Did Fookem & Bug get punk'd?

Maybe "punk'd" is the wrong word but I have a few questions about the "award"badge seen on the Fookem & Bug website that they pasted on seen on the right side of their main page near the top (see screen capture of Fookem & Bug with the badge award picture). The blog award badge says "TOP HEARING IMPAIRED BLOG 2010. AWARD WINNER" and clicking on that badge links you to the Medical Assistant Schools "top hearing impaired" web page that lists "hearing impaired"....uh... "blog winners" including some of the well known and recognized blogs like Candy, E?What?Huh?, Jared Evans Global Microbrand, An American Mom in Tuscany, and Dorkette:Exposed.

Eh?What?Huh?
http://www.ehwhathuh.com/

Found in Blank
http://www.foundinblank.com/

The Frost Village Blog
http://frostvillage.com/blog/

Adreanaline
http://www.adreanaline.com/blog/

Grumpy Old Deafies
http://www.grumpyoldeafies.com/

Deaf Special Needs
http://www.deafspecialneeds.com/

Show of Hands
http://aslperformingarts.blogspot.com/

Diversity In Deafhood
http://deafprogressivism.blogspot.com/

Ben Fletcher
http://benfletcher.wordpress.com/

Big Ben Factor
http://bigbenfactor.wordpress.com/

Sharlyn Ayotte's Blog
http://billyclarkstudios51.blogspot.com/

Candy
http://candysweetblog.wordpress.com/

Deaf Chef At Large
http://www.deafchefatlarge.com/

Tactile The World
http://tactiletheworld.wordpress.com/

Just Singin' & Singin' in the Sun
http://danielgreene.com/

Hearing Mojo
http://hearingmojo.com/

Deaf Chipmunk
http://deafchipmunk.com/

Deaf Civil Rights Movement
http://deafcivilrightsmovement.wordpress.com/

Deaf411 Online v\Blog
http://deaf411online.com/blog/

Deafinitely Girly
http://www.deafinitelygirly.com/

Going Deaf
http://denareiter.blogspot.com/

Donald's Deaf\hard Of Hearing Technology Blog
http://prosumertech.blogspot.com/

Liz's Deaf Blog
http://l1zblog.wordpress.com/

My Opinion Here
http://geminisigner.blogspot.com/

Fookem And Bug
http://fookembug.wordpress.com/

Campaining For Deaf Children
http://iannoon.wordpress.com/

J. Parrish Lewis
http://jparrishlewis.com/

Through a Deaf Lens
http://www.thedeaflens.com/

Jared Evans Global Microbrand
http://www.jaredlog.com/

The Deaf Edge
http://deafpundit.wordpress.com/

Deaf Politics Blog
http://blog.deafpolitics.org/

An American Mom In Tuscany
http://rallycapsdotnet.blogspot.com/

Crazy Deaf Joe Blog
http://www.crazydeafjoe.net/

Curse Of Silence
http://ilsordo.blogspot.com/

ABC
http://johnlestina.blogspot.com/index.html

Deaf Women In Film
http://dwif.blogspot.com/

Love Daddy
http://www.lovedaddy.org/

A Deaf Mom
http://deafmomworld.com/

The Dream You Are living Is Your Creation
http://jimikiwi.blogspot.com/

Dorkette:Exposed
http://gnarlydorkette.blogspot.com/

Besides Fookem & Bug that got punk'd there are a few others that also displayed the badge award on their website such as an ASL website called Show of Hands where you can see the award badge seen at the bottom of their webpage, and Deaf Women in Film has that badge award, too. Out of a list of 40 blog "winners" three blogsites actually displayed this bogus award badge that links to a spam/bogus website.

I might understand how others may have put that blog award badge on their blog/website but Fookem & Bug? I'd at least expect these Deaf guys to question such an award badge, especially when it when it comes to controversial words that may offend the sensibilities of some Deaf people like "hearing impaired." And that it came from a website designed to point people as "one-stop" shop on getting your online degree in medical assistance. If you didn't know it you can tell it's a spam website if you spotted the statement on their award page where it says:

These blogs will cover topics ranging from prevention tips to treatment.

That was a red flag right there. Now, tell me. What are the odds that these blogsites will cover medical topics on hearing loss on prevention tips and medical treatments?

Right. It's a spam website.

Also, notice the link address that lists the "Top 40 Hearing Impaired Blogs" and look at the bolded part I outlined:

http://www.medicalassistantschools.org/top_hearing_impaired

From that URL layout and recognizing it as a spam website I did a quick Google search and sure enough there are several other disabilities sites that the Medical Assistant Schools website list as part of their fake "Top Blog Award" campaign effort.

