Incredible Hulk Character equals Oppression to Deaf?

Now, I gotta laugh at this one. In DonG's blog he lamented over whether Lou Ferrigno's acting as the Incredible Hulk character who had no speaking role and did the whole "Aaarrgghh!" thing instead somehow constituted as "avdism" (purposely misspelled) just because the actor happens to be deaf? Oh, please.

So, I wonder why in the comic book, the Hulk can talk, but in the TV series, the Hulk never talks, except to say GRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! I’m thinking it is either:

The writers found the Hulk would be played by Lou Ferrigno, and assumed that he can’t talk, even though Lou was raised orally and can talk.
OR

The writers wanted to emphasize the Hulk’s lack of intelligence, so they wrote it so the Hulk can’t or doesn’t talk in order to emphasize his stupidity. That is, muteness is equated with stupidity.
Either way, that’s a*dism, right?

No, it's not. They cast him because of his size and build. He was a well known bodybuilder and was consider large for his size at the time at 6'5" and 275lbs. In fact he was one of the tallest professional bodybuilders at that time next to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I don't think it was that important to have a Hulk tv character to do these simple angry one liners when an occassional "Aaaarrrgghh!" would suffice. And it did. It was all about visual effects. Not about voice.

There were five TV seasons, several TV movies and the first Incredible Hulk movie feature where the Hulk character never talked even though in comic books had him saying simple words like "Hulk smash! or "Hulk no like puny humans!" But that soon changed in the last Hulk movie a few years back by using Lou Ferrigno's voice to do the "Hulk smash!" voice over.

Hulk's verbal skills and intelligence have varied in the comics, but he's never been as mute as the TV version. So it's a little ironic that TV Hulk Lou Ferrigno will give voice to the Hulk in this film. Producer Gale Ann Hurd says Ferrigno was a last-minute addition to a panel on the movie at New York's Comic-Con. Director Leterrier invited him to "audition" onstage. "Lou did this amazing, 'Hulk smash!' " says Hurd. "And (director Louis Leterrier) said, 'Come in, we'll record you next week.' Everybody thought it was either a staged event or we wouldn't really do it. But the next week Lou came in in L.A. and his voice is the voice of the Hulk."

Satisfied?

So, let's knock off this nonsense in the attempt to find anything to do with "avdism" or the use of the a-wordism and attach that to this Hulk thing. I'm sure Lou Ferrigno would have laughed at the whole silly notion. What's next? Preferring to talk instead of ASL would be labeled as avdist for a deaf person, too? Oh, please! Such moronic thinking.

White deaf man calls black person an "Uncle Tom"

Pretty shocking to see this happen in this day and age. Go here for more details and where it took place. People need to understand and realize the need for greater tolerance and how it is important that it's about a person's character and not about skin color. Yesterday was Martin Luther King's 47th anniversary of his "I have a dream," speech that was delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. This "Uncle Tom" (see definition) name calling is getting old and need to stop already.

California Academy of Audiology responds to blog readers' comments on AB2072 bill controversy

An email was sent to me today from the CAA in regards to my yesterday's blog in the effort to answer many of the readers' responses. They asked me to do this and so I am putting this email response in my blog. No names will be divulged here so please DO NOT ask me for them! The CAA's responses are below and answers some of the responses/questions seen yesterday in my blog comment box.

Hi Mike,

I and my board read your blog and the comments to yesterday’s post. We would like the opportunity to respond. Please let your readers know it comes from the CAA board of directors and legislative committee..do not use my email as it is from work…

1. Anonymous asked about the decibel level of the second screening….This pamphlet is to be given out at the diagnosis of hearing loss, not the outpatient screening. Some babies who fail the outpatient screening just have fluid in their ears etc. and just need time or medical treatment to resolve. We are being asked to hand this out to ALL children who have permanent hearing loss, of any kind and any degree…so yes even parents whose child has a mild loss or unilateral loss will be required to get this pamphlet and have ALL of the options for communication reviewed with the family.

2. Linda should know that we actually did not amend the language form the 17th…We actually endorsed that language and asked the author to go back to it. We did not take it as a gag order as to discuss all forms of communication options IS in our scope of practice…we objected to the August 20th amendments that was given to the author from legislators and the opposition, NOT CAA.

