but they do have a “deaf voice” that’s monotonal with little or no inflectional qualities to it.

I do associate often with people at the other end of the hearing loss spectrum from mild to moderate and I can tell you unequivocally that they do not have this “deaf voice” but yet they are hard of hearing at the same time. If you’re basing your experience with a Deaf crowd, then you are not seeing the broad spectrum of people who are considered as “HH” and how they talk. Most of the hard of hearing population do not have this “deaf voice” until you move upward into the more serious hearing loss range.

These hard of hearing and deaf people who can talk shouldn't be ridiculed, disparaged, looked down upon or ignored should they prefer or have the oratory skills to speak well. Such as this one here:

Jordan has successfully accomplished his goal of temporarily hijacking the Deaf Culture Movement in the United States and he has held it hostage for the entire eighteen years of his administration at Gallaudet, continuing every year to put on his dog and pony show before Congress, and flaunting his deaf voice in order to play on the sympathy of Congressmen who are led to view deafness as an unfortunate medical condition, and are then misled into seeing deafness as being mainly a disability issue.

Amazing. Dog and pony show? Flaunting his deaf voice? What bias do these Deaf people really hold against those who prefer to use their voices?

It is indeed a sad state of affair when Deaf, deaf and hard of hearing people get attacked like that......over the issue of using their voice.

FSSA Letters. Biased? Discriminatory?

I am frankly disappointed but not entirely surprised about what I've read in the recent FSSA letter regarding the meeting with Dr. Jane K. Fernandes (JKF). The letter sprinkled with JKF's supposed responses of "I don't know's" to an unknown context of discussion that took place sounds very much like cherry picking. I am surprised, however, that this new organization did not produce a full transcript of the meeting. Instead readers must rely on FSSA's reporting by people who are already against JKF, IKJ, BoT or whoever. How would one feel walking into a roomful of people knowing that they basically want the person's head on a platter? Yet, the FSSA get to choose and pick how they want the letters written, all, of course, entirely against the IKJ's administration or JKF.

Next, how can we be assured that future letters or reports written by the FSSA will coincide exactly on how an event took place and what was said during as such? Do we want a fox guarding the hen house when it comes to one way communication with the masses? Or should something else be added to provide greater credibility? How about a transcript then? Perhaps along with a video of the meeting?

For future meetings, the FSSA need to make sure both parties will agree that a transcript would be produced from the meeting for public-wide dissemination afterwards. Those of us who cannot be there would prefer to read a transcript of such a meeting rather than rely on secondary reports that are already heavily biased against IKJ, the Administration, JKF or even the BoT. And even their friends. A transcript cannot show bias in reporting. That way readers can make an informed decision on how well the meeting went and in what context the discussion took place without worry of any potential bias seeping/pouring in by secondary reports covering a meeting of such serious magnitude. This way, the FSSA, or whoever will be responsible for this, will be able to capture the whole context of the discussion that took place. This will ensure greater credibility and believability.

So far, the FSSA has consistenly painted a bleak picture of gloom and doom with a chicken little mentality reponses by constantly shining a glaring spotlight in one direction in thir letters or reports. This reminds me of a formerly communist Russia where newspapers were produced by the government where info is strictly controlled and flowed in one direction in order to maintain the status quo of politics. It's kind of ironic to see that the FSSA is playing into that game as well.

It's time to turn the spotlight around and say "transcript please." Let the people decide what's good or bad by getting rid of biased reporting and discriminatory practices covering serious issues that affects everybody.

As always, there are two sides to every story.

Creepy Gay Congressman After 16-yr old Boy

It's all over the news. Congressman Mark Foley (Republican - Florida) tried to entice a 16 year old teenaged boy into some sex-text. You can see all of the text seen here. Be forewarned, it's a bit creepy to read. The whole thing defines what a perv is like.

To avoid all the controversy, Foley resigned as Congressman. Smart move. Although his name has to stay on the Florida ballot.

Here's a little list on Congressional Sex Scandals in History, including both Democrats and Rebublicans covering 21 of these scandals with 12 of them being Democrats. .

