Professional Motocross Deaf Gal Shreds Dirt

Here's a video introduction of Ashley Fiolek, age 17, one of the top amateur motocrossers from around the country seen racing in one of the many hand selected Red Bull Jam motocross races. She's a tough gal who doesn't mind mixing it up by racing in the men's division. But in the women division she won the Women's Supercross Title and placed second overall in the Women's Motocross Division. Indeed, a worldclass motocrosser that's up and coming. Check out her bio page by Red Bull and see a video of her racing (no subtitles/captions or transcript).

Check out this video of her signing about her racing experiences. Video comes with subtitles. And last but not least be sure to check out her official Ashley Fiolek website.

Wonder if she ever met Greg Gunderson?

A Video Interview with Greg Gunderson

Check out this video (ASL, SEE and subtitle) of Greg Gunderson being interviewed by Jason Curry (CEO and President of sComm, Inc, maker of the widely popular UbiDuo communication device) about the advantages of having UbiDuo to communicate with hearing people. Greg Gunderson is the nationally known and popular professional sprint car driver who happen to be....Deaf!

Woman Victim Uses UbiDuo

Jason Curry, CEO of sComm, Inc (a deaf owned and deaf run company) where the UbuiDuo is built, donated the face-to-face communication device to a hearing woman so she could communicate with her friends, families, nurses and doctors while she recuperates from a violent store robbery.

Nearly a month after a man slashed the throat of a clerk at a convenience
store, the 19-year-old woman struggles to recover and regain her speech.

Police said Sean Cave, 38, allegedly robbed the Stop-N-Go on Highway 59
in Winthrop, Mo., and nearly killed Kim DeJonge. He is accused of slitting
DeJonge's throat twice and stabbing her seven times.

Kudos to Jason Curry for helping out a victim in need of support and help.

Informed Decision....would you accept and support a parents' decision?

There are concerns among many Deaf people that hearing parents of deaf/hh babies and children that they may not have access to all of the necessary information to make an *informed decision* about mode of communicaton to be used. If you watch Barb Digi recent video on YouTube she points out that very same but legitimate concern. However, the biggest test is after the fact when parents do make an *informed decision*. Supposing hearing parents do get all the necessary and relevant materials regarding ASL, SEE, AVT, cued speech, oral/aural trainings, educational aspects and so on. Let's say hearing parents spend considerable time with materials given to them by various hearing loss organizations (AGBell, pro-ASL organizations, pro-bilingual organizatoins, cued speech organizations, etc), met with numerous deaf/hh people, met with various profesional educators and so on over a short but intense period of time. With all the due diligence already undertaken the hearing parents finally make an *informed decision*. They decide to go for the cochlear implant and cochlear implant route for their deaf/hh baby or child. Will you, as a Deaf person unequivocally accept and support the hearing parents' decision for their deaf/hh baby or child? Remember, hearing parents took every effort and did their due diligence effort, including an in-depth comprehensive look at ASL, to make an *informed decision* about their deaf/hh baby or child.

Barb Digi, would you unequivocally accept and support hearing parents' *informed decision* after they have accessed all relevant information decide to go for the AVT and cochlear implant route? I make this challenge to you Barb (and to any Deaf people out there) to answer this question of mine. It is indeed a relevant question to ask.

Watch Barb Digi's video which comes with a built-in scrolling transcript for those who do not know ASL

Paranoia, Emotional Baggage, Zealotry, Cult Followers…in no particular order

I want to talk about something a little bit different and slightly off tangent but falls well within the paranoia discussion that will follow shortly. Lately I know that some Deaf people out there have seen my devilish remark, “My plan is working flawlessly *rubs hands* heh heh…,” in a few places such as Paotie’s, my blog and elsewhere. I made up this devilish looking remark first in Chronicles of a Bionic Woman and then proceeded to use that same remark based off of a funny movie in a few other places. Strategically timed I supposed when I placed it. But the result was that several Deaf people began to take note and commented by making up wild conspiracy claims believing my remark had to do with AGBell, the DBC, or thinking it had to do about a devilish plan against the Deaf community at large and so on. Though let me make myself clear that I do have a certain propensity to delve in a bit of quirky humor. I know that some people already know this or don’t take it seriously but when I made that devilish remark about my plan that is “working flawlessly” I said it to hopefully prove a point. And that people will run off with that remark of mine thinking it’s proof that I’m out to destroy the Deaf culture and what not or whatever so- called agenda you want to conspire and bring up. But the thing is….there is no plan! I have no plan that is “working flawlessly.” So, relax. Have a beer and laugh over this one. You’ve been punked big time.

Ok. Feel better now? Now that I’ve officially placed a disclaimer about my devilish remark as a non-issue or of no concern for the Deaf community I go to my topic of discussion.

It becomes an odd if almost comical event to witness bloggers or vloggers resort to using Godwin’s Law (Reducto ad Hitlerum) in their own arguments thinking they’re well grounded in logical, scholarly thoughts. Hardly. The mere act of bringing up Nazism or “playing the Nazi card” to try and make parallels or associations in an argument simply gets nullified on that merit alone. Playing the Nazi card in the hope that appeal to emotions will win out rather than on logic and common sense will simply lose all credibility and everything they say after that won’t mean much. This is especially so when you have group of Deaf people playing the Nazi card to try and create supposed parallels on what’s happening today to deaf and hard of hearing people when it comes to AGBell’s philosophy as an organization. Doing so would be pretty much proof that those people who resort to that tactic are carrying way too much emotional baggage. I’m sure they have legitimate issues based on past experiences but to play the Nazi card will simply nullify their own arguments!

Yet with my odd but uneasy fascination on witnessing cult followers who are hell bent on destroying AGBell at all costs even at the cost of losing all credibility to the eyes of basically everybody which means Deaf, deaf, hh, hearing people and especially hearing parents. Yet the AGBell organization believes that hearing parents have the right to make informed decisions when it comes to their deaf/hh child, even if it means choosing ASL or not. Although AGBell’s philosophy as an organization does emphasize on the listening and speaking aspect for deaf and hard of hearing children. However, AGBell is not the one shooting themselves in the foot but the Deaf adherents or zealots who are basically doing that by continuing to demonize AGBell at every possible turn at a great cost to the credibility of the whole Deaf community. It is simply becomes an unproductive endeavor all in the name to “save” deaf/hh babies from those mean and heartless hearing parents from the hypnotic control of AGBell professionals. There are better ways on getting positive messages across.

Again, all this is rather comical but sad to watch these things transpire in front of our eyes. Zealotry has a way of blinding people and not see the bigger picture. You have advocates with the right frame of mind and then you have those who are simply out of control who use their own emotional baggage to drag the rest of the people down the drain. These are simply an opinion and observation of mine so take it with a grain of salt.

So in review of I what have written today and the things that have been happening lately in the hearing loss community when it comes to paranoia, emotional baggage, zealotry and cult followers, I’d like to make a concluding remark:

My plan is working flawlessly! *rubs hands* Heh heh….muwahhhahahaha!

