How valuable is communication?

You heard the old adage about setting up a successful business and that's "Location, location, location!" But when it comes to ensuring success in everyday lives, especially in the world of business, it's "Communication, communication, communication!" no matter who you are dealing with.

So, how valuable is communication among deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing people? Is it social value? Business value? Personal value? If you're a business entrepreneur or a deaf/hh worker who deal with hearing people on a daily basis how valuable would communication be? If you had a product that ensures a free and open communication with anybody who knows how to type would you use one?

We already saw a glimpse on just how valuable communication is when YouTube (owned by Google) announced their first ever voice to text recognition service on their website enabling greater communication access to potentially millions of people who are deaf and hard of hearing. This is a smart and savvy marketing move. Exactly how valuable is automatic voice-to-text communication when it comes to voice or speech recognition technology? What about voice messages on your phone into text like Google voice as seen in this captioned video? How valuable would it be between two different languages over the phone? Voice recognition technology isn't perfect yet as you can see here in this latest video which is already shown to be extremely error prone (and something I think could in fact turn out to be a PR nightmare for Google/YouTube if it's really that bad).

For deaf and hard of hearing people communication is obviously quite valuable and that technology will be the answer in helping level the playing field. There is already one device that allows face-to-face communication called "UbiDuo" which enabled one Sam's Club employee who is deaf to communicate among his peers, supervisors, and customers and because of that he was able to get himself promoted 3 times.



How valuable is communication when it comes to business? In Sam's Club case the UbiDuo was worth more than its weight in gold because it helped increase productivity and efficiency. The Sam's Club manager as seen in the video realized that it was "Communication, communication, communication!" that made the difference and recommended that a face-to-face communication device ought to be in all retail outlets.

It would definitely help every retail establishment. Any retail establishment that wants to connect with anyone hearing impaired needs something like this product. Because it's very impersonal without it. But with it you can talk to them, you can get their needs, you don't have to guess. You know exactly what they want. And it makes the member or customer feel better because they feel like they have some power now versus before they were kind of hoping they found what they needed and if they didn't, oh weel, they probably didn't ask.

Sometimes it takes a communication product for somebody to realize the importance of just how valuable communication is in the world of people who are deaf and hard of hearing, and doing business with them is all about communication, communication, communication!!

Breaking: Deaf Hate Speech Found

Unbelievable! Here are some perpetrators of hate speech found on the internet that deserves our attention but before I go further with this damning expose' here's USAToday on an article about hate speech and how it is difficult to police and define.

Maybe a little shake up is in order here (*ahem*) but with all these recent nebulous, insinuating claims of "Deaf hate speech" or "Deaf hate crimes" on YouTube and in blogs are beginning to look like an attempt to sow dischord and distrust for those who simply have an opinion, no matter how disagreeable it may be. Perhaps to try and form a Deaf mob of some sort? Reminds me of villagers with pitchforks and torches rallying together to go after Frankenstein whose only fault was that he existed. The real hate being perpetrated was the villagers going after Frankenstein.

Use of such colorful words like "Deaf hate speech" or "Deaf hate crime" is the same classic example of using the words "avdism" or "avdist" as a weapon of choice as a way to try and shut up other people's own opinions, arguments, certain facts and such on various deaf/hh - related issues. This has lately been used in one popular deaf/hh forum in the name of "self preservation."

I rarely even bother to watch vlogs by Deaf people except this time someone gave me a heads up and I saw Lois' vlog (*hand waves at Lois*). Yes, I'm back. I am who I am. Diversity includes those who don't always necessarily agree with everything, too.

Also, as a clarification it was I who initiated the email to Tayler, the owner of Deafread and Deafvideo.TV, to discuss a few things and decided to come back after a lengthy absence on my own volition. Though I realized one funny thing between the both of us and how we have something in common and that we both were viciously called as an "avdist." Perhaps the real perpetrators of "Deaf hate speech" are those who like to lob words like "avdist," or charge them with "hate speech" or "hate crime" at Deaf/deaf people?

Here's what Tayler Mayer said about Deafvideo.TV in my blog comment:

The most bizarre thing I've seen is if someone disagrees with Deafhood, it's called *udism. I made a vlog and there's still people who don't understand.

And I've been called an *udist because I didn't feel the definition of *udism was clear enough to be enforced on DeafRead/DeafVIDEO.TV. I instead said it wouldn't be tolerated under the harassment rule. It's just harder to enforce something that's not clear. Never mind that wasn't enough for them folks.

The term *udism indeed has its merits, but it's been manipulated into a weapon only meant to hurt or intimidate others.

Was Tayler a victim, ironically so, of "hate speech" by some Deaf people and those those who disagreed with other people's opinions?

Since you’ve just discussed how some people attempted to shut others up by using the term oppression, then avdism, whenever there was criticism of DBC or AFA on DVTV, is the prohibition against Barry to vlog about DBC or AFA on DVTV still in effect?

Was I a victim of "hate speech" by certain Deaf people? Emotions ran high and people have used that as a justification and excuse to slap on the "hate crime" and/or "hate speech" charges? Isn't that one of the definition of a "hate speech" as well?

I hope you won't be disappointed that there is no new discovery on finding a "Deaf hate speech." And, no, I don't believe the people who lobbed the words "avdist" or "Deaf hate speech" and such at other Deaf or deaf/hh people committed any hate speech at all. I see them as having a strong opinion but to call it as a "hate crime" or "hate speech"? Isn't that going a bit too far, if not an irresponsible and reckless charge?

Something to chew on here.

Video: Dr. I. King Jordan on diversity and inclusion

A video on what Dr. I. King Jordan has to say about diversity and inclusion. Diversity and Inclusion. Dr. Jordan shares his insights about his organizational journey to become more diverse and inclusive, and the lessons he learned along the way.



