Videophones to be Installed at Chicago Airport

If you're deaf and known sign language and you're flying into or out of Chicago O'Hare's airport, then be sure to look for the newly installed videopones over there.

Chicago O'Hare and Midway airports plan to install 11 videopohones for the deaf and hard of hearing. Through a live sign-language translator, users can request airport services and receive tourist information. They can also call friends and relatives who have videophones.

The first kiosk will be installed later this month at O'Hare in Terminal 3 near gate K-1. Eight
more kiosks will be installed at O'Hare in the upper and lower levels of the
terminals and at the shuttle center. Midway will have two kiosks

Now, that takes care of one segment of the deaf and hard of hearing society, we still have the other 29 million people with hearing loss to deal with who don't know sign language. I'm sure that'll change quickly someday soon.

So Easy, a Deaf Caveman Can Do It - Part II

We all know about the famous Koko the gorilla who knows how sign to communicate with her hearing caretakers. Even though Koko is a hearing gorilla rather than a deaf one. Yet I still see stories in deaf forums saying that Koko is deaf. Hardly. Still I wonder why hasn't the The Gorilla Foundation take in a deaf gorilla and see whether or not a deaf gorilla can learn from Koko or Michael?

Michael the gorilla(the late signing silverback companion of Koko's) signs in one video about his memory of his mother being killed by poachers in Africa. Startling to even watch and see how he relates his story for humans to hear.

Anway, there's a recent study about orangutans to see if these primates have the ability to use gestures and play a type of a charade game in the hope that caretakers would understand any requests by these primates. It was successful to a degree that orangutans were able to communicate their intentions or wants with the researchers. The article ends with,

The researchers conclude that further studies of communication among apes could provide insight into the pre-linguistic devices that helped construct the earliest forms of language.

Which brings me to my first blog, "So Easy, A Deaf Cavement Can Do It," where I asked the question whether early cave people had the tendency to use gestures over crude vocal responses to communicate. Seems likely that this would be the case since these particular primates could be seen as the de-evolved human form, even the Cromagnum people, when it came to on communicating with other members.

Next, we get around to the question about deaf cave people. Did they even exist? Did they even survive on their own? I would probably agree that they did exist way back several hundreds of thousands of years ago. Even a million years ago. Thinking about my questions I seriously doubt they even survived long enough due to the fact that the ability to hear played a huge crucial role on improving odds for surviving outdoor. I think that sooner or later the ability to survive would have already have been well spent by the time a cave person reaches past puberty. I would even be so bold to say that among those hearing cave people once they figured out that one of their own is deaf they would either abandon that deaf caveboy/girl or even kill him/her knowing that they didn't want unproductive clan members to begin with who cannot even hear to even save his own hide which would put the rest of the clan members in greater perile on trying to survive and hunt outdoors.

Or were these cave people much more caring when it came to taking care of their own disabled cave people? But then again we're talking about a time when surviving was paramount for the safety of the whole clan. I could suppose they wouldn't want to waste their time or valuable resources just to take care of a deaf cave person. I believe they would have been somehow killed off a long ago time ago by their own members once they figured out they had a deaf member among their pack.

Survival of the fittest?

Wall of Sound

Here's a good article that came out yesterday in the New York Times newspaper website. It's called "Wall of Sound." A short story about a book author's life (“The Unheard: A Memoir of Deafness and Africa,” due out next month) as a boy who was born deaf, obtained his hearing aid at age 4 who quickly caught up on his language development and later on in his life received his cochlear implant.

So Easy, a Deaf Caveman Can Do It

You know that famous and well known Geico TV commercial featuring cavemen dressed in yuppie clothes who are proud clansmen for their hairy bodies and brutish looks who get easily offended for trying to be those uppity cultural urban sophisticates? On October 2, 2007 the ABC show 'Cavemen' will be the date for this new and, hopefully, funny show. I'm looking forward to watching it. I think it's a riot whenever I watch those cavemen on those Gieco TV commercials.

Now, with all the latest seizures over the s0-called lack of bonafide Deaf actors in television shows perhaps these people ought to write to ABC and suggest that they also include a deaf caveman character into the script somehow. I could only imagine what this deaf caveman may turn out into. Perhaps desperately trying to be just as sophisticated as his hearing cavemen while trying to sign but probably end up doing a lot of pointing anyway. You know how those hearing producers are like anyways on what they think is right.

While I'm on the topic of cavemen how did those cavemen communicate some "one million years" ago?

Linguistic Change

Both sign and speech communication have certain advantages and disadvan­tages for the general population; therefore, linguists theorize that vocaliza­tions came into free variation with signs (meaning you could grunt or point, whichever worked best at the moment). For a time, man used two different modes of communication: sign and speech.

As the millenniums went by, man moved from the open plains to the woods. Once there, sign communication no longer had the advantage over spoken communication. At that point in time, linguists believe that spoken lan­guages became the "prestige" languages -- simply and solely because they were more efficient "tools" for the majority of the population.

However, in spite of the diminishing popularity for sign languages, sign communication continued to exist ... as movements in ritualized ceremonies, or covert forms of communication, or simply because there was a segment of the population which couldn't -- or wouldn't -- access spoken lan­guages.

Did they sign more often than use their vocal cords to communicate? Did they really grunt alot or did a lot of pointing instead which may have been the first ever universal sign language by a hearing caveman? Did deaf cavemen even exist back then or were they left to die or fend on their own grunting unknowingly in silence? Or did those deaf cavemen even develope their own archaic and weird signs in the effort to and communicate? Or were they actually a bunch of mute cavemen who didn't do much but used their hands and maybe a few grunts to communicate? Or was it the "language gene" that catapulted those primitive cavemen in their ability to use their vocal cords to communicate more effectively?

Something to think about.

But before you reply, note the rules first.

UPDATE: Like I said, don't read too much into what I wrote just like when people read way too much into the upcoming 'Cavemen' show.

New Rules for Commenters - Whiners Need Not Apply

One line of rules at the top of my Haloscan comment page simply doesn't do any justice seeing how some commenters insist on throwing temper tantrums of sort, especially among some of the deaf people who think name calling or ad hominem attack has the equivalent of a great argument. How little do they know. I have now added several more rules, which can be seen below, in order to expand and further my clarification on the expectation from people who comment while on my blogsite. These are real simple rules that even a deaf caveman can understand. I am sure most people will agree with my new policy. If not, well, then they are a lot dumber than I thought. The "rules" link is seen at the top of my Haloscan comment page and the link is a recent addition placed approximately 2 weeks ago.

