Growing up...something about me.

There were lots of things I remembered while growing up as a little boy. A boy that wore happily and proudly a body hearing aid from almost the age of two years old to age seven. I took a trip down to memory lane over the last few weeks over a pile of my baby and boyhood pictures. I also got to see many of my old drawings and other artsy stuff I did. Read some of the John Tracy Clinic correspondence letters that were written to my parents. Got to see my past grades, state testing results and more. I even found my old State Champion soccer patch that my teammates and I won in a hard fought soccer game for state champ recognition in 1974 when I was in the 4th grade. It was my second state champion team in 1974 after winning a state championship soccer game in 1973 when I was in the 3rd grade.

As I went through my old stuff I recognized the fact that I liked to draw where many of my hand drawn pictures were happy, memorable ones. Oftentimes with me wearing proudly my body hearing aid.  The hand drawn and colored in picture you see above "Something about me" was a drawing about my missing tooth.  I drew that picture when I was in the first grade at 7 or 8 years old during the 1972 - 1973 school year. It was part of an activity drawing of a story of mine with 8 pages of drawing made into a "book." My oral upbringing was certainly filled with memorable times where I was happy, outgoing and a fun guy to play with my friends, hearing and deaf, where I didn't let my body hearing aid stop me from having fun.

Something about me.

When cyberbullying topic is a good discussion but....

Cyberbullying discussions are good when topics broached are about intimidation, retaliation, control, creating an atmosphere of fear, stalking and the effort to try and ruin people's reputations. I think cyberbullying is all encompassing where it can fall under the stalking, intimidation, and harassment category. Whenever somebody discusses cyberbullying or bullying we generally know it's about harassment. But lately I've noticed how some people simply have the capacity to misunderstand conversations, blogs or vlogs and equate them as threats. We already have one such example that took place in court which proved one person's action wasn't seen as a threat. Just an overly active imagination here.

Let's expand on this here on what's an overly active imagination looks like.

In Russell Errigo's vlog he talked about his fears on how the California government could one day cut off funds to organizations in the hearing loss field in Julie Rems Smario Facebook discussion on June 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM.

My biggest fear is seeing a huge state cutbacks to Norcal, DCARA, GLAD and other sister organization who opposed the AB...2072. The state recognized them as one side viewpoint which does not meet the state standard for the funding purposes. The bridges have been burned.

I remember that comment very clearly. He's clearly concerned. There is no doubt about that.

A couple of months later in August 2004 he brought up the same points and concerns about the potential loss of fundings of deaf organizations in his YouTube video starting at the 1 minute 5 second mark. In that video he did refer elsewhere about a Facebook discussion he had a few months earlier discussing that same concern of his on funding cuts.

But here's the thing. I was a bit dismayed seeing intelligent people who actually thought Russell would call upon the government of California to encourage them to de-fund deaf organizations such as NorCal, DCARA and so forth. No such verbal threats ever happened from Russell. Russell is already on record hoping that this funding cuts WON'T HAPPEN to those deaf organizations. He is already on record as seen in the links I've provided. He clearly shows a concern for those deaf organizations who might see a cut in funds from the state in the coming months and years ahead.

So much for that.

Then there's another discovery on the curious mindset of how some Deaf people think that targeting other Deaf people is justified by contacting their employers. Actions manifested into this whole neurotic orgasm of this "deafhood" movement that has been running amok ever since.

Candy (see her blog) was a victim of a planned attack when nutty people actually contacted her employer based on a lie and disagreements over her blogging opinions and facts.  Although her workshop presentation at the 2010 IRS/DEAF Leadership Development Conference in Salt Lake City recently was a success despite their failed attempt to "boycott" her workshop.

Anybody with a mindset thinking their action is justified in calling an employer over an opinion piece or get upset when a Deaf person works with a variety of deaf and hard of hearing people and organizations (i.e. "working with the enemies") would be seen as borderline delusional. It doesn't pass the smell test when they know their action is designed to psychologically hurt, intimidate, and/or instill certain institutional fear in Deaf people by calling their employers. That action alone is a classic example of how it can fall under the cyberbullying or bullying category. And for those who contribute to help on addressing the cyberbullying problem but at the same time secretly nod in approval on the tactic of contacting employers is an example of hypocrisy in action.

The vulgarization of "deafhood" continues.

Use your voice, get detention at a Deaf school. In the first grade?