Dr. I. King Jordan Theodore R. and Vivian M. Johnson, Scholarship Foundation from Council on Foundations on Vimeo.

"I Hope Deafhood Fails"

Let me borrow one of the most recognized phrase of the time from one of the most famous deaf man ever to be on the radio where he discussed about the policies of Obama that continues to hurt the people of the United States. Rush Limbaugh said these famous words, “I hope Obama fails,” over a year ago on his radio much to the delight of conservatives everywhere. And let's change that phrase to:

“I hope deafhood fails.”

I bet Rush Limbaugh would probably say along the line of those words to RLM once Rush finds out about his recent blog in the hope that Rush would donate some money to the Deafhood Foundation organization (*insert canned laughter here*). But that won’t happen, especially not if Rush hears how RLM bashed Rush in a sick way wished that he had died on the operating table during his CI operation or that he would lose his voice, and last year in RLM’s blog he felt the need to try and encourage people to defile Rush Limbaugh. How do you think Rush would respond?

Rush: “I hope deafhood fails.”

But what does that suppose to mean? Is it the personal journey concept of a deaf/hh person that he hopes it would fail? Or the fact that people have used the deafhood mantra as a weapon of choice? I think it’d be more like the latter, not that I care about the word which I find already divisive. And it's being used as a political tool among some Deaf people that has already alienated many deaf and hard of hearing people, not to mention parents of deaf/hh children.

So, in following Rush Limbaugh's step, I hope deafhood fails.

Rush Limbaugh is a part of the deaf and hard of hearing community whether you like it or not. He participates in his own community in his own way and make use of his time when necessary. His journey is his own and doesn’t need the word “deafhood” to define his journey for him, nor have any Deaf organizations define him for who he is or what he should or should not do or what he ought to become. It’s really none of the people's business. And it makes no sense to bash Rush and then ask him to donate money afterwards. All in all, Rush will certainly not make that kind of donation for reasons only known to him.

My advice to Rush about donating money? Makes sure the money goes to a more deserving organization like this one as seen in this news story. Just don't sweat the small stuff.

Baby born deaf, Deaf members celebrate; Baby born blind without eyes Deaf people show pity

Yes, a rather odd thing to see in one forum. Here's a story about a baby born without eyes that come into the world totally blind. In a popular Deaf forum a thread was created about that story where most posters showed pity and shock. But if a baby born deaf without cochleas many Deaf people would be celebrating that fact.

Here are the confirmed words that earned me a 30-day ban, words that I wrote verbatim in my posted response to that story of which my comment has long since been deleted:

Ok. Baby born with no cochlea or no ears. Would that be a sad story, too?

And yet moderator(s) claimed that my comment, in some odd way, degrades and reduces the morale of deaf/blind contributors but without explaining why or how. Judge, jury, executioner.

But I was not offered a chance to point out the irony of this story in a popular Deaf forum. My post about supposing a baby born without cochleas or ears was my way of driving a point on the hypocrisy between a baby born without eyes vs a baby born without cochleas (e.g. born deaf) when deafness of a baby would've celebrated by many Deaf people. But certainly not about a baby without eyes which pity and sorrow was shown by some Deaf people. My comment wasn't to entice but it was for me to point out and for me to understand on why the double standards in all this. But I was not offered a defense or the chance to explain or clarify. Judge, jury, executioner.

I suspect ban was the result of a complaint(s) from someone or people who have an ax to grind rather than to simply ask for clarification but instead assumed the worse. This is a problem when one is a jury, judge and executioner, and listens to only one side. It's exactly like the whole audism spiel where Deaf people shoot first, ask questions later killing the poor monkey seen in the cartoon thinking it to be a runaway "audist."

In fact, it'd be horrifying for any hearing parents to suddenly find their own child born deaf or blind. I would be, too. But you make the best of it and give the child lots of love and a good upstart in life.

All in all, you might think that by looking across what it appears to be a wide expanse of fresh, clean grasses waving in the wind in an open field but then realize to your dismay upon closer inspection it's a horse field full of manure.

The Gallaudet University Global Warming Scare Video Library

I wonder how many Gallaudet students are actually checking out Gallaudet University's global warming scare video libary? Are students that gullible?

Focus The Nation- Global Warming The Spread of Infectious Disease - but the problem is that this isn't the case with pathogen carrying insects like mosquitoes. In fact there is a peer-reviewed article in Malaria Journal that questions the problems of stating that global warming will cause an increase in the spread of infectious diseases and that, for example, Malaria doesn't thrive only in tropical or warm areas.

Few people are aware that it is less than forty years since the final eradication of malaria in Europe and the United States. Indeed, the disease was common in the period from the 16th to 18th centuries that climatologists term the Little Ice Age [33], and data from burial records around the Thames estuary reveal that mortality in "marsh parishes" of England was comparable to that in areas of transmission in sub-Saharan Africa today [40,41].

Until the mid-19th century, the northern limit of transmission was roughly defined by the present 15°C July isotherm. Denmark and parts of Sweden suffered devastating epidemics until the 1860s. Incidence diminished thereafter and the disease had essentially disappeared around the turn of the 20th Century. The same was true in Finland, except for a brief recrudescence in 1941, during the Russo-Finnish war. Figure 1 shows the distribution of malaria cases in Norway between 1860 and 1920. In England, there was a gradual decrease in transmission until the 1880s, after which it dropped precipitously and became relatively rare, except in a short period following World War I. In Germany, transmission also diminished rapidly. After World War I it was mainly confined to a few marshy localities [36].

Too bad that Gallaudet University won't have the information I've provided available for students to read and make up their own mind instead.

Or how about this global warming scare video called, "Focus The Nation : Habitat, Species, and Global Warmning" where it uses scary satellite pictures of the extent of our North pole sea ice "disappearing" comparing a 1979 satellite photo to that of 2007 of the same month. Never mind the fact that satellite photos began in 1978 and that we have only 32 years worth of data and not hundreds of years or thousand of years of data to compare it with.