UPDATE: I am putting the rules here because people with cell phones may not be able to link to my .png image that describes my rules. The "rules" link in Haloscan will be linked to here from now on.


A very, very simple guide to posting comments on Kokonut Pundit

Kokonut Pundit welcomes all points of view but unlike some sites this blogsite does not permit people to greet those who disagree with by way of personal attacks, name-calling, or profanity. So, if you want to avoid having your comments edited or deleted, or getting yourself banned (either for a short time or longer, take your chance) then please follow these simple guidelines:

No profanity. There is no reason to resort to foul language, regardless of how badly your arguments have been shredded or that you are befuddled by your own stupidty you'd resort to profanity thinking it replaces well thought out arguments.

No personal attacks. If you want to call names, you know where you will be welcomed. But here, please conduct all discussions with at least a modicum of intelligence and respectability. Personal attacks on other posters will not be tolerated. This goes double for personal or ad hominem attacks on the people who post blogs on Kokonut Pundit.

No off-topic ramblings. If you think a comments thread is meant to be a free-for-all smorgasbord for anything that comes into your head, you are in the wrong place. Try to maintain at least a tenuous connection to the subject matter at hand.

No abuse. Post the same message over and over, especially in multiple off-topic threads, is not a good way to ingratiate yourself.

No spamming. No advertising and whatnot about product or services. Nobody like getting spames. If you do like spam then certainly there must be something wrong with you.

No juvenilia. In case you didn't understand the word "juvenilia" it means acting like a child. Kokonut Pundit had its fill of the occasional insipid insult phrases that pervade the cybersphere, and they will not be permitted here.

And most importantly of all, comments are to be made in English only. Anything other than English will means automatic deletion.

If you disagree with my policy then you are certainly a lot dumber than I thought. This is a place where all can present arguments, facts, ideas, and opinions about the subject matter at hand. This is so that we can learn about certain topics and other people's perspectives.

Fred vs Hillary

In the latest Rassmussen poll report both Fred Thompson and Mrs. Clinton are nearly tied although the poll shows 46% for Fred Thompson and Mrs. Clinton at 45%. Even Guiliani has a 46% showing. But in June, Clinton was a point ahead of Giuliani and even with Thompson. Now, she is behind them both. Again, polls aren't guarantees of a win in the White House if you ever remember the 2000 election (Bush vs Gore) and the classic Truman (Dem) vs Dewey (Rep) election in 1948.

Fred Thompson's Campaign Manager

In the world of mainstream media it is easy to take certain news at face value and make a run for it before the facts can settle out first. In this case it was about the supposed hiring of Spencer Abraham as the campaign manager for Fred Thompson's campaign. Not so.

That job will be in the hands of Randy Enwright, a veteran Florida Republican who is widely respected and also once ran the GOP in Iowa.

Newsbusters has details why this isn't the case about Fred Thompson supposed hiring of Spencer Abraham as the campaign manager.

People, both deaf and hearing alike, need to remember that it's open season on presidential candidates (and soon to be announced candidates) and that the MSM are all too willing to go after the most visible candidates. Even if it means putting out disinformation.

Deaf Voters Not 2 Million Strong

Lauren Ridloff on i711.com did an ASL video called “Deaf Voting – 2 Million Strong” about the importance of voting. This is an important public announcement of sort to all Deaf people watching that they ought to think about upcoming 2008 election. This is all good stuff however the "2 million strong" number just didn't sound right.

The problem is the use of “2 Million Strong” in the video title as if it were a fact. I question Lauren’s use of that figure in the attempt to make the Deaf population sound bigger when it is not. The claim of “2 million ASL users” or Deaf people in the United State came from Harlan Lane and Ben Bahan:

“ASL is the language of a sizeable minority. Estimates range from 500,000 to two million speakers in the U.S. alone. There are also many speakers in Canada. Compared to data from the (U.S.) Census Bureau, which counts other language minorities, ASL is the leading minority language in the U.S. after the "big four": Spanish, Italian, German, and French.” (Harlan Lane, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan in A Journey into the Deaf World. San Diego, Calif.: Dawn Sign Press, 1996, p.42)

Although Lane mentioned “speakers,” this was not clarified exactly on the status of what constitute as ASL “speakers” in the United States. Was it to mean Deaf people who are native ASL signers? The range of 500,000 to 2,000,000 speakers is a sizeable jump in numbers - an order in magnitude jump. We can easily choose to discount the possibility of having 2,000,000 ASL (fluent and Deaf) speakers in the United States. Or we can blindly accept this large range without further questions, however. The existence of 2,000,000 “speakers” is highly doubtful and most likely an overblown (way, way overblown) one according to Thomas E. Allen in his 1994 Gallaudet Research Institute website on the number of native ASL signers in the United States as well as my own 14 page research into this population question I did a few years ago which I will put some of it in my blog here.

Now, if we take a look at what the current Deaf population in the United States might be like in a more pragmatic approach one could see how the 2 million Deaf population figure used is likely to be an overblown one. If the 50 largest cities in the United States have an average of 40,000 Deaf people in each city (not including surrounding suburban areas), noting the fact that the top 50 largest populated cities have over 1,000,000 people (2000 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates), this would come out to 2,000,000 Deaf people exactly. Now, name a single city in the United States of over 1 million people that have the potential to have 40,000 Deaf people. If you already figured it out you may have realized that there are only a few possible places that may have a Deaf population close to that size. Some of the largest concentrations of Deaf people are in some of the largest cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Miami, and so on rather than in some city with barely a million or so people. To make matters worse, there are very little data from each state on Deaf population counts.