This is a true story here. Before I start let me point out that no one should be punished or scolded for using a preferred communication method whether it's signing, cued speech or use of one's voice at school used in a regular manner while in school (and not done out of spite to interfere or interrupt a classroom). But in this case we have a true story of a deaf mother whose deaf children were either scolded for using their voice or sent to detention in a Deaf school while in kindergarten and 1st grade.  This story happened some years ago, not too long ago and it may have been an isolated incident or perhaps a common one?  What is unclear today is whether punishments exist in some Deaf schools on students for not using ASL or for using their voice. Are those actions, punishment that is, acceptable at those age.....at any age?

I can say for sure that Indiana School for the Deaf uses "voice off" policy with pull-outs for speech therapy only (20 minutes 2x a week at maximum... not minimum.) My kids were scolded for using their voices, and my daughter was sent to the detention twice for using her voice. Opposite of oral deaf schools, as you'd say. So they went mainstreaming, to meet their communication needs, since they liked using their voices. Now, they are back at the bilingual Deaf school, in a different state now, yes, and so far it's not a totally 100% "DEAF" school, so it is good for now.

And it happened in kindergarter and 1st grade. The detention forced them to miss recess. A fun social activity for deaf/hh kids.

This deaf mother continues to explain:

Actually, I'd not mind for my kids to be told to use ASL. But for kindergarten and 1st grade kids... being sent to detention for using voice... I disagree with it...that's what happened to my daughter.

Well, it's over. The challenge is of course how to meet the deaf children who have aptitude to talk and listen... we can't leave them behind in deaf education. Often the solution would be mainstreaming them, which shows that deaf education needs to develop resources to meet their needs.

The question now becomes at what stage would this kind of punishment be acceptable or not? We all know the stories of the past (and even perhaps to today) of how deaf students were punished for signing.  Now, it seems that in some instances this situation has reversed where a deaf student is punished for using his or her voice. Obviously to this deaf mother it certainly shouldn't have taken place in kindergarten and 1st grade. What about in the 2nd grade? 4th grade? 8th grade? 10th grade?

Let's take two scenarios, one in an oral/aural school and another one in a Deaf school. Imagine a 1st grader in an oral/aural school gets detention for signing. Imagine the outrage. I agree. Now, imagine a 1st grader in a Deaf school gets detention for talking with his/her voice. Imagine the outrage. I agree. Though we'd have to ask why was there punishment involved before we can make a judgement.

Billy Seago's old newspaper clipping

I found an old newspaper clipping of Bill Seago (around mid 1970s) about how his deafness was not a hindrance. If you don't know the name Seago then you should be familiar with his brother Howie Seago who played the part as a deaf mediator, Riva, in one Star Trek episode. Look here on how Howie came up with a better idea for him to sign instead of speaking in this Star Trek episode, producers liked his suggestion. And thus born was an episode where his character, Riva, was forced to use an alternate communication, ASL.

Hypocrisy on the DR boycott and "avdism"?

About a year ago people decided to boycott Deafread because of Tayler's refusal to put the "A"-word in the Deafread guideline as grounds for not accepting a blog.

Because I lack the experience, knowledge and authority, I refuse to embed the term “au****” into the guidelines. Doing so would have significant impact on the deaf community and would not be able to bear the responsibility of forcing the wrong interpretation upon the community. Until there is greater consensus on “au****”, therefore having less room for it to be abused, the guidelines will protect DeafRead by the “excessive negativity” clause and DeafVIDEO.TV by the harassment rule. Following this fiasco in which au**** was exposed to be both widely misunderstood and abused, I retracted my committment to Patti to add it to the guidelines. As Patti and I agreed more recently, I will instead work with the DeafRead team to incorporate a broader term that will offer tighter protection than that of the “excessive negativity” clause.

Note that I am censoring part of the "a" word in Tayler's comment in the above for my own personal reason. You can read here on why. I could've replaced it with "avdism" though but either way I'm making this known for you readers.

And because of Tayler's refusal to include such a word in the Deafread guidelines numerous Deaf bloggers decided to boycott Deafread and not have their blogs show up on Deafread. One of the blogger is Dr DonG where he explained why he boycotted Deafread.

I have long since been speaking against au****. I have taken a stand against a****. I believe that if you “talk the talk”, you must “walk the walk”. Au**** hurts, and it hurts worse when it comes from one of our own. But it hurts worst when one of our own allows it AND profits from it.

That is the reason that I feel I can no longer be involved in DVTV, if au**** is allowed to continue. I cannot let someone directly profit from au****. It’s bad enough when Hearing people, like at Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, profit from au****, but we Deaf should not allow it, we should not accept it.

