Wednesday, June 23, 2010

A Flattened Peacock on AB 2072


Can't say I didn't warn you about the peacock effect on AB 2072. Simply put. The peacock was flattened during the process.

The Senators at the hearing passed the bill, 5 to 1. Senate Romero was the sole Senator to have opposed the bill. I watched the entire AB 2072 hearing on the Senate floor. The video was not captioned but the staff in charge of the live stream video tried their best to keep the camera on the interpreters and those who signed. It was not perfectly done but I appreciated the effort. I knew we'd miss out some of the things that were said so I had an interpreter beside me as I watched the live stream so I was able to listen to EVERYTHING that was said. Better yet, I have it recorded on my hard drive for future references. So, what's new with this Mr. Evidence, eh? (I had to snicker at this one...)

It became interesting when they entered into a debate on the role of audiologists and whether it should be under DHS (Dept. of Health Services) or DOE (Department of Education) jurisdiction. Valid points were made on both sides but they decided to leave it with DHS mainly because DOE (Education Department) do not get involved with medical aspect of deafness until the child enters into school age while the role of DHS begins from day one of any born child. This made perfect sense.

Then the debate became even more interesting when they discussed the role of audiologists. Valid points were made on both sides so Senate Chair Person Elaine Alquist stepped in and stated her opinion on the matter and basically said that she thought we all ought to place some faith in the system knowing that the ultimate goal here was to provide ALL information, in fairness to the family of deaf children. She then asked for a motion to vote on the bill and a motion was made. I counted the scores with my fingers until my right hand had full five fingers and my left hand with only one finger, the middle finger. (Laughing at my sense of humor here because I don't swear... had to poke some fun at these deafhoodized peacocks.)

You can safely chalk up one more defeat for these deafhoodized folks and the closed society they represent. DBC screwed up in Milwaukee. AFA screwed up in Washington D.C. CAD screwed up during the Assembly hearing some time ago and called EHDI's Karl White an audist.

This time around, the society of yellow $2 (yes, two dollars) t-shirts screwed up on behalf of CAD (California Association of the Deaf), NORCAL, GLAD, DCARA, and numerous other opponents. I stand amazed today wondering when these closed society people are ever gonna learn.

And finally, may shame be bestowed upon on the very people that coordinated this $2 yellow t-shirts project. That was totally embarrassing! Will throw in a couple of reasons why it was a disgrace to the deaf community. Those in charge should have known better than to dress their people in a uniformed way, as if they were some kind of animal who could not think or dress independently. Worse yet, they appeared in front of elected Senators hoping to win an argument and the best they could do was show up in $2 t-shirts? Is this how we want to paint our deaf community? It painted one ugly picture of the deaf community, technically painting them as people of great poverty. That's very povertizing! Look it up if you don't know what it means....

And finally, finally I could not help noticing Dr. Don G giving instructions to some of the people who lined up to state their names and opposition against the bill. Initially Chair Woman Elaine Alquist asked them to only state their full names and whether they support or oppose the bill. And she made herself abundantly clear that she wanted nothing else. But yet the long line of this $2 yellow shirt society came in and threw in extra choice of words, as if they were uniformed not only in how they dressed, but also in how they stated their oppositions, throwing several extra words at the end. The reason they did it was simple. They were given the instruction to say exactly the same things, by Dr. Don G and his coordinated staff. Totally embarrassing because it basically told the Senators that majority of these people could not think or speak for themselves. Heck, they didn't follow Elaine Alquist's instruction from the very beginning. That is some society!

Don't know if anybody realizes it yet but a coordinated $2 Yellow Shirt Society was a perfect example of peacock effect! They came in great numbers but yet the color 'yellow' demonstrated peacock effect! In essence, the big peacock effect still amounted to a single peacock. All these $2 yellow t-shirts amounted to one vote in Senators' eyes. In short, they all were there because of a coordinated effort, coming from the same group of people. Does not count for very much and this much became clear today. I did not call it a peacock effect for fun.