3. This is not about screenings..Please read the bill..it is about children diagnosed with hearing loss, any kind, any degree.

4. We are not even going to address the cochlear implant concerns as that is NOT a communication option…it is a device that is surgically implanted and is not part of this bill and will/should not be a part of the pamphlet…

It saddens us that the DHH community has such misinformation about our profession and our training. One of the biggest problems we feel the bill does not address is our families who use total communication as their option..they were not even included in the negotiations or the panel..We believe the panel and the costs incurred but the State is not necessary as there are pamphlets out there that are non biased and include all options, including ASL and SEE sign. We also believe at this point the bill is so far from its original intent that we cannot support, nor do we think given the polarizing options on the panel that the process will be arduous.
As audiologists we are trained in spoken speech and language development as well as different sign languages, including ASL. Some audiologists’ practices are not diagnostic but actually are educational and or rehabilitative only, and work with families in the development of spoken and visual language. It is referred to as aural rehabilitation, or in the case of a child, habilitation.

Because we too felt this bill was getting into a political battle rather than about communication and educational choices we asked to be removed as the primary pamphlet distributors and asked that the educators hand out the pamphlet but we would be happy to answer questions regarding anything in the pamphlet or direct the parent to the appropriate agency or reference material. This was rejected by the author…….Hope this clears up some of the misconceptions….

Thanks for your efforts and your fair representation of the facts……We hope this answers at least some of your readers questions…Thanks for asking!

If you have questions or comments and would like to direct them at CAA use their contact page to submit your questions or comments.

Thank you!

California Academy of Audiology Official Letter to Mendoza on Opposing AB2072

Yesterday I contacted the California Academy of Audiology (CAA) using their official email address and soon was able to get a few responses from them today regarding their recent change on why they now oppose the AB2072 bill. I was given an official CAA letter that was sent to Assembly Member Tony Mendoza on August 23, 2010 explaining why they changed their support for the bill. This is letter is already public since it was given to Assembly Member Tony Mendoza. And so I am making this available to my Kokonut Pundit readers and to the public the opportunity to read this letter and to have a digital copy. To view the letter click on the link below:

CAA Official Letter to Assembly Member Tony Mendoza

Some Deaf leaders and protesters like Ella and others incorrectly stated that the CAA's complaint was because their role would be restricted. Rather it's the opposite with the potential of going beyond the scope of their profession or a patient's needs.

An audiologist forced to review and counsel all available communication options with parents of children with varying degrees and causes of hearing loss would be tantamount to a cardiologist discussing with parents a heart transplant for a child found to have a heart murmur or an ophthalmologist counseling parents regarding the option of a seeing eye dog for their child who needs glasses.

Other protesters or those who are against the bill as a whole continue to make wild claims that audiologists are there to take advantage of and make money via commissions to get kids their cochlear implants. Not only is the claim irresponsible but downright false. Audiologists diagnose more children that are hard of hearing (mild to severe hearing loss) than those with profound hearing loss. Those with profound bilateral hearing loss (90 db or greater) are more likely to be candidates for cochlear implants. Only a small percentage of these kids actually get to the point of qualifying for a cochlear implant.

From the Help Kids Hear organization's website:

- Over 1 million children in the U.S. have a hearing loss.
- 5% of children 18 years and under have hearing loss.
- 1 in 22 infants born in the U.S. has some kind of hearing problem.
- 6 in every 1000 infants born in the U.S. has some degree of hearing loss.
- 1 in every 1000 infants born in the U.S. has a severe or profound hearing loss.

This means that about 4.3 million babies are born each year in the United States using current birth rate. This give us an approximate figure of 26,000 babies born each year with some degree of hearing loss (mild to moderate hearing loss) while some 4,300 babies born each year with severe or profound hearing loss. Since April 2009 roughly 41,500 adults and 25,500 children have received cochlear implants in the United States ever since 1980 when the first cochlear implant was performed. From January 2008 to April 2009 there were approximately 2,228 children (from age 1 to 17 years old) implanted (25,500 - 23,272 = 2,228) with a cochlear implant.