Here's the screen capture of my Google search result.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Fookem & Bug, and others, you've been PUNK'D!

And who would've thought this could ever happen?

Oral Deaf Man Criticicizes Other Oral Deaf Man for Using His Voice

It was pretty incredible, bold, and foolish at the same time for Tim Riker (chapter president (Sacramento) of California of the Deaf) to criticize and demean a deaf man, John Fortius/Fortias, as seen in his response to my blog yesterday for using his voice in show of his support of the AB2072 bill on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing.

(Tim Riker) - I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him.

Since Tim Riker didn't say exactly who but there is only one man who used his voice and supported the AB2027 bill in the video recording of the meeting and that was John Fortius, a volunteer deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County. Tim Riker can only be talking about John Fortius. There can be no other person he could be talking about except John Fortius.

What is galling and irresponsible for Tim Riker is to criticize without any merit saying that John Fortius' (profoundly deaf since birth) speech was "unintelligble." Tim Riker's comment was done in poor taste. It was rather unprofessional for Tim Riker to use his position as chapter president of CAD to go after another deaf man for using his voice when in fact he also used his voice on that same day as well. It is rather an unsavory move for him to use his position to try and convince many others of that false claim in order to push his ASL agenda and lob a few conspiracy bombs about audiologists while he's at it.

Tim, I can tell you for a fact that John Fortius' speech was indeed intelligible and was understood for perhaps 98% to 99% of his speech. Mind the fact that were two unofficial transcripts (see below) that recorded all of his speech that day. Also, one ASL interperter was able to interpret what he said as seen in the video starting at 20:48. I was able to understand most of his speech just by listening to the recorded video. And he spoke fine to me. There is no need to get into details on how his voice sounded like which is, of course, not like what a hearing person's speech would sound like. His speech was "unintelligble" only to Tim Riker who is deaf and uses a hearing aid. Perhaps he should consider the fact about his own hearing loss and the limitation of how he can discriminate another person's speech? Perhaps he could not understand John Fortius' speech because he has a deep voice? Tim Riker needs to understand that some deaf/hh people are able to hear better when people's voices are in the higher frequency range than lower ones like men's voices. Or vice versa. Or that some deaf/hh people can hear very well in both the higher and lower frequency range of a person's voice. In this case, it was only Tim Riker who could not understand him while everybody else could to one degree or another.

Secondly, Senator Alquist did not interrupt John Fortius "several times" as Tim Riker tried to put it. In fact, she only interrupted him once to ask him to speak from his heart and not look at his notes. That can be seen in the video. You can also see that in the transcript, too. How disengenuous of Tim Riker to say those things in order to push his ASL agenda while as chapter president of CAD, no less. He even contributed to a heavily biased "eugenics" article called California Eugenics-Style Bill Creates Uproar Among the Deaf Community. Anything to do to push an agenda, eh? Kick another deaf man down for using his voice and then try and prop him up saying that the Deaf community would welcome him?

Nice move.

Here's the unofficial transcript below and in the video John Fortius begins to talk at 20:48:

JOHN FORTIUS: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortius, I am 32 years old, and I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I’m here today in support of this bill. At a young age, when my Mom found out that I had lost my hearing, she decided that she was going to do the oral-auditory approach, and this in part because she had prior training to my birth, she had a speech pathologist. As a result of her guidance and some education through oral-auditory school, I was mainstreamed in preschool and on. Some of my [accomplishments] since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Williamette University in Salem, Oregon. Was a college football player, and just a year ago, I recently graduated from law school. And continuously, from the time that I graduated from college, I’ve been continuously employed when not in school. Just most recently I have been working as a deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County as a volunteer. Currently–

SEN. ALQUIST: And why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: Why am I supportive of the bill?

SEN. ALQUIST: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.

FORTIUS: It gives people an opportunity–a chance to [pause] have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be a more [unintelligible] life. It would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not–I’m going off my speech–I’m the first to admit that I am not part of the Deaf Community. I have–I don’t associate with it, but I am an advocate of you know, just the best thing–the best course of action, whatever that might be–for disabled people. And so that is a big part of why I’m here today. And–

SEN. ALQUIST: Just speak to me.

FORTIUS: What’s that?

SEN. ALQUIST: I like what you’re saying. Don’t look at your notes. Just–why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: OK, basically, what I’m getting from, is when we’re faced with such an important decision in our lives, when is not being fully informed the best solution? And it’s logical, it’s common sense, and I believe seriously that being fully informed in any big decision in your life is very important, and so that is a big reason of why I’m here today in support of this bill.