Here's a time lapse of North Pole sea ice extent from 1978 to 2009. And compare that to Gallaudet University's scare video.




Photos seen below taken from Gallaudet University's scary before and after video results on lowest sea ice extent ending at in the month of September in 1979 and 2007.





Scary, huh? But since 2007 onward the sea ice extent has been gaining grounds since if you look at a sea ice extent graph seen below which is updated daily and can be found here. Too bad that Gallaudet students weren't aware of the limited data extending back barely 30 years which doesn't prove anything about global warming. Must be the nice brainwashing campus atmosphere? After all these years, not a single, solitary Gallaudet student or even a professor ever challenged my assertions that this whole global warming theory (yes, a theory and not a fact) is but a farce and a global wide hoax heaped upon unsuspecting and clueless people. But, shhhh, don't let Gallaudet University and their students know that.

When global warming hoax kills...and fools millions.

It's one thing when, for example, thousands of Deaf/deaf/hh people are easily fooled by global warming hoax. But what happens when gullible people who seriously believe in the global warming fantasy kill themselves as a result?

From the "The Resilient Earth" it talks about the problems of propaganda and how untrustworthy scientists and policy groups were able to affect gullible people around the world:

In a news maker interview in the February 12, 2010, edition of Science, Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science attempted to respond to the avalanche of criticism that has engulfed the IPCC since the uncovering of the Hadley CRU emails and the discovery that many of the assertions in the AR4 report were taken from untrustworthy sources. Field has been designated co-chair of the report by Working Group 2, which will examine the impacts of a changing climate for the 2014 edition of IPCC reports. He helped write the rare public acknowledgment of error apologizing for the statement in the 2007 IPCC report that stated the Himalayan glaciers were “very likely” to melt away by 2035.

“It's clear there really wasn't a body of evidence required to assign that "very likely" term,” said Field. “It's hard for me to figure out what might be a process that would sustain the credibility that should be associated with the IPCC process,” he continued, “I must admit I don't really have a mature strategy for how we deal with [substantive] errors.” And there in lies part of the problem—the hoopla surrounding global warming has been the result of a politically motivated, haphazard process that hurriedly prepared a series of slipshod reports based on shoddy, substandard science aimed at selling the dangers of climate change to the public. That process now stands revealed as a colossal farce.

A colossal farce is putting it mildly after a decade's worth of global warming screaming saying that this so-called "global warming" science was settled. Don't laugh. But for a deaf/hh guy like me who've known for several years the problems of this global warming theory (as caused by man) wasn't even for once fooled by all this only begs the question on exactly how many Deaf/deaf/hh people we're easily fooled by all this. The question is pressed harder when it comes to Deaf students at Gallaudet University.

When it comes to colleges and universities who help promote actively the global warming crusade, shouldn't they be held liable in their continual attempt to brainwash students rather than assure ways that they think for themselves? For example, say, at Gallaudet University?

Two years ago I wrote an open letter to Gallaudet University of which I emailed to then President Davila (but never gotten a response) about this whole global warming propaganda effort being pushed upon on what may be impressionable students. Though it was interesting to see that in a newsletter announcement in Inside Gallaudet there was an article entitled “Gallaudet to join Focus the Nation’s fight against climate change” back in 2007. And Gallaudet seem to not mind the fact that Focus the Nation organization use of scare tactics that were completely unfounded about the coming doom in a "few short years."

"Focus the Nation is exploding because, across the country, educators and students at every high school, college and university understand that we have just a few short years to act decisively to hold global warming to the low end of 3-4 degrees F."

And interestingly enough, that link to Inside Gallaudet's article is no longer there but can be seen in Archive.org. And if you look at the archived article you'll find a paragraph where Dr. Solomon of Gallaudet University make a suggestion to readers to read up on the 2007 IPCC's report on "Climate Change" as an authoritive report.

For more on climate change, Dr. Solomon suggests reading the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in April. This report is the first indication of unequivocal agreement among scientists that climate change is occurring. The panel’s Summary for Policy Makers provides a straightforward outline of their findings.

Yep. It's the same 2007 IPCC report that is riddled with errors, bad sources, multitudes of non-peer reviewed reports were used and the use of fake data to pressure policy makers to go along with the global warming scam. It's no surprise that a perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC.

How much longer til Gallaudet University own up on their push for this "global warming education" upon impressionable students? Despite the fact that the IPCC and their scientists and reports are now seen as wholly unreliable sources?

Where are the encouragements for professors, the students and faculty members to debate against the merits of this so-called global warming theory? Or is it a climate of fear on campus that they are unable to do so?

What to say to a deaf person whose child passed away?

I'm sure that those in the deaf and hard of hearing community will at one time or another will experience this scenario when you know of a deaf/hh person who lost his/her child and will not know how to respond.

In Deafreedom discussion forum there is this independent thinking, firebrand of a gal who is deaf where I have met her personally (along with my wife and kids) a few years back had this great little story about how she was approached by a stranger over the lost her of her adult daughter.

A lot of people don't know what to say when someone has lost a child. I have a golden opportunity to TELL you...here. I hope you never need this advice but if you do...here you go.

I have only met one person that knew what to say and he was a complete stranger at Wal-Mart. My eye doctor. I am talking about everyday people. All my R/L friends save two vanished.

Here is what he said.

He was making general conversation and of course the "how many children do you have" question came up. I cringe every time but I am getting better. Cringing is okay. I said I have two children, my son Andrew who is 28 and my daughter Nicole who would have been 35 but she passed away in June. Silence. Now this is when I usually get shunned. I hear "I'm sorry" and never hear another word.

That is the wrong thing to do. WRONG.