Most states have a deaf and hard of hearing population count with very little references concerning the Deaf (ie culturally deaf) population. In the city of Chicago, for example, there is an estimated number of 26,000 Deaf people out of 2,900,000 persons according to the State of Illinois Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission. This Deaf population represents 8.9% of the total population in the city of Chicago. Even for the city of Chicago, it could not even come with a 40,000 Deaf population count.
(see http://www.idhhc.state.il.us/familyInfo/demographics.htm )

Then we have the Pennsylvania census. According to the 2000 U.S. Census count for Pennsylvania, the state had a population of 12,281,000 persons. Statistics on people with hearing losses taken in 2002 conducted by the SHHH chapter in Pennsylvania are as follows:

Total number of people with hearing loss in state = 1,221,914 (9.9%)
Number of people who are prelingually or culturally deaf = 21,820 (0.2%)
Number of people who are hard of hearing = 1,134,634 (9.2%)
Number of people who are late deafened = 65,460 (0.5%)
Number of people who are deaf/blind ~ 800 ±

The number of culturally deaf people or Deaf people in the state of Pennsylvania is believed to be about 21,820. That is a ratio of 1 Deaf person for every 560 hearing people for the state of Pennsylvania. This figure or ratio should not be extrapolated to other states since population and the concentration of Deaf people can vary enormously from state to state, and from city to city. (see http://www.pa-shhh.org/profile/demog.html )

A more accurate figure on the Deaf population number in the United States could be estimated using figures found in the “McGill Study of Deaf Children in Canada” (MacDougall, 1990). In the study a ratio number was established on the prevalence of deafness in the 0-21 year range. The generally accepted number “rule of thumb” for the prevalence of deafness which precludes the use of speech and hearing without special intervention, aside from sign language, is 1/1000 (MacDougall, 1990; MacDougall, 1999).

In applying this “general rule of thumb” using the 1/1000 ratio (or 0.001) to the United States population figure of 280,000,000 people produces a comparative number of people, ratio-wise, with hearing losses to that of Canada’s (2000 U.S. population census at 280 million versus Canada’s population of 28 million). This ratio produces a Deaf population result of 280,000 (or 280,000,000 * 0.001) Deaf people for the 0 to 21 year old age group in the United States. Using the McGill study in Canada “rule of thumb” to help estimate the 0 – 21 age group Deaf population count in the United States should make no difference statistically. The large population gap between the two countries ought to be statistically insignificant when already there was a large enough sample population to begin with in Canada in the McGill Study.

The United States population is significantly larger than Canada with the population ratio being 10 to 1. We now have a reliable Deaf population figure of 280,000 for the United States in the 0 – 21 age group only. This still leave the older Deaf population greater than age 21 to be added into the equation. With the help of the U.S. Census 2000 population result we can use those data to help infer on what the actual Deaf population number is likely to be.

According to the U.S. Census 2000 total population study the ratio of people by age group starting with people in the 0 to 18 year old age group is 73 million or 26 percent of the U.S. population (or approximately 30 percent for the 0 to 21 year old age group). The total population figure for the 18 to 64 year old group is 174 million or 62 percent of the population in the United States. This leaves 35 million, or 12 percent of the U.S. population, for people aged 65 and over. Using the same age groups seen in the 2000 U.S. Census figures to that of the Deaf population should make no statistical differences (i.e. age group 0 – 21, 22- 64, and 65 years and over) in estimating on getting the total Deaf population number in the United States.

Total U.S. population by age group according to 2000 U.S. Census figures:
Age Group.........Population Count.........% Total Population
0 – 18(21) ......73,000,000 (84,000,000)....................26%(30%)
18 – 64....................174,000,000....................................62%
65 and over...............35,000,000...................................12%

The Deaf population number for the 0 – 21 year age group should account for nearly 30 percent of the total Deaf population in the United States. That is if 280,000 Deaf people aged 0 – 21 years old represent 30 percent of the U.S. Deaf population then it means that 70 percent of the older Deaf population is over the age of 21 years old should account for another 650,000 Deaf people. This leaves a total Deaf population of about 930,000 in the United States for year 2000. The 930,000 figure comes startlingly close to the 973,000 figure given by the 1994 National Center for Health Statistics (Data from the National Health Interview Survey). This would relate to about a ratio between 20 to 1 and 30 to 1 on the number of deaf and hard of hearing people (mild to profound) to that of Deaf people in the United States.

The Deaf population figure of 930,000 in the United States is believed to be a valid but upper range figure according to my 14 page research I did a few years back. A more conservative number of 600,000 Deaf persons population figure would probably the most realistic figure to date. However, the boisterous claim of 2 million Deaf persons in the United States is certainly less believable and quite invalid without any supporting facts to show otherwise. Even if Lane and Bahan said it without any real supporting evidences it would be a bit reckless to say that there are 2 million strong Deaf voters. I have provided some of my figures and resources that I extracted from my 14 page Deaf population study showing why 2 million Deaf people in the United States cannot be the case except for those who want to use nice big round number with the word “millions” attached to it for posterity sake.

So, let’s not go down that road proclaiming that the voting Deaf population is 2 million strong because it is not.

UPDATE: An addendum. If you want to apply the number of Deaf voters who are of voting age, 18 years and up, then the actual number of Deaf voters would be much smaller than my estimate of 930,000 Deaf people of all ages. We're looking at about 300,000 to 600,000 Deaf voters (18 and up) and not the "2 Million Strong" which is just a bogus number.


Deaf Population Study by Mike McConnell – © 2007

Waiting for the World to Change - Deaf Music Video

Check out a video of the Deaf Performing Artists Network performing "Waiting for the World to Change". The video, on the website of Detroit's Channel 4, shows various individuals signing the song mixed with graphics from the history of people who are deaf. You might recognize some people in the video piece. Instead of protesting, this is a very creative way of getting their points across.

When Helen Keller Honors AGB

Anybody who is deaf or blind is bound to come across the story about the famous Helen Keller who became blind and deaf at age 19 months. And up until she was a young girl she had no real way of communicating. That is until the day Miss Sullivan famously finger spelled the word w-a-t-e-r to Helen at the water pump which was, ironically so, a symbol of the breaking of the floodgate opening up a whole new world for Helen that she so craved for.

In a world of no sound or vision is a world where a deaf and blind person would absolutely crave for any new information. Information keeps the mind busy while prodding for more with greater and greater curiosity. With the mastery of the manual alphabet Helen was able to communicate to the outside world learning everything about it. Not only did Helen mastered the manual alphabet she also mastered Braille and eventually the English language. So much so she wrote a book using the manual typewriter (no Braille!) called "Story of My Life." You can read her book for free over the internet which includes accounts written by Miss Sullivan about Helen Keller's life as well.

