Do I support the Closed Captioning bill HR 3101?

NAD has the latest information regarding on trying to get Congress to pass a Closed Captioning bill this April 15 (HR 3101 -Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009 ) though it does not contain language to enforce YouTube or iPad.

There was a bill before HR 3101 and that is the H.R. 6320: Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2008. That bill never became law and died in Congress. Congress moves slowly in passing laws while technology moves even faster and is based on demands, marketing potential, improving technology in the computer chip and programming sector, and a greater understanding of the need for closed captioning by corporate and public entities. Since the introduction of H.R. 6320 technology on closed captioning, especially over the internet, technology moved ahead with its own self-propelling captioning initiatives along with people who are passionate about closed captioning in getting it pushed out into the public mainstream.

Google adds real time automatic closed captioning although not perfect it's a start and they recognize the need and marketing potential as well. Google sets the stage and worldwide example on the importance of investing in captioning of videos whether on television or internet. And that speech recognition technology has now gone mainstream, this will only continue to improve to the point where all videos will automatically transcribed and include closed captioning. This is fast becoming a reality. Law or no law.

Hulu adds captioning to their movies and television shows. The list continues to grow.

Blackberry phones are beginning to have Closed Captioning capability to view videos on your smart phones' screen which is definitely smaller than a 13-inch screen television screen. So does the iPhone.

Captioning is available on digital television as opposed to analog television where a 13-inch screen exempts it from any captioning requirement. A digital television is different set of technology that includes captioning where it continues to improve.

The Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 (“TDCA”) requires, generally, that television receivers contain circuitry to decode and display closed captioning. Specifically, the TDCA requires that “apparatus designed to receive television pictures broadcast simultaneously with sound be equipped with built-in decoder circuitry designed to display closed-captioned television transmissions when such apparatus is manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States, and its television picture screen is 13 inches or greater in size.”

The Federal Communication Commission\'s Digital TV (DTV) proceeding incorporated an industry approved transmission standard for DTV into
its rules. The standard included a data stream reserved for closed captioning information. However, specific instructions for implementing closed captioning services for digital television were not included. The Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA), a trade organization representing the U.S. high technology community, has since adopted a standard, EIA-708 (High Definition Closed Captioning for purposes of this document), that provides guidelines for encoder and decoder manufacturers as well as caption providers to implement closed captioning services with DTV technology. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in its DTV proceeding, the FTC proposed to adopt a minimum set of technical standards for closed caption decoder circuitry for digital television receivers in accordance with Section 9 of the EIA-708 standard and to require the inclusion of such decoder circuitry in DTV receivers.

Simultaneous closed captioning companies in finding a niche market that exploit closed captioning needs.

Closed captioning included in DVR via TiVo.

ETV is metadata that cable providers recently began integrating into their broadcasts, and the TiVo patent will allow the company to sync both this as well as closed caption information and display it in an interactive method. This includes closed captioning text, a menu or digital video and sound effects. TiVo also promises more advanced uses thanks to this type of technology, such as marking sections of a program they find particularly interesting and then sharing them with friends who also have a TiVo DVR.

Prior to the patent award on February 9th, TiVo already offered ways for customers to view closed caption data, and viewers can also subscribe to a show or order more product information when watching a commercial.

ABC takes the lead on internet captioning.

HTML5 captioning effort with demo videos of an earlier HTML5 version.




What I've listed so far is just an short example of things to come in the world of closed captioning (or subtitling). Let the market forces send a message to corporate and public entities on providing closed captioning on digital tv, smart phones, and online videos over the internet. The trend is clear and that technology is increasingly making it easier, such as YouTube's automatic captioning service, for companies and businesses to include captioning in their videos, whatever the format.

I have mixed feelings about getting the government involved to force companies to comply, especially when technology continues to leap frog ahead with the embedding of closed captioning as a standard practice. Let the market dictate this direction at this point in time. Consider where we were 2 to 4 years ago for online captioning opportunities. There were essentially none. Currently, the trend in captioning is clearly picking up. It's a matter of time till captioning is done as part of any video programming since advertising and marketing pressures will help ensure that. And that social awareness and consciousness will be another factor in pushing closed captioning to the top of their collective consciousness. Bottom line? It's coming and without the need for government intervention to make closed captioning mandatory for all online videos. Technology moves faster than the government could in trying to pass a bill. And that's encouraging.

Texting and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome...a danger to deaf people?