SEN. ALQUIST: Thank you very much.

FORTIUS: Thank you.

This transcript follows almost exactly in another unofficial transcript as well which goes to show that John Fortius' speech was indeed quite intelligible that day.

My advice to you Tim Riker? Leave out your business of criticizing other deaf or hard of hearing people's speech and their choices to use them or not. Not doing so will make you look bad as chapter president of CAD.

And lastly, Tim Riker complained that I used his name without permission of which I find humorous.

Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission.

No permission is required or needed in this case. Tim Riker gave his name and spoke at the June 23, 2010 AB2072 Senate Health hearing which was captured and recorded on video for the public made possible by California taxpayers. This means that the mentioning of his name in that video and what he said are now a matter of public record and for public consumption. What I did was copy the verbatim part of Tim Riker's comment in one of the transcripts. It's all part of the public record, Tim. No permission is required.

I support both John Fortius and Tim Riker's use of their voices regardless of the situation when there are interpreters available. I'm not in the position to criticize other deaf/hh people choice's to use their voice or sign using ASL or SEE (or whatever). The important point here is that deaf/hh people have the right to decide which methods to use to communicate. For Tim Riker to criticize another deaf man's use of his voice is a serious step back on CAD's own credibility as an organization. This time, I and many others doubt Tim Riker's sincerity after he criticized and demeaned John Fortius by saying this:

...there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him

Really, Tim? After what you have done so far? Unity for whom now?

*shakes head*

Tim Riker, chapter president of CAD, respond to Kokonut Pundit

In my blog, "Use of voice is way, way better than ASL! ", Tim Riker, chapter president (Sacramento) of CAD, responded in my blog comment section on why he choose to use his voice at the AB2072 California Senate Health Hearing. I am putting his combined responses here for ease of reading for my readers and a forum for him and others to respond and discuss here. Although for now I am assuming this is him responding unless otherwise notified.

Tim Riker - I had discussed with the people involved with the CDNIAS coalition regarding whether I should speak or sign during the hearing. I had their support to speak. Both ASL and spoken English were at my disposal because of my bilingual education while growing up. The general rule is to first consider the main audience when selecting which language to use. Then if you are able to use that language directly and fluently then use it. If not, then use an interpreter. This applies to any situation and any language. When someone who is fluent in Spanish decides to speak English to a predominantly Spanish speaking audience, then of course that would be considered very offensive. My audience was predominantly English speaking and my choice was appropriate for that situation. Tim Riker.

And another response in the same blog comment section.

First, I want to make it clear that every language needs to be respected, whether it's American Sign Language (ASL), English, Spanish or some other language. To deny any language the equal respect it deserves is called linguicism. Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission. I don't see anyone pointing out that Assembly Member Tony Mendoza or any of the other Hispanic legislators spoke English rather than Spanish in the Capitol. If someone wrote an article celebrating that a Hispanic person chose to speak English rather than Spanish in a specific situation, wouldn't that be an insult to Hispanic people who speak Spanish? I want to note that I am multilingual and select the most appropriate language for each situation. My first languages are both ASL and English and I have my family who used ASL with me and my bilingual education at Maryland School for the Deaf to thank for having multiple languages at my disposal. The fact that I spoke English during the California Senate Health Hearing was because the primary audience I was speaking to were the Senators who voted on this bill-- all of whom speak English. However, the most comfortable language for me in most situations is and will always be ASL. I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him. There are many with that background who have done that and they were among those who fought the hardest against AB 2072. I believe having a strong foundation and immersion in two different languages provided me the versatility I needed for various settings. However, how well I speak does not define who I am or my success. I know many very gifted, educated and successful Deaf people who use ASL to communicate and they don't hear or speak at all. I have nothing but respect for them and their contributions. Tim Riker

He also responded in my blog "Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?"

I discussed whether I should speak English or use American Sign Language while testifying with the core committee. I had the support of the core committee. I think it's a general cultural rule if you're fluent in ASL but choose to speak English to a predominantly Deaf audience, it is offensive. In my case, even though there were many Deaf people watching, the main audience were the Senators on the Health Committee who ultimately had to vote on the bill. As a multilingual Deaf person, I spoke English with the support of other Deaf people because it was appropriate for me in that situation. By the way, please beware of Candy since I notice she will quote what other people say out of context. She did that earlier by quoting only a small part of my comment on another blog several months ago when I explained how audism and dysconscious audism in society creates a hierarchy. It's actually in every person's best interest to promote English and ASL bilingual education for every Deaf child so they can eventually choose for themselves which language they use for each situation. More importantly, when society is equally accepting of ASL, you will shatter this hierarchy which affects everyone regardless of how well they hear or speak. Tim Riker

Use of voice is way, way better than ASL!