He apparently thought for a minute or two...I had already gone into my usual retreat mode. Then he said "What did she do? What was her name? Did she have kids, was she married? Did she have pets?" The questions kept coming....at first I was startled, and yes slightly off-balanced because it was unusual to have someone talk to me about Nicole. As I answered the questions I realized something...I missed talking about both of my children. I had lost the "right" to talk about my children and most parents take pride in talking about their kids, their grandkids, etc... and when you disclose your child has passed away you lose the ability to share their life with the world.

Read the rest of her post in Deafreedom. What Sherry gave was an invaluable insight to all this. I'm the type of person who would rather not bring up the topic of somebody's death or even tell the person how sorry I am for their lost. It would seem......too personal to do so..... and feel that it'd be an invasion of somebody's own solitude and grieving period. But I've never thought of approaching it from the viewpoint on expressing an interest about a person's own child who passed away versus saying "I'm sorry. "

The dangers of using Wikipedia to look up the word "avdism"

By the way, as an after thought after my recent blog on the banishment of the word "avdism" (misspelled on purpose). Googling in the word "avdism" you will find it at the top of the search result and without thinking or forgetting that you're dealing with a questionable site to begin with you click on it.

At the top of the main page it has these dire warnings:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2009)

Lack of references or sources and that neutrality is disputed? It certainly makes it questionable on their so-called authoritative explanation of the "avdism" word. So, if you're going to quote something as authoriative please do not use Wikipedia as an example and source.

Also, be sure to check out this Holism blog on why some Deaf organizations and such are a closed society, and this guy is a Deaf blogger/vlogger, too.

In the past few weeks I've been receiving answers on why I just don't get along with Deafhood, Deaf Bilingual Coalition, Avdism Free America and their so-called big "D" status. The answer is quite simple. Closed society. That's what these people are.

Interesting. Maybe he's an "avdist," too?

Why the word "a*dism" ought to be banned

The word "a*dist" or "a*dism" is without controversy just as the word "racist" or "racism" is without controversy. This is especially true when used as a weapon of choice by purposely abusing it to suit an agenda. Words tossed around for a variety of reasons but usually done as part of an automatic and defensive response when arguments cannot prevail adequately.

I am known as a deaf/hh blogger and vlogger (limited tho in speaking roles only, and with captions) that is without controversy just as I am known as a contributing and valuable member in deaf/hh discussion forums. I am without controversy if anybody has ever followed my blogs or postings over the years but to have a controversal blog piece or a post/thread isn't equivocal as being an "a*dist." Nor can one extract and assume exactly what the attitudes might be and surmise them to be as "a*dists", either. Even if a comment or thread of a post that might deemed be "offensive" or "controversal" it'd be wise to keep in check than to throw the "a*dism" word around.

The title of my blog "Why the word 'a*dism' ought to be banned" was to drive a point and get your attention since it should be titled "Should the word 'a*dism' be banned?" If you know me you'd understand why I did this.

Three years ago I did what was probably considered to be the most controversial action I've done within a Deaf community (though I don't think playing the piano on stage at Gallaudet University for an audience isn't the same thing) and that was to use my voice in a speech at Gallaudet University back in 2007. I spoke at the first ever vlog/blog convention at Gallaudet University with a conviction believing that technology will continue to increase communication access between deaf/hh and hearing people. And it will. You can see a video of my speech in Gallaudet University's video catalog (or click here to watch the video in external mode that comes with a time stamp which I recommend doing so). My speech comes with an ASL interpreter. I am introduced at the 1 minute 54 second time mark along with other bloggers. My speech begins at the 29 minute and 14 seconds time mark and ends at the 45 minute and 35 seconds mark). I was the only deaf/hh person to have spoken using my voice and I explained my reason for doing so in my 2007 blog piece. Prior to my speech I verbally apologized to the audience (interesting that the interpreter never signed this "apology" part to the Deaf audience if you watched the video) at the very beginning for using my voice knowing that what I was about to do for those who know me as a deaf/hh person who know sign language would find it questionable, even insulting.

Yet my speech was only "controversial" to perhaps a small number of Deaf people who felt that I "insulted" Deaf people by not signing since some of them knew already that I do know ASL and by using my voice I was looked upon as an "a*dist." Nothing could be further from the truth. And frankly, it was rather amusing to hear such an accusation. Understandable, sure, in some ways but nonetheless amusing.

Firstly, I apologized in the beginning of my speech to the audience before me explaining that I do better speaking since my train of thought flows much better, I have done public speaking many times, it is natural for me to speak as I have done so throughout my life, there are interpreters available and that there is a real time captioner to capture my speech. All this was done to drive my most basic point and that technology will be key in helping expand and level the communication playing field between Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing people. I still believe to this day that technology will be key in helping bridge that communication gap we all face today. It's just a matter of time.

Jill Bradbury, an assistant professor of Gallaudet University, was the original author of this blog/vlog conference idea where she hosted this first ever blog/vlog conference or Coalition for Critical Inquiry at Gallaudet University. Jill Bradbury posted a positive comment in my blog about my speech.

I thought it took a lot of confidence to stand up and speak during your panel. By doing so, you helped the conference make a strong statement about embracing diversity in the deaf community. Waving hands! At dinner someone said to me that you are supporting the deaf community in a really valuable way through your interest in technology. Thanks for keeping us informed! Jill.Bradbury 02.04.07 - 1:28 pm

Not only was I recognized and applauded for my so-called "controversial" speech from her but from other Deaf people who I've met afterwards and those who commented in my blog were equally praise worthy.

From "A Deaf Pundit" who is a well known Deaf blogger and vlogger had this to say about my use of my voice as seen in my blog comment box:

I was also pleasantly surprised to see that despite the diverse panelists, except for some fine details, all were in general agreement on what needs to be done to improve Gallaudet and the deaf community.

Chris Heuer, an assistant professor who is Deaf at Gallaudet University said this in my blog:

I was inspired by the conference and am DEFINITELY going to a much bigger web-geek than I already am!