In a Foxnews story a 16 year girl was diagnosed with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome of her wrists recently lost some feelings in her hands and was unable to pick up certain objects. This was due to excessive texting, constraining her fingers, hands and wrists over a smart phone keyboard which eventually affected her nerves in her wrists. This is known as "Repetitive Strain Injury" (RSI). Along with this affliction, it's not uncommon for many text users to experience thumb pain known as Blackberry Thumb.

Since texting is the number one communication method among most Deaf (or culturally deaf) and deaf cell phone users it comes with an added risk for those who also communicate preferably through signing. This is perhaps true among teens who are among the most prolific group of all phone texting users.

Teenagers sending and receiving an average of 80 text messages each day may be vulnerable to repetitive stress injuries of the thumb, according to the New York Times. As with Blackberry Thumb, compulsive texting can cause cramping, pain or numbness. While previous reports have stated that teens seem largely immune to Blackberry Thumb and that problems (like tendonitis) tend to crop up in patients in their 40s and 50s, the long-term effects of frequent texting are unknown. Ergonomics researchers are just beginning to study texting's impact, according to the Times.

Here are some statistics on texting:

* 72.2% of wireless users have paid for SMS packages. This equates to 203 million Americans.
* 57% of wireless users 13+ are considered regular text message users.
* There has been a 107% increase in text message use in the USA in the past year.
* 2.5 billion text messages are sent each day in the USA.
*More text messages are sent per phone than phone calls. The average
text messages used per month is 357 compared to 204 cell phone calls.
*15 million Americans used video on their cell phones in quarter two, 2008.
*138 million Americans have sent a text message in the past three months.

Not only are short texting popular you have Instant Messaging (IM) that are much more heavily used with longer conversations than short messages seen in SMS. On Facebook alone some 1 billion IMs are sent each day. Chatting or texting gives users greater privacy and are done in silence as opposed to talking on their cell phones heard by anybody within an ear shot.

The number of smart phones sold is rapidly on the rise so will the amount of texting/chatting that will increasingly merge URL linking to videos, music, webpages, and mobisodes/webisodes (and you thought TV soap operas were bad?)into their everyday smart phone communication. Which means more conversations using the QWERTY keyboard on smart phones to communicate.

Will this be a good thing or bad for deaf/hh smart phone users? Will we see an increase on fingers and hands related injuries or pain because of the constant texting that could affect deaf/hh people who signs? Are companies who offfer short text messaging or Instant Messaging be liable for people's hands and fingers injuries? Or are the makers of QWERTY keypads for smart phones be responsible for the supposedly "poor" ergonomics design?

Who is ultimately responsible?

The answer is that the smart phone users are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the health of their hands, wrists and fingers. Whether a person is prone to injuries or not there are ways to reduce the chances of injuries, pain or discomfort when it comes to texting or chatting on their smart phone.

If it's bad and quite painful, take a "Sabbatical" break for a few weeks off. This is almost like going cold turkey but if it's affecting your signing ability and that it is painful, your body is telling you an important message and that is to stop! If that's seems "impossible" then work out a plan to reduce the amount of time you use your smart phone. Include other exercises to help your hands, fingers and wrists.

Virgin Mobile has a website on exercises you can do to help alleviate the pain and discomfort. Or perhaps buy a contraption that supposedly helps strengthen your hands and fingers. But a cheap and simple sure-fire way of strengthening your hands and fingers is to get a bucket of sand and do some sand digging and finger extension exercises, among other exercises seen here.

The responsibility is yours alone on the health of your hands, fingers, and wrists when it comes to texting and chatting on your smart phones. More than likely if you are a smart phone user you will find yourself using the QWERTY keyboard more often as smart phones continue to improve and the desire to reach out and touch someone becomes even more irresistible.

Closed Captioning support for Blackberry Phones

Just like the iPhone, Blackberry fans can access a new version of a "do-it-yourself caption-authoring" tool for digital media. ow buy phones that have captioning support for uploaded videos that come with captioning.

which can be used to create closed-captioned videos formatted for playback on BlackBerry® smartphones. As before, authors can continue to write captions once and export them to formats compatible with QuickTime, Windows Media, RealPlayer and Flash.
.
.
Support for closed-captioned content playback is available on BlackBerry smartphones running BlackBerry Device Software version 5.0 and newer, including the BlackBerry Storm2™ smartphone, BlackBerry Bold 9700™ smartphone and BlackBerry Curve™ 8530 smartphone models.

Very cool, and very savvy in the marketing sense that takes aim at a potential market of 30+ million people with hearing loss in the U.S. (and even more outside). And if you have a Blackberry Storm2 9520/9550 smartphones then you're in luck since they already come with captioning support.