So, people boycotted Deafread because of the "rampant" avdism seen in the aggregator list linking to blogs with attidudes of "avdism"? Right? What about Deaf Village's aggregator site, too? Now, isn't avdism seen in majority of DV's submissions include lots of stuff about how wonderful hearing and speaking is for children, CIs and their marvelous results, all technically defined as the "A"-word in all its mutations  If so then why is DonG's website listed on Deaf Village's aggregator site as seen on DV's blog contributors list? And yet the most recent submission of DonG's in DV was on September 10, 2010 with a total of 24 submissions ever since he boycotted DR over a year ago over a single word.

Regardless, I still think it's rather a petty and trivial thing to boycott over a word when Tayler made clear on why he is unable to institute such a word into Deafread's guidelines.

"Fiver!" - Who is this guy? A threat to Deaf culture??

I received a comment from an unknown commenter today in my blog "Deafhood? No Thanks." A blog piece I did a few months ago. This anonymous person says that he/she is from "within their ranks" of other Deaf people and are on the "inside." Not sure if this is true, bogus, or somebody making an exaggerated claim. You decide. Who is this guy? 

Remember this one? "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers." Especially when they have some support from the Government. Deafhood is not merely a movement, it's a hideous, dangerous and counter-productive ideology. Many of the people associated with Deafhood are mere followers, they really have no idea just how destructive this movement/ideology is. This "thing" has destroyed and alterered terribly the lives of many already, usually those who cannot stand against them and succumb. Among them are young children whose parents unwittingly commit them to deaf schools where those pushing Deaf Culture and Deafhood assimilate them into "Deaf Culture" as a source of raw recruits for future members. Deaf Culture is dying, yet they're trying to revive it. These children are shut out of the usage of speech and hearing as much as they can possibly be, without raising suspicions and creating a conflict with state authorities. Deafhood has expanded it's control of state schools for the deaf and enforces it's Deaf Culture and ASL-only doctrine as the only mode of communication. I have witnessed the repudiation of "SIMCOM" or "Total Communication" where any staff member using this means faced discipline and termination. NO speech is allowed, ASL only! Turn off your voice! The parents of these childern unwittingly placed within those cultures have no idea what their child is being subjected to. The Deaf deny them that right to know, going so far as to use speech during parental visits, but speech ends as soon as the parents are gone!

State lawmakers need to investigate what is going on within government funded schools. These schools do not belong to the Deaf! These schools are publicly funded schools for all of society and have been hijacked.

I am going to stop here but will be posting more in the future. My pseudonym for this forum: Fiver. I fully expect the Deafhood "leadership" to start looking for me now, as I am within their ranks, the most dangerous threat to their plans.

I am: Fiver!

And this person raises an important question from me. Are those things really happening or have happened? Or maybe this is all a sick joke? Plus, I noticed this ominous "warning" this mystery person said: "I am within their ranks, the most dangerous threat to their plans."

Don't Feed the Trolls.....

Ever hear of the expression, "Don't feed the trolls"? What is a "troll" then?

...a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog/vlog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response....

I included "vlog" in the above since vlogging is an important medium in the Deaf/deaf/hh community just as blogging is.

In this day and age of cyberbullying/harassment/stalking via the internet in the deaf and hard of hearing communities, especially the Deaf community, we see blogs and vlogs being produced everyday by people with hearing loss. And from time to time we get our own brand of "deaf trolls" who also run their own blog or vlog with the express purpose to personally attack people that he or she doesn't like. They do so with the intent to hopefully provoke victims into responding should they fall into that trap by responding to a "deaf troll." Such a response would justify a "deaf troll" to ramp up even more inflammatory and extraneous responses to a previous response that he or she started. That's the sole design and purpose for a troll. It becomes a vicious cycle. A cycle where a troll would thrive just to gain that extra attention and, for some warped reason according to trolls, more "fame" or recognition for those acts of continuing stupidity. What's really stupid is to respond to a troll in the first place. We all have been there at one time or another in responding to trolls bent on harassing as many people as possible.

So, we have this expression, "Do not feed the trolls," which means don't pay those trolls any attention. Do not give those trolls any morsel of a reason for them to try and respond to your response. Best thing to do? Of course, ignore those trolls once you realize the negative behavioral patterns and the vicious cycles they thrive on. They simply seek attention in the most desperate and negative way that can hurt, in this case, the Deaf community's own image and perhaps even self-esteem.