Kristi Merriweather, a high school teacher for the deaf in Atlanta, Georgia had this to say:

I enjoyed the webcast, Mike and like many, you were not what I expected!

I mean, for sure I thought you'd bring that "sucky" piano! :-D

I really enjoyed watching the debate in MY language - you have no idea how good that made all of us feel!

Dianrez, a well known Deaf blogger who had this to say:

While I don't mind deaf people who prefer to speak than to sign (I have enjoyed talking to Robert Weitbrecht and others like him), using an interpreter puts an inadvertent wall between like people and this really should be avoided even at the expense of comfort. Still, we need people with your expertise. Wishing you all the best and enjoying your blogs very much! DPG Dianrez Homepage 02.04.07 - 2:49 pm #

Neil McDevitt, a known Deaf blogger and fire fighter who had this to say ,

Sorry we didn't get a chance to chat yesterday. I can certainly empathize with the decision to speak. I think you and I come from similar backgrounds and for the longest time, I would prefer to speak in front public audiences because it just felt more comfortable in terms of managing my train of thought.

That said, given that you were speaking at Gallaudet, it took brass cojones, my friend.

Stay low.
NeilMcD Homepage 02.04.07 - 5:42 pm #

"Curious Eyes" or Patty Albee (see page 6) who is a school psychologist at California School for the Deaf Fremont and was one of the panelists at the blog/vlog conference who had this to say:

McConnell, I thought I'd have issues with you speaking on the panel too, when you first told me you were going to do it. I asked the same question ToddE did -- what about the audience? But I changed my mind after meeting you, and seeing how you sign fluently and are easy to talk to. Some deaf people can both sign and talk fluently. If that person chooses to talk instead of sign to an audience of deaf people, that does not mean the person disrespects ASL and deaf people. It isn't "a*dism" either. It's simply a communication choice. That's ALL. The interpreter did a great job of interpreting for you and I didn't feel I was missing a thing. Curious Eyes 02.04.07 - 7:52 pm #

Wildstarryeyes or Katie Roberts (see page 6) who was also one of the panelists at the blog/vlog conference who had this to say

Yes, speaking, that was fine. I thought that took guts, too. I had no problem with it personally. It was nice meeting you, and I'm glad we could keep our little turf wars online and not carry it over in meatspace.

Aidan Mack, another well known Deaf blogger (and vlogger) who had this to say:

Firstly, I was impressed with you as a panelist. I agreed with you that Gallaudet University needed to create something that would make the world drawn to Gallaudet and embrace it so much.

Secondly, at first I always felt that you disliked ASL and Deaf people with big D until I saw you on a Live Web. It really changed how I looked at you and realized that you do support ASL and Deaf people with big D.

Thirdly, I really do wish that you did sign because it was your sign (word). With interpreter, I felt it was not your word. I felt something's missing. But again, it is your choice to speak and I have nothing against it. But what you sent your message to audience was great.

Thank you for participating Deaf community, working with us and to raise the bar. Good Job.

Everyone as panelists and Jill did an excellent job. I really enjoyed it so much.

Aidan
Aidan Mack Homepage 02.05.07 - 4:03 am #

And then there is Amy Efron Cohen, a very well known and respected Deaf blogger and vlogger who had this to say about my speech and voice at the conference:

Mike,
I wanted to say that the content of information you have presented was excellent! You made several great points and it shows that you really care about the community and wanted the best for the community. You presented yourself well with explaining why you used your voice. I have no problem with that, except being impressed how smooth you are with your presentation!

I am so glad that I am able to catch up with you and your signing skills had improved significantly since the day I met you for the first time at Gallaudet. You had no signing skills, but now you communicate effectively and effortlessly with ASL!

As for your *profile* which I instantly recognized you... well... I must admit that your profile is very, very distinct and unforgettable... *WINK*

Hope to bump into you again sometime soon and I'm glad we are in this together to make the community better for the future!
Amy Cohen Efron 02.05.07 - 6:26 pm #

The real damage to the Deaf community is for a person to go out of his or her way and accuse deaf or hard of hearing people of being "a*dists" whether directly, indirectly or by insinuation and call their opinions or actions as a "hate crime" are not only irresponsible but damaging. If a person wants to discuss the realities of "a*dism" then that's fine but to go ahead and imply or infer by insinuation about other deaf and hard of hearing people for his/her comments and opinions in a deaf/Deaf discussion forum calling them "a*dists" or charging them of a "hate crime" is not only dishonest but verges on the edge of extremism. It does nothing for the Deaf community in its relationship to the rest of the deaf and hard of hearing community (even hearing community of those with deaf/hh children) just to raise false accusations in order to satisfy an agenda.

This is the danger of using the word "a*dism" or "a*dist" as a weapon of choice. It does not solve anything in using it in such a manner . I recognize that inequalities and discrimination exist among people with various disabilities or conditions with those who are seemingly "normal." Or in this example between deaf/hh and hearing people.

Educating the public along with the help of the constantly improving communication technology to bridge that communication gap between deaf and hearing people are probably the best way to combat these inequalities that many of us deaf and hard of hearing people face everyday. It is certainly better than to lob reckless "a*dism" accusations at people by labeling them.

Special Ed teacher at Birney school shot and killed

A special ed teacher was shot and murdered on the grounds of Birney School in Tacoma, Washington today right before children arrived to school. The suspect was killed in a police shoot-out. A case of a stalker who was infatuated with this teacher.

The school's main webpage has already set up a memorial page for Jennifer Paulson for those who want to contribute and remember her. This is a school known by many former deaf and hard of hearing students over the years. I went to Birney elementary when I was little along with many other deaf/hh kids such as Greg Allison, Amy Mcinelly, Sheila Jackson, Keri Bays, BJ Bopple, Cindy Zaddack, Dorothy Humphrie, and many others who went to Birney elementary's oral/aural program.

