As I Hide in the Shadows

I hide in the shadows.
A silent person among the shadows.
Do not look for me but seek the mountain behind me.
Beyond the shadows where I stand as a silent person.

A mountain that speaks volume of nature's call.
I am puny and small.
Limited in space and time.
Yet the mountain is big and timeless.

Do not look for me for solitude.
Seek the mountain's snowy fortitude.
It is loud for all to see.
Its embrace soothes the soul.

I may not hear nature's call.
But my mountain shouts to all.
If you need a friend
Look up to your white, gentle giant.

I hide in the shadows.
Black as a crow.
I am not important.
But my mountain is.


Picture: Mt Rainier. September 2010. You can see me in the shadows on the right.

Rules for commenting in my blog - whiners need not apply.

This is a reminder to those who may want to post their comments in my blog. There is a link at the top of the blogger comment box where it used to link to this page that describes my moderating rules for people who think name calling or ad hominem attack has the equivalent of a fantastic argument. Get real, it is not. There is also a painting of Uncle Sam in the upper left column of my blog where clicking on it will bring you to this page here as well. These rules were instituted since 2010 after seeing comments by those who love to  lob their brand of hate by attacking other people who comment in here. Sometimes they throw their junk hate at me here as well.  Calling people names do not have the same editorial strength as making strong, cogent arguments. There is a responsibility I have when it comes to moderating comments and to protect those who post their comments in here, especially in the age of deaf/hh/Deaf cyberbullying (see here, here and here).

The rules are made clear as seen below.  So simple these rules are that even a deaf caveman can understand. I expect cooperation from people who want to post their comment in my blog. I am sure most people will agree with my moderating policy. Even though on rare occasions a few people have incredulously whined over this posting policy of mine.

If you violate my trust, make personal attacks against others who post their comments here or abuse the commenting system then your postings are not welcomed, obviously. And in turn you would not be welcomed...eventually so but that's quite rare. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if you post as anonymous person or leave your name behind just that I expect you to follow my explicit and very simple posting rules. Just because I may not like you as a person isn't a reason to post anonymously thinking I will delete your comments should your name is made known. That's a crutch and cowardly excuse. I only delete comments that violate my posting rules.


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

Kokonut Pundit welcomes all points of view but unlike some sites this blogsite does not permit people to greet those who disagree with by way of personal attacks, name-calling, or profanity. So, if you want to avoid having your comments edited or deleted then please follow these simple guidelines on how to follow posting rules:

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

No personal attacks. If you want to call names, you know where you will be welcomed. But in here, please conduct all discussions with at least a modicum of intelligence and respectability. Personal attacks against others who post their comments here will not be tolerated.

No off-topic ramblings. If you think a comment thread is meant to be a free-for-all smorgasbord for anything that comes into your head, you are in the wrong place. Try to maintain at least a tenuous connection to the subject matter at hand. In some instances this will be relaxed but overall it will most likely be enforced.

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

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

None of the juvenile stuff. In case you didn't understand what I'm getting at...don't act like a 5 year old child with a temper tantrum issue. Kokonut Pundit had its fill of the occasional insipid insults that pervade the cybersphere, and they will not be permitted in here.

And most importantly of all, comments are to be made in English only. Anything other than English will means automatic deletion. I'm sure you can understand the obviousness of that.

Since this is my personal blog, I have a right to moderate comments as I see fit. It is not free of speech issue here. Your rights are not being violated if your comments get edited or deleted (which is rare, btw, despite what others might try and say otherwise) but rather it is a privilege to comment in my blog as long as you follow my rules here.  It is really an easy thing to follow. You don't have to be a genius to figure that one out.

If you disagree with my moderating policy then that's really your problem. This is a place where all can present their arguments, facts, ideas, and opinions about the subject matter at hand. This is so that we can learn about certain topics and other people's perspectives. But if you're a known abuser or hater, then you are certainly not welcomed here.

Organizational Cyberbullying Action

What is that? "Organizational Cyberbullying Action" or OCA where groups of people band together in the effort to cyberbully people into silence. Sometimes using an organization as a front but behind the scene the bullying by leaders or members of that organization occurs. A term that Amy came up while commenting in my blog regarding use of a DBC website to harass a blogger. Although the definition of OCA was my own, not Amy's. Something that I thought was worth looking into for now.

Over the last few years or so, especially right after DPN2 protest in 2006, the use of new and colorful words were used and abused in the effort to suppress others into submission by getting bloggers and vloggers to shut up with their comments and opinions contrary to other Deaf people's views and opinions by using words against them. Words like:

Avdism. This is probably the number one word used to try and cajole and suppress other bloggers or vloggers' opinions by accusing them of practicing "avdism." This word was especially used against Tayler in the effort to control him on how Deafread and DVTV are to be operated.

Colonized/Colonialized. As in the case here seen in this screenshot where one Deaf person used a visible and well known organization's website, Deaf Bilingual Coalition, to try and bully me into submission (see story here) and create an appearance he had the backing of the DBC behind him. Incidentally, neither the Deaf person in question and especially the DBC never once made any attempt to make a formal and public apology to me. The word "colonialized" is a commonly used word against other deaf and hard of hearing people, and sometimes Deaf people. The word was conceptually derived from Paddy Ladd's book as a source of inspiration for Deaf people to use and abuse.