There you go, this has taken me four years to get to this point where I can now use three different actual situations from three different people who are Deaf, deaf or hard of hearing and were either raised orally or orally-aurally (the pronunciation of words plus auditory feedback) and their choices between using ASL or voice. In each situation the venue had the proper number of ASL interpreters along with either having real time captioner available for the audience. The core understanding is that for each of them they had the right to choose between using their voice or sign in ASL to the audience. But because of their choice their reasons shouldn't matter because supposedly the enlightened Deaf crowd ought to know already that it shouldn't matter why voice was used but that they should be respected for their choice since their message was never lost that day.

The three people are:

1) Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, a deaf person who was the interim Acting Chair of the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees and chair of the ASL Department at Ohio State University chose to use her voice that day as the Commencement Speaker at the 2006 Gallaudet University graduation ceremony. But you have to read her story on why she used her voice before jumping to conclusions and make any further wrong assumptions.

2) Mike McConnell, a hard of hearing person who graduated from Gallaudet University in 1991 was one of the several panel members at Gallaudet University's first ever vlogging/blogging conference in 2007 that was televised live in front of an internet audience and the audience that were physically present. I already explained why I chose to use my voice that day.

3) Tim Riker, a Deaf person who is the chapter president of California Association of the Deaf decided to use his voice (English) at the committee meeting in the California Assembly building on June 23, 2010 in the effort to raise ASL by pleading and making a case through voice (English). Although Tim Riker has not yet offered his reason on why he chose to use his voice that day.

All of them are deaf.

In all three situations there were professional ASL interpreters available. In two situations there were real time captioners available at Gallaudet University's graduation ceremony where Dr. Brueggemann did her speech and at Gallaudet University's vlog/blog conference. In all three situations each of the person had their own personal reason for their decision to use his or her voice. It didn't matter if you think it was a "wrong" decision to do. What's important is that they had that right to choose between ASL or voice when it was made available. They all chose voice for a variety of reasons. And that should be the end of it. People should just simply respect their choices instead of going all nutso for not signing or go into some deep analysis to arrive at four different conclusions (that were never the correct ones) as to why the person did not use his or her voice is a waste of time and frankly quite inappropriate and none of their business.

So, kudos to Dr. Brueggemann and Tim Riker for paving the way when it comes to choices (I can't really kudos myself can I?) and not be afraid to use his or her voice instead of signing in ASL! And that, yes, deaf people can talk!

Dr. Brueggemann eloquently said four years ago,

"there also does need to be some flexibility and respect for all abilities and kinds of language and communication."

Amen. And that's true in this day and age. So true.

As for for my blog title, "Use of voice is way, way better than ASL." It's all about personal choices and not whether voice (English) is the better language and/or modality than ASL. It's just a preference.

Can you guys finally calm down now?

Deaf Gally Board of Trustee Used Voice at Gally Graduation Ceremony!

You remember. I'm sure you have. Or at least many of you did. It was supposedly one of the more remembered so called "scandal" at Gallaudet University in 2006. We had Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf and was the Commencement Speaker for Gallaudet University's graduating class of 2006, use her voice instead of ASL. She was at the time the interim Acting Chair of the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees. She took Celia May Baldwin's position after she resigned because of threats against her by some nutty pro-DPN2 protesters.

After many sleepless nights and much reflection these past several days, I regret to tell you that on Sunday night I came to the decision to resign from the Gallaudet Board of Trustees. The presidential search and the controversy that has ensued have put enormous strain and stress on me. I simply could not ignore the numerous aggressive threats I have received over the past weeks.

Celia May Baldwin was supposed to be the 2006 Commencement Speaker at the Gallaudet University graduation ceremony and she would have signed in ASL, too. Instead she resigned a few days before the graduation date. The Acting Chair position soon fell into Dr. Brueggemann's lap a few days later. Thus making her to be the 2006 Commencement Speaker.

Oh, what joy!

Below is an email response from Dr. Brueggemann. Both of us exchanged emails in my conversations with her to understand what went on with her after the DPN2 protest and why she used her voice that day. I emailed her yesterday and got her permission to print this email response explaining why she used her voice for the graduating class that day on May 12, 2006. Below is the email from Dr. Brueggemann dated November 28, 2006 (the first link below is mine in order to point out what Dr. Brueggemann was referencing to).