R.I.P., Jennifer.

Deaf on deaf hate crime?

Lately I'm seeing desperation (or so it appears) in one deaf forum when one started a thread with a comment about hate crime claiming it had occurred there:

“We recently experienced a hate crime against our Deaf Community in the AD forum.”

A “hate crime,”? Where? Who? What? Against the Deaf Community in AD? Rather desperate jumping on the hyperbole band wagon are we?

Here’s the definition of what constitute as a hate crime according to the FBI:

“A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.”

All I see are opinionated people who have expressed their thoughts, however unpopular they may be. And nothing about crimes committed against members of AD as far as I can tell. Where and exactly what are the criminal offenses committed against members of AD that would constitute as a "hate crime"? I'm rather curious about this person's charge. Rather a bold (albeit reckless) charge with no merits whatsoever is what I'm seeing here.

I'm sure the person meant something else rather than claiming it to be a "hate crime" which would be a wrong description. Strong biases certainly do exist among members of AD when it comes to posting their own comments and that's natural but a "hate crime"? Until the original poster explains exactly what that "hate crime" was about people simply cannot accept such a charge at face value. More information would be needed to justify a charge of a "hate crime" that fits the above description by the FBI. Odds are that such a charge was generated as an appeal to emotion rather than fact based. Just as using the word "Audist!" as a weapon of choice much in the same way people use the "Racist!" word. Gets quite meaningless real quick.

Al Gore to be investigated for misleading/lying in Congress on Global Warming claim?

Senator Inhofe is asking the Dept. of Justice to investigate global warming claims and the numerous examples of lying, misleading research papers, interference, intimidation and so on. He intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts.

This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "It's about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world's leading climate scientists.

"The report also shows the world's leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It's time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline."

Also, Senator Inhofe thinks Al Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony which I think amounts to some sort of criminal negligence that occurred.

What to look for in a successful deaf-owned company

The biggest aspect of what a successful, deaf-owned company would look like would be the ability to exude a positive outlook with a specific goal in mind without resorting to political correctness. One company fits that profile and that is sComm, Inc, a wholly deaf-owned company, home of the popular UbiDuo face-to-face communication device.

Over five years ago when I first heard about this company I was impressed with the company's founder, Jason Curry, believing that technology is the answer to help level the playing field among those with hearing loss as seen in their mission statement on their main webpage.

Our Mission: To be the premier provider of innovative technology solutions that shatter communication barriers and empower people with the freedom to communicate with anyone, anywhere and at any time.

Note their mission is to become the premier provider of innovative technology solutions. The company is all about innovation. A bootstrapper with the goal in mind to increase that communication freedom with anyone, anywhere and at any time.

Back then I realized just how serious and positive this company was in their goal to succeed I decided to blog about the company's ongoing development and watched it grow starting from 2005. Because I, too, believe that technology is the answer and that us deaf and hard of hearing people are in a better position to determine which kind of technology would be beneficial.

Technology continues to improve and expand to the benefit of those with hearing loss whether the person has a mild hearing loss or is profoundly deaf. When it comes to technology there are very few companies in the United States run by a deaf CEO. Or a company that patent, design, make and distribute their own technology products and at the same time employ deaf, hard of hearing and hearing employees. sComm, Inc fits that bill nicely.

Back in 2007 I spoke at the first ever vlog/blog convention at Gallaudet University with a conviction believing that technology will continue to increase communication access between deaf/hh and hearing people. And it will. You can see a video of my speech in Gallaudet University's video catalog (or click here to watch the video in external mode that comes with a time stamp which I recommend doing so). My speech comes with an ASL interpreter. I am introduced at the 1 minute 54 second time mark along with other bloggers. My speech begins at the 29 minute and 14 seconds time mark and ends at the 45 minute and 35 seconds mark). And a side note about this is that I was the only deaf/hh person to have spoken using my voice and I explained my reason for doing so in my 2007 blog piece. The summary of my technology speech on "Futuristic Classrooms" covered questions like:

• Is it about the ability to interact?

• Is it about communication needs and preferences?

• Is it about accessibility when it comes to the free flow of information whether coming from a computer or human being?

• Is a “futuristic classroom” on campus only?

• How about off campus?

• Is it always about classrooms? What about outside of classrooms? Can learning take place outside of the classrooms?

When it comes to technology for all deaf and hard of hearing people such a technology ought to be seamless and intuitive while providing a completely accessible and transparent communication medium.

One thing to realize about technology is that it is moving faster than ever before. Technology and performance doubles every 2 years. Technology will play a major role in how deaf and hard of hearing people will interact with anyone on and off campus, and any place whether it's for business or pleasure. This can make difference on improving the odds for deaf owned businesses to thrive and compete with anybody since many businesses do not survive past the 5 year mark. For any deaf owned companies in the technology business sector they must plan 2 to 4 years in advance and take into consideration future technology not quite ready for the market but has been demonstrated such as the flat screen panel that’s thick as a playing card you can put up on a wall. Planning ahead is about surviving.

Area of technology that is growing fast.

• More efficient (rather than faster) computer chip such as IBM's Core chips (which are very small parallel processing architectures and that parallel processing does a better job on multitasking).
• More memory for the buck such as flash or thumb drives that can be purchased at the gigabit scale.
• Cell phones such as qwerty phones seen in Blackberry phones with camera lens for video and picture taking.
• Internet connection and the meshing of video, music, and even video phone on demand.
• Voice recognition – it is widely being used today. Many cell phones have voice recognition features built into them.
• ASL or sign language recognition later on down the road.
• The integration of technology that will improve the seamless communication interaction between deaf, hearing, hard of hearing and culturally deaf people

UPDATE: Just wanted to add some additional information about my vlog/blog conference speech by including some video time stamps during a question and answer session. The first one begins at the 1 hour, 15 minute and 10 second mark and ends at the 1:19:09 mark. Another question and answer starts at the 1:23:57 mark and ends at 1:27:45 mark. And the last one at the 1:34:00 mark.