A Champion of Oralists?

Recently in Mr. Sandman’s blog suggested that I’ve become “a champion of the decidedly tiny minority of oralist/oralist-leaning blogosphere” and I want to take a short time to discuss this and clarify a few things for him and many others.

Whether I’m a “champion” or not is beside the point in what I believe in or advocate as a person with hearing loss who wears a hearing aid which have benefitted me enormously in my life as a Ragtime pianist, my career, and my life. I do support those who choose to use their voice to speak as their primary means of communicating, even if it means not knowing how or the need to sign. Though not just for those “oralists” who cannot hear well or at all I support but those who do hear well with their hearing aids or even cochlear implants nowadays. Talking has always been an effective means of communicating among my hearing or hard of hearing peers.

There’s a second term called “aural” that is often overlooked by the Deaf community of which the deaf and hard of hearing community is intimately aware of. Though some people often take the word “oral” to mean “aural” as well but not every oralist is an “auralist” or an "oral-auralist" (if that is even a word) . The word “aural” relates to the ear on the ability to hear, discriminate and understand words and sound while "oral" relates to the ability to speak and proper enunciation of words. For me, I've used mostly aural approaches to get where I am today only because of my ability to discriminate speech is high with thanks to early use of my hearing aid at around age 3. My speech discrimination score for spoken words stands at around 94% when a word is spoken alone but it goes up to 97 or 98% when spoken in the form of a sentence. Hence, my ability to use the telephone or cell phone with ease. So, in the case of being a "champion" I see myself rather as a huge supporter of those who can benefit immensely from the use of their hearing aids or cochlear implants knowing that many do cherish the world of sound. So, in retrospect, I'm more of the oral-aural supporter than oral. Still there is nothing wrong with speaking just like this deaf, motivational speaker, Stephen Hopson who is an oralist.

Browneyedgirl65 made a comment in her blog on not caring about the ability to hear birds chirping or hear a Mozart symphony which is fine. However, there are those who do cherish sounds much more than Browneyedgirl65 and that they are thankful with technology (i.e. hearing aids, cochlear implants) giving them the ability and the miracle to hear beautiful sounds or the ability to understand the spoken words. Even I am grateful and blessed with what I have. Not even Deaf politics can take that one away from me. Being able to hear and understand words and sound are important to a lot of people with various levels of hearing loss. For others, it is not. I guess you have to hear the nuances of sound in order to understand where I'm coming from and really understand and appreciate the value and quality of sound to be enjoyed as a gift to those who can hear.

But here’s another myth. The so-called small blogosphere of oralists, which I will include "auralists" who are also "oralist," isn’t so decidedly small but rather a large group, much larger than you think. Rather, it’s decidedly larger than the Deaf community. Look around and you can see why but this is so only if you look carefully enough. Why we don’t hear from these hard of hearing bloggers? It’s because many don’t delve into the world of Deaf politics, ASL and bickering dominating their Deaf blogspace. For the most part they're not interested in Deaf culture or ASL. They have other interests not always deaf-related for the most part. You have to know where to look in Google and it isn't always patently obvious on where to look like you could with a Deaf community of bloggers.

Of course, you won't see them in YouTube videos mimicking a barking seal like a bad oralist ability to speak like one Deaf vlogger did as a sign of intellect even though he's going for his graduate degree right now. Yet this video has now been conveniently taken down. But then you have a Deaf person who mimic badly on the way some oralists may supposedly speak with exaggerated lip movements. Stephen Hopson he isn't - a recognized motivational speaker and oralist who is deaf. But if you think those videos were funny then I suppose this video is funny, too, on how people sign? Or if you really want something that's funny and a knee-slapper visit comedians making fun of sign language at the Laugh Factory with a "sign language interpreter" doing his job. Keith Wann he isn't. I guess the old mantra is that if you can't take a joke, take hike applies here, too?

Just as there is a “World Federation of the Deaf” there is an “International Federation of Hard of Hearing” organization that began in 1977 based out of Germany. And a few weeks ago they held their 7th IFHOH Congress in Vancouver, Canada. You can look and see the papers that were presented as well which is an interesting list of topics covered. Organization members of IFHOH in the United States are NTID, ALDA (The Association of Late Deafened Adults), HOHA (Hard of Hearing Advocates), SHHH (Hearing Loss Association of America), ATA (American Tinnitus Association), and AGB (Alexander Graham Bell). You can see a list of those members in other countries as well. It's quite a comprehensive list.

With 31 million people with hearing loss in the United States the decidedly much smaller community would be in fact the Deaf community consisting of some 900,000 Deaf people. So, if I'm going to be a champion of something it'd be for a much bigger picture than a narrow one.

Deaf Nirvana

Over the years ever since the days of Gallaudet University I am continually not surprised on seeing how a few select group of Deaf people who have the ability to run the gamut from political correctness campaigns in Deaf culture to the constant playing as victims of oppression to the pulpit grandstanding “book thumping” sermons on how to achieve this so-called “Deaf Nirvana.” I swear. It’s like watching one slow train wreck after another with a few cabooses managing to survive intact. But then again who would report about surviving cabooses but the whole train wreck instead? Though rarely have I seen anything positive in the Deaf community with enough traction to move forward that can be *shared by all* whether Deaf, deaf, hh or hearing. But to teach “Deaf Nirvana” with a plastic smile like some Cheshire cat bent on selling a particular concept/product can only raise red flags and suspicions. Naturally more so for those who have never heard of or experienced Deaf culture. And when they see an organization get attacked or witnessed a rally that, to them, looks more like a protest than not or the pimping of “Deafhood” concept that comes with a smile by those who are trying to invite hearing parents to come over to their “Deaf” side will not win much hearts. Simply put, there are too many mixed messages and not enough credibility.

Let’s review Ben Vess’ recent vlog on calling out Ella Mae Lentz which was recently pulled. According to Ben the scathing video supposedly helped increase the internal ruckus among some of those in the Deaf community. Or so they say. But I am seeing two messages from all this.

One message is that Deaf leaders are not allowed to be attacked with negative critiques, no matter how shallow it may seem. I suppose it would depend on how critical the message is to meet their definition of something that’s more “acceptable” than not. Some people have tolerances so thin that they’ll gasp and say, “How dare YOU attack our leaders like that!” even if it’s a constructive one. And then we see the circling of the wagons to protect those leaders, yet hear nothing from the leaders. And because of that we hear from other bloggers regarding a litmus test on whether you, as a blogger or vlogger, would attack your own mother in the same way as you have done to others is a bit off kilter (silly in some ways) but perhaps valid in certain circumstances. Still, we’re not dealing with mothers anyway. Or even close friends or associates. It’s the clearing of the air is what I see it as. I see this ongoing “ethics” finger wagging as more navel gazing in the attempt to define what’s “appropriate” when it comes to vlogging or blogging. I understand there is a time a place to have a bit of decorum but it’s not always possible when sensitive issues abound. The internet is a place to air out and sort out our feelings whether it’s done appropriately or not. Let’s not fall into the political correctness trap.