She used every faculties in her body and mind to learn about the world around her. She wasn't clueless to the fact that hearing people talked and even wondered if deaf people could talk. Here is what Miss Sullivan said of that day when Helen Keller asked her about speaking.

It was three years from the time when Helen began to communicate by means of the manual alphabet that she received her first lesson in the more natural and universal medium of human intercourse--oral language. She had become very proficient in the use of the manual alphabet, which was her only means of communication with the outside world; through it she had acquired a vocabulary which enabled her to converse freely, read intelligently, and write with comparative ease and correctness. Nevertheless, the impulse to utter audible sounds was strong within her, and the constant efforts which I made to repress this instinctive tendency, which I feared in time would become unpleasant, were of no avail. I made no effort to teach her to speak, because I regarded her inability to watch the lips of others as an insurmountable obstacle. But she gradually became conscious that her way of communicating was different from that used by those around her, and one day her thoughts found expression. "How do the blind girls know what to say with their mouths? Why do you not teach me to talk like them? Do deaf children ever learn to speak?" I explained to her that some deaf children were taught to speak, but that they could see their teachers' mouths, and that that was a very great assistance to them. But she interrupted me to say she was very sure she could feel my mouth very well. Soon after this conversation, a lady came to see her and told her about the deaf and blind Norwegian child, Ragnhild Kaata, who had been taught to speak and understand what her teacher said to her by touching his lips with her fingers. She at once resolved to learn to speak, and from that day to this she has never wavered in that resolution. She began immediately to make sounds which she called speaking, and I saw the necessity of correct instruction, since her heart was set upon learning to talk; and, feeling my own incompetence to teach her, never having given the subject of articulation serious study, I went with my pupil for advice and assistance, to Miss Sarah Fuller. Miss Fuller was delighted with Helen's earnestness and enthusiasm, and at once began to teach her. In a few lessons she learned nearly all of the English sounds, and in less than a month she was able to articulate a great many words distinctly. From the first she was not content to be drilled in single sounds, but was impatient to pronounce words and sentences. The length of the word or the difficulty of the arrangement of the elements never seemed to discourage her. But, with all her eagerness and intelligence, learning to speak taxed her powers to the utmost. But there was satisfaction in seeing from day to day the evidence of growing mastery and the possibility of final success. And Helen's success has been more complete and inspiring than any of her friends expected, and the child's delight in being able to utter her thoughts in living and distinct speech is shared by all who witness her pleasure when strangers tell her that they understand her.

I have been asked a great many times whether I think Helen will ever speak naturally; that is, as other people speak. I am hardly prepared to decide that question, or even give an opinion regarding it. I believe that I have hardly begun yet to know what is possible. Teachers of the deaf often express surprise that Helen's speech is so good when she has not received any regular instruction in speech since the first few lessons given her by Miss Fuller. I can only say in reply, "This is due to habitual imitation and practice! practice! practice!" Nature has determined how the child shall learn to speak, and all we can do is to aid him in the simplest, easiest way possible, by encouraging him to observe and imitate the vibrations in the voice.

What was amazing is that Helen Keller actually taught herself to speak several words by herself before Miss Sullivan began teaching her how to speak.

She was pleased with anything which made a noise. She liked to feel the cat purr; and if by chance she felt a dog in the act of barking, she showed great pleasure. She always liked to stand by the piano when some one was playing and singing. She kept one hand on the singer's mouth, while the other rested on the piano, and she stood in this position as long as any one would sing to her, and afterward she would make a continuous sound which she called singing. The only words she had learned to pronounce with any degree of distinctness previous to March, 1890, were PAPA, MAMMA, BABY, SISTER. These words she had caught without instruction from the lips of friends. It will be seen that they contain three vowel and six consonant elements, and these formed the foundation for her first real lesson in speaking.

The thing is that Helen Keller had no prior bias or prejudice indicative of anything to suggest that speaking or talking would be a total waste of time. No one told her that. The initiative she took was entirely on her own in a world of dark silence where information of any kind is what she craved for. Her senses were so highly attuned she could even feel the vibration in Miss Sullivan's body whenever talked while signing the manual alphabet to her.

From the beginning of my education Miss Sullivan made it a practice to speak to me as she would speak to any hearing child; the only difference was that she spelled the sentences into my hand instead of speaking them. If I did not know the words and idioms necessary to express my thoughts she supplied them, even suggesting conversation when I was unable to keep up my end of the dialogue.

This process was continued for several years; for the deaf child does not learn in a month, or even in two or three years, the numberless idioms and expressions used in the simplest daily intercourse. The little hearing child learns these from constant repetition and imitation. The conversation he hears in his home stimulates his mind and suggests topics and calls forth the spontaneous expression of his own thoughts. This natural exchange of ideas is denied to the deaf child. My teacher, realizing this, determined to supply the kinds of stimulus I lacked. This she did by repeating to me as far as possible, verbatim, what she heard, and by showing me how I could take part in the conversation. But it was a long time before I ventured to take the initiative, and still longer before I could find something appropriate to say at the right time.

The deaf and the blind find it very difficult to acquire the amenities of conversation. How much more this difficulty must be augmented in the case of those who are both deaf and blind! They cannot distinguish the tone of the voice or, without assistance, go up and down the gamut of tones that give significance to words; nor can they watch the expression of the speaker's face, and a look is often the very soul of what one says.

Vibrations emanating from another person or even the purring of a cat is information that she took delight in which caused her wanting to learn more about the world around her and communicate to people who have access to the world of sight and sound. Helen Keller was voracious in learning and she strove to master the bridging of any communication gap whether its through manual alphabet, the English language, Braille, a regular manual typewriter, and finally her speaking in the effort to rid herself as a mute person.

But it must not be supposed that I could really talk in this short time. I had learned only the elements of speech. Miss Fuller and Miss Sullivan could understand me, but most people would not have understood one word in a hundred. Nor is it true that, after I had learned these elements, I did the rest of the work myself. But for Miss Sullivan's genius, untiring perseverance and devotion, I could not have progressed as far as I have toward natural speech. In the first place, I laboured night and day before I could be understood even by my most intimate friends; in the second place, I needed Miss Sullivan's assistance constantly in my efforts to articulate each sound clearly and to combine all sounds in a thousand ways. Even now she calls my attention every day to mispronounced words.