Why do you like to read Kokonut Pundit blog? A thanks to readers...

A little bit of a thank you here is in order to the readers of Kokonut Pundit who continue to read my blogs that I started almost 6 1/2 years ago. Let this be an open comment period for fans (or haters) of Kokonut Pundit the opportunity to have something to say here. The comment page is open and that my moderating control is now turned off so you don't have to wait to see if your comments are approved or not.

Thank you for reading Kokonut Pundit.

Make cure for hearing loss mandatory by law for deaf babies if stem cell prove successful?

According to one Deaf person in a deaf forum he felt that deaf babies and toddlers ought to be cured for their hearing loss if stem cell proved successful and see that a law making it mandatory for them to be treated.

stem cell consistently proves to be 100% successful, I will have unwavering support for it and will want to see a law making it mandatory for toddlers, not adults.

Agree or disagree? That day may actually come, and it'd simply be a matter of time. And this is a contention that worries many people.

Kobayashi Maru and Deafhood

If you don't know the name "Kobayashi Maru" and the concept behind that name then you're not a Star Trek fan. The Kobayashi Maru is the name of a distressed space ship in a simulation exercise for Starfleet members, officers and other cadets. The distressed ship in question is stuck in a "gravitic mine" in the middle of the Klingon Neutral Zone. The ship is losing power, hull integrity and life support failing. The test takers face a serious conundrum. Rescue the ship and face a real possibility of an all out Klingon War or abandon the Kobayashi Maru ship and let her crew and passengers die. A simulation game that was purposely designed that no matter what you do to try and rescue the ship it ends up being a "no-win" scenario.

A "Kobayashi Maru" moment.

Now, this "deafhood" thing is looking more like a "Kobayashi Maru" thing than not simply because of what one blogger said based on hope and expectation. The "The ASL-Cochlear Implant Community" blog described perfectly a "Kobayashi Maru" moment about "deafhood."

I just finished watching the welcome video for the Deafhood foundation. Before I started watching the video, I was wondering- would they mention cochlear implants? I was actually hoping that perhaps the message would be positive and inclusive. Wishful thinking.. Butch mentioned cochlear implants 33 seconds into the welcome message as an example of economic exploitation of deaf people. This did not make it into the English text version though.

The Deafhood foundation is run by well respected Deaf people in the Deaf community, and many Deaf people are impressed by the video and its powerful message. But all I see is a huge obstacle to the acceptance of all of these Deaf children with cochlear implants. Would this lead to increased intolerance for Deaf children who happen to have cochlear implants?

Just so happens that this person with a cochlear implant and ASL user had hoped that this video wouldn't politicize cochlear implant. But it did, 33 seconds into the video. Right off the bat. Bam! It is a politically-motivated video and not about the concept of a personal journey.

What this person failed to realize is that "deafhood" was already politicized from the beginning and that any hopes for this would one way or another get quashed. That video came directly from the Deafhood Foundation organization whose interest seemingly lies more exclusively with the Deaf people than with the rest of the 30+ million people with hearing loss in the United States.

What this shows is that certain segments of the Deaf community constantly derails any expectations for people of all kinds with hearing loss when it comes to "deafhood" because they have already assumed such ownership over the word "deafhood." They are there own worst enemy by turning a supposedly benign concept about a personal journey into a political agenda to self serve their own needs and, to some people, even a selfish purpose.

So, the best scenario in this Kobayashi Maru test is that it's best to simply ignore and abandon any hope for this Deafhood starship stuck in a gravitic mine smack dab in the middle of the Klingon Neutral Zone. Best thing to do is to save your own ass, and your people instead of joining a crew that's destined to die. Others who have taken the test would realize it'd be a no win scenario to try and rescue an already doomed ship so it was better to leave the hapless ship alone and leave. Some figured it'd be better to fire on the Kobayashi Maru ship to spare the already dying crew which was already a no-win situation to begin with. But the bulk of test takers all "died" trying to rescue the trapped Kobayashi Maru ship.

Take your pick.

UPDATE: Take a look at the "What is Deafhood" page. It's even worse and seeks to politicize Deafhood even more, and still begrudges the past to the present. Learn to let go of the baggage and embrace everybody for a change.

A Poll: Has your hearing aid helped improve your love or social life?

I was intrigued with this question from another deaf blogger who mentioned about an Australian study where hearing aids helped improve social relations, including the users’ love life, and make intimate conversations easier.

An opinion poll among 300 elderly hearing impaired Australians found that hearing aids had wide-ranging positive effects on personal and social relationships.

In another survey study on the impact of older people who do not wear hearing aids because of denial, cost, and vanity as the biggest reasons for not wearing one. And that those who do wear them experience better family relationships and improved mental health as opposed those who don't.

Untreated hearing loss has serious emotional and social consequences for older persons, according to a major new study released today by The National Council on the Aging (NCOA). The study was conducted by the Seniors Research Group, an alliance between NCOA and Market Strategies Inc.

"This study debunks the myth that untreated hearing loss in older persons is a harmless condition," said James Firman, Ed.D., president and CEO of The National Council on the Aging. The survey of 2,300 hearing impaired adults age 50 and older found that those with untreated hearing loss were more likely to report depression, anxiety, and paranoia and were less likely to participate in organized social activities, compared to those who wear hearing aids.

Consequences of Untreated Hearing Loss

The survey found that significantly more of the seniors with untreated hearing loss (those who do not wear hearing aids) reported feelings of sadness or depression that lasted two or more weeks during the previous year. Among respondents with more severe hearing loss, 30 percent of non-users of hearing aids reported these sad feelings, compared to 22 percent of hearing-aid users.