Ben’s message that day, before he removed it, had some critical points that needed to be raised at the time but few/many took it personally thinking he had gone too far. I don’t see it that way but a natural progression that it was time to call out certain leaders. Ben was seeing Ella for what it was at the time. Insight or grain of truth, whatever it was, he saw something that needed to get out even to the point that the truth may hurt. Sometimes there comes a time when you simply have to be blunt to get your message across in full force. Was Ben’s vlog to Ella inappropriate? That probably depends on you and the thickness of your skin. These things will happen again and again when it comes to directing emotions toward leaders or anybody else. Calling a person a coward isn’t necessarily name-calling but it’s certainly mild compared to those who wished a deaf person’s baby certain death.

A second message I am seeing lately is that censuring must be done in order to “help aid the community” by ensuring that things do not get “out of line” or that inappropriate comments and actions be somehow curtailed or prevented. The question I have is, which community are we talking about helping? Does that mean we should censure those who attack AGBell, too? Or gang up on those who get out of line frequently by attacking certain deaf/hh organizations? Is this about attacking certain leader(s) of an organization? Or is this about how, as a group, can help control through peer pressure on what vloggers or bloggers should or should not say or do and get them “blacklisted” somehow? Is there such a thing as having an open mind and simply agree to disagree?

I see vlogging and blogging as creative outlets rather than something that must come encumbered as "politically correct" vlogs or blogs just to make sure people feelings do not get hurt. Whatever. So, does the act of censuring (not censorship) help promote an atmosphere where people come to the point of being unsure on which posts will be seen as appropriate or not? Why create these doubts in the first place? But when bloggers/vloggers do post in the strongest terms they get accused of causing division when the fault are really those who do most of the hand wringing that caused their own internal strife. Maybe it’s time to bring out that caliper once again and measure just how thick that person’s skin really is?

Next I want to discuss the words “Deaf babies” being used rather than “deaf babies” or “deaf/hh babies.” By saying “Deaf babies” it creates a perception of ownership of babies born with hearing loss as if they belong to the Deaf community and not to hearing parents. To hearing parents, babies are either born as deaf, hard of hearing or simply a baby with a hearing loss and not “Deaf babies.” Babies are not born culturally deaf to these hearing parents. Otherwise saying “Deaf babies” does help create suspicions among hearing parents towards the Deaf community. There is a difference on helping hearing parents be made aware of the benefits of signing with deaf/hh children versus telling them what to think in the efforts to make them feel guilty for not using ASL. Instead, efforts should be undertaken to help ensure that these parents get the proper information in the most neutral manner so that they can make an informed decision on their own without using guilt to try and pimp ASL. Whatever hearing parents decide people should throw in their support for them even if they decide not to use ASL. Hearing loss grass roots organizations should not be in the business to constantly try and make parents feel guilty by bringing up the past or use Godwin’s Law by invoking a Hitler comparison just to try and create guilt among hearing parents. This is true going after deaf/hh parents of deaf/hh babies on creating guilt for not using a certain technology or a particular communication method. But anyone who invokes Godwin’s Law loses instant credibility in a thread or argument (i.e. meaning…don’t do that unless you want to look really stupid). A good way to lose hearing parents’ attention is to drive them away with protests disguised as “rallies” on the same day when a hearing loss convention was taking place, go after organizations who are trying to offer support to parents of deaf/hh babies, call deaf/hh babies as “Deaf babies” or put the English language on the bottom totem pole and ASL on the top and so on. The best way to win is to provide support to parents of deaf/hh babies and children even if it means parents may end up not choosing ASL. Some parents may eventually come around. Some won’t because they have already decided based on the circumstances they are in. Some will never come around because of what they have heard about Deaf culture and ASL. That’s a fact of life.

Now, myths stick around a lot longer than the actual facts which is why hearing parents or anybody in the hearing society (we’re talking about 90 to 95% of the population in the U.S) will see Deaf people in some negative light in a lot of cases. It’s a lose-lose proposition if Deaf people continue to attack AGBell; pretend that rallies are “neutral” and are not protests; feign ignorance that setting up a counter-convention next door to a hearing loss convention on the same day doesn’t hurt anyone and is only meant to “inform” and help get in touch with hearing parents of deaf/hh children when in fact hearing parents are likely to see it as a confrontation instead; promote “Deaf Nirvana” through “Deafhood” or other cultural awareness methods; get NAD involved by becoming more “Deaf Centric” rather than to help serve the 30 million people with hearing loss and so on; or have Deaf leaders present conflicting messages or their lack of transparency. It just gets deeper and deeper. So, what else is new?

Currently rumor has it that a third “deaf/Deaf/hh” content aggregator may go up and people are already moaning and groaning at the idea of another content aggregator site. But I say, bully! This is about competing philosophies which means more places for people to go and see which philosophies fit them. There is no one-size shoe fits all here. Even DeafRead cannot fulfill that roll. Neither can Deaf Village. Or another content aggregator site for that matter. People will pick and choose for a reason. Even if Deaf Village offered free video/vlog ASL interpretations as part of their captioning or transcripting services in order to help vloggers comply with DV’s guidelines on video accessibility, most/many won’t take up the offer simply because they are either biased against cochlear implants, AVT, oral and/or aural trainings in the first place or some other far-fetched reasons. That was already apparent anyway when Ben Vess tried to do the same thing by offering a free ASL translation service. I cannot fathom the idea that a single content aggregator having a monopoly over deafness-related topics via blogs and vlogs. Competition was bound to happen as it did with Deaf, deaf and hard of hearing forums when it began in the late 1990s based on a particular philosophy in what an owner wanted to see in a forum. It may either constrain or promote developments and provide some unity among a particular group of people.

Unity aside, I have already for the longest time accepted the fact that it’s the parents who are in control of their deaf/hh babies and not that of the Deaf community or any other deaf/hh communities out there. They decide. Not me. Not a particular community or organization. Yet, I still see masks being worn by some people pretending to be one thing when really they are not. I am sure hearing parents of deaf/hh children are becoming a lot more wary nowadays of those who put on a plastic smile only because the internet makes it possible to see what’s going on in vlogs, blogs and the media. Showcasing “Deaf Nirvana” may be counter-productive when everything else supporting it would probably scare most hearing parents away anyway. Try and look from hearing parents’ perspective for a change. I sympathize with hearing parents of deaf/hh babies on their leeriness towards Deaf people who try and promote ASL or Deaf culture simply because of the confusing and mixed messages. If anything this pushing of “Deaf Nirvana” will simply have hearing parents of deaf/hh children see them more like a cult-like phenomenon than anything else. They aren't exactly flocking to this particular group's ideology or concept. They have their reasons.