A Female Deaf Pianist

I figured somewhere, someplace there must be another deaf or hard of hearing pianist. And I did find one. Her name is Valerie Zamora out of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Gee, I used to live in Asheville, North Carolina a few years back.

Valerie plays classical pieces. But she is deaf rather than hard of hearing which would make it a rarity among pianists. Rarer than having hard of hearing pianists. This isn't an easy thing to do and it's a gift for some to possess the skill to play a piano supremely well and deaf at the same time.

Go a visit her website. She has two music samples and they sound really well. Guess that means I need to produce an audio (probably video) copy of my Ragtime playing on my crappy piano. Like Zamora, I began playing the piano since I was 7 years old. I am still playing it though not as much as I like because the piano I play on is really not that good.

Maybe I'll meet Valerie someday. It's not everyday that a deaf/hh pianist meets another deaf/hh pianist and compare notes.

Ooh..I made a funny.

BTW, can anyone spare me a baby grand piano out there. Seriously.

Teaching Islam in Public (and Private) Schools in America

Remember a few years back where California instituted a mandate for all district schools to teach 7th graders (even in the 6th grade, too) about Islam, Mohammed, the Qu'ran, Mecca and all that sort?

seventh-graders learn the tenets of Islam, study the important figures of the faith, wear a robe, adopt a Muslim name and stage their own jihad. Adding to this apparent hypocrisy, reports ANS, students must memorize many verses in the Koran, are taught to pray "in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" and are instructed to chant, "Praise to Allah, Lord of Creation."

And these are the very same public schools that would not dare go over the history of Christ and Christianity to such a degree as Mohammed and Islam without raising the ire of the ACLU and Liberals? Thanks to the separation of Church and State public schools are getting their federal fundings to teach and basically indoctrinate 7th graders in the name of Allah good education.

But perhaps it's better to look at the actual lesson course outline from the "Across the Centuries" book in order for you to understand exactly what these 7th grade social studies teachers are teaching to your kids. What are these kids learning?

Houghton Mifflin Social Studies "Across the Centuries" 7th grade social studies:

Lesson at a Glance Outline

Chapter 3, Lesson 2: Muhammad and Islam (pp. 58-64)

I. The Life of the Prophet
A. In A.D. 610, Muhammad had a vision of the angel Gabriel, in which he received messages from God. He and his followers came to believe that he was the last messenger in a long line of prophets sent by God.
B. When Muhammad began to preach in Mecca, he taught monotheism, the belief in only one God.
C. Muhammad named the new faith Islam, which means "submission" to Allah
(God). Believers in Islam are called Muslims.

D. Some people in Mecca resented Muhammad, forcing him and his followers to migrate to Medina. Eight years later, Muhammad and his Muslim army marched to Mecca and the city surrendered.
II. The Teachings of Islam
A. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of Allah, completing the earlier revelations of Old Testament prophets and Jesus.
B. Islam has close ties to Judaism and Christianity, sharing many prophets and holy people described in the Bible.
C. Muslims accept five basic duties, called the Five Pillars of Islam. These include belief in one God, praying five times a day, giving alms to the poor, fasting during Ramadan, and the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca.
III. Islam as a Way of Life
A. The Sunna, or guiding rules for Islam, includes not only the Five Pillars of Islam, but many additional moral standards that a Muslim must live by in everyday life.
B. The Islamic term, jihad, means "to struggle." The Qur'an and Sunna only allow jihad as a means to defend against aggression and persecution.
C. The Sunna also sets guidelines for the treatment of women.

Sure, the book use the name "Jesus" but only named Him as a prophet and not The Savior. Wouldn't want to upset Muslims or Liberals if you mention Jesus as the Savior next to Mohammed on the same page in the same paragraph in the same sentence. You know exactly what THEY would do.

The social studies book not only have one full chapter dedicated to Islam, Mohammed, Jihad and Mecca but 2 full chapters which can be seen in Chapter 3 and 4.