I'm glad you made your communication preferences very clear at the outset of the development of this event at GU on Feb. 3. (I know both who Jill Bradbury and Christian Vogler are) I have found that lately--say, the past 4 years especially--the "policing" over the use of ASL at GU has grown considerably. I think there are some good and "right" reasons for that. But meanwhile, there also does need to be some flexibility and respect for all abilities and kinds of language and communication. Amen.

Your choice to use your voice sounds much like what I would say. I make the comparison often that if I were going to Germany (which I did a few summers ago) and asked to give an academic or public lecture there I would always chose to do so in English, if I could, first and foremost because it is my "native" language and the one I feel most comfortable and expressively capable in. Now, I can carry on a halfway decent conversation in German (I used to teach it back when I was a high school teacher) and probably even muddle, painfully slowly and simply, through something like a "lecture" in German if I had to. But if I have the chance to use my native language for major events like this, that's always what I would choose.

Meanwhile, I do also completely understand the reason and "right" for using ASL more and "better" --especially at places like Gallaudet. My ASL is only about half-good right now--not even as good as my German probably. But I can have conversations. I did so all the time as Board Chair with King and other Gu administrators directly on VRS (not using interpreters). I get by. And had I had any time to actually prepare my remarks for the GU graduation last May, I probably would have signed them more or at least part of them. But I didn't have that prep time. I was dropped into the Acting Chair's position on May 10, to be exact--once CM Baldwin resigned. And I was handed the remarks she was supposed to deliver (already scripted) for graduation on May 12. In fact, they didn't even give me the script until the morning of May 12. And it still had her name at the top of it! So, using oral/spoken English, I could feel comfortable enough to develop a few of my own "touches" in the prepared script. But I sure couldn't do that trying to use ASL....

When I delivered the remarks at the naming of the Linda K. Jordan Art Gallery on Oct. 5 I actually WROTE the remarks myself (not from a prepared script someone in the GU President's office prepared for me... as they almost always did for Glenn Anderson, the former Chair) and then I also had plenty of time to practice turning them into some ASL. And I did so. Rudimentary though it was.

I always struggle to accept that some people in the community can be, well, so militant about ASL use now and actually "hold it against me." Should I really be blamed for the fact that I grew up in the 60s and 70s in very very rural remote western Kansas and my parents made choices for me that then meant I did not even really know about ASL or Gallaudet U until it was 1988, DPN was happening, and I was taking my first sign language class in the basement of a Baptist church in Louisville Kentucky (at the age of 29, as a Ph.D. student). Is that really MY fault?

Well, that's my soapbox for the day. I've written about some of these things in my published essays as well....

Good to "chat" with you.

Best, Brenda

I don't blame her. Such a short window of time to do her speech and even less time to practice her speech in ASL where she hadn't gain complete fluency yet. It's understable now why she used her voice. I already knew that for more than four years now. Yet how so wrong most of you were about her decision to user her voice. Such bad assumptions. And even worse is to attack her for using her voice. So, shame on you!

At the time in 2006 several bloggers, even some of the well known ones, excoriated her derisively, mercilessly and even cruelly for using her voice to speak at the graduation ceremony. One blog called Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi took it personally and was offended by Dr. Brueggemann's choice and that she shouldn't have used her voice and that it was plainly wrong.

People in our community are free to choose what language they want to use in various situations - I absolutely agree with that. Dr. Brueggemann's choice, however, went far beyond the bounds of diversity and was, in my view, a grave offense. I took great affront at her choice that day...

Oh really? And yet all of your conclusions never came close as to why used her voice and the reasons behind it.

Perhaps it's time that you (Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi) and many other bloggers who wrongly attacked Dr. Brueggemann in 2006 ought to make a public apology to her. An apology for your false charges, derisions, insults or make these unwarranted attacks against her just because she decided to use her voice that day. Her reasons were valid considering the constraint she was in as you can tell in her email to me back in 2006.

Again, it took a blogger like me who took the time to email (back in 2006) Dr. Brueggemann to ask her questions regarding the use of her voice instead of ASL at the Gallaudet University graduation ceremony. It may have been four years later but I think it's high time now that you, the public, the readers, some of the harrassers, the nutjobs who threatened CM Baldwin, and whoever could benefit from this would finally understand exactly why she used her voice that day.

Remember what Dr. Brueggemann said (see picture above the captions) in her Commencement Speech video starting at 45:15:

"Keep an open mind when you meet people and ideas that are new and different."

So, true. Keep an open mind. Not everybody is fluent in ASL. Not everybody who is deaf knows ASL. Many do prefer to use their voice rather than sign. And so four years later in her email to me today she has another quote and message for all of you readers.