We understand and agree that each of us express things differently when it comes to our blogs or vlogs. The so-called “division” within the Deaf community isn’t caused by my blogging or vlogging efforts or other people v/blogging efforts. Rather I see this as paranoia run amok. I see less confidence in what people have to show for. No matter how hard some people try they try and make this whole thing into a gloom and doom scenario. Accusing bloggers or vloggers for the supposed “downfall” or “division” within a Deaf community simply doesn’t cut it. Instead I see fear for change as their shared template and "justification" for lashing out. Change is always the only constant thing we have. Change is inevitable. Change happens. Technology is becoming a big part of our change. This isn’t simply about the Deaf community anymore but the whole hearing loss community of all stripes who have different needs and philosophies. So, don’t let paranoia get the best of you.

Disclaimer - This blog is of my own personal opinion and nobody else.

Deafhoodism Voodoo

* click me and check inside for free! *

Just to be fair in the name of this so-called "transparency" game I am just now realizing that DBC, a grassroots organization with several core leaders running it, never disclosed any financial or commerical or venture gains with, if any, "Deafhood" workshops," amount of money donated to DBC via CAD (which is questionable on tactics used to receive money), products sold (e.g. t-shirts) , "Deafhood" trainings, re-imbursements, gifts, any relationship to Deafhood Foundation and so on.

Under DeafRead's policy regarding using blog or vlog sites on commercialization:

6) Commerical Sites

We do not link to commerical sites for the purpose of generating profit, other than our own (we have expenses to cover!)

Though DBC's website was linked numerous times in DeafRead and now it is reasonable to ask the question regarding any commercialization aspect, according to Jared, concerning the danger of becoming a "mouthpiece" for an organization:

DeafRead highly values the true ethos of blogging- that is a blogger sharing independent thought, meaningful analysis and personal opinions without undue influence.
When a blogger is part of an organization backed by a for-profit corporation and both of them can stand to benefit financially from the blogging effort, there is an inherent conflict of interest. These bloggers can optionally receive other means of compensation. The integrity of the blog posts then is called into question. The blogger can run the risk of becoming a mouthpiece for the corporation.

DeafRead prefers to distance ourselves from these types of blogs. This is why we continue to allow personal blogs of CI bloggers who display the true ethos of blogging. Any blog that start to push for a product to the point of almost becoming commercialized will be revisited by the DeafRead team for a possible change in its subscription status.

Indeed. So, what makes a product a product? Is it something tangible that you can touch that has value? Or can pushing a product be about pushing certain ideology or a concept in the hope of receiving some kind of monetary or beneficial (self-serving) gains through the incorporation of an idealogy and use that to sell their products?

Seems like this whole thing is this inexorable march towards this whole"Deafhoodism" folly. A few years ago I, as the original author (see here, here and here), came up with word "Deafhoodism" and provided a definition on what it means:

Deafhoodism - a Deaf status quo regarding Deafhood; a system of Deaf beliefs accepted as authoritative where acceptance and, sometimes, blameless actions toward other deaf and hard of hearing individuals outside of Deaf culture would be required. It is also a self-discovery oriented process involving sustained meaningful interaction with and commitment to, Deaf social, cultural and/or political life where a deaf or hard of hearing person would become a Deaf person someday.

In short, hoping these "deaf and hard of hearing people" will "see the light" and reach for "Deaf nirvana" someday.

But it seems like DBC cannot keep "Deafhood" separate from their now quagmire of a mission that's already beginning to show mixed messages and letting Deaf politics become their mission du jour that's seemingly filled with hidden agendas. It's becoming more and more painfully obvious in what some of these people are doing.

But with the latest revelation by Barry Sewell with a copy of an IM between core leaders of DBC did it show that there are clear disdain towards hearing parents who get cochlear implants for their deaf children or the use of AVT. And the general atmosphere of disdain towards the idea of oralism as well. Not to mention personal agendas of somehow tying DBC with that of Deafhood Foundation. Of course, they have a right to their own personal opinions and beliefs but certainly and obviously so we are seeing that conflict of interest is occurring.

All in all, it seems like all of a sudden a bunch of Deaf people are simply wearing masks with the intention to further their own personal agendas regarding ASL, "Deafhood," "Deafhood" workshops, NAD, DBC, grab for power and any and everything in between. Remember what I said about carrying unnecessary baggage with you? Which is exactly why the below cartoon precisely describes what's going on.

DBC in Violation of IRS Charitable Contribution Law?

Two questions stood out when I visited DBC's donation page (if unable to link go here to an archived section) and noticed a couple of things that merit serious questions as to their tax deductibility claim.

Consider making a donation to the Deaf Bilingual Coalition. All donations go directly towards promoting the mission, purpose, and goals of DBC.

You may donate through Pay Pal via California Association of the Deaf
http://www.cad1906.org/.
DBC is under Programs on the Home Page. Please go to donate:

http://cad1906.org/programs/support-for-the-deaf-bilingual-coalition/

or...

Make checks out to the Deaf Bilingual Coalition

And mail to:
Deaf Bilingual Coalition
c/o Alyce Reynolds
40002 Catalina Place

Fremont, CA 94539

Your donations are tax deductible and are greatly appreciated!!

According to DBC in an older blogsite:

CAD has a federal I.D. number as non-profit organization with a 501(c) status. All donations are tax deductible according to federal tax laws and it must be reported to theIRS as well as to the members of CAD. Every dollar donated helps increase awareness andsupport actions to ensure that ASL is not denied to Deaf children.

Two things stand out starkly so. First, you can donate money to CAD via PayPal or you can donate money DIRECTLY to DBC using your paper check and not to CAD and use DBC's organization address.

Secondly, an organization must be qualified before you can deduct your contributions as tax deductible according to "IRS Publication 1771, Charitable Contributions - Substantiation and Disclosure Requirements" that explains federal tax law for organizations that receive tax-deductible charitable contributions (e.g. cash) and for taxpayers who make contributions. You can find out whether an organization qualifies if they are listed under IRS Publication 78 by doing a simple search for names of qualified charitable organizations by visiting the Publication 78 search page. A simple search reveals that CAD would qualify for IRS tax deduction but not DBC. And this raises a question about sending a check directly to DBC using their home address on the check. It does not say "Or send check to CAD." DBC cannot, according to the IRS, receive donated money directly as an organization because DBC is not listed under IRS Publication 78 list of qualified organizations for IRS tax deduction purposes.

Thirdly, money donated to CAD would be legitimate according to IRS Publication 78 and that they are obligated to disclose to the public on the amount of money that was donated. If money was donated to DBC via CAD's PayPal then CAD must also be obligated to disclose publicly monies donated according to IRS guidelines. Not doing so would be a breach of IRS’ requirement on disclosing money. If you donated money to CAD for DBC, CAD is required by IRS law to send you a letter of acknowledgement on cash contribution/donation to CAD. The penalty for an organization that do not meet the written disclosure requirement is $10 per contribution, not to exceed $5000 per fundraising event or mailing. An organization may avoid the penalty if it can show that failure to meet the requirements was due to reasonable cause. For more info on this go to Section 170(f)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 1.170A-13(f) of the Income Tax Regulations. The “low-cost article” rules are set forth in Section 513 (h)(2) of the Code. You can find this information at http://www.irs.gov/ .