All these efforts at suppression seems to reek of the age old social problem of "not Deaf enough" lobbed at other Deaf people, ironically so. And if you're a Deaf person who doesn't agree with "avdism" then you are deemed as a "traitor" to the Deaf community. If your views do not jive with some Deaf people populist views then they see you as an adversary, a person who doesn't fit the mold as what a Deaf person is supposed to behave, act, and think when others see it as extremism going too far. There's common sense and then there's extremism.

When Deaf Clowns Go Bad

In previous blog I discussed cyberbullying and stalking by some people in the deaf community and now would like to touch briefly on "hate crime."

Let's suppose the cyberbullying of deaf people through YouTube, chatrooms, in discussion forums, or even in blogs are the efforts to try and harass a person because he or she doesn't like the person in the first place. Are those examples of a hate crime in action? That depends on the nature of the hate, the context, and resulting response by people who received the brunt of that hate.

Let's look at a recent case of what some people say is an example of a hate crime.

Cyberbullyin is out of control.

For example, take the case of Tyler Clementi. Clementi was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University who jumped from the George Washington Bridge after a video surfaced on the internet featuring Clementi and another male student engaging in sexual acts.

Two students were charged with counts of invasion of privacy but is that really all they deserve? These students should be held accountable for Clementi's death. This can and should be viewed as a hate crime not simply because of the student's sexuality, but because these students targeted that aspect of his life. They were the emotional shove that sent him falling from that bridge.

Was that really a hate crime or a prank gone bad? Just bad judgement all around and not about hate crime per se? Or is this a blurring of cyberbullying with that of a hate crime in action? Is it a hate crime to go on YouTube in the effort to purposely discredit a person's reputation by providing false information to viewers in a cyberbullying act? Can defamation be hate crime in action?

In California there's a court case in the attempt to connect a cyberbullying case with that of a hate crime. Was it really a "hate crime" that happened? What about the case of Amy Cohen Efron?

I get ostracized and harassed just because of my own opinion and my role as an Editor of DeafRead. As one of the pioneers of Deaf vlogging world, I get cyberbullied just like others. Yes, someone did call my employer about my online activities. This kind of stress caused a trip to emergency room.

Was that a case of a hate crime in action when that person or persons who followed through with his or her hate of Amy by actually calling her employer with the express purpose and malicious intent to cause psychological harm to her and damage her reputation at her place of employment? Was it a hate crime in action because others did not view her to be "Deaf enough" because of her views on certain Deaf-related issues did not agree with other Deaf people's more extreme views? Or was it a simple case of her releationship with Deafread and Tayler who owns Deafread on how he received his own brunt of hate for his opinions regarding avdism and how it was just a cover used by some Deaf people? Where is that line between cyberbulling, hate speech and hate crime?

Also, another question, is the action of sending threatening emails to other people a case of a hate crime in action if the perpetrator uses his or her own "Deaf hierarchy" (culturally deaf status) over others in the effort to "protect" the Deaf status quo in their own Deaf community? In other words attack those in the attempt to falsely report or ruin the reputation of people who do not share the same extreme "Deaf views." Or perhaps this was a case not being "Deaf enough" in the extreme sense?  A case of not jumping onto the "Deaf extremism" bandwagon? Or maybe a case of people who are "professional haters" who rely on false reporting and hyperbole to get his or her way?

But what about reporting a false hate crime that never existed? It does happen. Here's one professor who did just that and got caught. Not only got did he get caught for lying but got caught in a web of hypocrisy using the status as a professor to make the reporting of a "hate crime" sound even more legitimate.

And what about the hypocrisy of people who discuss hate crime while on a soapbox but continue to make vlogs or blogs in the effort to cyberbully other people in the effort to ruin their reputations with false rumors or false information? And yet we see cases where people ended up physically stalking somebody's house for a few days. A manifestation of a cyberbullying action that slowly transitioned into the physical act of stalking a person he or she hates. But sometimes the hypocrisy gets surreal when a person goes back to his or her soapbox on the whole hate crime, hate speech or cyberbullying spiel pretending nothing ever happened?

The question here is the shifting, blurry line of hate speech and cyberbullying with that of a hate crime. Where do you draw that line?

Loopy College Professor and Stalker - Caught!

Here's the link where a popular college professor got caught silently stalking a man who had a restraining order on the person. And here's another link about this deaf stalker who got caught stalking and was arrested after fighting against guards. Or how a deaf stalker who harassed a woman by sending her more than 20 texts a day. Unreal. Those things do happen regardless of who, hearing or deaf.

Now, when it comes to deaf people stalking and cyberbullying, which typically go hand in hand in some cases, against other deaf people it can become an odd and sometimes dangerous obsession combining the two activities. Cyberbullying is probably the first stage prior to a more serious stalking episode. The sending of threatening emails, the constantly producing of videos as a way to cyberbully a person of interest, or the use of blogs to make unwarranted claims against a person of interest in the effort to cyberstalk or harrass hoping the person may be reading or watching his/her blog or vlog.  And then sometimes after all that cyberbullying a violator may end up stalking a person's place of residence by showing up for a few days wearing disguises. Or worse, commit more serious crimes of hate. Just because a person is a professor (see above link) of a certain stature doesn't mean he or she isn't capable of committing cyberbullying or stalking activities.  Those with overly obsessive traits will go further by committing greater and more personal but egregious acts of hate which can be manifested in the form of cyberbullying and/or stalking. Red flags about the violators are usually apparent and recognized by the targeted victims but certainly not the other way around.