"Hey, I like my voice!" I'm proud of it. It's unique, it's mine, I like it. I think I'll use it! - Dr. Brenda Brueggemann. Sept 1, 2010.

Yeah, me, too.

So now you know the rest of the story.

Related blog - Voice is way, way better than ASL!

Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?

I've waited to see if anybody had actually objected to Tim Riker, the chapter president of the California Association of the Deaf (Sacramento chapter), who used his voice at the AB2072 Senate Health Hearing on June 23, 2010 instead of signing in ASL as seen in the Calchannel.com (June 23) along with a partial transcript below on what he said which starts at 31 minutes and 40 seconds into the video:

Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur (actually, it's Tim Riker), I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter. I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy. We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the positive changes to the current mark up language of the bill, and it means progress, but the language of the bill still needs a little bit more work to make it so that we can really put the focus on the deaf children and getting the parents access to the information that they need. I wanted to point to a 2003 state senate resolution number 20, it formally apologized for the outrageous attempt to *socially engineer people out of *existence. The regional version of Mendoza’s AB 2072 bill leads us towards a slippery slope of *eugenics. So the proposed amendment is a very good step in the right direction. It is fair, if we have a few changes to the amendment. The proposed amendment by the health committee, it still threatens the fundamental values of a deaf education and language development, by giving audiologists the power to discriminate information for which they are not trained or licensed. The audiologists’ training gives them the buyer that’s inherently unacceptable, if the audiologist ought to have a role, it must only be to identify that child is deaf, as soon as possible, and then refer the parent to an appropriate professional or entity with a focus on the educational aspect of raising a deaf child. That needs to be determined by the panel of people who are, represented by people involved with the...

How come no outrage from people in the Deaf community for Time to use his voice when the issue was about getting ASL into the spotlight? With Tim Rikier's refusal to sign and use of his voice, was it to try and appear more "intelligent" and more "educated" hoping that linguicism would prevail on the part of the committee looking favorably at Tim's pleas and be impressed with him?

A) When a Deaf person is able to speak English with his voice, or write excellent English, he gets lauded as intelligent and well educated. This person is considered successful in life.

B) When a Deaf uses ASL (no matter how fluently), but writes mediocre English, and cannot speak English, he is considered intellectually inferior, ill-educated, and guaranteed to fail in life.

On linguicism:

SCENARIOS:

Two persons are talking. During the course of this conversation, one of the persons is assessing the other’s wealth, quality of education, status in society based on the other person’s use/choice of language or dialect.

A) If the other person shows an excellent command of English, the assessor assumes he is quite well-educated, possibly from a wealthy family, which then indicates an elevated status in society.
B) If that other person shows poor command of the English language, or uses another language, the assessor assumes that he’s ill-educated, poor, possibly from a ghetto and therefore from the lower classes in society.

What I don't understand is that since Tim Riker is deep within the world of Deaf culture and community as chapter president of CAD he uses his voice.... instead of signing using his proud and preferred language, American Sign Language. I kind of wondered what exactly was Tim's strategy in doing that. What was his goal to use his voice that day as chapter president of CAD? There were voice interpreters there that day and would have interpretted his signing yet he choose to use his voice that day, on live tv, in front of thousands of Deaf people tuning into the AB2072 soap opera. Not one single outcry from a Deaf person, community or group objecting or asking why he used his voice instead. Not one (as far as I can tell so far).

Why the silence? Is this another example of hypocrisy at work?

Now, I'm in favor of a person in choosing how one prefer to communicate. I won't discriminate anybody for doing that. It's really none of my business. There were ASL interpreters available for both voice and ASL translation at the meeting it wouldn't matter to me. I am not opposed to Tim or anybody else who choose to use his/her voice or sign. I'm just noticing the obvious disconnect between what Deaf people say about using voice over ASL when it comes to choice. And it's usually a negative one.

Now, when I choose to use my voice at Gallaudet University's first ever blog/vlog conference where it had ASL and voice interpreters, and real time captioners available for the live internet audience, I had gotten a few grumbling complaints and objections from some Deaf people saying what I did was rude and so on. And of all places on the sacred grounds of Gallaudet University did I dare use my voice in front of Deaf people. Oh well.

What I'm presenting here or trying to say is not about the complaints per se although I am wondering about that too but it's the irony in seeing a chapter president of CAD who is Deaf use his voice in front of thousands on live streaming tv (which is now recorded for history) in order to elevate the status and use of ASL. Did he unwittingly lowered the status of ASL as not important and choose to use his voice instead? Did he unwittingly elevated the use of voice over ASL that day? Those are the interesting questions I have here.