Children must have profound bilateral hearing loss at 90db or worse while adults require at least a 70db or worse in both ears (bilateral) as a start according to a few insurances' requirements. Not all children are born with bilateral hearing loss (both ears) but many are born with hearing loss only in one ear.

In a 2006 survey some 73% of the people were identified with hearing loss in both ears while 22% of the people identified had hearing loss only in one ear only according to a 2006 survey using 43 states and 3 U.S. territories. With a sample size of 5,127 people in this study it can be seen as a representative number for the rest of the U.S. population of people with hearing loss where approximately 73% of those with hearing loss have bilateral hearing loss while approximately 22% have unilateral hearing loss in one ear only. We can clearly see those with hearing loss can either be a bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. From that revelation you have to take into account that there are those who are born with unilateral hearing loss. Children with unilateral hearing loss cannot qualify for a cochlear implant.

All in all, the continual adding of admendments and other changes in the bill in order to placate Deaf protesters' demands have gotten to the point where their actions have helped vulgarized the bill's original intent. Even the protesters were still not satisfied. From the gist of it legislators seemed to have lost sight for the rest of the children who are mostly hard of hearing or have a hearing loss only in one ear that audiologists frequently diagnose than those who are profoundly deaf. That's what seems to be missing here.

AB2072 votes officially confirmed

Just as I thought.

It was 23 Ayes and 11 Noes. The bill will go to Assembly either on August 26 or shortly after that. And then when all good and dandy the bill will go to the Governator's desk for his signature. And the rest will become history.

BILL HISTORY
2010
Aug. 24 In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 26 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
Aug. 24 Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 23. Noes 11.)

Which means only 6 Senators did not vote out of 40 Senators. I'd say with all the amendments and changes the people have mostly been heard. And this will be the first time that ASL is to be recognized legally in a bill with the Governor's signature. People need to move on and take the time and plan for this by seeing this as a huge opportunity to help ASL be recognized for parents of deaf and hard of hearing babies. After all it is the parents who must decide for their babies. No one else owns their babies. Not even Deaf organizations or Deaf people. Some of these Deaf groups, organizations or people have for the longest time had this sense of "ownership" or "entitlement" over babies born with hearing loss. That attitude simply need to be dropped. Many of us has been saying that for awhile. It'd be better to show the positive side of ASL rather than get all ugly and call people "Nazis" or accuse them of "eugenics" in the worst way. All that posturing simply backfired dramatically in the worst way and it can only paint them in the public eye with more negative images seeing them as "extremists." I can only imagine what Senators may have been thinking when they got this flyer in their inboxes. Or the public reading an article about the bill and protest for the time and not know anything about Deaf culture or ASL and read those Nazism remarks. If anything I'd say the whole protest took on a rather sloppy approach.

It's one thing to protest and make your case known but it's another to hurl insults, lob accusations and use Godwin's Law to try and link Senators as if they were a bunch of Nazis. Not cool. Not smart. And it won't win any hearts this way.

Anyway, this bill is a step closer to get the Governator's famous signature.

AB2072 Passed!

With 22 ayes and 11 nays, with 7 senators not voting via several sources. Although I hear it may be correct at 23 ayes and 11 nays. It will ultimately be confirmed on the vote number in the next day or so on the California Legislature website for the AB2072 bill and read what the status has to say for the next step.

Rejoice this news since this is an opportunity to see greater promotion of ASL and an increase in ASL visibility for parents to see regarding their child with a hearing loss. This bill increases the possibility of ASL exposure rather than diluting it. But I'm thinking next will be a protest on the capital steps of California by anti-AB2072 protesters who were against this bill all along regardless of the numerous admendments or convuluted changes per their requests. Like I said, some want the whole enchilada and nothing more.