Worse yet, David Eberwein, a Principal of California Fremont School for the Deaf embarrassed the entire deaf nation when he appeared in his turn to state his name. As soon as he said his name he suggested that the bill be thrown into the shredder (machine). That was a former core member of DBC as well. And these people call themselves leaders?

Edwin Black who? All of suddenly he was no where to be seen or mentioned. His argument on eugenics disappeared into the thin air.

Regardless, the outcome is clear. A flattened peacock. Thank you.

71 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes. A classic case of Bison Jump. It happened on the Senate floor today in Sacramento under the watch of deafhoodized leaders. Shameful.

    As for E. Black, no explanation was offered on their part. My best guess is he choked on the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Whoo! This is awesome! I watched the whole thing. I understood everything the Chair, Senator Alquist said, she was easy to understand but the others was hit and miss. It would be great if you can get the recorded hearing captioned for all to see.

    I love how Senator Alquist put the bill into simple perspective and even with the amendment, I think this is a win win for all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So the opposition did what it took to get amendments you guys consider a "win-win" for all, and you're still insulting them?

    Edwin Black wasn't SUPPOSED to come to this hearing. You guys all just assumed he was coming and worked yourselves into a tizzy over it. The only mentions of Edwin Black coming were on the supporters' blogs, so you managed to convince one another that he was coming!

    So once the final language comes out, you can see all the amendments we got total, including today's.

    Don't freak out, please! I think you'll like what we got for the most part, tho there's still tweaking that we'll all still want to discuss and make real.

    Of course, it would really help for you to tone down the BS Peacock rhetoric if you wanted to have a real discussion of how to help deaf babies, but the only one who can decide to do that is you...

    Maybe you'd prefer to keep on complaining about the people who are not only trying to do good things for deaf babies, but finally beginning to succeed?

    Once you see the new language, you can decide how you want to proceed with the not-so-closed community that is helping our state progress into a future with less systematic harm done to deaf babies, but, as you can now see, has begun progressing without you...

    Later!

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  6. Really the SOC should have captioned it, so is responsible for getting us all a captioned copy!

    Doesn't mean it will happen, but I'm going to try to bug them and get us one...

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  7. Linda,

    As always you're angry and pissed off at me.

    The opposition did nothing credible today at the hearing. They screwed up the first five minutes of their time. Watch the video again and you'll catch a glimpse of the opponent speaker saying he did not realize that he consumed 5 minutes out of 6 minutes that were granted. FYI, inexperience is the word.

    Right now you and your opponents are desperately trying to save your faces, which is understandable considering the amount of time you all spent trying to KILL the bill. Kill the bill. Stop AB 2072 was what I heard all month long. Come to the Senate hearing today and you lost. Now you're saying you wanted to compromise and work on the bill. That was really cute.

    Don't tell me Edwin Black was not supposed to be there. He showed up last week BECAUSE you all thought they were going to have a hearing that day. Can't deny this important fact.

    The final language that ultimately comes out in the very end will still include ALL communication options. Try and change that one because that's what you all were complaining about in the first place. Change the subject if you want to but we remember the original sticking point of yours.

    Nobody's freaking out except you and yours. This much is evident already.

    I tried to have a real discussion when I v/blogged on the subject and said "AB 2072 is an opportunity". What did you guys do? You all bawled at my message and put on your war paints. And now you're complaining that I did not try to have a real discussion on this bill? You have a really short memory, don't you?

    Not sure what you meant by "but the only one who can decide to do that is you...". Thank you for giving me the power to decide but I've assigned the power to the parents of deaf children to decide what they think is best for the child and their family.

    Later yourself,
    Barry

    ReplyDelete
  8. Huh Linda? You ought to watch my earlier vlog called The Third Mask at deafvideo.tv or youtube and learn about the difference between earned rights versus free rights. Want free rights as in captioned videos? You'll have to wait for it and hope your luck pans out. May have to beg your way around to get it done. Me? I didn't bother to wait and I won't have to beg my way around. Instead I arranged to have my very own interpreter for this event and gather all of my facts together while the entire hearing was shown on a live stream.