Now, some questions. Is DBC part of an umbrella organization under CAD which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization? Did CAD file DBC as part of their umbrella organization with the IRS? As for money donated to CAD for DBC, how is money given to DBC even though it is an organization that doesn't qualify under IRS' Publication 78? What are the legalities concerning a non-profit company such as CAD on giving or passing donated money to an unlisted organization not on IRS list of qualified organizations? What I what I want to know as a tax payer is how much money was donated to CAD (e.g. via PayPal) where the money is funneled over to DBC over the past year starting in 2007. Does this sound like a money laundering effort even though it is NOT in the usual sense of the word? The IRS explains exactly what money laundering is. I'm not saying it's being done that way but I am asking questions about the legalities and processes of how money goes from CAD to DBC. Does CAD have to report to the IRS on who and how much of the donated money goes to DBC? And what about checks sent directly to DBC? How does DBC report the financial transaction on donated money sent directly to them and not through CAD? Who is controlling this flow of donated money? How were donated monies spent by DBC? Were travel expenses paid? What about hotel costs? Convention costs? Do these things get reported to CAD? To the IRS? Is CAD responsible for reporting these things? Or DBC?

See where I'm getting at?

Where's the accountability here?

Where's the money coming from?

Where's the money going to?

Does the IRS know about this?

So many questions regarding financial transactions and charitable donations. Barry Sewell asks similar questions as well regarding accountability, bylaws and such that question the whole movement by DBC. Transparency is not there. No accountability. No Democracy in action. Simply too many red flags at the moment. All we have are these questionable activities and supposed hidden agendas by DBC and the people involved (or were once involved but were dropped or kicked out). But I think the IRS issue could be a potentially serious one that perhaps even NAD may not be aware of. We need some kind of transparency here to explain these things whether it's DBC, CAD, or even NAD.

A mission ought to be simple and direct. In the case of babies or children with hearing loss it should be about providing positive and valuable information for hearing parents to have about ASL and English (spoken, signed, and/or written) as being equal without all the added baggage and guilt thrown at them. Even if parents choose a different mode of communication or method they should not be made to feel guilty when it was an informed decision process.

Interview with President of AGBell

New AGBell President, Jay Wyant, celebrated his swearing-in on June 30 with a guest appearance on the Milwaukee local FOX show "Wake Up Milwaukee." Since Fox 6 news did not provide captioning or a transcript for those in the audience with hearing loss, AGBell provided the captioning themselves. An unfortunate and ironic twist considering that Fox 6 news interviewed a deaf person who is the president of a nationally known organization for deaf and hard of hearing people and parents of children with hearing loss.

Recently, one blogger, RLM, made this wild claim about Jay Wyant before AGBell added captioning in their video link of the Fox 6 news interview:

Why the new AGBell president, Jay Wyant, solely appeared on the Milwaukee WITI FOX News' Health Center segment without someone from the DBC to offer the counter-argument on the ongoing controversy on the educational method and language acquisition and development?

Apparently, if you watch the captioned video by AGBell (note, be sure click on "CC" symbol to turn on the closed captioning), you can easily tell that no arguments were made at all at anytime regarding any topics such as educational method or language acquisition and development. I am hoping that RLM will publicly acknowledge this error of his.

UPDATE: It's a bit ironic considering the lack of captioning or available transcript by Fox 6 news but even more so coming from AGBell's website that linked to that video of the Fox 6 news interview with Jay Wyant who, again more irony here, used to be the Marketing Director for CaptionMax and has extensive in telecommunications and technology accessbility background as described in here. It certainly behooves AGBell to at least offer a transcript of the Fox 6 news even though it was the news station's utlimate responsibility in providing a text version of the interview for those who cannot hear or understand well the spoken word. A transcript should have been provided by AGBell once they thought about linking to a non-captioned Fox 6 news interview of their own president. But it took a hard of hearing person, me, to do all this wokr just so the rest of ya'll can have that equal access. Yet it took several hours to get all this prepared by listening and writing down the words and putting them into captioned form along with a transcript. Yet, I'm not going use laziness or the "purity" route as an excuse not to provide captioning or a transcript when many of you know you can do it anyway but don't. You are what you do.

Jay Wyant, are you listening to what I'm saying?

Great interview, though.

UPDATE II: I removed the YouTube video of my captioning effort and transcript from my blog since AGBell now has their captioned video of the interview. Of course, done by CaptionMax. Good for them. And I wonder why it took them so long? Yet I was about 98 to 98% accurate despite Jay's voice, which is still very intelligible. And I commend him for speaking and using his voice in front of a camera. That takes courage and shows full confidence in his ability to speak and have a dialogue.

sComm's Fresh New Website!

Come one. Come all. Check out sComm's newly redesigned website and see the latest news, services and products they have to offer. Be sure to check out Ubi4Tel™ which is a new and ground-breaking UbiDuo telephone feature. And experience the same freedom of two-way, simultaneous communication over a telephone line when calling another UbiDuo user. Except this time UbiDuo’s wireless capability enables you to communicate with up to 3 other people in a four-way conference call! So, stop by. Have chat. And see why UbiDuo could make your life that much easier to communicate with the rest of the hearing world.

Ball and Chain

I agree and I support on what Amy Cohen Efron said about the need to exhibit positive examples rather than resort to conspiracy talks, continued negative remarks and darts and daggers aimed at AGBell (and not "AGBAD" which is clearly a barb) whether implied or directly, and the continued bringing up old history rather than to look forward to the future in a positive way. If DBC supporters or followers continue to do these negative types of compaigns via their vlogs or blogs then it will probably be the death of DBC unless somebody make clear to these Deaf people and supporters, who carry way too many baggage, hidden agendas, hiding behind their masks and whatnot need to stop with these personal vendettas and negative but personal campaigns on the sideline

I and many others have seen time and time again these detractors' hidden agendas and masks worn by many of them who pretend to be neutral on cochlear implant issues, AVTs, oral progams, parental rights regarding their deaf/hh babies and such. Their rift is simply too big for them ignore and hide behind their own masks. It’s simply too apparent in a lot of cases. Brian O'Reilly exemplies this fully though, ironically, he's a hearing person who is speaking on behalf of all Deaf people. Until these things are weeded out as early as possible no amount of PRs by DBC will have much an impact since the numerous Deaf vloggers and bloggers will simply overshadow DBC's laudable goals and efforts on positive thinking. Again, Brian O’Reilly’s article in DBC’s own official website was written to attack and demean AGBell and the organization thereby nullifying DBC’s own agenda on moving forward. It cannot if these attitudes persist.