I'm sure from now on all newer BB phones will have closed captioning support just like the Blackberry Storm2 phones.

Do deaf and hard of hearing people prefer Blackberry smartphones over others?

Blackberry? A better smartphone for deaf and hard of hearing? It would seem so base on my ongoing and current poll result with overwhelming differences compared to other smartphones. I suspect that with the current poll results would be the likely overall picture with Blackberry as an obvious favorite among deaf and hard of hearing users. The question is why? Why choose Blackberry? For a start, RIM (Research in Motion) is known for their addressing accessbility issues as seen on page 2 in the Blackberry Java Application Accessibility guide might be key in their philosophy and view when it comes to increasing accessibility to smartphone users:

Accessibility refers to the extent to which a product or service can be used by as many people as possible. In this context,accessibility means designing applications so that people with disabilities or impairments can use the applications on a BlackBerry® device.

When you design your BlackBerry device application, consider the following users:

• blind people
• visually impaired people
• colorblind people
• deaf people
• hearing impaired people
• speech impaired people
• people with motor impairments
• people with cognitive or learning disabilities

Like any other group of users, people with disabilities or impairments have needs, wants, and expectations about the behavior of applications. Some of the reasons to make your applications accessible to as many users as possible include the following possible benefits:
• Social responsibility: Making it easier for people with disabilities or impairments to benefit from the functionality that your application provides can promote equality and is the right thing to do.
• Market share: Ensuring that your application can be used by people with disabilities or impairments increases the number of people who can purchase and benefit from your application.
• Compliance: Addressing the applicable guidelines and regulatory requirements (such as Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act in the United States) that dictate that your application must be accessible by people with disabilities or impairments can allow you to enter certain markets.

Blackberry or other smartphone makers cannot afford to alienate the 30+ million people with hearing loss in the United States by making smartphones not-user-friendly. Though the popularity of Blackberry may be due to issue of reliability and ease of use. There was a clue in a forum back in 2004 with thread titled, "Benefits of BlackBerry for the Deaf & Hard Of Hearing" that may have initially gotten deaf and hard of hearing to consider Blackberry first. The reliability factor came up again in 2007. Though things have changed over the last 6 years since 2004 but that may be changing again in favor of Blackberry once again. Perhaps the changeover was due to a recent snafu from T-Mobile's Sidekick data plan last year. Did the well advertised snafu that affected 800,000 subscribers in 2009 helped shape the perception of Sidekick as unreliable seeing the Blackberry as the better and stable option, not to mention reliable?

Because the Sidekick didn't evolve as fast as other smartphones, many users--deaf and hearing alike--moved to the BlackBerry and other devices. And after their recent experiences, many of the remaining Sidekick users in the deaf community have said they are considering jumping ship, once their T-Mobile contracts end.

"I am going to look into Sprint's BlackBerry, which more and more deaf people are taking up, and have complimented, and (said) that it is a lot more reliable," McCraw said.

Lisa Gault, a deaf Sidekick owner in Katy, Texas, said she in an e-mail interview that she relies on the Sidekick as a means to stay in touch with her family.

"It's a way for the school to get a hold of me, if something were to occur with my son who is (not deaf)," Gault said.

Gault said that even short of an emergency, it is a problem not to get her e-mail for an extended period.

"It's annoying, as my friends think I'm ignoring them, when in reality, I didn't get the e-mails yet," Gault said. "It really put the deaf community at more of a disadvantage--more so than for hearing people, since we're so reliant on e-mail (devices) to keep in touch."

Not only it wasn't about the lack of evolving but about a total failure when the Sidekick was announced by Microsoft with grim news last year, a hard lesson when things do fail catastrophically much to consumers' horrors.

There is no official word on the death of the Sidekick from Microsoft or Tmobile, but it certainly looks bleak for the iconic device.

This week, Microsoft announced that they had lost all Sidekick user data including pictures, contacts, calendars and other information from the Danger's servers. Since the devices sync with the servers, the devices also lost the data. The Sidekick data services had amazingly been out over a week.

From what they say, after a week of investigation, there is no way to retrieve the user data. Customers will have to start over. The word on the street is that it was a Hitachi SAN upgrade failure.

But customers will be happy to know that Tmobile is offering a free month of data (not a free month of service, just the $20 unlimited data plan) for all of their information. I really hope a lot of Sidekick users used the Intellisync software that pushes data to the desktop and would have backed their data up.

T-Mobile has halted the sale of new Sidekicks. All models are now showing "temporarily out of stock" on the company's website.