    It's entirely up to you if you want to present yourself as a liability icon, demanding for such rights from the government. Me, I choose to present myself as an asset to the nation and pay my way around. I even asked the interpreter to have the video captioned at my own expense just to demonstrate how the paradigm shift actually begins within self.

    As one Hopi Elder put it... "Do not look outside yourself for the leader. We, ourselves are the ones we've been waiting for."

    Barry

    ReplyDelete
  9. I saw that, but wondered just how deaf babies were expected to earn their rights...

    Pictured that little handcuffed deaf baby with a pick-axe getting ready to work for his rights...

    My opinion, it's the adults that get to work to protect the vulnerable ones like deaf babies, but that doesn't fit into your "earned rights" picture.

    Not angry... Look at your own schadenfreude while watching your opponents, and I think we can all see some anger there...

    Anyway, hopefully now that you've seen that the opposition is WORKING to create a better bill by getting changes at each hearing, maybe you'll understand that your caricature of them is only making it so that no real collaboration has been possible BECAUSE the severe distortions of your opposition's motives have twisted the discussion out of any possibility of being reasonable...

    That can change, and we can have a real discussion... Or you can keep trying to portray us as monsters and watch the bill be improved despite you...

    Your choice...

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Linda,

    Glad you saw the "third mask' video. Now the question is why you've not learned anything from it.

    Deaf babies belongs to the parents therefore they do not expected to earn their rights until they become much older. Furthermore, the earned rights I was referring to in this thread has to do with captions. Since when does deaf babies read captions? You are not making much senses here.

    Deaf babies are not vulnerable as you tried to paint them. Shame on you for placing so little faith in deaf babies. I sincerely believe that deaf babies are fighters. Even better, I sincerely believe that the parents of deaf babies want the best for their children. They meant well. It's unfortunate for you to try and paint the parents as the unfit criminals.

    Not angry here on my part either. Just puzzled at how much longer we're going to see "stupidity in action". It's really an amazing thing to watch. You guys are making history here for the most defeats in short amount of time.

    Unfortunately I don't see the opposition trying to work to create a better bill. Initially they opposed "all communication options". And then the "kill the bill" and "stop AB 2072" song came. All that disappeared as soon as you guys realized you lost the battle and now you're trying to make it sound as if you were trying to work with the existing bill. Who are you trying to kid? I mean, did you really believe or think that deaf people in this nation are that stupid?

    I agree with you on one front. That can change. Real discussion can happen. Like I pointed out here, it begins with you. I already vlogged about it long before you guys put on your war paints. And I'm still here talking about AB 2072 as an opportunity. It's you that changed the tone from 'kill the bill' to 'fix the bill'. But it only happened after you guys realized you failed, miserably. There's been a change in the tone. Cute. Really cute.

    ReplyDelete
  12. > It's entirely up to you if you want to present yourself as a liability icon...

    Wow! You REALLY don't know me at all! You've got a picture in your mind that fits your caricature of what I SHOULD be to have any other opinion but yours...

    > demanding for such rights from the government.

    I work to ensure the rights we are due, because the government is US. Only WE can make it accountable to the needs of the vulnerable ones.

    As for the captioning, it was required by ADA, they knew it, and they are responsible for providing it. You are, of course, correct that it may not happen this time, because they are unused to just what needs to be provided when, so make mistakes.

    But in the United States of America, we DO have rights, including the rights we just exercised at the Capitol over the past few weeks as well as today...

    Rights ALREADY EARNED by soldiers' blood, but rights which we must vigilantly defend just as we have done...

    BTW, I'm not angry at all... Not spinning things, either... Not sure you can understand that, but I felt we genuinely accomplished something today. Amazing to me that you couldn't see what really happened today despite having extra interpreting...

    I'm pretty sure Candy and BBF understand what really happened today... Maybe they can explain what you didn't see?

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  13. Distortions such as claiming I painted the babies' parents as criminals.

    Distortions such as describing your exaggerations of your opponents positions, then pretending that you only need to argue against those extreme positions.