In Chapter 3 it goes over heavily on the name “ Mohammed” (no pbuh's?....I'm shocked!) ,”Mecca” , “Islam”, “Qur’an”, “Allah”, “Ramadan”, “Hajj”, “Jihad”, “sets guidelines for the treatment of women” and “Islam as a way of life”.

Very inspirational, indeed. And 7th graders learn the value Islam which means "submission." I'm sure 7th grader girls will go absolutely crazy squealing with delight hoping to wear a burka someday.

In parts of Chapter 4 it talks about “dhimmitude” (sort of) by explaining that Muslims in medieval times were “tolerant” of Jews and Christians. But read the real story on "dhimmitude".

Now, not only do California schools have to teach this course to 7th graders.

DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT -
California
Grade 7:Across the Centuries

Santa Cruz County Office of Eduation

Rossier Park Elementary

Contra Costa County Office of Education

But you will see the same 7th grade social studies textbook being used in Colorado, Ohio, Minnesota (and here) and even in Washington's Whittier County Christian Schools of all places.

“Our Purpose is to partner with families to educate studnts academically, socially, and spiritually in a Christ-centered atmosphere”

It absolutely boondoggles the mind that they teach 7th grade social studies using the “Across the Centuries” social study book. Are they nuts or what? Perhaps they simply skip Chapter 3 and 4? But they have that book!! Flush it down the drain I'd say.

But if "Across the Centuries" social studies book is good enough for those public and private schools across America for 7th graders then I suppose it's smashingly good for an Islamic private school called New Horizon School located in California who will no doubt not object.

New Horizon School is an independent Islamic school founded by the Islamic Center of Southern California in 1984. New Horizon School is committed to providing students with an excellent academic education and firm grounding in moral and ethical values. New Horizon School fosters a dedication to God through virtuous living in a progressive Islamic environment.

Projects/activities include: visit to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s Islamic Art and Japanese Art exhibits; Islamic calligraphy, bookmaking, Chinese writing, Japanese garden-making; and asimulation of the Roman senate and a debate.
Text: Across the Centuries (Houghton Mifflin)

It's on Page 36.

Now. How many public schools (even private ones) out there in good ol' America that are teaching 7th graders about the "value" of Islam which means "submission" in their social studies classes?

This should curdle your blood, folks.

Gallaudet Students - Rude?

I came across this blogsite that had an anonymous commenter regarding Galladuet University students (I suppose the commenter is talking about Gally students) who live off campus in one of those semi-ruined historical Washington D.C. buildings unless they happened to be one of those fixer-uppers seen in Georgetown, which I seriously doubt. Anyway, this hearing person who live in one of those houses who is next door to a bunch of loud mouthed, loud music playing, and rude group of deaf people who rent this place out to live in.

My concern is about Gallaudet students who live in the neighborhood, make noise and create an increasing public annoyance to me and my neighbors. To be more specific, 3 - 4 college students occupy the house house next door to me. They throw parties, play loud music, make noise and entertain guests who create a nuisance in the street late at night.

That's the sad part about deafness. These deaf tenants can irk the hell out of their hearing neighbors by being among the loud and obnoxious deaf group of people without even knowing it. Common sense dictates that these deaf/Deaf/hh tenants do know they have hearing neighbors. And, yes, these deaf students living off campus and can get really loud, if not obnoxious in their behavior. Perhaps it's better to wait and blow steam at the next Rock Festival hoping to see the next equivalent Mutaytor rock band with large eardrum busting speakers that would make every deaf people be able to hear. Nearly literally so. Even the rock group thanked the "deaf kids" for giving them a chance to help them hear again, so to speak.

Post-Show...Thank You Gallaudet for the inspiration and magical weekend. We made deaf kids hear, and we will never forget this amazing experience.

Hear again? Isn't that what some culturally deaf people secretly wish for anyway?

So, perhaps these deaf renters need to learn the value of respecting the neighbors' wish for peace and quiet. Having loud parties and music with a bunch of deaf people screaming and hooting is the equivalent of hearing neighbors putting up high intensity strobe lights flashing madly through the windows of their deaf neighbors while they try to relax or sleep.