A Deaf Freeze Flash Mob Proposal.....the 12:12 Flash Mob

If ya'll want to do something fun and "spontaneous" here's a simple proposal that's easy to do and fun. Instead of trying to Flash Mob with music just do it silently and while in a frozen stance. Pick a popular and very public place to do this. The more people that can get in on this act the more fun it can be for everybody. It's very simple. You're in a public place, you're signing with your friends, families, whoever and then at certain time, say exactly at 12:12 PM, everybody freezes at the same time what they were doing for 2, 3 or 5 minutes. Take your pick but don't make it too long since try and stay in an awkward position for 5 minutes. It's not that easy for some. An example of a freeze Flash Mob watch this video below:



There should be at least one person who'll do the video-taping and when that's done have the video edited and uploaded on YouTube. If you want to increase positive exposure of ASL in a fun way, this is one way of doing it and everybody get to have fun doing it as well.

Since I've proposed this Deaf Freeze Flash Mob at exactly 12:12 the location for me and anybody else who live close by could take place either in Portland, Oregon or Seattle, Washington. The suggestions as to where in those cities would be a good place to do it in a public setting. And get a lot of people involve. It's not impressive with only 10 or 15 people when you can get 100 or so.

I'm sure some of you are asking why "12:12"? It's easy to sign "12" with two hands and freezing the sign after saying it to represent the 12:12 Frozen Flash Mob group.

Doesn't matter really, just a fun idea for ya'll. Who wants to be a part of this 12:12 Freeze Flash Mob project? It can take place anywhere in your own city.

AB2072 bill update - ASL support increases

Compare this earlier bill to a recently updated amended version where the word "ASL" is used exclusively without the words "visual languages" along with adding an additional 2 more members to the panel, and a requirement that at least 5 of the panel members must have a hearing loss:

The panel shall be composed of 15 members, as follows:
(A) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses auditory-oral language, appointed by the Governor.
(B) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses ASL, appointed by the
Governor.
(C) An educator of the deaf in an auditory-oral educational setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(D) An educator of the deaf an ASL education setting, appointed by the Senate
Committee on Rules.
(E) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses auditory-oral communication methods, appointed by the Governor.
(F) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses ASL appointed by the
Governor.
(G) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily auditory-oral learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(H) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily ASL learners appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(I) A researcher engaged in the study of auditory-oral communication for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.
(J) A researcher engaged in the study of ASL and communication modalities for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.
(K) Two adults who are deaf or hard of hearing, and who primarily use other visual communication modalities, appointed by the Governor.
(L) An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(M) A physician who specializes in pediatric otolaryngology, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(N) The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her designee, who shall be an ex officio member.

(2)At least five members of the panel appointed by the Governor, one member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules, and one member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, shall be deaf or hard of hearing adults.

The differences here are the more specific language that focus on ASL and not "visual languages." However, the change from 13 members to 15 members stem from the adding of (see 'K') two adults with a hearing loss that use other visual communication modalaties (non-ASL) who are to be appointed by the Governor.

Will this be enough or will the anti-AB2072 crowd want the whole enchilada? This has been an ongoing participatory process between stakeholders and the California legislature through the continuing changes of the bill through admendments and changes or omittances of certain languages or words in the bill. This whole process has been more than fair. It's a democracy in action where citizens have a voice by participating. The job of the California legislature isn't to contact all potential interested parties whenever a bill comes to the floor. Do you realize how many bills that come to the floor each week? Rather it is the job of interested stakeholders and individuals to pay attention to bills introduced to the floor that may have an impact on them.

The reality of hearing loss in the U.S. and the AB2072 bill

In one video skit as part of the continuing anti-AB2072 bill protest a voice interpreter can be heard saying the baby has a "moderate to profound hearing loss" but the caption says "moderate to severe hearing loss" around the 1:11 time stamp mark. Which is it? Moderate, severe or profound hearing loss for this baby (doll)? The skit then proceeded to give the baby (doll) a "cochlear implant" as a solution for the baby's hearing loss though we don't know if the baby has, figuratively speaking, a moderate, severe or profound hearing loss. Pretty desperate into trying to lump moderate to profound hearing loss category into this cochlear implant issue when it's the 90 db or more is the required hearing loss amount (profound hearing loss) for a cochlear implant eligibility. Had they said profound hearing loss then I'd be more forgiving in this video but moderate to profound? What a confused bunch we have there in the attempt to disinform the population about hearing loss and cochlear implant.