    Distortions such as pretending that "kill the bill" and "fix the bill" are really different things, in the process of the making of a bill... You have had experience with bills, without a long period of give and take such as we've had with the state?

    So many "convenient" distortions of your opponents positions that you are just beating the stuffing out of a strawman of your own creation, rather than seeing your opponents for who they really are (human like you) and discussing the actual merits of the arguments.

    > Cute. Really cute.

    Once again, you believe that I am just spinning things the way you might if you were in this situation, but that's not me. In my opinion, AB 2072 is only now BECOMING an opportunity that it certainly didn't start out being!

    So, if you don't mind, I respectfully request that you give me the benefit of the doubt, and accept that I genuinely believe that we've made improvements here, then lined up to say "not in its current form" because there is still some more work that need to be done to get the babies' parents the information they really need.

    You only watched the hearing itself, but in today's hearing they didn't read the bill as it has been amended already since 6/9, though they referred to it several times at the beginning of the hearing "as amended" (since you have a copy, maybe you can go back and see that caution they made several times? The bill is different from what you have already seen).

    So maybe you'll want to wait to see the new language of AB 2072 before you decide we've "failed, miserably" in getting changes, then going on to ask for a still-better bill?

    You and I may always need to agree to disagree on the role of government, and that's fine!

    We CAN have good discussions, even with such disagreements... But not by distorting one another's arguments!

    Later!

    ReplyDelete
  14. P.S. Deaf babies don't need captions. I meant that WE needed the captions to the hearing that we were due by law. Hope that's clearer.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Linda,

    I never claimed to know you. I am not making any effort to get to know you either. And no, I don't bother trying to envision what you're like in my head.

    Experience taught me to know that disappointments is a by-product of unrealistic expectations we have of others. Therefore I don't harbor unrealistic expectations of you or anybody. I just see everybody at face value, for who they are.

    After all, I don't bother visiting your blogs therefore I don't bother complaining about any of the things you choose to blog about. However you'd come into my blogs and complain about my opinion so look who's concerned about difference of opinion (caricature as you put it). Not I. You're clearly sputtering out words that are like mirror, a reflection of self. Need I say more?

    You talk about rights that we are due because the government is US. That's where I respectfully disagree. I am not the government and I do not expect the government to take care of us. The reason is simple. Our government can not afford to do everything for us. It will bankrupt our government as is evident today. The government is flat broke and in so much debt, thanks to people who think like you.

    Captioning is required by ADA, sure. But was the live stream captioned? No. That's the point I'm making. I knew it would not be captioned and I knew that the camera crew would be less than perfect so I came prepared. I arranged to have my own interpreter for the event. I copied the video into my hard drive for future reference just in case you guys want to try and spread some more lies / myths about what really happened today. You see, you believe in free rights therefore you wait for the privileges that are due you while I believe in earned rights therefore I do not have to wait for the information to arrive and allow your people to continue spreading myths and lies.

    The rights we have in the United States of America are based on checks and balances. Without checks and balances we're going to lose all of our rights. The quicker you put our government deeper in the debt the quicker we'll lose the checks and balances therefore the loss of rights. If you care about these rights, start by preserving it today. Use them when absolutely necessary.

    Rights already earned by the soldiers and their blood still has its price today. All the soldiers and blood will still have been done in vain if we allow our government to continue spending recklessly just because you guys want your rights to be served on silver trays.

    Regardless, I'm glad to know you're not angry. I honestly do not see what you've accomplished today. I honestly don't, based on all the rhetorics for the past several months. And now you're trying to make it sound like that was what you've always fought for.

    I'm also sure Candy and BBF understand what happened today and they both are here in this thread. They both seem to see the same thing that I'm seeing. Candy? BBF? Feel free to step in here if you think I'm wrong on any count.

    Regardless, I've already arranged to have a written transcript for the "hearing" video that I have in my hard drive. It's being done because I'm already seeing lies and myths coming from the other camp on what really happened at the hearing today. That has to end some where and the buck might as well end here with me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I wanted to touch base with the comment of, "Deaf children have no rights!" When a Deaf child is under eighteen (18) years old and does not have any legal rights. The rights of the child are transferred to the parents. The parent can decide what is best for their Deaf child.