And what's more, these hearing neighbors have to deal with this all year long, every year with new incoming freshman wanting to the experience that same "life of the party" feeling. I don't blame them, however. There are better venues for these things. And when you've experienced all that partying, you move on after you graduate but the neighbors have to stay and wait for the next batch of deaf kids who want to taste the party atmosphere on and off the campus of Gallaudet University.

Liberal Gates of Hell - Airports and their CNNs

CNN's Eye of Sauron.

John writes in Powerline about his experience going through one airport and noticed all of the TVs turned on to CNN with it's volume cranked up blaring away incessantly for 24 hours. So many of them? In all airports I daresay? Take a look CNN's airport network website:

CNN Airport Network is available in 42 of the busiest U.S. airports and is seen in more than 1,880+ gates and other viewing areas.

Ye gods! 1880+ gates of hell!

Now, all that hasn't escaped my observation either whenever I go on business trips do I notice TVs on with CNN's one-sided coverage up and down the airport aisles. But as a person who is hard of hearing, I have the option of turning off my hearing aid and smile while I sit and wait until my plane is ready at the gate. Of course, then I be tempted to look up once in a while at the tv in my moment of boredom and see a flurry of moving mouths...mostly shouting, I suppose. I guess with some 30 million people with hearing loss in the United States they have at least that option and not to suffer such fate compared to hearing people.

But John said the airports have their TVs set on really loud so everybody can hear. Really? I suppose that's true since another guy from PBS talked about the very same thing - rude and loud TVs at the airport.

In one airport gate, I was basically held hostage to the TV, blaring news summaries at high volume, repeated over and over and over. Imagine being stuck for three hours and seeing the same thing repeated endlessly.

Check out that PBS link. Pretty interesting about the history of how CNN got started in airports and the author's phone conversation with one of the architect who got CNN into airports.

I can imagine the successes of having CNN blaring all across the United States in those airport terminals holding travelers hostages to one-sided news. Especially when planes get delayed for several hours due to bad weather. Now, isn't there a compensation package for frequent flyers for high-frequency hearing loss who are forced to listen to overly loud CNN's television shows? Ok, so, I'm trying to be funny here.

But then I noticed recently in my business travels that airports are turning on their closed captioning more and more often, even when you request it.

Dag gurn it! Although I can always look away, and watch people bump into each other or see them pick their noses.

Perhaps we can petition Foxnews for them to try and get in at the remaining other airports? If any is left.

By the way, avoid Detroit's Northwest hub.

Huge, perhaps 40-foot diagonal TV screens with closed captioning keep CNN in your view at all times - a blessing and a curse

A curse? Indeed. Especially with 40-foot TV screens all over the place. The CNN's Eye of Suaron is everywhere you go as you walk the crowded airport terminals. Whether you're hearing or deaf, you ain't safe no more from the Liberal chokeholds of one sided news where ever you travel the (un)friendly skies.

My Say about DHH-CommUNITY

My first thought about DHH-community when it made its website debut a few months back was "What a great idea!" Now, did it bother me that the website was the brainstorm of several deaf and hard of hearing women from diverse backgrounds living in different parts of the country? Or the fact that many of them are career women or that they are also raising their kids, too? No. Why should I? All I had to do was look at their mission statement covering 4 different areas.

1. Facilitate a public discourse on key issues and policy solutions impacting our community.

So far, so good. This has been the case as we all ask the deeper (and sometimes troublesome) questions without resorting to mudslinging and ad homenim attacks which is against their policy. Bravo.

2. Respect diversity among us and take a stand against oppression from within and outside our community.

So far, the diversity is there, and it is growing. I am seeing more hard of hearing, deaf, and Deaf people come to DHH and contribute positive dialogue, even if we disagree. And that's important. None of the bullying tactic or ad hominem attacks since those kinds of talks do not contribute to dialogue and discovery. Many of us are showing respect despite what we believe. Keeping to this kind of attitude provides a better opportunity and chance to address fully the many deafness or deaf/hh-related issues on the table.