The reality is that cochlear implant only goes to those children with 90 dB hearing loss or greater (along with the requ...isite word discrimination scores) according to some insurance agencies.

According to the CDC moderate hearing loss typically range from 41 to 70 dB while severe hearing loss range from 71 to 90 dB. And profound hearing loss is greater than 90 dB. So, no, babies with moderate or even profound hearing loss cannot qualify for a cochlear implant while most babies with profound hearing loss cannot qualify for cochlear implants unless they at have at least 90 dB average hearing loss.

Approximately 70% of people with hearing loss are those with mild to severe hearing loss while the remaining 30% are those with profound hearing loss based on a 2006 survey using 43 states and 3 U.S territories. Meaning that perhaps from this study we can infer that more babies are born with mild to moderate hearing loss than those born with severe to profound but more studies are needed to confirm that.

Some 73% of the people identified had hearing loss in both ears while 22% of the people identified had hearing loss in one ear only according to a 2006 survey using 43 states and 3 U.S. territories. With a sample size of 5,127 people this study can be seen as a representative statistics for the rest of the U.S. population of people with hearing loss. We also can see that not all babies are born with hearing loss are in both ears. You have to take into account those born a hearing loss in only one ear, too.

The AB2072 bill is about presenting a pamphlet to parents whose baby was identified with a hearing loss whether it's in one ear or two ears and help them on their path to make an informed decision on what to do next. This bill is not about forcing parents into getting a cochlear implant or other options of modes of communications and ignoring ASL. Even though the bill does present 5 potential opportunities to put ASL in the spotlight.

Round Peg in a Square Hole - "Wrong Street"

Click here to enlarge.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

AB2072 bill - more potential ASL support than thought.

In the most recent amended AB2072 bill as of August 17, 2010, in the panel members designation section starting on page 3, the bill recommends in setting up a panel that consists of 13 members of which possibly up to 5 members with ASL (i.e. visual language instead of "visual communication") background or experiences could be appointed to the panel. That's more than a fair share in seeing that ASL gets represented fairly on the panel (see the bolded words below) where the panel is to help produce an unbiased informational pamphlet. Even with the fact that 3 of the 5 could be appointed by the Governor. So, please, let's not get into what's fair or not fair here or other "wild-eyed" conspiracy claims that this bill tilts favorably to the medical establishment. It clearly does not.

The panel shall be composed of 13 members, as follows:

(A) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses auditory-oral language, appointed by the Governor.

(B) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL, appointed by the Governor.

(C) An educator of the deaf in an auditory-oral educational setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.

(D) An educator of the deaf in a visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL education setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.

(E) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses auditory-oral communication methods, appointed by the Governor.

(F) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL, appointed by the Governor.

(G) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily auditory-oral learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

(H) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

(I) A researcher engaged in the study of auditory-oral communication for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.

(J) A researcher engaged in the study of visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL, and communication modalities for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.

(K) An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

(L) A physician who specializes in pediatric otolaryngology, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.

(M) The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her designee, who shall be an ex officio member."

AB2072 bill - less power to audiologists

Let me turn the table and say that the greatest irony are those who are against the AB2072 bill (as of August 17, 2010). Today, at the Capital in Sacramento, California there will be a protest mostly by Deaf people who are against this bill believing this bill will give more power to audiologists.

That's not true.

There are certain languages in the bill that restrict what audiologists can or cannot do. From the latest bill modification as of August 17, 2010 on page 3 (note the bold black word):

The pamphlet shall be provided:

21 By an audiologist immediately upon identification of a
22 newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall
23 not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond
24 the scope of his or her practice.

The key legal word in this bill is "shall" which is a directive and not a word that provides an option. It is a command. An order. A non-directive word would be "should," "may," "might," or any other similar words. I do a lot of environmental writings on environmental recommendations and I am carefull to be mindful of certain "legally bound" words and the biggie one is the word "shall" which is a directive that cannot be bargained with. It is simply a legal command.