So far this year I've heard cases of restraining orders and arrest warrants, numerous examples of cyberbullying, harrassments, threatening emails, stalking a person at his/her place of residence, cyberstalking, use of fake or ridiculous facial disguises, false charges in court in order to try and silence a person, the circulation of emails containing false claims and defamations, the use of a community to try and do fishing expeditions in order to find "dirty info" about a person he or she hates, and so on and so forth. It ain't pretty folks. This is just a tip of the iceberg here.

One of two things about cyberbullies turned stalkers. A person either "successfully" stalks a person and gets away with it or end up getting arrested and jailed.  Either way, the whole thing is just ugly.

See the next continuing blog "When Deaf Clowns Go Bad."

A "closed society" can also be a "hidden society"

When you have a society where the greater majority of the general population do not even know its existence or even understand its way life like, for example, a society of people with hearing loss. It becomes a "hidden society" no matter what that society is like. It wouldn't matter if that "hidden society" is a Deaf community, deaf and hard of hearing community, a cued speech community or a community of late deafened people. But a "hidden society" can also have a "closed society."  That's when it becomes a double whammy because a "closed society" removes itself even further from the general population and sometimes even from the sub-population.

Certainly I am a part of that "hidden society" of people with hearing loss. So are the people in the Deaf community. So are the people at Gallaudet University. So are the people who are late deafened.  So are the people at AGBell. So are the people with hearing aids. So are the people with cochlear implants. So are the people who sign in ASL, SEE, or use cued speech. So are the people who are oralists. Those are examples of people that live in a "hidden society" because hearing loss is an unseen condition not always readily recognized, seen or necessarily understood by the larger general population.

But out of that "hidden society" is a society that can have an "open society" or "closed society" type. I am for a more "open society" type when it comes to dealing with people with hearing loss rather than for a society that's controlling and restrictive. Diversity of hearing loss and preferred mode of communication are wide ranging among people with hearing loss and does not fit the "closed society' model.  An "open society" is not a culture with a rigid structure and little freedom but rather a society of people that is open, understands the differences and uniqueness of each person with a hearing loss along with greater freedom to do what we do with our choices. Our common bond in our "hidden society" deals with issues on communication access to language, the ability to communicate and to strive for better equality, not about Deaf culture or ASL.

Mystery vlog at ASLrocks

I was looking for a specific video during one of my research that led me to ASLrocks.net and noticed one vlog and the ensuing comments afterwards discussing about a mystery vlog "Trust your leaders about AB 2072? " that somehow showed up on ASLrocks.net. It appears to have been perpetrated by an imposter or imposters because no screen name appeared with that video. Despite Seesmic video beeing down at the time people were reponding by typing in their comments. And if you missed seeing that missing vlog here's a Google cache of that mystery vlog on ASLnet.rocks.

Now, it's not the mystery vlog that caught my eye but the comments elsewhere in other vlogs about the author of the vlog "Trust your leaders about AB 2072?".  I can't say I'm surprised by some of the vitriol but that site certainly has a feel of "members only club mentality" where you are judged by your opinions (e.g. on avdism, "deafhood," Deaf culture, etc) rather than embracing a more open and honest forum discussion for anyone who signs or even talk with captioning (i.e in the main YouTube video and not in Seesmic) on just about anything. This has become a "closed forum discussion" based on an ideology and control versus an "open forum discussion" based more on greater freedom of expression and speech, and inclusiveness. Sounds very familiar doesn't it?

But remember,  no freedom of speech is being violated because it's a privilege to be on a discussion forum rather than a right. The owners can do whatever they want with their website on hosting a forum discussion.

Back to the ensuing comments I noticed in two different vlogs in ASLrocks about the author of the video "Trust your leaders about AB 2072?".  The hate was palpable in several comments rather than to simply agree to disagree. That environment has an air of "if you disagree with us then you are not welcomed here" sort of thing. Not everybody, mind you. Just those that I noticed and a general feeling overall when the two forums are compared.

People do have their reasons and preferences on choosing which video forum they prefer to watch and/or participate in and I respect that. That is their choices. No one is twisting anybody's arm to become a member of either ASLrocks or DVTV video discussion forum. Although with peer pressure it can be a form of arm twisting in this case, especially if people think you are a "traitor" for being a member of one discussion forum and try the guilt method to change your mind. Whatever. But, boy, that "open society" looks better and better every day.

Hike to High Rock Lookout

I reported earlier about my planned trip to High Rock Lookout near Packwood, Washington but those days were rained out if anybody wanted to join. And finally I had a chance to hike on a perfect, gorgeous day with sunny weather, blue skies and warm temperature. Previous hike I chronicled was to Gotchen Creek Meadows on the southern flank slopes of Mt. Adams if you're interested in reading. Enjoy my slideshow that ends with a video shot at the top of High Rock Lookout panning the landscape below me. The fire lookout is still being used today during fire season to watch for signs of forest fires. It is on the National Historic Register when the lookout was built in the 1930s.

Be sure to click on the YouTube screen and enlarge to fullscreen. Also, be sure to view it in high definition. It's more spectactular that way.

Enjoy!