There is a difference between having a dialogue and debate but to craft a blog or vlog or a comment just for the sole purpose to personally attack people on a regular basis will ultimately create greater negativity and resentments throughout a community by those who were attacked by trolls. But for people to align themselves with these trolls knowing he or she does those things do not make them any better than those trolls of negativity. Cheering on those trolls or supporting them will only help amplify the negativity and bitterness in a community if people (or victims of cyberbullyings) feel the need to respond to such attacks by deaf trolls.

So, my advice? Don't feed the deaf trolls. Let them live under the bridge, undisturbed, with an empty belly in silence. Don't even look at the trolls just to read or watch what they say because you might find yourself feeding those trolls again. 

My mother....My hero.

Last night I was going through my garage and found what I was looking for. My stuff when I was just a toddler up to a young boy with pictures, report cards, John Tracy Clinic letters, my stories I've written while in the 3rd and 4th grade, my old hearing aids with one of it a box (chest) hearing aid, a couple of pro-oral bumper stickers, Birney School information, drawings, a Washington state champion soccer patch in 1975 the team I was on, a wrestling letter congratulating my wins, and so on. Lot of it deaf related stuff along with my history of my childhood that I am collecting for later research and organization.

I sat down and read a few of the several John Tracy Clinic letters written to my mother (and father) when she took up John Tracy Clinic's correspondence kit when I was around two years old which helped me on my way to a better oral-aural development only after when I received my hearing aid. Those letters were very positive, encouraging and informative. In fact, my mother was so inspired, encouraged, and determined to help me where I've improved so much that I was placed at Birney School's oral program before age 3. And by grade 2 in a school report card from Birney School saying I was ready for public school (with a deaf teacher for supplemental support) for the 3rd grade. And then finally I was placed in a regular public school in the 4th grade and stayed in the public school system until I graduated at age 18.

You would think that I had a miserable time as a deaf/hh boy growing up with a box hearing aid but I didn't. I had fun, enjoyed my hearing aid and the sound I was able to pick up, and had both deaf and hearing friends. In fact, I drew a picture when I was 8 showing me and my friends playing on playground set. You can see in the drawing I included my box hearing aid with me smiling while swinging on a swing and with the sun smiling in the background and wind blowing while kids wore long stocking caps (which means it must've been around fall/winter time when I drew that). All good times with a few rough spots in between but that picture epitomizes my childhood time.

My mother is my hero. She's the one who rescued me, loved me and nurtured me into who I am today. I love my mother. And she knows that but I want to say that here for all to see.  Everyday is Mother's Day to me because what I do today was because of her love and dedication.

In the coming days and weeks here I will reveal letters, pictures, my personal stories and a bit of history about myself in my blog as a deaf/hh person growing up learning how to speak while I had auditory training at the same time with my hearing aid. Because oralism, when done right, does work. And to ensure its success, early intervention is the key.

Video: Hike to High Rock Lookout

Here's a short video of the views on High Rock Lookout not too far from Packwood, Washington. Once you get to the top you get rewarded with a 360 degree view of the landscape all around you and below you. On this clear day I got to see Mt. Hood, Mount St. Helens, Mt. Adams and Mt. Rainier. Not many people get to go where I can go. This hike require you to be relatively fit. The trail is short covering 1.6 miles one way but steep in many places along the way with the steepest being the last 150 feet to the lookout building. If you're not fit or overweight then I suggest you do not take upon this moderately hard hike unless your doctor gives you the approval.

The bullying of a deaf kid

I take special umbrage against bullying, even cyberbullying, when aimed at kids. Read Karen's blog "Bullying Experience from Parent's Point of View" about her deaf son who was bullied at a Deaf school. The irony here is that you'd expect some acceptance and support at a Deaf school but instead the young man gets bullied. And this is without another irony, too, if you include the fact that he wasn't bullied while in a mainstreamed school when he begged to be put back into mainstreamed school fulltime the second time around.

Karen's son wrote down words or acts that were said or done while he was bullied at a Deaf school. If you read the PDF letter "Bully" he wrote you can see the exact same cyberbullying and threats experienced by deaf/hh adults in today's blog/vlog world. It's the same words and actions used today against adults.  It's not just one time, as the Karen's son said, but the numerous times the bullying takes place over a space of days, weeks, months, or even years. Some are able to handle it. Some cannot and must resort to other self-preservation actions. Some are able to deal with it straight on by confronting it, especially if it's a serious one where restraining orders or arrest warrants are justified.

Thank you Karen for bringing that one up. Whether it's bullying or cyberbullying, it's simply not acceptable.

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.