3. Exercise our first amendment rights without fear of undue reprisal and character assassination.

This was one of the biggest reason why DHH-commUNITY was formed. They decided that somebody had to take a stand against ad hominem attacks, bullying tactics or cyberbully, Sometimes it has to take the eyes of hard of hearing and deaf people to offer a different and fresh perspective from the eyes of Deaf people, even tho many hard of hearing do consider themselves as a Deaf person. And the reverse can be true, too. It's not about the have and have nots when it comes to on the ability to hear and derive useful benefits as a result. No. This is about one thing...hearing loss issues for all groups of people with all kinds of hearing loss from mild to profound. It's just not about the Deaf community. It's about all communities with people who have a hearing loss from mild to profound.

4. Empower the community to advocate for social change.

Nothing wrong with that. Everybody wants social change. Positive social change empowers us, the deaf and hard of hearing community, and Deaf community on many levels and breadth.


Now, the issue about DHH-commUNITY shouldn't be whether this was formed by a group of women, much less career women. Or group of women who are stay at home Moms raising their kids. Or career women who have kids. This isn't about womenhood. Or manhood. Or misogyny. This website forum isn't about feminism or the use of it to try and manipulate others. If any, I haven't seen such things. What I see is an open discourse in a forum where we can agree to disagree without resorting to personal attacks or cyberbullying. If anything, people should be applauded in trying to help make positive social changes without resorting to derisive attacks, implications, guess works, conspiracy theories, accusations, and innuendos. People who do that are not helping the situtation but make matters worse. And instead rely on facts and well reasoned opinions.

David King produced a good Part 3 article "Voice of Reason" on DHH-commUNITY. His analysis and factual reporting with his own opinions provided many readers and contributors to think about "what about the other side of the story?". The thing is that Gallaudet protesters shouldn't think that they are immune to the inquisitioning of their activities and actions. Or even their agenda is untouchable just because they are the larger group. What David has provided is crucial information necessary for many of us to make an informed decision on how this protest is proceeding and whether this is the correct way to go. In short, people are questioning their tactics and whether they are doing things as honestly as we had hoped for.

I agree with David. We should use this opportunity to create more positive dialogue and better opportunitistic negotiations for more constructive social changes while the front door is still open to deal with the Gallaudet administration now, in 2007 and beyond. Shooting ourselves into our foot over and over isn't productive. Nor smart.

Let's look at Aikido that I've practiced since 1997 which is a Japanese martial art on the use of non-resistance methods for self defense that uses circular movements and not linear as a self defense martial art with no punching, blocking, or kicking involved. This may sound like a passive self-defense martial art but it is much more involved and extremely complex than anyone can imagine. The techniques of Aikido is counter-intuitive when it comes to self-defense. The techniques of Aikido use relaxed but not weak movements. If somebody comes to you and grabs you by the shoulder, arm or wrist, your reaction may be to pull away from that source of danger. This is a natural reaction. You tense up. There is an instant feedback on the tension felt. Everybody feels it even if you have two or three on you. You feel it yourself, too. The person would want to move and pull away because their personal safety zone has been violated. The reciprocal reaction may be to incur a blow to the attacker(s) or allow yourself to go under complete submission. It is this classic “fight or flight” syndrome many of us are familiar with. Instead of tensing up, you relax in your movements. The best way to explain Aikido is that it's like water. You can't feel the tension of water. There is no feedback if you try and grab water. When you attack water, it becomes subtle and unassuming and you get sucked in before you even realized what had happened.

The concept of Aikido is a way to help resolve conflict on whether to use a fight or flight tactic by using conflict as a source of power for self defense. Or in this case a source of empowerment. Recognizing conflicts can help empower a person because people in general have their own set ways or perspectives that do not allow room for change. So, the butting of heads continues to prevail in a conflict situation. Even I am still learning this valuable concept of Aikido, even after 9 years. It's not an easy thing to learn. Or unlearn in this case. You simply learn to center yourself on a daily basis and that's not an easy thing to do.