    Stephen Hardy

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, there were some major adjustments during the process (meeting). I believe so. For the best of interest.

    But, but, but . . . I must admit that I do concur with the "language" of using this word, options.

    Having choices is the best answer (solution) -- as per my previous debate with you on FB several weeks ago. I am not going to repeat. Hope you remember my arguments.

    To its brief conclusion, audiologists are not to provide any consultations, but audiograms. We need to define their job role not mention some other related professionals.

    Well . . . I am here to inform you that I heard that they made some major changes to the bill during the hearing.

    Umm . . .

    By the way, I enjoy reading your blog -- attempting to draw inferences from facts of the case. Do not get me wrong. :)

    Love you, still!

    -T

    ReplyDelete
  18. The opposition are now trying to say they won the battle. It's amazing to watch how desperate they are trying to save their faces. They claim to have squeezed in their own amendment and that it was accepted and passed.

    According to them, their hired lobbyst told them that they basically hijacked the bill and took over.

    My question is, if that were true then why did Senator Romero who strongly spoke against the bill still voted to oppose the bill at the end?

    If the turn of event favored the people that opposed the bill Senator Romero would have voted for the bill but she didn't. She didn't. She didn't.

    Talk about saving faces on behalf of these people who desperately lost yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Teri, then try and explain this.

    Senator Romero was the sole Senator who opposed the bill initially. She sided with those who opposed the bill. In the end she voted against the bill.

    Kindly try and explain this. If she saw that the situation has changed in favor of the opposition side then why did she move to vote against it? Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Senators also agreed in the hearing that the audiologists could talk if the parents wanted to discuss some of the options with them. The Senators acknowledged that they simply can not place 'gag order' over audiologists and prevent them from having any kind of discussion with parents if the parents choose to seek advice from them.

    Oh I understand. You did not know this because the other side didn't disclose this important fact. They're trying to paint a victory picture to save their faces. Cute.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Facts, Teri? Did you watch the hearing? Did you copy the video into your hard drive? Did you have access to an interpreter during the hearing? Want to talk about facts??? You'd better answer these questions.

    Me? I watched the entire hearing. Copied the entire video into my hard drive for future reference in case some of you decide to distort the facts. Had an interpreter of my own for the hearing.

    Barry

    ReplyDelete
  22. Teri, do yourself a favor. Secure a hard copy of the hearing transcript and read it before you make a fool of yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Linda,

    Then why don't you acknowledge something very important here. The parents of deaf babies meant well. The parents of deaf babies are the ones that wanted the best for their children. The real rights belong to the parents of deaf babies. Try and say it out loud.

    I've worked with the legislative branches for years and years. Sorry but can't compare that with what you've done in six short months in California.

    I've discussed the actual merits the bill only to find you guys whining about it. And now you're saying you want to discuss actual metits? It's about time you did.

    Regardless I'm glad to see that you've finally realized that AB 2072 is now BECOMING an opportunity. I saw that from day one and you didn't. You wanted to KILL the bill. Remember? Oh, don't lie to the world about it.

    Can't give you the benefit of doubt because the whole world saw what you guys said. Kill the bill. Stop AB 2072. That was the song you guys sang.

    You're wrong in stating that I've only watched the hearing but did not read the bill as it has been amended. I've read it and so have Senator Romero who still opposed it. Senator opposed the latest amendment and voted against it at the end of the day.

    If it were true that the turn of event favored the opposition side then kindly explain why Senator Romero voted against the bill at the end of the day.

    Barry

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hello. Just to clarify.... I live in Washington D.C. and a trip to Sacramento is not a subway ride downtown or even an Acela ride up to NYC. It is an all-day travel effort, a three-to-four day commitment, and the question of my appearance could not even proceed since no one knew from moment to moment whether legislative action would be taken or again postponed at the last minute as it was previously. At one point there was a 20-minute window to make a decision to run for the airport.