All teachers of the deaf know what this means, and only they can at all appreciate the peculiar difficulties with which I had to contend. In reading my teacher's lips I was wholly dependent on my fingers: I had to use the sense of touch in catching the vibrations of the throat, the movements of the mouth and the expression of the face; and often this sense was at fault. In such cases I was forced to repeat the words or sentences, sometimes for hours, until I felt the proper ring in my own voice. My work was practice, practice, practice. Discouragement and weariness cast me down frequently; but the next moment the thought that I should soon be at home and show my loved ones what I had accomplished, spurred me on, and I eagerly looked forward to their pleasure in my achievement.

"My little sister will understand me now," was a thought stronger than all obstacles. I used to repeat ecstatically, "I am not dumb now." I could not be despondent while I anticipated the delight of talking to my mother and reading her responses from her lips. It astonished me to find how much easier it is to talk than to spell with the fingers, and I discarded the manual alphabet as a medium of communication on my part; but Miss Sullivan and a few friends still use it in speaking to me, for it is more convenient and more rapid than lip-reading.

The mastery of what Helen accomplished could be seen even in her letters from 1887 to 1901 where her written style and intelligence went from from simple and clear to elegant and thorough in thought. Many of her letters were written to Alexander Graham Bell whom she had grown to love and respect. So much so she dedicated her book to Alexander Graham Bell.

To Alexander Graham Bell

Who has taught the deaf to speak
and enabled the listening ear to hear speech
from the Atlantic to the Rockies,
I dedicate
this Story of My Life.

Helen Keller's life was fraught with frustration, challenges and many rewards. Even without sight and sound a deaf and blind person can still master the world around him. The story about Helen Keller is truly a testament that nothing is ever impossible when obstacles stand in our way. Nor are the choices we are given in life be seen as obstacles but challenges. It's what we make of it and what our determinations are enabling us to conquer our own limitations in life.

Now, folks, don't jump to conclusion, misread or misinterpret about my blog title or what I have written here today in conjunction with the on going AGB protest. The whole idea is that each individual has the capacity to overcome many obstacles thrown at him/her in life. How it is successfully done lies within only the human spirit and of mind. Helen Keller is the perfect example of that human spirit.

An AGB Protest or AGB Dialogue?

Just read a few updates about the protest that’s (or was at this point) taking place at the Marriott Hotel where the Alexander Graham Bell for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing convention is taking place (July 27 and 28) in Arlington, VA. And I noticed that somebody said that the Marriott Hotel manager(s) explained that they read all Deaf blogs concerning AGB and learned about the upcoming plan to attend the conference/hotel in order to protest ABG’s lack of policy or support regarding the use of sign language, specifically ASL.

Now, there seems to be a dichotomy at work here is what I’m seeing. The word “protest” is rife throughout those Deaf blogs. After reading those blogs I wouldn’t be a surprise to see that Marriott Hotel managers would be so concerned about the upcoming protest and that they would try to ensure that the convention go uninterrupted. And reading those Deaf blogs probably brought visions of last year’s protest on the campus of Gallaudet when protesters took over the campus and a few buildings, along with some destruction of property and defacements where everything was shut down and disrupted. All they saw was the word “protest” peppered throughout those blogs and how angry these Deaf people were and never enough on the discussion on the need for positive “dialogue” in a more neutral and constructive manner instead. Is this a protest or dialogue?

So, what are they supposed to think after reading all those Deaf blogs? How are they supposed to react when they know a group of Deaf protesters will try and enter their building not knowing if their intention is to disrupt the convention or not? Taking pictures or videos of ABG attendees does constitute a form of disruption, even harrassment. Even if they may seem peaceful on the outside just to gain entry and then proceed with the disruption once they have the opportunity. They cannot read protesters' minds on what they would do that day. And how will they react tomorrow knowing that more will come thinking they may get even more "rowdier"? Can we blame last year's protest at Gallaudet University that caused the managers to think or behave in the way they did today? Or is this something else? Did anybody in the months before attempted an honest person to person dialogue with one of the AGB officials? How many Deaf people in the protest crowd actually met any of the AGB people in person to discuss their policy regarding sign language in a neutral setting that's more conciliatory? I wonder. But it’ll be curious to see what both sides will have to say after this protest is done by tomorrow.

Elderly Man Viciously Robbed and Beaten, Hearing Aids Stolen, Shoots Robber

Elderly Man Viciously Robbed and Beaten, Hearing Aids Stolen, Shoots Robber.

This robber deserves getting shot after beating a 93 year old elderly man 50 times. And then proceeded to steal items from his house, including the old man's two hearing aids. When the old man regained consciousness he used his .38 caliber handgun to shoot the robber in the throat when he charged after the old man again. Poetic justice says the robber dies for his actions. If not then poetic justic says that he becomes a mute hearing person.

Moral of the story?

Don't ever steal a person's hearing aid.

New Improved Cochlear Implant Device!

As technology continues to help improve hearing for people with hearing loss this one cochlear implant technology (edited to add - actually a neural implant) isnt like your average cochlear implant. This implant is so small it can be inserted underneath the skin where the implantee can swim or even take a shower with it still on hearing the drops of water and the splash and gurgling sound underwater at a swimming pool.

In normal hearing, there is a strong response corresponding to frequency played. With the conventional cochlear implant, the brain registered sound, but not at a specific frequency. With the new intra-neural implant, the graph shows a strong, specific response–similar to normal hearing.

Middlebrooks explains the benefits of the new device. “It will give people hopefully better hearing in complex environments and also some perception of pitches, so they’ll be able to enjoy music and also understand the melodious quality of other people’s voices.”

He adds the implant has another advantage. It’s so small and uses so little electricity, it may be possible to implant the entire device under the skin. That means people could wear them in the shower or while swimming, giving them 24-hour-a-day hearing with no external battery to charge.

Researchers need to verify the safety of the new implants. And they hope to start human trials in about five years. In the meantime, Middlebrooks encourages people to go ahead and get a cochlear implant now if they are a good candidate for one. Doctors should still be able to implant an intra-neural device at a later time when it becomes available.