Now, if someone attacks you physically but knowing Aikido you have the power to use that attack against the attacker in such a way that you can protect you and the attacker at the same time. You have the ability to blend in with the attacker’s deadly movements with greatest of ease while totally relaxed. You end up protecting yourself and even the attacker, too, without trying to put him into a hospital. That's the highest ethical defense one can do. It's easy to hurt somebody in self defense but it's much more harder to try and protect the attacker while protecting yourself. Or at least you try. Nobody's perfect. That's the key.

Once you learn what Aikido is about you begin to have a fresh new perspective on self defense. You begin to learn that conflict is an opportunistic time to learn the art of blending and conflict resolution. When conflict is seen as an opportunity only then will you realize that your priorities have changed for the better.

Wayne Perryman - A New Conservative Voice

Folks, we need to help Wayne Perryman to help him spread the message to help attract more conservatives from the African American and Hispanic communities. In fact, Wayne Perryman is asking our help.

As the flight from the conservative camp continues, so does the need to attract more conservatives, which means the future of the Republican Party rest with its ability to attract more conservatives, or their ability attract two groups that are known to be culturally conservative; the African American and Hispanic communities.

As I travel across the country speaking to number of conservative groups including inner-city pastors, they are very concern that there are so few strong conservative (African American) voices (with credibility) that can challenge the strong liberal voices of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Ted Kennedy.

Many have asked that I be that voice. Why me? Perhaps it is because they have read my books, reviewed my research, purchased copies of my CD, seen my editorials, heard my speeches and sermons, listened to me on talk radio, and watched me on C-Span, but more so because that I am one of the only inner-city African American ministers who has a track record in the inner-city and travels nationwide to speak on these issues. I am now ready to take on the challenge, but to do so I need the support of conservatives.

Wayne Perryman wrote a book called "Unfounded Loyalty". It's a great read on the history of how Republicans have helped blacks rather than the Democrats. He corrects the myths about Republicans and Democrats and which ones did the work to help black folks help themselves. One reader makes this note,

This dishonest attempt to portray Republicans as racists has been perpetrated by the Democratic Party for the past thirty years. Anyone who watched the performance of Democratic Senators like Teddy Kennedy in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Judge Sam Alito appointment to the Supreme Court this week has witnessed the absurd and dishonest lengths to which they are willing to go to perpetuate that myth.

What the Rev. Perryman points out in this book is that for over a hundred years from 1854 to 1964 the Republican Party was the sole champion of emancipation, of equal rights for blacks, of putting an end to racial segregation, and of anti lynching laws; while the Democrats recipitated and fought a civil war to preserve slavery, enacted and enforced the Jim Crow laws that created the segregated South, and invented and repeatedly used the Senate filibuster to block the enactment of anti lynching bills introduced by Republicans.

It is true that by the 1960s the effort to end segregation and discrimination had become a bi-partisan effort. Democratic President Harry Truman took a courageous stand against segregation in 1948, splitting his party; and Lyndon Johnson introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But neither of these laws could have been enacted without Republican support. Republican Senators and Congressmen overwhelmingly voted in favor of these bills, while one third of the Democrats in both houses of Congress voted against them, and mounted a filibuster in the Senate to prevent their enactment -- a filibuster that was broken only with Republican votes.

We know that the Democratic base is keenly aware and afraid of this surging movements on increasing African American and Hispanic conservatives into the Republican fold. No wonder they are afraid of this happening when you get one of the Democratic operatives who illegally hijacked Michael Steele's credit history. The Democrats simply hate Michael Steele. And then we have the Oreo cookies incident against Michael Steele.

Five days after the debate, Steele said that one or more Oreo cookies had rolled to his feet during the debate suggesting a racist statement against him. "Maybe it was just someone having their snack, but it was there," Steele said. "If it happened, shame on them if they are that immature and that threatened by me."