Examples of negative remarks and darts thrown at AGBell seen in "Gearing Up" by Brian O'Reilly (a hearing person speaking on behalf of Deaf people at DBC):

- "Battle of the Conferences” (which implies that DBC is a protest of sort on behalf of Brian O’Reilly’s own writing in DBC’s official website)
- “…merciless references to the great antagonist and arch-villain of the story, Alexander Graham Bell.”
- “ …destroyed lives.. ”
- “ …damage done… ”
- “ …insidious method of preemptive strike… ”
- “Premptive strikes on the social level..”
- “ …force them to try to communicate… ”
- “ …Bellian-Oralist scheme… ”
- “ …still-born plan of the type of mad scientist better relegated to a Mary Shelley novel… ” (note: Mary Shelley wrote the famous novel “Frankenstein”)
- “ …having been fooled.. ”
- “ …silver-tongued embezzler of the mind.. ”
- “ ..mental hijinks lay dormant.. ”
- etc..etc… ad nauseum.

This article (that DBC implicitly supports) probably set back the goals and image of DBC by several years, if not decades, in the effort to get their word out. But with a single stroke of a pen the article, “Gearing up,” single handidly ruined DBC’s first day at the Milwaukee conference. There is nothing worse than to have a stuck mental picture in the public minds, who happens to be mostly hearing parents of deaf/hh children, seeing just how loathsome, angry and disrespectful DBC seems to be. And all because, with thanks, Brian thought it was a cleverly done article replete with negative attacks after negative attacks in an official DBC website?

Nice going.

Isn’t DBC about looking forward and not backward? There are simply too many Deaf people with hidden agendas and heavy baggage that are capable of ruining DBC’s main goal on getting positive information out to parents of deaf/hh babies and children so that they can make an informed decision. Now, Amy Cohen Efron won’t say these things but I will just to make myself a bit pointedly clear on just how obnoxious and damaging "Gearing Up" turned out to be.

Frankly, imho, putting the DBC “conference” right next to AGBell’s already produced one big honking red flag warning people on what’s to come. Good intention aside. Why are people surprised that the skywalk was blocked in the first place? Now, remember, the myths about Deaf people and their “attitudes” are already and firmly in place in most of the public minds and see them as simply “angry” Deaf people (see my points about the UFG protest here and here, and other protests of sorts).

Of course, all it takes is one DBC supporter at the Milwaukee site to cast a negative and angry glance at any of the ABGell’s attendees or a group of them and that alone will simply confirm to them that the DBC conference is nothing more than an opportunity to protest rather than to disseminate useful information in a neutral and positive way. So far, day 1 has been a “failure” on that part. People supportive of DBC need to look to the future and not the past without using accusatory tones and resentments or else DBC’s message and goals will not be heard but overlapped and swept under the rug. Plus, many people continue to be suspicious of DBC leaders’ intentions because the baggage of the past is simply too heavy for many Deaf people to carry and ignore. I and many, many others have seen this time and time again. Transparency gets ugly if people insist on wearing masks. They have turned that baggage into a ball and chain tightly cuffed to their ankles and they are unwilling to let it go.

So, now. What will it be? Look to the future or look to the past and let the ball and chain do the talking?

C.I.s and Hearing Aids Illegal in Denver 2009 Deaf Golf Tournament

Cochlear implants and hearing aids illegal in Denver 2009 Deaf Golf Tournament!Registered players are forced to remove and leave their hearing aids or cochlear implants behind before entering the golfing tournament to be held in Denver in 2009.

Ok. Not exactly news to me on this forced requirement (instead of encouraging those to leave their "paraphernalias" behind) but this will be for many others who are reading this for the first time.

But before I begin, let’s look at “Accessible Rhetoric” discussion on his/her discovery of a deaf contestant with a cochlear implant in American Gladiator.

What’s going on here? Why does being deaf on this game show present a “bigger challenge” than being able to hear? From what I’ve seen of the show (I haven’t seen much, but I’ve seen enough), I can’t recall or imagine an example in which a contestant’s ability to hear or speak played a significant role in the game’s outcome. Contestants simply don’t need to hear in order to do well, and in fact not being able to hear may actually be an advantage in this context because deaf contestants may be less distracted by trash-talking gladiators or boisterous audiences.

Now, let's turn this discussion around on whether the ability to hear offers any advantages in a game of golf which is, not surprisingly so, none. And revisit what I wrote 3 and 4 years ago on a subject where deaf and hard of hearing competitors are BANNED from wearing hearing aids or cochlear implants at any “officially sanctioned” Deaf Golf Tournaments which is a prime example of political correctness run amok in the guise of “spirit in the game of golf” where everyone is “equal.” I’m sure the USGA Resource Center feels the same thing.

Review my past blog entries from a few years ago here and here.

That was 3 years ago. Ah…such an example of “diversity” and “tolerance” and all those things that gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling. Yea, they, too, practiced discrimination. Not that I’m complaining just that it’s a critical observation of mine.

Though it is interesting that the US Deaf Golf Foundation (USDGF) is no longer but US Deaf Golf Association (USDGA) is and they have the same rules about competitors who wear hearing aids or cochlear implants in order to stay “compliant” with World Deaf Golf Championships' rules (WDGC):

2) Because the WDGC doesn’t allow Hearing Aids or Cochlear Implants during the WDGC; therefore, we will follow the same rule – Hearing Aids/Cochlear Implants are not allowed during the 2007 USDGC play.

The funny thing is that you have to dig around in order to find this "Waiver of Liability" form that states the rules about hearing aids and cochlear implants which isn't apparent or visible off of their main rules webpage. Instead this is what they state under the rules section.

COMPETITION:
- All play shall be governed by USGA Rules and its decisions; and where applicable, by local rules, conditions, and definements, subject to changes by the Committee. Decisions of the Committee are final.

- If a referee has been appointed by the Committee, his decision on the golf course is final. (Rule 34-2 and A “referee’’ is one who is appointed by the Committee to accompany players to decide questions of fact and apply the Rules. He must act on any breach of a Rule that he observes or is reported to him.)
- Competition is considered to have closed when all players have submitted their scorecards to the Tournament Director and the results are officially announced.
- Protest of any contest and/or tournament is not allowed.`
- Entry Qualification: Deaf/Hearing Impaired golfers must have 55dB or above in the better ear.

See the last one highlighted in red? That's the only requirement regarding a player's deafness and no mention on anything about wearing cochlear implants or hearing aids during a tournament. There is nothing that states about the illegal use of hearing aids or cochlear implants during a "Deaf" golfing tournament.

Interesting albeit a bit deceitful on not being upfront under their "Competition" rules page regarding hearing aids and cochlear implants. You have to dig around in order to find the exact rules regarding hearing aids and cochlear implants.

*sarcasm on*

So, *ahem*, how dare they aggregate deaf and hard of hearing players and force them to remove their hearing aids and cochlear implants before competing in a tournament round of golf! Such paternalistic attitudes!! How dare they force their hands and require them to remove their paraphernalias from their heads and ears.