Benson Hall fire...a comment and and a suggestion

I wrote a blog about how I experienced the many false fire alarms in 1988 when I was a freshman and how there were immature deaf/Deaf students at the time making a mess of things for the rest of the general student population. Now in the Buff and Blue article it reports two suspicious fires in the garbage chutes of Benson Hall. Now, there could be one or more perpetrators in pulling the fire alarms and it could be the same perpetrator(s) who started the fires. Until the investigation is over or the perps caught we won't really know. But Gallaudet University is offering a paltry $600 dollar reward "for information leading to the apprehension of the person(s) responsible for the fires." How much is Gallaudet University's PR worth? How much is Gallaudet University's image worth? Is it worth $600 in the hope it'd be enough to get people to talk? Or would it be a better offer a reward of, say, $2000 dollars?

Now, imagine this. You have a string of false alarms in Benson Hall perpetrated by an unknown person or persons. And then you have two suspicious fires as well. And then you have Gallaudet University come out and say, "Here's a $600 dollar reward for any information leading to the apprehension of the person(s) responsible for the fires." I know Gallaudet University is serious about this but is $600 dollars enough to get people to talk? After all, we're talking about potential lives at stake, not to mention possible injuries if the next fire alarm or fire happen again at one of the dormitories on the Gallaudet campus. I don't think $600 dollars is enough to hopefully get some names. I may be wrong but I think it's a paltry reward amount considering the potential seriousness down the road if somebody gets seriously injured or killed because of a fire.

Gallaudet University's irresponsibility over a play

This caught my attention even though this happened some 5 months ago. Gallaudet’s Theatre Arts Department hosted a play, under the direction of assistant professor Ethan Sinnott, which tries to reinterpret the life of Jesus Christ by portraying him and his disciples as gay. Now, this is not about their message they are trying to impart but rather the irresponsible use of a "religious theme" in the effort to "repaint" a historical religious figure. Not only was this irresponsible but it smacks of hypocrisy as well. Instead of using the image of Jesus Christ in the play why not use image of Mohammed instead to deliver the same message of tolerance? Just to make an obvious point here. But, of course, they wouldn't dare do that or else they get the full fatwa delivered to them rather quickly. Oh, wait, they did get a fatwa in the U.K since Muslims regard Jesus as a messenger of God, and revere his mother, the Virgin Mary. In short, blasphemy.  Yet they used the image of Jesus Christ because it was "easy picking" since you don't expect as much of an outrage via through death threats, arrests, or capital punishment through religious decrees.  Issuing decrees of arrest or execution is going way overboard, in my opinion, but I'm sure you get the picture now.

No one should have the right to use government funds or use institutions and be accessory on allowing plays to be portrayed of that nature, especially when Gallaudet University gets 70% of its funding from the Federal government. Now, it'd be interesting to ask the president of Gallaudet if he would actually approve the same play but it would use Mohammed instead. The answer would be a very predictable one, of course, you'd already know that. And you know why, too. What Gallaudet University did was in poor taste and irresponible at the same time.

There are better ways to discuss taboo subjects about tolerance but this certainly is not one of them. I believe there are room for mature discourses but not in such a way when hypocrisy could be cut two ways here.

Erroneous and dishonest blogging by CAM

I "supported" the AB2072 bill predicated on the fact it was supposed to help inform parents make an informed decision regarding their deaf children identified with hearing loss. And that was the aim of this bill. But during the whole legislative process of adding new amendment after new amendment it became increasingly convuluted as I have said before near the end of the whole process. The bill was important that it also gave greater recognition to ASL as I have said repeatedly in my blogs and that it'd be a plus for pro-ASL organizations for a legislative body to recognize ASL as a language on paper for the first time. But with the increasing complexity added to the bill through amendments I made my point on August 26, 2010 about the bill in my blog the bill's diverging from its original intent (i.e. all communication options) when I published CAA's letter to Tony Mendoza for all to see:

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.

CAM gets it wrong in her recent blog about me.

Candy (Gina Sutton) and Mike McConnell verbally supported this bill saying parents should have full access to information but yet were perfectly okay with the original bill minimizing the information on ASL which was expected of them as they are supporters of oralism.

My "verbal support" of the bill was based on as long as parents make an informed decision regarding all communication options (which includes ASL) then I have no problem with their decisions. This has been my stance for years if you had bothered to do any proper research. The bill's intent was to inform parents of all communication options available. I applauded that ASL was included later on in the bill. Nothing was said about minimizing the information on ASL. In fact, I pointed out that information available to parents should be made equally so in an unbiased manner of all communication options (i.e. visual, auditory and language options) on August 10, 2010.

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.

Also, CAM, where did I say that I said that governor Schwarzenegger did the right thing? That's rather puzzling if not dishonest coming from you to say that. Making things up are you? All I did was that I outlined the governor's reasons for not supporting the bill and that his reasons aligned closely to that of CAA's reasons for dropping their support against the bill in my most recent blog about the veto. In my blogs I understood some of CAA's points on why they withdrew their support for the bill. I haven't even pointed out whether I supported the governor's veto or not. Either you are not reading my blogs right, you have not read them at all or that you are purposely making things up along the way for whatever reasons. In this case about Arnold you are making things up.There is no back-pedaling on my part since I've made no statement about Arnold's veto.

Until you provide the links on exactly what I said and where it'd be best to properly make your arguments based on those actual facts and comments rather than make things up along the way as you are wont to do. Until you do your recent blog has no standing, truth or validity regarding me or my blogs.