ADDENDUM: If you have no objection (I don't) to Tim Riker's using his voice then you should have no objections to Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf and knows ASL, using her voice at Gallaudet University's 2006 graduation commencement speech?

ADDENDUM #2: In a blog called Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi blogger discussed the Breuggemann's use of her voice and agrees strongly that she shouldn't have used her voice and that it was plainly wrong. Oh really?

People in our community are free to choose what language they want to use in various situations - I absolutely agree with that. Dr. Brueggemann's choice, however, went far beyond the bounds of diversity and was, in my view, a grave offense. I took great affront at her choice that day...

Too bad this blogger doesn't know the true reason why Brueggemann decided to use her voice in an email exchange that Brueggemann and I had at the time. I wonder how this blogger feels about Tim Riker's use of his voice being that he's a chapter president of CAD? In both situations both had ASL interpreters at the time with the exception of Gallaudet University that had both an ASL interpreter and real time captioner for the large video screen at the graduation ceremony.

Related blog - Voice is way, way better than ASL!

Kokonut Pundit - the longest continuously running deaf/hh blog around?

My Kokonut Pundit blog will be approaching its 7th year this October when I began blogging in 2004. With over 1,558 blog posts (not counting this one) I believe I am probably the most prolific deaf/hh blogger around if I may be so bold. With a few pauses here and there I maintained my regular blogging ever since covering interests ranging from politics, the environment, the Gallaudet University protest, deaf and hard of hearing issues, advances in technology and biotechnology, and lately the AB2072 debacle. Unless if I'm mistakened, and readers can point this out to me, are there other blogs that have been around much longer than mine and continuously blogged on a regular basis? If so then I will stand corrected. However, from what I can I tell, at least here in the United States, the Kokonut Pundit blog is the longest running and regularly maintained deaf/hh blog around. And certainly one of the more popular deaf/hh blogs around, too. Thank you, readers!

Deaf and blind hiker on Appalachian Trail

Here is something you don't see. A deaf and blind hiker on the Appalachian Trail in his attempt to hike the full length of the trail.

The 2,160-plus-mile Appalachian Trail is daunting enough for most hikers. For Roni Lepore and Roger Poulin, the trail presents extra challenges.

Lepore, who is deaf, and Poulin, who both deaf and blind in one eye and has tunnel vision in the other, talked about their special relationship with the trail when they spent several nights with Carol and Ron Baker at the Huffman House Bed and Breakfast at Creekside Farm near Newport, which is half a mile off the trail.

The hikers had accomplished more than 600 miles by the time they stayed with the Bakers, after starting their adventure in early April from Springer Mountain, Ga., on the trail that runs from Georgia to Maine.

The Bakers, who thru-hiked the AT – from end to end – in 1999 and said they found it “extremely difficult.” They noted Lepore and Poulin “hike faster than we ever could. They managed around our house and ‘talked’ to us by writing things in a notebook.

“Roni is very patient and loving and really cares that Roger makes it all the way to Katahdin, Maine. Roger is determined to hike through ‘thick or thin’! He gets banged up a lot, but trudges on! He generally comes in to the pick up site (I shuttled them) after Roni. She whoops and hollers and jumps up and down and claps for him. She is truly glad that he has made it,” said Carol Baker. “We can’t fathom how either of them is doing this!”

Lepore’s trail name is “Ram Sham” for Rambling Shamrock. The New Jersey resident holds bachelor and master’s degrees from Rochester Institute of Technology in New York in the area of Information Technology.

Maine resident Poulin’s trail name is Adventurous Cane. He was born with Usher Syndrome, the most common condition that affects both hearing and vision, which also comes with balance problems – not able to walk steady.

Read the rest here.

And here's a story about a hiker's dream to hike the 100 mile Wilderness Trail where he met a deaf hiker.

I also met a deaf hiker named Caribou and his dog, who had flipped from New Jersey and was now hiking south to there going 20 miles per day. Don’t think he’s quite on that pace though, as I just saw him at breakfast in Monson this morning a week after we met.

Deaf hikers on the Appalachian Trail? How often does that happen?

Anyway, if you live in the Northwest and like to hike then check out my next hike if you want to join and perhaps start the first get together of Deaf and HH Hikers of the Northwest.

See ya.

Northwest Deaf and HH Hikers Get Together

If you live in Washington or Oregon, like the outdoors and hiking then perhaps plan for this upcoming short short hike and come along with other deaf and hard of hearing hikers of the Northwest. If you're interested in seeing my earlier hike to Gotchen Creek on Mt. Adams go here and see my pictures.