*sarcasm off*

Oh, by the way, be sure to visit the 2009 Deaf Golf Championships to be held in Denver, Colorado. I am sure they could use an enthusiastic crowd of cochlear implant and hearing aid audience over there to cheer on the officials, er, competitors. I’m sure they’ll find a very tolerant crowd there all in the name of “diversity.” I guess other deaf golfing associations know better than not to put down silly rules regarding cochlear implants or hearing aids in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance."

Forcing the hand or not?

I want to make a clarification to “Earofmyheart.com” or “LZupp” over at YouTube (see transcript of her video at her blogsite) concerning the supposed “forcing” of people into doing what they do not want to do. In this case, it’d be the Deaf Village’s guideline requiring that all videos or vlogs submitted need to be captioned, subtitled or at the very least include a transcript. No one is being forced against his or her will when it comes to having a text version for a submitted video. Either the person shares a similar philosophy or goal as Deaf Village or he does not. A person has a choice on whether he wants his video to be accessible to more people over the internet or he does not. And if so, then the person will take the time to ensure that access to the rest of the deaf, hh and hearing population be made possible to those who may know little or do not know signing or the visual communication. This text requirement also extends to those who speak in their videos as well since not all deaf, hh or hearing understand or hear every spoken word. Also, not all videos are made the same and thus quality differs. Deaf Village wants to ensure and guarantee those who do visit DV will know that linked videos will either have captions, subtitles or transcripts.

A Message from the Late Deafened and Deaf/HH Community

Update: Correct video version.

NAD Does Not Care for Deaf People?

Just to point out the level of hypocrisy generated by some of those in the Deaf community who say that deaf/hh blogs need to include an ASL video equivalent to help those who are "functionally illiterate" or illiterate altogether, I would respectfully point out to you to take a look at the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) website.

The NAD website is a site that most Deaf people would go to check out news, updates, upcoming conferences, legal issues and so on. But there is something that is glaringly apparent in the NAD website and that if Deaf people aren't complaining about accessing NAD's website you will notice that the NAD website is almost and completely devoid of any ASL videos!! I checked on all the tabs that linked to various topics under "Legal Rights," "Advocacy Issues," "Take Action," "Info & FAQs," "Newsroom," and "Inside NAD" and found not one single ASL video that is dedicated to explain each of the topics and subtopics in ASL. It is obviously and readily apparent that there is no ASL videos to click on anywhere on the NAD site under a variety of topics and issues.

Videos done in ASL (along with a transcript with no captioning for those who want to learn ASL) was done by Beth Scoggins, president of NAD, seen in her NAD's President Blog . These videos are basically done as a lip service to Deaf people because throughout the rest of the NAD site there is no ASL video equivalent to go with the printed versions of NAD's website to help explain in layman terms in ASL to those who may need it. But instead, the NAD website is overwhelming English dominated in the printed format.

Why is that?

Now, where are the pitchforks, the torches, the angry Deaf mob pounding at the door of NAD for ignoring and excluding them, Deaf people with poor English skills, from accessing their website with no ASL video equivalents? Yet, NAD claims the mantle of diversity and accessibility for 30 million people with hearing loss which would be questionable at this point. NAD's website is mostly accessible towards those whose primary language is the English language and not ASL. Why has NAD ignored these Deaf people for so many decades with their oppressive use of the English language that is the common language for the majority of the population, including Deaf people, in the United States?

So, my point is this. If ya'll are going to go after Deaf Village for requiring any videos or vlogs (ASL, voice, cued, signing) be captioned, subtitled or included with a transcript and you're angry for them requiring ASL vlogs or videos have the English text equivalent then I think it's better that you focus your efforts on going after NAD instead. NAD has been oppressing the few Deaf people with poor English skills for years by paying them lip service for not providing an ASL video equivalent to the printed formats on the NAD website. And NAD is supposedly proud of their ASL heritage but their website is not "ASL-friendly"?

Onto blogs and vlogs.

Blogs are personal in nature and it's up to the descretion of the blogger to do whatever he or she wants. The same for vlogs. The decision to include captioning, subtitling, transcripts or signing videos is up to the blogger/vlogger if he or she believes in providing equal access and inclusion. As for Deaf Village's guideline #5 requiring ASL videos or vlogs be captioned or included a transcript is for the expressed purpose on ensuring access to the greatest number of people with hearing loss (also for hearing people, too) since the English happens to be the most commonly used language in the United States, including among Deaf people, for the 30 million people with hearing loss. ASL is not.

Free Translation and Captioning Service for ASL Vloggers?

Here are some interesting questions on the equal access issue of signed video bloggings if you were given the opportunity to use a free service to translate and caption (or transcript) for your ASL video blogs. Would you take it if done free so other non-signers may be able to access your ASL vlogs?

Would you accept free ASL translation and captioning service for your ASL vlogs?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Would you accept free ASL translation and transcripting service for your ASL vlogs?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Hypocrisy? Double Standards? You be the judge.

The one common language that all Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people in the United States have immediate access to on the internet is the printed English language.

Now, tell me. I'm utterly befuddled with this glaringly and obvious conundrum by those screaming about Deaf Village's #5 requirement (submitted video entries require a texted version). Why hasn't there been a collective hue and cry over Deaf bloggers for not including ASL video versions of their blog entries? Deaf bloggers have been doing this for years. Ridor is a good example who have purposely ignored those who want/require/need an ASL video version of the written texted entries. He is, after all, a well known and favored Deaf blogger. No? What about DeafRead? They failed to provide an ASL video version in their guidelines and elsewhere! Boy, talk about not having "mutual respect." And yet no one is screaming bloody murder over that one? What about Gallaudet University's website for not including ASL video versions with all of their texted versions? And NTID? Or other Deaf websites? Why not the outrage over these bloggers and websites? It's because everybody knows that English is the one common language that is immediately accessible to the largest group of people, including Deaf. So by eliminating the texted version requirement would not fit the philosophy of Deaf Village on providing the most common form communication access. The printed English language is that common ground we all have.

Now, until people start addressing the issue of "non-compliance" committed by Deaf bloggers, Deaf websites, Gallaudet University's websites, NTID, DeafRead, etc, for not including ASL video versions of their texted entries then those people "might" have a leg to stand on with their complaints. Otherwise trying to spin it in the direction of Deaf Village on not having that "mutual respect" would be nothing but a hypocrite response. I'd say that'd be a heck of an Achilles Heel right there by those making that complaint. I'm sorry to say this but people need to look into their own Deaf mirrors before making those charges of double standards. Go after the Deaf bloggers first for a change because these bloggers ought to know better to include ASL video versions of their texted entries. Right?

Ok. I'm being quite facetious and sarcastic, obviously so, but I'm trying to make a point here, and I apologize to those who may feel offended by my comments here. But if people are going to make charges of "double standards" then please apply those same charges to the many Deaf bloggers and Deaf websites for not including an ASL video version of their texted entries. Else you end up looking like a hypocrite.