In this case, in the bill the state issues a legal command to audiologists that they "SHALL NOT inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option." This legal requirement does not give the audiologist the option on whether to communicate or not toward a particular communication and/or language option. They simply do not have this option, period. It is a legal requirement given by the state of California to the audiologists that their role is not to communicate or counsel parents of deaf children about a particular communication option. That is not their role now. The bill actually reduces the audiologists' role and power on how to deliver those communication options to parents of deaf/hh babies.

Right now we are seeing that some Deaf people want to protest against this bill believing it gives more power to audiologists on informing parents of deaf/hh babies on which communication options are better. Heck, they should be rejoicing that audiologists' role and power will be reduced in this bill.

Now, that's the greatest irony of all.

Audiologists will soon be powerless to do what they want to do on informing parents about communication and lanbguage options. Instead, they will soon be legally required to give parents of newborn babies identified with a hearing loss an approved informational pamphlet that discusses communication and language options, and more with thanks to the AB2072 bill. Parents will no longer be in the dark on this issue. They will have a chance to be fully informed in their decision process.

Round Peg in a Square Hole

AB2072 passed. No longer in APPR suspense file.

News going around that the AB2072 bill already passed today (10 - 1) and is now out of the APPR. Suspense File - which was never "suspended" in the first place. Next, the bill will go to the Senate floor next week for the vote and once that gets passed it will go to the Governator's desk for his signature.

Now, there are talks about getting Edwin Black involved again, which didn't help much like the last time, because this "suspend" crowd really want to see this bill suspended permanently and are desperate for any kind of help to stop this bill. They want the whole enchilada instead. Once this bill finally passed and signed then it's a victory for all future parents of babies born with hearing loss get the necessary and full information on all communication options. But the real question after that is will we see a street protest if this bill passes the Senate floor and heads to the Governor's desk for his signature? We'll probably know this answer within the next week or so.

Stay tuned.....

Meanwhile, enjoy this, er, suspenseful classic tv show The Twilight Zone with an episode called "Eye of the Beholder" Part I, II, III and IV. All of them captioned. Kind of like the AB2072 bill story plot. Wait til the final wrapping comes off and it comes out beautifully but those who are against it sees it as an ugly result in this final treatment. And then we have the chase scene, too. Does that remind you of something? Enjoy!

AB2072 on APPR. Suspense File does not mean "suspended"

A recent DCARAVLOG video signed the word "suspense" as in "suspend." It's not quite the word nor the same thing.

The AB2072 bill is currently placed in the APPR suspense file because staffs think this bill will cost the state more than $150,000 to implement.

... the so-called "suspense file" is a method by which both fiscal committees in each house automatically hold bills with a dollar value in excess of $150,000 so that each bill may be prioritized on their fiscal and policy merit. Then, on one single day, all fiscal bills are dispensed with and are either passed out of committee and sent to the Floor for vote, or held due to cost or policy concerns (ultimately rendering the bill "dead" for the year.) The "suspense file" process is nerve-wracking for lobbyists and legislators, as it is highly secretive, and one does not know until the minute the bill is announced whether or not it is going to be passed to the Floor or if it is headed to the "suspense" graveyard.

The filing of AB2072 is merely a fiscal response to the cost of this bill and goes before the fiscal committee. It's the fiscal implications of this bill that's in question, not necessarily the policy. A collection of these bills in the Suspense File will get voted on whether for a bill to continue or allow it to die. One thing for sure, this bill is certainly not "suspended" nor dead. It will get voted on. We'll know by tomorrow, August 12th, the hearing date.

What are the "risks" for ASL option in the AB2072 bill?

Ok. Like I said before, many of us already know the benefits of ASL but what many people have not really touched upon at all is the risks of using ASL. Yesterday I blogged about the AB2072 bill with its new language regarding the risks and benefits of each communication option in the bill which raised the question exactly what would the risks be for an ASL communication option (i.esigning option)? It's like during an interview you give everything positive about yourself but the table gets turned when the interviewer asks you to describe the negative part about yourself. This is exactly what I was getting at in my blog yesterday. Nothing puzzling about it. It just raises new questions on the "risk" part of ASL in the AB2072 bill that requires that information in a future pamphlet for parents of babies born with a hearing loss.