No back up servers? No built in redundancy to ensure smooth flow of communication and saved data? I may not know much of what transpired but a failure of this magnitude isn't a good thing in anybody's book. Might as well see it as "DOA" and no need to try resurrect an image brand that was mortally wounded. People will jump ship because of that.

I'll continue my investigation about Blackberry among deaf and hard of hearing users and why they use the smartphone. If you're deaf or hard of hearing and use a smartphone, go to my poll and select a phone brand that you are currently using.

Blackberry Smartphones and Closed Captioning

Here's a good announcement for deaf/hh Blackberry smartphone enthusiasts who might be interested in helping or creating a closed captioned content for Blackberry smartphones which will take place this March at CSUN.

Creating Closed Captioned Content for BlackBerry Smartphones

This hands-on lab will demonstrate how you can develop, deploy and distribute accessible, close captioned multimedia content for and to BlackBerry smartphones.

Greg Fields
Research In Motion (RIM)

This will take place at the 25th Annual International Technology & Persons with Disabilities Conference in San Diego, Ca on March 22nd - 27th. Seats are limited to 31 seats. Get 'em while they're still hot!

Also, a poll for all you deaf and hard of hearing users of smartphones.

When a piano dies...horribly.

How often does a deaf/hh guy get a chance to completely dismantle an old, crappy piano and see up close how those innards worked, right down to the bare Alcoa aluminum piano frame? With lots of patience, little muscle work, hammer, locking plier, and screw driver did I manage to break down my crappy piano piece by piece. This was a piano I bought dirt cheap about three years ago. It barely worked with several keys that had the habit of sticking. It finally met it's demise at the hands of one very annoyed deaf/hh pianist. Me. I had it with that piece of crap I bought for $50 and worked out my frustration on my piano since it didn't cooperate very well with me whenever I played on it. Although it helped me get started again playing the piano after all those years of not playing very often. It was almost two years ago that I decided to get back into playing the piano (see my YouTube site of me playing the piano). But below are some pictures of the dismantling process. Thought you might find it cool to see the gory process.



The spinet piano was made probably either late 1940s or early 1950s though I couldn't tell the make but the aluminum piano plate was made by Alcoa in a signed agreement with Winter and Company to be made for their pianos. Since my old crappy piano was destined for destruction ever since I got my new piano I wanted to tear it down and salvage some good wood and get that 48 lb aluminum piano plate inside. This dismantling and destruction took several hours as I removed the pins, piano wires, wood, screws and what not. My hands were a little sore the next day but it wasn't enough to stop me from practicing on my piano.






Nearly done with the pins and piano strings. Used vice grip, wrench, hammer, and screw drivers.


All the pins and strings removed.


All done with the plate. Saved a few good scrap wood with one being a 3/4" inch plank seen directly behind the plate against the garage wall.


Off to the dump!


Mangled hammers meet their demise.


All cleaned up except for the non-aluminum metal pins embedded that the piano wires were strung around. Tried to remove a few and were successful but most broke off leaving the rest of the pins inside the plate. Decided to leave them as they are and see what the scrap yard guy says.


Aluminum piano plate die casted by Alcoa seen stamped on the plate. If it's Alcoa, it's all aluminum.


A 1946 silver dime found beneath the piano keys during the initial dismantling. Wondered how it could've gotten there. A silver U.S. dime for that period of time weighs .0724 of an ounce. Price of silver? $11.50 an ounce. Dime value? .85 cents.

The next step was to take my aluminum piano plate to a nearby scrap yard that buys aluminum scraps and soda cans. The scrap yard is located about 5 miles from my house where I used to live in New Mexico. The recycling and scrap yard was buying aluminum at .25 cents a pound at the time. My aluminum frame weighed 48 lbs. So, I got $12.00 out of it for several hours worth of work. At least I did something useful in the recycling business.

A deaf Ragtime pianist plays "Weeping Willow"

Wanna hear/see a deaf pianist play a Ragtime piece called "Weeping Willow" by Scott Joplin? Then go here and enjoy my video of myself playing the piano.

What would deaf people like to see in a cell phone?

Whatever you may call it, a cell phone, a smart phone, text phone, a wireless phone, PDA, and so on, as a deaf or hard of hearing person, explain to me and to the rest of the world out there on some of the things that you would like to see improved or added onto your phone. Or if you're in a ranting mood, explain some of the things you do not like about your phone when it comes to communicating or texting to your friends and families. And what you would hope to see in the next 5 years if you think you can predict the future on the improvements you'd expect to see in your next phone when it comes to communicating to the outside world, deaf or hearing.

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.