Hooked on Visual Phonics - cued speech

Recently there has been another little round of huffiness over a recent article on cued speech written in the Washington Post. Either some people feel threatened by the title "Cued Speech Could Gain Popularity Among Deaf" or the fact that the article said about the similarity of cued speech to that of sign language (ASL) in the subtitle, "An alternate form of sign language could be gaining momentum in the deaf community."

Not knowing the full distinction between the two the writer is correct about the similarity and that it uses hand gestures as part of the communication package. Though I don't think the writer was attempting to equate cued speech as the equivalent of ASL as a language.

Here below is an excerpt in one of my blog I did on that subject back in 2006.

Cued speech or more appropriately Cued English is now believed to be the best source of visual language support for the spoken English language and it’s ability to identify idiomatic expressions and nuances. The main purpose of Cued Speech is not for speech purposes but for literacy.

You can read the rest of what I've written about cued speech back in 2006. Lots of information and explaination on what cued speech is about.

Also, you can watch four YouTube videos of native cuers with two subjects being an ASL signer. Those videos were blogged back in 2008 and be sure to watch the fourth video at the bottom in my blog.

And here's a recent article written in the Washington Post a few days ago about about cued speech highlighting the first known family to exclusively use cued speech for their deaf kids and not ASL or any signing methods at home.

Born deaf to deaf parents, identical twins Lola and Ella Scher of Rockville learned from the beginning to talk with their hands. When they were 9 months old, they produced their first word: shoe.

If they had used American Sign Language, or ASL, they would have said "shoe" by tapping their fists together twice. But their parents used a different form of communication, cued speech. So they taught each girl to make an "L" shape with her right hand, touching her index finger to her chin. That wasn't a symbol, like the ASL gesture; instead, it signaled how the word sounds in spoken English. They would have used the same gesture to say "shoo!"

Grace Consacro and Steve Scher had grown up using cued speech, and they taught it to their twins, now 5, and their deaf son, Max, who is 3. In May, the National Cued Speech Association recognized the family for its dedication to cueing.

"As far as we know, we're the only family [in the country] that uses cued speech exclusively," said Consacro, 34, who teaches both cued speech and ASL at Flower Valley Elementary School in Rockville. (note by Kokonut Pundit, she does not teach ASL - see Washington Post error correction).

This mother of two deaf twins made an important point about cued speech.

"It's not intended to be anything more than an aid to learn a language,"

There you go. An aid to help develop language. In this case, the English language even though cued speech can be used and adapted to with any spoken language throughout the world.

Another advantage of cued speech for deaf/hh children is to allow a relatively smooth transition into the hearing world. The article ends with a very profound remark from the same mother who uses cued speech.

Sometimes, the Scher-Consacro twins misinterpret or mispronounce words; but they can now follow conversations and speak very much like hearing children.

"My kids are deaf," Consacro said. "They have the miracle of the technology of cochlear implants, [and] they have the language from their dad and I cueing - it just works."

It just works. Just as I have said before, the power of hearing technology helps make oralism (oral-auditory) a very powerful draw due to its continuing successes. Oralism cannot be "stamped out" in favor of ASL. So, it's a matter of time until cued speech finally takes off nationwide on such a large scale. You can thank Gallaudet University for helping facilitate the start of cued speech.

Here's your chance to learn more about cued speech in a video below.

A quick analysis on the vetoed AB2072 bill

After reading the governor's letter on why he choose to veto the AB2072 bill I noticed three things he mentioned why.

1. The formation of an advisory committee would possibly be a duplicative work of other state programs.

2. The use of advisory committee would be quite biased.

3. And lastly use of an advisory committee would represent a significant workload which will require fiscal resources that the state is already short on.

In one paragraph near the end he stated that there are other resources and efforts being done by state agencies and departments that already try and get the information out to the parents with children identified with hearing loss. In fact, the CAA pointed this out in a letter to Tony Mendoza as seen in the first page, fifth paragraph:

Additionally, existing Health and Safety Code, Article 6.5 Section 124119.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 106, related to newborn and infant hearing screening, already provides for the dissemination of this information to parents. The Federal government already sponsors unbiased brochures, which are updated annually, by professionals in the area of communication options for the deaf and hard of hearing. These brochures can be provided to Californians at no cost. Further, there is really no reason, in our view, for such a broad expansion of this program in these difficult times.

This letter is very similar to the governor's own responses for his reason on vetoing the bill. Despite that, with the state continuing budget cuts will likely affect state organizations that are funded and supported through state grants in order to continue with their operations. With the governor vetoing the AB2072 bill means that ASL will not be recognized as a language in the state of California. And because of that pro-ASL deaf organizations who rely on state grants to help work with children and parents with hearing loss may be at risk. Had a similar bill to that of AB2072 with the inclusion of ASL that gets signed by the governor would have undoubtedly raise in recognizing ASL as a language and thereby have a greater chance of surviving any fiscal cuts via through grants to those organizations in California.  So, who really got hurt here?