While electronic components continue to shrink in size more and more people will soon turn to these newly improved cochlear implants or upcoming neural implants as a viable option to help restore some hearing with even better clarity and sound discrimination. Choices will soon get easier for hearing parents of deaf children whether to implant them or not as long it's an informed decision.

Hattip - Mizhko.

Not so David Eberwein - hearing babies vs deaf babies on signing

Not too long ago I posted a video of my 1 year old hearing daughter signing during her 1st birthday party which easily showed the communicative value on signing. What makes signing so helpful for hearing babies/toddlers up to 2 to 3 years old is that they can communicate readily with their hands since their vocal cords are not mature enough for them to start speaking. In my video everybody was talking and not signing to my daughter for her respond correctly with signs. Most signs by hearing babies are related to important signs that address their basic needs and requests such as “hungry,” “food”, “milk”, “ice cream”, “drink”, “candy” and so on going into more specific food groups as the baby gets older while their signing vocabulary expands. This includes basic enjoyment requests from the baby/toddler such as “book,” “movie,” “toy,” and so on. It is clear that hearing babies/toddlers do understand what their parents are saying when they use their voice as evidenced in my video of my daughter at age 1 year. But what about toddlers who are hard of hearing? What are the benefits in the ability to understand speech and recognize sound at that age? What are the benefits to help develop speech and listening skills as the child gets older?

Recently David Eberwein, a Deaf person, said something that struck me as wishful thinking in his “press release” comment prior to the ABG protest soon to take place later this week:

“We want all Deaf babies to be proficient in both ASL and English.”

First off, babies born with hearing loss are not automatically Deaf. The word “Deaf” denotes people who are culturally deaf. Babies are born with a wide ranging amount and type of hearing loss from mild to profound. All babies or toddlers with hearing loss do not belong exclusively to the Deaf community but to the parents of that child. This is not to say that deaf/hoh babies shouldn’t learn sign language, they should. It gives them the edge on communicating with their parents regardless of their hearing status.

Having said that, it is equally important for babies with better hearing maintain their familiarity with sounds and words, and learn to develop their speech making skills whether it’s through hearing aids or cochlear implants. Receptive skills whether it’s aurally or visually are important when it comes to communication. Perhaps babies with better hearing would at first use sign language and then progress to using CUED speech after their vocal cords have already matured by age two or so and gradually drop out (or not) the signing portion. And when the child is much older (if hearing receptive skills and words discrimination are excellent) progress to speech and listening only with no need for CUED speech assistance. An example such as this may be good for children who are hard of hearing that can use what good hearing left as a source for their feedback loop to help with their speech and listening skills while using their hearing aids. Children with much more severe hearing loss could indeed fare better with signing (e.g SEE, ASL) but cochlear implant is changing all that on how it can help improve speech intelligibility with the help of CUED speech.

In order to understand that there are various reasons why parents would choose a non-signing approach over, for example, CUED speech or aural/oral approach you need to read a story about a hearing mother’s adoption of a deaf orphaned child from the Ukraine. Reading this story provides an alternative perspective on what a typical hearing mother may do in order to help her deaf child. This mother describes in her website her careful research about deafness, ASL, Cochlear Implant, the Deaf community, oral schools, Gallaudet University, CUED speech in order for her to make a decision on how she can help her deaf child with her education, English language development and acquire crucial communication skills. This is one extreme end when you have a profoundly deaf child compared to a child with mild or even moderate hearing loss on developing good listening and speaking skills alongside with good English language development.

All in all, advocating for all babies to take the early advantage of sign language to help facilitate early communication would be far better to promote than to protest and demand that all babies/toddlers who have a hearing loss ought to use ASL only and eventually become just as proficient in the English language. Doing so would be, in my view, a bit reckless and even militant in trying to get every baby with a hearing loss into the Deaf world with that approach. I’m sorry, David Eberwein, that kind of "militant" in thinking just won’t work. This would be especially so if you go around calling babies with hearing loss as “Deaf” babies. Just promote sign language for all babies and leave it at that, and let the parents make the informed decision on which particular communication mode would be best for their child. As always, each child is different in their ability and skills when it comes to good communication and English language development. This is especially true if they do take advantage of their ability to hear whether it's a hearing aid or cochlear implant. Sound is important. So is communication.

UPDATE: David Eberwein seems like a nice fellow. However, just because somebody's nice doesn't mean everybody must agree with his opinions. Or even agree with on how uses the words (e.g. "Deaf babies") . Not so. I made the opinion that saying "Deaf babies" for all deaf babies may be seen as militant in thinking by some people which is different than calling somebody outright as being militant (e.g. "David is a Deaf militant"). That was never my intention when my opinion was about the words "Deaf babies" he used and not about attacking the person himself.

Now, people need to get a grip here and stop with the ad hominem attacks nonsense by twisting the facts and just being plain petulent. Ad hominem attacks are not the same as presenting arguments. If you think you have a better one, show it to me. Convince me. But to call names is not even a sign of intelligence. Even a 10 year old kid can tell you that.

Trend on Deaf Actors in Films?

Lately there seems to be of lot of gripes by some Deaf people about how actors (a term I use to describe both female and male actors) who play deaf characters are not, ahem, "deaf enough" and that Deaf actors should be doing the play acting instead. Also, along the line of these gripes is that people seem to complain that there isn't enough shows, movies or televisions that have Deaf people in them.

First off, I feel all of this is a bit of a hyperbole of expression coming from some of these complainers about the "lack" Deaf actors in films or shows. Secondly, there continues to be a trend of more Deaf and deaf actors playing deaf character roles lately over the last 10 years than it did the previous 10 years. Just like we're seeing a trend in technology that offer better communication access to people with hearing loss. Still we get these certain types of people who are NEVER satisfied (I call them 'whiners' because they take things to the extreme) with anything and think in terms of "continuous oppression" mentality. What a load of....

Ok.

There are about 30 million people in the United States (out of 300 million) that have hearing loss. Approximately 900,000 of them are considered to be a part of the Deaf population which makes them to be the pretty small minority of people with hearing loss. And guess which audience will Hollywood cater mostly to? Yep. The mostly hearing population part. Not a surprise.

Over the last 10 years (1997 - 2007) there were many more films produced that have ASL components to it and/or with deaf actors in than compared to 10 years earlier (1986 - 1996). So, it's pretty obvious on the increasing number of Deaf actors in films and television shows. But is not just in the United States that we are seeing more Deaf/deaf actors play the roles of Deaf/deaf characters but elsewhere in other countries.