    In the meantime, I was involved in numerous other minute-to-minute breaking cases involving terrorism and a separate federal prosecution. AB2072 is about at this moment about 5-10 percent of my portfolio. Wish I could do more but I am only one person with many projects globally from the Middle East to Mendoza.

    Due to the time zones involved, I still have not learned all the details because I was on Capitol Hill until nearly midnight, our out of phone contact, and it is now morning here and California is asleep. Just as an aside, I do not blog, and I only am entering a comment here to clarify.

    An aside pls... I always use my own name, and I do not approve of people posting contentious remarks publicly hiding behind fake names or hazy identities. This relates to the pro or con of any issue, political or academic. I know everyone wants a double-standard where journalists and authors who use pen and paper are held to strict account while bloggers feel enabled by the special protections of the Internet pornography statutes, that is Communications Decency Act, section 240, which many feel gives unlimited protection and establishes a double-standard. Hence, it encourages all sorts of libels and unkind communication on all sides of many issues. But many lawsuits and Internet forensic efforts are breaking down CDA 240 in jurisdictions worldwide. John Doe actions are now more common. More to the point, this blog and all other blogs shows in Canada, the UK and everywhere else where the laws are different and CDA 240 is not valid. I do not mean to point a finger at this blog. I am just commenting on all such blogs. I have seen more vituperation elsewhere.

    If you have the courage of your convictions, as I am many many others do, unmask yourselves and speak freely and with accountability. Do not hide behind funny names and fake personae.

    Also I ask that all speak with respect to our fellow men and women. No one is made stronger by bashing another behind a cloak of anonymity. Enough preaching from me... I have a book to finish. Thank you for granting me more electrons than I expected to utilize here.
    Edwin Black

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Edwin. Pleased to see you in my blog. I’ve heard about you lately but unfortunately I can’t say that I’ve heard of your name before AB 2072 surfaced. Regardless I’ll thank you for taking the moment to leave a comment under my blog.

    I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for clarifying several things. Most of us do realize and understand the dilemma you faced last week when they decided to postpone the hearing. Not an easy thing to handle. And yes, most of us do realize that you live back in the east, Washington D.C. to be specific and we know where Sacramento is. We’re sorry you had to go through the “20-minute window” to make the decision before you decided to run for the airport. As you pointed out, you’re an extremely busy individual. We can appreciate that.

    I’m sorry to hear that you thought I was hiding behind anonymous names. Before ‘theHolism’ I was known as ‘DRHocokan’. Nearly everybody in the deaf v/blog sphere knows me by my name. Come to deafvideo.tv and deafread.com pretty much everybody calls me by my first name. Everybody that knows me in the deaf community knows that I do not shy away from using my real name when I sign off some of the videos or comments that I make. However I can relate to your point and concern because new comers like you would not know who I was. Likewise I despise journalists and authors who choose to practice double-standards, avoiding the world of accountability, which opens up all sorts of libels and unkind communication on all sides, as you pointed out. I’m with you on that one.

    I do not wear masks of any sort and it won’t take me very long to prove this point. I use the same screen name as a vlogger and a blogger. In short, I use the same screen name in all of my vlogs so in essence, my viewers know who I am and what I look like. They even know my full name. I make this much clear to whoever I’m speaking to.

    I’m glad you stated these things because the majority of people you spoke to in Sacramento have a long history of wearing anonymous masks. I know that your time is limited here but I’d like to invite you to visit some of my blogs and read some of the anonymous comments that were made against me. For that reason I really appreciate the message you’re trying to send out.

    Barry Sewell

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Point well taken BBF. These points you just laid out are probably not considered by those who are deeply entrenched into the roles of criminal investigators. Because they are so deep into the investigative system they forget some of the basics just as you eloquently pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
  28. > Regardless, I've already arranged to have a written transcript for the "hearing" video that I have in my hard drive.

    Thank you! As you say, we can't always get what our taxes pay for (though, in my opinion, that does not mean we should not fight to get good value for our money), so it is always helpful when one deaf person helps the whole community as you propose to do.

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  29. > According to them, their hired lobbyst told them that they basically hijacked the bill and took over.