Deaf lies, videos and squeaky beds

I just had a horrible, horrible discovery. I had the speaker sound on my laptop cranked up and boy did I hear a lot more sound which turned out to be a bit more, um, too  "revealing" for the ear, so to speak. What I was hearing certainly sounded exactly what it sounded like. I wished the guy who told me didn't do that when he strongly suggested that I go and listen to a "certain" deaf vlog did I realize what I was listening to. Even though those particular vlogs I avoid like the plague. Not even interested in them. But with my friend's insistence he told me to go and listen to it and turn up the volume. I cranked up my laptop's speaker, not bothering to watch the horrid video, and suddenly I can hear the unmistakeable sound of, well, um, two hacky sacks slapping rhythmically against something for about 22 seconds and then from there on you can hear the rhythmic squeaking of a bed that vary in intensity and speed for over 2 minutes. You get the picture. Either this has happened for real or somebody is playing a very loud, um, happy movie. But happy movie it ain't. Get somebody who can hear and ask him or her to listen to it. And see what they say and perhaps confirm it. Figure it out yourselves. I shall not name who, what or where. Make sure your hearing kids are not around, too.

A valuable tip for the deaf folks out there whenever you videotape yourselves. Please, please! turn off your microphone first! Nobody want to hear these sordid grunting noises, the slapping of hacky sacks, squeaky bed sounds, the groaning or screams of torture sound (in no particular order) emanating from your video. Check it once, check it twice, make sure your microphone is off before you even began video-taping yourselves for your vlogs.

Now, I need to go and take a shower. Once is enough.

The immaturity of some deaf people

The first time in my life did I realize that there are some people who are simply immature for what they do or have done that disrupts the lives of other people. What I'm talking about is my experience at Gallaudet University where I first stayed at Benson Hall dormitory building which is located in the center of the campus. A dorm whose building was mostly occupied by incoming freshman students. What got me and others our ire was the fact that over the course of a year there were perhaps several d/Deaf people who disrupted the entire Benson Hall dormitory building of some perhaps 200 people or so by pulling the fire alarm at 2 AM in the morning. Sometimes on rare occassions a fire alarm would go off twice in a single night forcing the still sleepy and tired occupants of Benson Hall outside into the cold night while firemen with their blaring fire trucks would come and investigate the building. Not only was I embarrassed for the fire personnel to do that on a regular basis it was also a continuing safety hazard by forcing hundreds of people out of a building because of false fire alarms pulled by cranks.  This was an embarrassing and maddening scene that I come to experience so much in a single semester while living in that dormitory. The constant false fire alarms disrupted many students sleep impacting their education throughout the day because they couldn't get enough sleep. And it wasn't just Benson Hall but other dormitories as well that experienced the false fire alarm problem such as Peet Hall, Ballard West and Ballard North dormitories which consisted of mostly the younger students (e.g. freshman, sophomore). Although I believe Benson Hall was the worst of all dormitories. While at Carlin Hall and Clerc Hall they generally have more matured students who were either juniors, seniors or graduates. I certainly don't remember much about Carlin Hall experiencing false fire alarms, perhaps one or two, at least I got my sleep over there.

Not only was Benson Hall that bad with the false fire alarms but it was bad on a morning after a night of students partying on Friday and Saturday nights would I find vomit in the elevator, the stairwells, outside near the entrances, sometimes on a wall smeared with vomit, and one or two students strewn about in the dormitory lounge area still passed out. In fact, one morning I came across a passed out male student lying face down in his own vomit on the floor in the dormitory lounge area on the second floor of Benson Hall where I stayed. It was simply a disgusting scene to experience almost every weekend. And then, of course, you have a trash problem as well.

With Gallaudet University you had your good and bad things about it. But those false fire alarms were nothing to sneeze at since it was a regular occurrence at Benson Hall back in 1988. It was a classic case of how immature people behave.  It was as if back then d/Deaf people simply accepted that as part of their "community of culture." They just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh, well, those things happen." I would just shake my head and simply say "That's not acceptable." It was one of those experiences I had while basically living in a closed off society on the campus of Gallaudet University did I get to see some of the prevailing attitudes people had at the time. It was a revelatory time for me.

ADDENDUM: Looks like things have not changed at Benson Hall as reported in the Buff and Blue newspaper written today about the problems of false fire alarms pulled by immature cranks.

A "hand wave" to Karen Putz

I've been meaning to blog this after what my wife told me what happened in Chicago during her high school reunion at John Hersey High School meeting up with her former deaf classmates. It's the same high school where both my wife and Marlee Matlin went at the same time and they both knew each other as well. But Marlee wasn't there. Oh well. When my wife went to register Karen Putz, who was at table, recognized the name "McConnell" and inquired if she was married to me. She said "Yes" and soon Karen's face lit up in surprise and inquired if I was around. She shook her head saying "No" saying that I didn't come due to a previous conflict. Karen then explained to my wife how she enjoy reading my blogs. In fact, she also interviewed me for the Hands and Voices article a few years back just a fyi for ya'll.  And now, I'd like to take this opportunity to send a long awaited "hand wave" back at her for the kind words she parted with my wife. And, oh, I do enjoy reading Karen Putz's blogs as well, especially the barefooted ones.