With an Oreo cookie's black cookie on the outside with white filling on the inside suggest to Michael Steele's black on the outside but act like a white person on the inside. Petty. Texas Rainmaker gives an example on which political party pays more respect to African Americans.

At any rate, Wayne Perryman did his research for his book "Unfounded Loyalty" and discovered that it wasthe Republicans who did the most in helping blacks to help themselves than Democrats.

The Democrats

Our nation's top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.


The Republicans

Regarding the Republican Party, historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

And gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following legislation

15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
23. Civil Rights Act of 1983
24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988

Don't believe? Take the time to read and then give your support to Wayne Perryman so he can help inform the African American and Hispanic communities on which of the real party that have helped them and continues to do so. Democrats think it's funny.

UPDATE: Check out Gateway Pundits on the Democrats' meltdown over the National Black Republican Asssociation's radio ad over the claim the Democratic party created the Ku Klux Klan.

Wayne Perryman had this to say back in 2003 as to why he wrote the book "Unfounded Loyalty" in the Texas Federation of Black Republicans website.

Like many African Americans, Perryman said he voted Democrat most of his life and assumed that Democrats represented the black community. But the two-year investigative process led Perryman down roads that he never knew existed because of what he described as a biased education system.

``In the process of doing this investigative research to write the book, I was shocked, I was angry, I was frustrated to find out information that has been kept from the general public,'' he said. ``The only thing I could conclude was that it was deliberately excluded from books.''

Indeed. Sometimes people don't want to let you know about these things. Wayne Perryman further elaborates about the Democratic party,

"Today, the facts of our history are hidden from the average African American, the average Republican and I'm not too sure it's hidden from the average Democrat,'' he said. ``I don't think they want the past brought up.''

As part of that past, Perryman likened the white-supremacist Ku Klux Klan as the ``terrorist arm of the Democratic Party'' and compared the KKK to the militant Muslim groups al Qaida and the Taliban in terms of using violence to accomplish its goals in intimidating, beating and killing blacks at the voting polls.

``So when they talk about Trent Lott and the chads (in the 2000 presidential election in Florida), there's absolutely no comparison to what the Democrats did,'' he said. ``Yes, Trent Lott made a very stupid, ill-advised statement. But he has never been responsible for the number of murders the Democrats and their terrorist supporters have caused and brought about on the African American community.''

Does that sound familiar today with the Democrats' (and RINOs) help on giving terrorists all the help they can get on defeating America's war against terrorism?

Also, check out the Republicans for Black Empowerment website, too.

What Culturally Deaf People Say about Hearing Loss Cure

Does the self-labeling “Culturally Deaf” means that a Deaf person does not want to have his or her hearing loss cured or restored someday should it become possible in the future? Should even we accept that premise as completely true? You would think so or at least I did but now I’m looking at this at a different light after seeing my own poll.

I did a poll not to long ago covering a stem cells story and how it could one day be the answer to help restore ear hair cells thereby restoring hearing loss. I asked the question in my poll “If you have a hearing loss, would you like to cure your deafness?” I set up my poll so that a culturally deaf person may answer “yes”, “no” or “don’t know.” I did the same thing for those who do not describe themselves as culturally deaf but either as a deaf or hard of hearing person. Now, this poll is not scientific one and I have no way of ensuring complete veracity of the results. I would hope readers of Kokonut Pundits who participated were honest in their voting. But what I have seen so far with 78 votes total is that those who describe themselves as “culturally deaf” had the most vote on “yes” (21 votes – although one person correct me on the error on picking the wrong poll selection so it should be 20) versus “no” (13 votes) to have their hearing loss restored or cured someday through biotechnology. I expected more “no” than “yes” votes from the culturally deaf group on whether they would want to have their hearing loss restored.

Shocked and surprised you might say.

The next most votes came from people who describe themselves as simply “deaf” had 20 “yes” votes compared to hard of hearing with 8 “yes” votes.