These kinds of progression in films and televisions do not happen overnight but the trend has been positive so far. However, many Deaf people are adamant that Deaf actors should not play dual roles where one could either sign or talk. Just as Marlee Matlin has done.

Matlin has played the lead role in Against Her Will: The Carrie Buck Story, a made for television movie based on the true story of a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the experimental sterlization of mentally challenged women. Most fans who have seen Matlin’s performances on television or in film agree that her ability to speak is so refined that they cannot tell she is hearing impaired.

And when she did use her voice in one film (or in the case at the Academy Award) mass outrage ensued by many Deaf people over Marlee Matlin who dared to use her voice and not sign.

Gasp! The world crumbles! ASL will soon be obsolete! Aeeeiiii!

Now, what's wrong with Deaf actors who can play dual roles as a signer or be able to use his/her voice in another role? Or even do a bit of both in films? And they object? A little tight in the underpants are they perhaps?

Now let me end this by saying that there is no active central database on the internet that covers which movies, shows, television parts (e.g. news, specials such as PBS, etc) or plays that have Deaf/deaf actors or have Deaf/deaf contestants or competitors (e.g. Christy Smith in Survivor) for example that people can access and add to (see John Lubotsky as a possible source to update) that list . This sort of database would greatly add and expand on whats really out there for people to more fully informed. For example, information about a possible deaf contestant in Big Brother or an upcoming move such as Dummy Hoy would be one way how such a database could be used. If people were smart enough and have the time to do this massive compilation they would start compiling these information into an online central database over the internet. Doing so would allow anyone to query that database and look for a specific show, topic (e.g. such if a Deaf/deaf actor used his/her voice, signed or used Cued speech, etc) or person. In short a deaf Google of sort. Not just a Deaf Google but deaf Google since not everybody who is deaf or hard of hearing is Deaf.

Deaf Whiners Are Killing Us!

We live in a marvelous age, truly! In the last century deaf people had only been represented by the many incarnations of Helen Keller in made-for TV movies and deaf kids who would appear on sitcoms, teach all of the kids ASL overnight, then disappear. These days we have deaf FBI agents (Sue Thomas), deaf bad guys (John Doe), and deaf characters gratuitously placed on hit shows like “Jericho”.

We have captioned TV, DVD’s, and even Movie Theaters. But now, all of these things are under attack – not from evil Hearies, but from idiot deafies who are not willing to let fair be fair enough.

First, they gripe that there are no deafies on TV. Then they gripe because the deafies on TV don’t sign enough. THEN they gripe about the quality of the signs, that the actors are actually Hearies, or just aren’t “deaf enough”. I got news for y’all – this doesn’t send the message that we won’t settle for sub-standard – it sends the message we won’t settle for anything.

Here’s a case in point – ABC’s upcoming “Bionic Woman” series. The show was to feature a deaf character in a prominent role as Jaime Sommers’ deaf sister. Deafies went into a tizzy because the actress chosen to play her wasn’t deaf. Come on, folks, it’s called acting for a reason! In Hollywood Hispanics play Israelis, straight people play gay people, gay people play straight people, Buddhists play Methodists, and men even play women!

Instead of being happy that deafies are being portrayed as just normal folks who occupy virtually every strata of society, the Whiners are doing their dead-level best to prove that deafies are bitter, uneducated people who can’t possibly be pleased. They’ve told Hollywood that if any and all deaf characters don’t meet up to the vocal minority’s view of “d-Deaf Culture” they will be overwhelmed with petitions, boycotts, and lawsuits.

This leaves the Hollywooders with only one simple choice: drop the deaf characters. With no specific points of contention deafies can only gripe about one thing – the lack of deafies in TV and Movies. This is what happened with “Bionic Woman”. Jaime’s sister is no longer deaf – thanks go to whiney deaf bloggers everywhere.

A deaf blogger recently bragged about throwing a tantrum and essentially bringing everyone’s evening to a halt by blockading the theater entrance because of a technical problem that prevented him from seeing “Transformers” in Rear-Window Captioning. I can assure you theater managers everywhere will hear about this and decide they really don’t need our business that badly.

Deaf Whiner Activists have successfully gotten local religious and educational programming pulled from the air because the producers couldn’t afford captioning.

A couple of years ago I went to a hospital for a kidney stone, and found out that I had waited for an hour for treatment while an ASL interpreter was procured. At the time I didn’t know ASL. They were aware of this – but a local ordinance required an ASL interpreter for all deaf patients. I had the term “deaf” removed from my information. So, thanks to Deaf Whiner Activists, I’m at risk of having problems at the hospital because I don’t sign. Thanks for nothing, ya nimrods!

I’m all for equal access for deafies. I’ve even campaigned for my share of these rights. It’s because off me that the cops in my area all carry 4”X5” notepads and pencils in their cars to ease communication during traffic stops.

I don’t, however, think that our being deaf entitles us to special privileges. We should be treated with the respect we deserve by police officers, for example – but the entire justice system doesn’t need to come to a screeching halt because we get pulled over for speeding. We should have access to captions. We shouldn’t expect theaters to close down because they can’t have them on every single movie – and it’s not fair to expect Hearies to put up with captions on every movie, whether or not a deafie is in the audience. I used to be a hearie, and I can promise you captions are annoying if you don’t need them.

So – don’t settle for sub-standard, but be happy for concessions when we get them. In other words, a puppy won’t learn tricks if you whack him on the nose – even when he gets it right. True change doesn’t happen overnight – and it’ll never come at all if the folks who can make the changes don’t think we’ll be happy anyway.

SOURCE

UPDATE: Some people actually thought I wrote the above piece without ever clicking on the "source" link to see who actually wrote the piece. I didn't write this but somebody else did and put it here. Next time folks? Click on the link whenever you see the word "source" to see who wrote it. The word "source" should be enough of a clue for you to do that.

Geesh.

Matt Hamill Still Training with Ortiz?

This has been one question on a lot of people's minds wondering if Matt Hamill is still training with Tito Ortiz at the Team Punishment camp in California. In a 411mania.com interview the question comes up:

411Mania.com: Let's move to your Team Punishment camp for a bit. Are you still working with Kendall Grove and Matt Hamill? How is training going for their respective fights taking on Patrick Cote and Michael Bisping?