Another measure of emotional distress is the perception that "other people get angry at me for no reason," which psychologists often identify as an indicator of paranoia. Older non-users were more likely to agree with the statement -- "people get angry with me usually for no reason" -- (14 percent of users vs. 23 percent of non-users). Among those with more severe hearing loss, the difference was even greater -- 14 percent for users vs. 36 percent for non-users.

Because social isolation is a serious problem for some older people, the study also examined social behavior and found that people who don't use hearing aids are considerably less likely to participate in social activities. Among respondents with more severe hearing loss, 42 percent of hearing-aid users participate regularly in social activities compared to just 32 percent of non-users.

Most seniors who use hearing aids cite better family relationships and improved mental health. And that would be expected once they get past the wrongly perceived stigma of wearing a hearing aid.


Here's a poll on love life:



Here's a poll on social life:

"Deaf group attacks stem cell researcher for his work on the cure for deafness"

"Arrests were made against a small group of Deaf people who attacked a stem cell researcher for his work on finding a cure for hearing loss. The attack took place at the researcher's home where he sustained multiple injuries. He was treated at a nearby hospital and released. The attack occurred while he was home alone. Graffiti was spray painted on the living room walls and elsewhere in the victim's house with words like 'Audism is wrong,' and 'Deaf babies do not need your help,' along with several epithets. The group, based on the graffiti, named themselve as 'Deaf Crusaders.' "

Could this shocking news conceivably happen someday?

Let's hope not. But with researchers working around the clock all across the United States (and the world) on the cure for hearing loss (see here, here, here, here and here) it would be a matter of time until a cure could be found for various kinds of hearing losses. For some Deaf people they would consider these scientific advancements as a threat to their Deaf culture (see "Will Deaf Culture Die Out Someday - Part I and Part II) should a cure finally be found. And certainly among those few who do view a cure for hearing loss as a threat there could be potentially smaller subset of Deaf extremists who may resort to the use of violence against stem cell researchers on the cure for hearing loss. As with any group there is always a few bad apples who will resort to violence as their means of protesting (see vandalism question at Gallaudet protest). Researchers have been attacked in the past before for their medical work.

Police said several students from the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) attacked a researcher, who uses mice to study breast cancer, at her home Feb. 24. (2008)

The biology professor, who declined to give her name to protect herself and her family from more violence, was at home with her children and husband when the alleged assailants attacked her home just before noon. The suspects attacked the professor’s husband and then fled the scene in a vehicle. Because the incident happened in daylight, the husband, who suffered minor injuries, was able to write down the license plate of the car.

If a bunch of students went after a professor for her medical work on mice to the point of terrorizing and injuring a researcher then it wouldn't be inconceivable that a Deaf person (or a small group of Deaf people) with extremist tendencies to attack a researcher working on a cure for hearing loss. Or for that matter supposingly a cure has been found would a research center get vandalized and broken into in the attempt to "stop" the cure on deafness from getting out. There is always that possibility. It may be small or even non-existant but certainly a possibility based on fear and frustration.

The above news is a hypothetical one but the fact remains that there are always somebody with extremist tendencies who will go further, even to the point of injuring, or heaven forbid, murder a researcher in the name of stopping medical advancements, for example, such as for the cure on hearing loss.

Promising research continues for cure on hearing loss

For 2010, the American Hearing Research Foundation will be funding six grants. This year, we received the highest number of grant proposals in our history—41 proposals in all. The following grants will begin on January 1, 2010, and will be funded for $20,000 for one year.

Douglas Cotanche, Ph.D.
Boston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts
“Cell fate regulation in cochlear development and regeneration”

Birds can regenerate hair cells in the cochlea once they are lost – an ability that mammals do not possess. When hair cells are lost in birds, following loud noise exposure or administration of ototoxic drugs in the lab, the supporting cells around the hair cells turn into new hair cells. Cotanche and colleagues hope that by studying this process in birds, they will be able to induce the mammalian cochlear cells to undergo a similar regeneration. Specifically, the researchers will study the genetics involved in supporting cell transduction into hair cells in chicks and mice. They hope to gain understanding of the molecular processes involved in hair cell regeneration in order to cause the same regeneration in mammalian cells.

Saima Riazuddin, Ph.D.
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio
“Generation and characterization of a mouse model of DFNB26”

More than 100 gene locations have been indentified as contributing to hearing loss in its various forms. However, knowledge on how genes affect hearing remain inadequate. Researchers need to be able to study and develop animal models to study disease causing mutations, and to define the molecular pathways leading to hearing loss to ultimately develop therapeutic approaches to treating deafness. Riazuddin and colleagues have recently mapped a deafness causing gene called DFNB26 in an extended family. They also discovered another gene that that suppresses the deafness-causing gene. The researchers hope to study how these two genes work to cause and prevent deafness among the members of this family by developing mice with these genes. The study will provide valuable models for defining the role of DFNB26 in the inner ear and to develop treatment strategies for this disease.

Angelika Doetzlhofer, Ph.D.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
“Response of supporting cell to hair loss in the mammalian cochlea”

Doetzelhofer and colleagues hope to uncover the molecular signals activated in supporting cells after hair cell loss, and what pathways may inhibit hair cell regeneration. In mammals, hair cells only develop during embryonic development, and when hair cells are lost, they are not replaced. However, in birds, when hair cells are lost, supporting cells can transform into new hair cells. Researchers believe that supporting hair cells, even in mammals, have the ability to transform into hair cells, but that signals from adjacent cells and/or dying hair cells block supporting cells from becoming new hair cells. Doetzlhofer and colleagues will investigate these inhibitory pathways and will look at changes in gene expression in supporting cells as hair cells are lost. Understanding the molecular mechanisms that prevent hair cell regeneration in mammals is a crucial first stem in developing successful hair cell replacement therapies.