Now, if they are saying “I’m a culturally deaf person” does it mean “Deaf pride” always and that the ability to hear is not important and shouldn’t be in the picture? Are they “traitors” if they voted "yes" to have their hearing loss restored someday? A hearing wanna be? As for the culturally deaf group that voted “yes” more than “no” the results beg several questions.

1. Poll results could be an error and people are playing around by voting “yes” in the “culturally deaf” category. If that’s the case, shame on you.

2. Those who voted “yes” as a culturally deaf person is wishing or believing that he or she is a culturally deaf person. The person just want to be accepted by that group.

3. Those who voted “yes” as a culturally deaf person is really a culturally deaf person but is a closeted person who does have this desire on wanting to hear someday. Perhaps this person is more hard of hearing than deaf and does derive some benefits from his/her hearing aid or cochlear implant. He or she may even talk well and have good hearing enough to use the cell phone.

Whatever the reason or case the polling results certainly create more questions than answers on the real definition on what constitute a "D"eaf person in this day an age when complete restoration of hearing loss approaches closer every day.

Go ahead and check out the rest of the voting results. If you haven’t voted, go ahead and vote.

Kathy Buckley and "Deafhood"

Ok, Paddy Ladd says this:

Deafhood theory suggests that whatever answers Deaf people offer up when they ask themselves the question - ‘What is “Deaf” ?’ represents their own idea of Deafhood. These answers vary widely. In the USA for example, Deafhood is asserted by sign language skills - Deaf leaders are often those whose ASL rhetorical styles are aesthetically powerful. Storytelling, jokes, puns, language creativity are all positively valorised, and those who sign poorly in conversation are left in no doubt about any failure to achieve the expected standards. By contrast, political action, and support for all members of the community are much further down on their Deafhood self-definitions.”(Ladd, 2003)

Ok, how about this? A little twist in the thinking here. “Deafhood” can also be asserted by a deaf or hard of hearing person with such skills on the ability to crack jokes, use idioms, storytelling, jokes, puns, language creativity and such all using his/her own voice?

No?

Perhaps Kathy Buckley, a well known female comedian with a hearing loss, has already found her "deafhood" then?

"I have no patience for stupidity or labeling. I believe if you need to put someone down, you have an insecurity," she says

Indeed.

Go to her own personal website and see what's she's all about.

Matt Hamill vs Seth Petruzelli

It has been confirmed. Matt Hamill will fight Seth Petruzelli (see his website) this October 10, 2006 at Hollywood, Florida. Yes, Florida. It will be broadcast live on SpikeTV this time from the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel. Be sure to watch and root for your favorite up and coming first ever deaf UFC fighter.

Also, Matt Hamill's training coach and partner, Tito Ortiz, will be there to fight once more against, Ken "The World's Most Dangerous Man" (ha ha, ooh, excuse me) Shamrock. Here's the detail:

UFC FIGHT NIGHT LIVE - THE FINAL CHAPTER: TITO ORTIZ VS KEN SHAMROCK III
Telecasts LIVE Tuesday, October 10 (8:00 - 10:00 PM, ET, tape delay for West Coast). Encores Saturday October, 14 (4:00 - 6:00 PM, ET/PT)and Monday, August 16 (Midnight - 2:00 AM, ET/PT).

Spike TV presents the third and final installment in the UFC's most storied rivalry between bitter rivals UFC Hall-of-Famer Ken "The World's Most Dangerous Man" Shamrock and Tito "The Huntington Beach Bad Boy" Ortiz. This special UFC event headlines a fight card that will air LIVE from Hollywood, Florida at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel. Leading up to the fight, catch two days of UFC programming on Spike TV, including the UFC LIVE AND INSIDE (working title) on Monday, October 9 (8:00 - 8:30 PM, ET/PT); encores Tuesday, October 10 (11:30 AM - Noon, ET/PT).

Check out the latest discussion in MMA forums about Matt Hamill and his upcoming fight against Seth who is 6'0" and 245lbs. Look for a heavier and stronger Matt Hamill against Seth.

Check out all of my up to date Matt Hamill bloggings.