Deaf Village's target audience isn't only just Deaf people but people with heairng loss from all stripes and those who want to learn more about deafness and read about deaf/hh people experiences. But the bottom line in all this is that the one common language shared by all is the English language.

UPDATE I (a response):

Tony wrote:

Secondly, Ridor’s blog is a personal site, which is different to deaf village which is an
“aggregator”. Once again, the terms for access are different.

Um, Tony. That kind of reasoning doesn't fly which you infer that an aggregator site has an obligation to help ensure access. Not in the case of any aggregator business. People are saying that DV should somehow be obligated to provide a captioning or transcripting service for Deaf vloggers which are also personal blog sites in the form of videos. If an argument is going to be used in the attempt to somehow exempt Deaf bloggers or Deaf websites from their responsibilities on providing text versions of their ASL video blogs then it won't work if they scream in the same breath that they are entitled to these captioning demands simply flies in the face of incredulity. Else they'd be walking hypocrites. It's also called a "non sequitur" with that kind of reasoning.

So, for the case of Deaf Village you are saying, Tony, in fact, that Deaf Village should somehow provide a text version of vloggers' ASL video blogs so that they can be submitted properly? If so, then certainly DeafRead should also provide subtitles or transcripts for videos by those who speak and want to share his/her opinions to the Deaf masses on deafness issues supposing the person doesn't know how to type or don't know how to do subtitling. Ok. A far-fetched scenario but still equally applicable on the DeafRead side. The resources are simply not there to address these concerns. So, the onus or responsibility still falls on the person making the video to ensure access in the form of a text version. The responsibility does not fall on the content aggregator site when it comes to providing captions/subtitles or transcripts. It's the individuals. That's already clear.

Secondly, everybody knows that English is the one common language that is immediately accessible to the largest group of people, including Deaf. So by eliminating the text version requirement it would not fit the philosophy of DV on helping provide the most common form communication access. And that would be the printed English language which is that common ground we all share.

Now, if Deaf Village (or even DeafRead) or a future aggregator site had the resources, the time, the people and the money I'm sure they would be all too happy to provide a service to help include captions/subtitles or transcript for vloggers' ASL video blogs in order to stay compliant with DV's philosophy on equal communication access. The English language in the printed format is, again, the most common form of communication access that is accessible to the majority of people out there, including Deaf. Guideline #5 is there for a reason, to ensure that readers who do come to DV's content aggregator site will be ensured that whatever mode of communication used in blogs and vlogs will be seen in English.

Now, supposing a service is available for free, will Deaf vloggers take up this service and ensure that their ASL video blogs be captioned in English so that the larger audience can access their video blogs? Or will they take the "purity" route like Tayler did and forego any captioning because it "ruins" or "distract" those who watch ASL vlogs keeping to the mantra of ASL-only videos? Remember, these availble resources do take time, money and people power to make it work.

My response to Mishka Zena

When navel gazing goes too far into the trash can

What Mishka Zena said:

Actually, Shelley, I think Mike does get it. He doesn’t care as he apparently feels the needs of the oral deaf and hearing people more important than the needs of ASL users. Again this is my personal interpretation based on my observations on his posts and comments the last two years.

Incidentally he had already read this post the first time. This is not new to him, not at all, yet he is still pressing on for cc/subtitling of ASL vloggers while being quiet about blogs not being accessible to ASL users.

My response of which I already replied in her blog comment box:

Mishka, it’s a bit of a non sequitur (not to mention being a bit disingenuous) in the attempt to say that written blogs ought to have ASL video interpretations just to make it “fair.” If that’s the case then Closed Captioning on television shows and such ought to be replaced with an ASL interpreter in the corner of the tv screen. If it’s English is so bad to read then make sure you go after Gallaudet University for not including an ASL version for every article written whether it’s news, sports, administration update and so on. If you really want to see hypocrisy go after Gallaudet University or NTID for not including ASL versions in all of their writings over the internet. Or what about the countless Deaf websites that do not have ASL video versions next to their written English sections?

Secondly, you are making a statement (as well as helping perpetuate the 4th grade reading literacy myth/fact) about the literacy levels that Deaf people have by sayinig they are unable to read yet they have no problem taking the time to comment in many blogs. Maybe you ought ought to go after Ricky Taylor’s blogs for not including an ASL vlog version alongside each and every blog entry? But I don’t see Deaf people reaching for their pitchforks going after him for not adding an ASL version to his blog entries. Heck, go after DeafRead for no having an ASL version for their guidelines. After all I wonder how many Deaf people who already read DR’s guidelines didn’t understand them at all because it was all in English? Who knows, maybe they violated DR’s guideline umpteen times it’d make your head spin? You wanna talk about hypocrisy, diversity and accessiblity all in one fell swoop now, Mishka?

English is the one single common language that is accessible to the majority population, deaf or otherwise, who are literate. ASL is not accessible to the majority of the population in the United States. The majority of Deaf people are literate enough to read simple sentences to more complex ones such as yours, Mishka. I guess you better starting adding an ASL version of your blog entry just for the sake of “fairiness.” After all, you blogs are certainly not “accessible to ASL users.”

And for the record, I have not read or accessed Mishka Zena's post until today. Oh, and I do get it. It just perhaps you guys don’t get it and the level of hypocrisy y’all are displaying?

Adversity or Using Your Deafness as a Crutch?

Location: Dog Canyon on the Sacramento Mountains in New Mexico near Alamogordo. February 2008.

I'm revisiting my "adversity" video blog that I did earlier this year and let people know that we all face adversity in our lifetime whether it's now or later. In the things that we do and the circumstances that makes us who we are, diversity is what makes the world go around. Adversity means that you have move past your fears, your shortcomings, your supposed "failures" and pull yourself up by your bootstraps rather than to blame a condition such as deafness for your supposed "short-comings" in your life. Adversity doesn't mean you dwell on your negatives but rather look ahead on the possibilities of what you can do yourself when nobody else will do it for you. It's about not using your condition(s) or what happened in the past as a crutch of an excuse for your defense. No one likes a whiner. It's about being positive in life as you face them over time and not about focusing on the negatives as seen here by one deaf person.

Adversity, we all face them at one time or another. For deaf and hard of hearing people, their adversity is hearing loss. In my case and for many others, the ability to speak and/or listen shouldn't be about the "audacity of hope" on achieving those things. Not with technology we have today or better educational understanding when it comes to early intervention for a deaf child or baby on developing better listening and speaking skills. Those things should be expected as achievable and very reachable goals and not some mundane "audacity of hope" kind of thing we're hearing about today. Maybe 40 years ago but certainly not today. And even less so 10, 20 and 30 years down the road when technology and, especially so, biotechnology will continue to change the landscape for those with hearing loss. But regardless of how you face your own adversity in life and in the case of your deafness, do not use it as a crutch of an excuse by using commonly used words in your vocabulary...."I can't."

You can.

Nobody asking you to be like Mighty Mouse but be yourself and do the best you can.