Ortiz: Unfortunately I've actually parted ways with Matt. I know he's in Cincinnati working hard. He's doing his own thing training with his guys. It's kind of hard for him to come out to California especially with a wife and kid. Kendall Grove is actually in Las Vegas training with Couture for his fight against Cote. We're actually pretty excited because we just signed Kendall to a contract with Team Punishment clothing so we'll be taking care of him for a while.

So, there you go folks. You have the official word that Matt Hamill isn't training with Tito Ortiz anymore. Plus, Matt Hamill has a new gym called "Matt Hamill Training Center" which opened up on June 1.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Is Amy Cohen Onto Something?

Out of curiosity I looked at the 90 day most read blogs or most looked at vlogs in Deafread and saw that Amy Cohen was consistently ranked at the top with 957 views as of this writing and had the most number of vlogs in the top 10 list than anybody else hitting 3 out 10, of course, tying with ABC.

I’ve known Amy ever since I entered Gallaudet in 1988 a few months before the earth shaking DPN event and so I know something about her personality and how she is easy to talk to.

Her attitude is consistent with none of that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality changes you would see in some bloggers who care nothing about the consequences of their own actions when using profane languages, hurtful words and even libelous commentaries over the internet. I also noticed that some bloggers tend to do these things while vloggers are less apt to do these sorts of things. Perhaps this is the very reason why more and more people are looking into Amy’s vlogs to see what she has to say? Even though I don’t agree with everything she says but her approach is the right one by getting people to think first and act later rather than succumbing to highly emotional knee jerk responses by acting first and thinking later - an attribute that many Deaf people share nowadays. Or so it seems.

Amy isn’t an infallible person and we all are emotional human beings. However, we learn from conflicts and from that we learn from each other as a result. We all have our own style of blogging or vlogging. Yet we can still learn from each other.

Maybe Amy Cohen is onto something here?

The Linnik Murder - how many illegal aliens in national sex registry?

Zine Linnik, a 12 year old girl was murdered by an illegal immigrant who was charged in 1990 with sexual incest with a 16 year old girl and that was the red flag for deportation. But that didnt' happen.

Somebody should introduce a legislative act something like the Linnik Act at the Capitol (or even at the state capitals) to help address this sort of thing as a remembrance to Zina Linnik. Didn't Adam Walsh do something like that when his boy was abducted and then murdered? What's more didn't somebody, somewhere, broke the law regarding the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 on reporting sex offenders to the national sex offender registry database when Zina Linnik was murdered?

Here's a fact to be aware of:

Recidivism rates for sex offenders often exceed those of other criminals. The Department of Justice has found that released child molesters were more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime than released non-sex offenders. Released sex offenders were four times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime than released non-sex offenders.

Also, I am thinking out loud here. How many illegal aliens are in that registry? What are the odds on finding one in that registry seeing that many people are so indifferent about illegal aliens in our country? Would people be that stupid to put in illegal aliens who are sex offenders in the sex offender national registry database? And if so, wouldn't that bring a lot more attention to this sordid problem when background checks and screening continually fail?

Does anyone know? Anyone care to check those names in the sex offender registry and find out? Does the White House even care? Bush? Chertoff? Hello people!

Deaf Judges

The one thing that really galls me is seeing a Deaf person tell other Deaf people that they cannot become judges claiming that hearing peers will prevent them from becoming one. Especially more galling would be to see those comments aimed at a Deaf young boy or girl. A Deaf person cannot become a judge? In a word I put lightly here....loads of baloney!

Preventing someone from becoming a judge just because he or she has a hearing loss has absolutely no ground to stand on for saying that. Legally so. Because technology today allows people with hearing loss the ability to communicate using a, for example, CART system during a court proceeding whether the deaf person is a judge or lawyer. And because of that communication technology we are seeing more deaf judges nowadays than we did 20 years ago....which was nil on the number of deaf judges.

There are fewer than 100 deaf attorneys nationwide, but 15 years ago there were fewer than 15 in the profession. Now there are three deaf judges in the U.S. The numbers are slowly growing, thanks to technological advances such as e-mail, text pagers, availability of interpreters and computer-assisted transcription services (CART) and workplace accommodations required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the fact remains that deaf lawyers are about as common as the albino buffalo. One reason is that deaf children don't see the law as a plausible career. A legal career requires strong communication skills, operates with a unique vocabulary and demands complex interaction but perhaps the biggest disadvantage is an outright bias against deaf people by legal employers.

That paragraph was written in early 2000. But according to the newsletter The Third Branch for the Wisconsin Judiciary printed in Winter of 2000 there are at least 4 legally deaf judges in the United States. As for lawyers, there are at least 170 deaf attorneys in the United States as of 2007. This includes Deaf attorneys as well.

Back in 2000 it was figured that there were at least 100 deaf attorneys in the United States. Now, the number of deaf attorneys has grown to 170 and will continue to grow. With that prospect in mind then certainly the outlook for the number of deaf judges will, too, grow as well.

With statistics in hand as proof lets hope we don't see more Deaf people tell younger Deaf people that they cannot become judges using the pathetic excuse that hearing peers will prevent them from attaining their dreams to become a judge someday.

UPDATE: Again proof begins with having Deaf/deaf/hoh lawyers. There are in fact a few deaf attorneys who own their own practices.

Our attorney members are employed by large private law firms, smaller firms, government bodies, corporations and public interest groups, and some are in solo practice. The diversity of attorneys on our boards is a benefit to all members of our community, especially our law students, who are able to learn about different areas of the law and practice environments from others with experience in those areas.

And that we have legally deaf judges in the United States. It would only be a matter of time until we see the first Deaf judge. Just as it is a matter of time that we will see Deaf dentists and doctors have their own private practices. In fact, Dr. Carolyn Stern, who is *Deaf* has her own private practice:

Dr. Carolyn Stern, a Brighton physician in private practice, drives a car with “DEAF DOC” personalized license plates, which she says helps educate a few people who seem surprised deaf people can even drive a car, let alone become a doctor.

It's equally amazing to hear from some Deaf people that for a Deaf person to become a judge would be impossible.