Fried brains and yummy desserts

I'm sure you've heard of the expression when someone get their "brain fried" or how "he must've fried his brain." It's when one takes too much of something, like drugs or too much academia in this case, that have rendered a person's brain to a much lower functioning level without the person ever knowing it. Sometimes "analysis paralysis" has this effect, too, which can become a case of "terminological inexactitude." The expression "terminological inexactitude" was coined by Winston Churchill which is basically a play on words by calling to the misapplication of labels and the danger or damage that can be done by doing so.  Kind of like a deaf person calling another deaf person an "avdist" when it's entirely ridiculous to even say that thinking the guy must've fried his brain for saying that. The "avdist" term would be totally bogus and misapplied. Here's another example of a "fried brain" syndrome.  One other example would be for a person to go through the whole armchair analysis over a certain group of deaf/hh bloggers and vloggers and ultimately conclude the reason they do their blogs or vlogs the way they do was because they feel that the Deaf community and culture have "rejected" them.  This sort of conclusion would be plumbing the depth of extreme silliness. I suppose, figuratively speaking, somebody must've "fried his brain" for even to conclude that (insert laugh track).

Ready for some yummy desserts?

The ridiculousness goes beyond the pale whenever Deaf people try to determine whether the feeling of "rejection" by the Deaf community and culture have occurred for other people. Here's why it's silly to try and do that armchair analysis. There's an expression "different strokes for different folks" which means there are different people who like to do things differently or live in different ways within their own community. In this case deaf/hh people do things differently in different communities and how they participate and interract in the Deaf, deaf/hh and hearing communities. We all should recognize that.

This should be about how people value and respect other people opinions, even when they bring up tough questions or discuss certain "taboo" subjects. The "frying of one's own brain" would be to try and justify one's own conclusion thinking how people write is a sign of feeling of rejection by the Deaf community at large. Which would be patently funny in the attempt at academia here. Rather there are certain number of people or group of people within a certain segment of the Deaf community that rejects those Deaf, deaf and hh bloggers and vloggers because of what they write.  Despite that many Deaf people have on the other hand welcomed and embraced those bloggers and vloggers.

Hmmm... a conundrum pie here. Done with your fried brains? Here's my slice.

For all intent and purposes Barry (The Holism) and Errigo are seen as "Deaf people" (bear with me so I can make a point here). Two very different backgrounds and upbringings who are fluent in ASL. Yet they have many Deaf, deaf, hh and hearing friends and supporters within the Deaf, deaf/hh, and hearing communities. Do you think they feel "rejected" by the Deaf community? No. It'd be funny to even say that. Rather it is quite correct to say that there are certain segments within the Deaf community who do reject Barry and Errigo outright simply because of their opinions in their blogs and vlogs. Opinions, viewpoints, and perspectives that do go against the grain of many Deaf people. This goes the same for me.

I don't feel rejected by the Deaf community as a whole based on the comments and the conversations I've had with Deaf people over the years. Heck, I walk on the campus of Gallaudet University and I certainly do not feel "rejected" by the Deaf community whenever I talk and interact with Deaf professors, students and other people who know or recognize me. I certainly do not feel "rejected" by the Deaf community whenever my Deaf wife and I go and visit Deaf events like Deaf Nation or other similar events. Or when we meet up with our Deaf friends and so on. I certainly do not feel rejected when I read DVTV responses to my videos and how I interact with them. I certainly did not feel "rejected" by the Deaf community when I used my voice in my speech in front of a live internet (Deaf) audience and the people who sat before me at Gallaudet University's first ever vlog/blog panel discussion a few years back. Does it really matter on this whole Deaf community rejection thing? In a word, no. Not one bit. But the reality is that there are some Deaf people who have categorically rejected me and other Deaf people for various reasons. And that's fine. That's life. Easy as apple pie I'd say. The Deaf community as anybody should know is a mixed bag out there. It's an impossible task to please everybody because everybody has an opinion on things.

I think this whole "analysis" attempt to try and determine whether the feeling of "rejection" by the Deaf community as a whole probably boils down to perhaps some people are simply peeved about missing out on a Monopoly game I had earlier thinking it was a real thing? Or perhaps it's about their own insecurity and inadequacy regarding their own academia background do they try and do the whole arm chair psychology bit to appear more, um, "authentic"? I don't know. But certainly this "fried brain syndrome" is getting out of hand here.

So, how was your dessert? I hope you liked it.

A video tribute to John Tracy Clinic

Here's a special video thanks to the John Tracy Clinic where I am a successful product of their oral-auditory program.  This a candid and frank video about my background in my oralism upbringing which made me for who I am today. Without it I wouldn't be where I am today.

Deafhood - religion like?

Recently over the last few days based on comments I received in my blogs I had the realization about how some people follow "deafhood" to such an extreme. How extreme? That depends. One commenter named "Kim" had this to say about "Deaf culture" in one of my most recent blog where she discussed "deafhood" and religion:

Language and religion are definitely huge. While we can't say that Deaf people have their own separate religion, their fervent belief in the Deafhood experience almost seems like a religion sometimes.

There it is. Religion and "deafhood" in the same sentence. So that got me thinking.

Kim soon clarified the next day on what she meant by what she said earlier.

Judging by v/blog posts (and comments) it seems like there's this strong fanatical, almost religious-like movement of Paddy Ladd worshippers who spout passages from his book like it's the Holy Bible of Deaf existence. So when people like Mike here ask questions, such as "is there a Deaf culture," there is a tendency among those "few" to over react, and sometimes they accuse him (and others) of not being Deaf since he doesn't seem to believe the right thing.

Candy also followed up about the whole oralism thing segueing into "deafhood" in that same blog.