Let's help with the "risk" part for this future pamphlet on the ASL option for parents of babies born with a hearing loss. Tell the readers here in the comment section on what those risks may be. Please, no descriptions or comments on the advantages or benefits for ASL since we already know that. What I and many others are interested in are the risks description part. I will use my descretion as a moderator to include only comments that discuss the "risk" part of the ASL communication option (i.e. signing). I will also delete comments that do not follow my request. You've been warned! Discuss only the risk part, please.

Let's the commenting start!

ADDENDUM: No "jokey" risk comments, too. Just as the AB2072 would request risks and benefits for oral or other communication options as part of the information packet in a pamphlet so will the outline be required for the ASL option, too, on risks and benefits. The focus here is on "risks."

AB2072 - risks and benefits for ASL option

If you haven't read the updated and revised AB2072 bill that came out last week in the effort to help provide crucial information for parents of babies born with hearing loss by providing:

an unbiased, comprehensive, evidence-based informational pamphlet for newborns and infants identified as deaf or hard of hearing about visual and auditory communication and language options including, but not limited to, American Sign Language (ASL), and Listening and Spoken Language, that is sufficient to allow a parent to make an informed decision on which options to choose for his or her child.

Well, that's good and dandy. And just to be fair for each of the visual, auditory and language options the pamplet must also provide risks and benefitis for each of the option provided, including ASL seen on page 3 of the bill.

The pamphlet shall contain both benefits and risks of all options.....

In other words, this pamphlet MUST provide benefits and risks for the ASL option as well as for any options described in it. And in an unbiased manner, too. It'd be foolish and folly to think that ASL will be excluded from the risk part if every other options must describe the benefits and risks when everything is of equal weight and value in terms of information provided for the parents....in an unbiased manner.

We already know the benefits but what are the risks for the ASL option? I could probably name a few potential risks in using the ASL option. Although I'm surprised nobody even saw this little line regarding the "benefits and risks" that must be described for each option. This should get interesting on what ASL stakeholders will say about this one. It'll be equally interesting to see exactly what the risks are for the ASL option coming from ASL stakeholders, too, who will undoubtedly be a part of this pamplet development in an advisory stakeholder panel.

My, my...a can of worms from this bill? A conundrum? A new warning label for the ASL option from ASL stakeholders?

Hike to Gotchen Creek Meadows on Mt Adams

It went well today. My seven mile hike. This is my best hike so far and enough to add to Facebook's Deaf and HH Hikers of the Northwest.

I drove almost three hours to get to the end of Forest Road 150 which is where my hike started. This is about a 30 minute drive north of the of town of Trout Lake. From the end of the road FR 150 I embarked a 1/2 mile hike stepping over dead, downed and blackened trees that burned from last year's Cold Spring Fire. I had to hike through this burned over forest since there was no trail to begin with in order to reach Trail #11 so I can hike to Trail #9 which is another 2 and 3/4 mile further. All this hiking was uphill starting from the 4500 feet elevation to the Gotchen Creek Meadows and beyond at about 6300 feet elevation. From there you can see Mt Adams up close her southern flank. All this took me 6 hours of almost non-stop hiking with water breaks and snacked on GORP along the way to help keep my energy up. The hike up hill took me a little less than four hours and the 2 hours to come down. It got a little hot coming down with temperature getting up into the upper 80s and was especially noticeable in the burned out forest part.

Below are my pictures of my hike today. Enjoy!


At the start of my hike to Gotchen Meadows which is 3 1/2 mile hike...up...from 4500 feet elevation to 6400 feet. Took me 3 1/2 hours to get to the meadows plus another 1/2 hour hikeing past that. The burned trees are from last year's fire on Mt Adams' south flank known as the Cold Spring fire.



I see dead trees!


More dead, blackened trees called "Widowmakers," and for a good reason, too.


Walking among the dead, blackened trees. Good thing it is sunny and very little wind. Still, these dead trees can fall over at any time. The sign says "Snipes Mountain Trail # 11." My hike is to Trail #9 which is 2 3/4 mile at that point but it took me about 3/4 mile just to get this point. The rocky stuff you see behind the sign? That's the Aiken lava flow (10 miles long and about 1 mile wide) created some 3,500 to 6,000 years ago.