This High Rock Lookout hike will be the first tentative plan for hikers to get together and hike up to Lookout High Rock near Randle, Washington, located on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington.

This trail takes hikers up to High Rock Lookout, one of three fire lookouts remaining on the Gifford Pinchot NF. The trail begins on Road 8440 and climbs steeply through increasingly sparse conifers to High Rock Lookout. High Rock is a prominent 5,685 feet high peak on Sawtooth Ridge with a sheer 600 foot drop on its north face.

Please use caution when exploring this area. Stay behind the cables. The fire lookout was built in 1929. The lookout offers incredible views of the Sawtooth Ridge, Mt. Rainier and much of the surrounding landscape.

Trailhead: High Rock - Trailhead is at the intersection of FR 8440 and the southern end of High Rock Trial No. 266.

From the scale of easy to moderate to ardous this is a moderate hike. One way it is 1.5 mile starting at 4320 and climbs to 5685 feet above sea level at the lookout fire watchtower, a gain of 1365 feet. Here's an entry by someone who hiked a few weeks earlier.

I was in Packwood to meet up with Ralph and hike up Old Snowy on Saturday so we made a quick decision on Friday afternoon to go up to the lookout and highest point (5685')in the Sawtooth Range. The trail #266 sign says 1.5 miles but it seems more like 2 because it climbs quickly. We got to the top in about an hour and were rewarded with spectacular views, especially of Rainier to the north. The trail looks well traveled and there are some wildflowers in bloom but it is mostly shaded through forest. This was a very hot day and the bugs were out in force.

Pictures of High Rock lookout tower. Or you can look at other previous entries and pictures from other hikers that went to High Rock.

The date of the hike? The weekend of September 11th or 12th. Not too late into the summer season so as to take advantage of the still warm weather and less chance of rain with the hope of lots of sunny weather opportunities and a shot to see up close the famous Mt. Rainier.

The meeting place will be in Randle, Washington on road 12. Exact location will be dependent on who is coming. Once everybody arrives then I will lead the way driving to the Lookout Rock.

From Seattle to Randle the drive is 108 miles.
From Olympia to Randle the is is 86 miles.
From Tacoma to Randle the drive is 76 miles.
From Vancouver to Randle the drive is 115 miles.
From Portland, Oregon to Randle the is 124 miles.

If necessary the initial meeting place may take place at Tacoma before resuming the drive to Randle. This is to insure that everybody is there before resuming the drive to Randle, Washington so as to save everybody some time (and even frustration).

From Randle to the High Rock trailhead will take about 45 minutes or so of driving. And the hike to High Rock watchtower will take anywhere from 1 to 1.5 hours depending on the pace of the hike. Be sure to bring a sturdy hiking shoes. Comfortable clothes. Lots of water or fluids. Food. Snack. Binocular. Your camera and other smaller items you may want to bring yourself. And lastly be sure to bring your sense of adventure and humor which is required.

Plan on anywhere from 2 to 3 hours driving one way (depending on where you live) and about 4 hours that will cover the time to hike, eat, take pictures, talk, and so on. and then the drive back home which is another 2 to 3 hours. This will be a whole day adventure lasting 10 to12 hours.

Directions:

From Tacoma, drive State Highway 7 east to Elbe and continue on Highway 706 to Ashford. Continue east and turn right onto Kernahan Road. At about 1.5 miles, turn right onto Forest Road 85. Proceed 5.8 miles to FR 8440. Turn right and continue 4.5 miles to the trailhead on the left.

An alternative route to get the family sedan to the trailhead. Take Hwy. 7 east from Tacoma to Elbe, then turn east on to Hwy. 706 toward Ashford. Make a right turn on Kernahan Rd., then turn left onto FR 52 at 1.5 miles, and continue 3.3 miles to FR 8440, turn right and go about 9.5 miles on FR 8440 to Towhead Gap and the trailhead. Make sure you stay on FR 8440; there are a lot of forks along the way.

Map of High Rock location. If the map below doesn't show you need to "ZOOM OUT" until you see the map.


View Larger Map

High Rock was one of the many hikes I did when I was a kid with my family growing up in the Northwest. I still remember the spectacular view of Mt. Ranier on a sunny and warm day. Trust me, at 5685 ft the view is stunning on a sunny day.

This hiking get together is still up in the air and can change such as a different hiking location where the trail is closer or easier. Or this High Rock scheduled trail hike can change because of weather conditions, meaning it has to have a forecast of rain or heavy clouds (i.e. lightning danger). If you're interested in going let me know. This High Rock hike is still up in the air and can change to a different if not easier hike.

Boot up!

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."