This one need to be documented and published in the deaf blog as part of deaf history of deafhood and how they really are taking Paddy Ladd's colonialism too far. I suggest you all view Ella's comment number 41 in ASLrocks. It is a must viewing to see how delusional this deafhood thinking is. There is this evidence right there that indicates that dh is all about going after this oralism system rather than a personal journey to find one's deaf center.

Is there a conflict of interest here regarding certain "deafhood leaders"?

Let's look behind Curtain #1 about the Deafhood Foundation and you'll find a familiar name as who those board members are, and quickly you'll get to the "Vision" part where it says:

The Deafhood Foundation will provide financial, educational and social opportunities to end the economic exploitation of Deaf people. The Foundation aims to free the world from a*dism and recreate a society where everyone experiences full humanity and celebrates Sign Language.

So, this "deafhood" isn't about celebrating individual's own identity and personal journey wherever it goes even if it means identifying and embracing oralism and excluding ASL but about the attempt to wipe out oralism, avdism and have sign language to take its place instead according to one "deafhood leader"? Even though oralism has shown to be beneficial in many cases (even I have benefitted tremendously from it, too):

Deaf individuals who use Oralism have "proficiency with spoken language and . . . have an average reading ability . . . of thirteen to fourteen-year-old levels, which is approximately double the national average for all children who are deaf" (Stone 2). Furthermore, programs using Oralism generally have strong academic curricula resulting in high achievement levels and more students who go on to complete secondary or higher education programs (Schwartz 167-168). This also results in "more social, educational, and work opportunities . . . [and] to a more fulfilling and independent adult lifestyle" (168). With such results, it can be understood why those who value education truly approve of Oralism. These benefits of Oralism allow deaf individuals to reap the educational benefits and equal opportunities that people such as Mary Wollstonecraft strived to obtain and society, particularly the Oralists, continue to cherish.

It is obvious that oralism has its own benefits and that many deaf and hard of hearing people have benefitted tremendously from that. I understand that there are those who fell between the cracks and how beneficial signing is on an emotional and social level. But that's beside the point here. If people simply cannot leave alone the philosophical concept of what a personal journey of a deaf or hh person is like but instead use it as foundation to push their own ideology while espousing for the "death of oralism" and so on certainly does give it a religion-like feel. A fanactical-like following.

If this continues then this whole "deafhood" thing will simply stay within the Deaf community circle that is mostly accepted by some Deaf people rather than seeing it accepted by the rest of the hearing loss population that is 33 times bigger than the Deaf population of some perhaps 900,000 Deaf people.  This acceptance by the bigger population will never happen if this fanaticism continues. This is the perception of what many people would probably see whether they're hearing, deaf or hh who happen to come across this whole "deafhood" drama. Especially seeing how some "leaders" and other "followers" would prop up this "deafhood journey" under the guise of a friendly non-profit Deaf organization while in the background advocate for the "death of oralism," use of ad hominems, harrassment (see Tayler Mayer's example who is the owner of Deafread) and such. No wonder other groups like "Deafhood? No Thanks" cropped up recently as a response to this whole mess.

Many people do cherish the free and independent thinking regarding the many hearing loss issues out there and recognize the fact that there is no one shoe size fits all when it comes to addressing hearing loss, modes of communication, education and language development. Especially in a period of time when technology has been a boon to help address communication, educational and language developments owing to the simple fact is that hearing loss range from mild to profound. The diversity is large and mixed out there.

As a closing, I liked what Kim said in my blog "You have to be hard of hearing to understand":

People like Ella can never understand what it's like to be me. I experienced a life time of hearing before my hearing began to decline. Those experiences made me who I am. Naturally I still identify with hearing people.

Through HLAA and ALDA, I am part of a growing, thriving, powerful mostly oral deaf community, and we don't care what Ella thinks.

And you know what?  Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) would certainly look to be the better organization to join when it comes to advocacy and support in a more neutral manner rather than wade into chest deep the hypocrisy, the conflict of interests, unprofessionalism, rogue followers and petty politics. And I'm certain people wouldn't want to be a part of an organization or group of people that has a religion-like feel to it seeing how some use an inquisition-like process whenever one states a view opposite of somebody else's opinion. And then there comes the auto de fe.

This whole thing simply doesn't feel right.

Anonymous comments no longer allowed!!

I agree with what Tayler is doing. He feels he has no choice. I can imagine all the crap he had to endure seeing all those anonymous comments by deaf cowards who are a bunch of thumb-sucking anal retentative babies in the effort to demean, attack and perhaps even threaten him to some extent through anonymous commenting. Anonymous comments meant to demean and attack Tayler for what he's done with Deafread and DVTV are rather petty. Even petty still to attack him for his own personal opinions. I'd rather see a face or at least a real name to go with the comments but I still do allow anonymous comments to go through my blog today even though some of them are from those who are cowards. Still, I let them through. Normally I'd allow them to go through instead of deleting them which is a rare thing I do. At least I can have some examples of what an anonymous coward looks like in my comment sections when I do my next "Best and Worst Responses" for 2010 as I have done in 2007. My favorite comment for "Best and Worst Responses" in 2007?

“Another eye opener is the claim that 40 percent of my blogs were about him. Now, I've done 1068 blogs in over two years. If I did 40 percent, that would be 427 blogs!! LoL! The guy is really bad at math.”

Yeah, not only delusional but really, really bad at math.

Heh.