Pretty yellow wildflowers.



Slowly getting out of the black.



Up on a bluff looking across the burned trees and in the distance you can see the Aiken lava flow. It was too hazy in the distance to see Mt. Adams.



Gotchen Creek Meadows "gate." Sign says to please keep the gate in place and help protect Gotchen Creek Meadows (mostly from cattle).


Gotchen Creek Meadows. One meadow out of a series of them on the way up. In the forefront you can see purple, white and some yellow wildflowers.


Mike at one of the Gotchen Meadows. Some snow can be seen behind me. Elevation about 5600 feet. Lots of mosquitos here. I can't stop for a lunch break. So, I eat on the go and keep moving so mosquitos won't have much of a chance to land on me.



Gotchen Creek. Elevation approximately 5700 feet.



The sign behind me says: "Yakima Indian Reservation Boundary Tract D. Welcome." Elevation approximately 6200 feet.



Another Gotchen Meadows and you can see Mt Adams up close.




A little wooden bridge that crosses Gotchen Creek. Elevation approximately 6300 feet.


Standing in front of Gotchen Creek waterfall. I was blocking it. Next photo below shows it. Elevation approximately 6300 feet.



Gotchen Creek waterfall. Hard to see. Had to reduce my picture definition...running out of memory.

The return trip back to my vehicle took me about 2 hours instead of 4 hours walking up.

Boy, am I beat today! But it was a very good day!

Beautiful Mt. Adams

In one of the many hikes I do out in Washington I find this scenery around Mt. Adams breathtaking and scenic on such a sunny and beautiful day. The location of this spot is on a steep trail that lead up to Forest Road 22. The picture I took was at an elevation of 4280 feet. From that spot you can see Mt Adams 15 miles away looking to the south-southeast at the north flank of that volcanic mountain that rises to 12, 276 feet.

Tomorrow, I plan to have pictures taken from the south flank of that mountain at an elevation of around 6,300 feet. The south flank is on the other side of Mt. Adams in this picture. I'll be on a high alpine meadow full of wildflowers and ripe huckleberries. It'll be a two mile hike in plus some more and then the return hike back to my vehicle. There'll be some snow at this elevation. And from there I'll be able to see Mt. Hood in the distance 55 miles away to the south on the Oregon side. The forecast for tomorrow? Sunny and quite warm.

Perfect.

Did a hearing mother exaggerates about her deaf son's ability?

Here's a weird story. And a true one.

This is a story about a hearing mother who gushed about her older deaf son who is profoundly deaf and wears a hearing aid. Nothing wrong about gushing with pride about your own kids. What mother who did not express pride about her own deaf child's accomplishments? But this story takes on a weird turn. A revelation into the psychological shortcomings or maybe a case of denial when this mother was confronted on providing proof of her claim about her deaf son.

This claim in question involves the use of a phone and how her profoundly deaf son can use it with his hearing aid on. This hearing mother actually bragged to another person that her deaf son can use the phone with anybody. The person in question expressed surprise and soon turn to doubt. Can he really be that good and freely converse and gab with anyone over the phone? The person in question with moderate hearing loss and wears a hearing aid asked if a phone call can be made to this deaf person so that they both can talk over the phone. The mother refused even though her deaf son is an adult. The person in question tried to be understanding requested than an email be exchanged with this deaf son so that he can make the decision to accept a future phone call or not. The mother refused to pass the word on to her son about the email address or the phone call deal. The story might be moot if the deaf son was not an adult and the mother refused for security reasons but in this case the deaf son is an adult and able to make his own decisions.

Now, is this me or is this is a case of a hearing mother who got caught in a lie (?) when asked for proof of her claim? Whenever a mother that does that does it also show that she is in denial of her son's hearing loss? Or maybe this is a case of an exaggeration gone to far when the deaf son can in reality speak (rather than listen actively, and converse freely) only with a few people the voices he'd recognize and respond in a limited fashion? My take? I think if a mother who does that has a few psychological issues and insecurity that need to be worked out and confronted once and for all.