    Please point to who told you this! You appear to have a source that the rest of us do not into what Senator Polanco actually said. Please point to your source, because this just seems like more of your guessing based on motives already assumed. Thanks!

    > My question is, if that were true then why did Senator Romero who strongly spoke against the bill still voted to oppose the bill at the end?

    The same reason that long line of opponents came up one-by-one and said, "not in it's current form"... and indicated their own opposition. Because there are still issues even with the doubly-amended bill.

    Hope this clarifies Senator Romero's actions for you.

    I'm just frustrated that we don't have the current language to use in the discussion, because I believe that would put to rest your assumptions about how much actual work the opposition was able to get done... Of course, I'm already guessing that you'll find a reason that the opposition is still evil and the new bill is even worse than before BECAUSE of your assumptions about the people in the opposition.

    You say you take people as they are... But you don't know them, not really. You are making a lot of mistakes by assuming that each individual in the opposition must somehow be an enemy, so you're missing out on really knowing a bunch of good people, in my opinion...

    Words are like mirrors? In both languages! ;-)

    Good to see you're preserving the comments of those who disagree with you! That's a good start to a possible respectful discussion of the new AB 2072...

    - Linda

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  30. > I’m glad you stated these things because the majority of people you spoke to in Sacramento have a long history of wearing anonymous masks.

    Like who? Just curious which of people you mean?

    I can think of several people who support you in tearing down the folks from Sacto, who also only use pseudonyms, and are not so forthcoming. I can name specific names that nobody is supposed to know who they are in these comments! So, before I do that... Just who do you mean is hiding effectively behind a pseudonym from the Sacto group?

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  31. Linda, anonymous means exactly that. Thought you knew that. If I had known who they were they would not be anonymous, would they? Duh.

    One thing is clear. The anonymous names that constantly attacked me for a long while now were stout supporters of deafhoodized folks from bay area. And again, silly of you to ask me to identify who these anonymous were. They would not be if I knew their names.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. > If I had known who they were they would not be anonymous, would they? Duh.

    I meant, which screen names? Which pseudonyms in the opposition are still unknown to you?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm beginning to like you Lina. LOL.

    The lobbyst story that quoted "hijacked the bill' came directly from David Eberwein's very own vlog. Heck I even recorded it on my hard drive in case he deletes it.

    If the new amendment was really at stake here do you think Senator Romero would have voted against it? Are you saying that Senator Romero is against everything including the new amendment Ella talked about?

    I understand your frustration because you do not have the current language to use in this discussion. It is not the current language that would put my assumptions to rest. It was Ella's very own vlog from this morning that put the issue to rest for me. If you paid attention to where I've been to this morning you'll find a comment from me to Ella under her vlog long before you assumed these things about me. The same is true with Tayler's blog who pointed something out for everybody to read. I commented there as well.

    Like I pointed out I don't make any efforts to try and get to know anybody. I just take their comments at face value and go from there. Mistakes? That's a possibility but it's only because they did not communicate their messages clearly. The fault lies with the messengers themselves just like I've stated many times in my vlogs. I've always said people misunderstood me greatly because I did such a lousy job trying to squeeze in all of my points within ten mere minutes. That's the limit I have to deal with and it's not easily summarized into 10 minutes slot so I get shot for misinformation or lack of information all the time. I've acknowledged that much many times so you see, the fault lies on the messengers themselves including you. That's what I sincerely believe.

    I've never dismissed any comments under my v/blogs provided they do not contain name callings and demeans others. You came close to it but I sensed the sincere effort on your part to try and solve a problem so your comments made it in here. Perhaps you could instruct others on how to accomplish the same task.

    Barry

    ReplyDelete
  35. Linda, be my guest and visit some of my blogs during the past two years and you'll see plenty of them. Numerous of them didn't make it into the thread because they were offensive and demeaning. I don't keep a long list of anonymous names simply because I don't carry grudges. That'd be unhealthy if I did. Let me ask you a fair question? Do you blog or vlog? If so, do you keep a long list of anonymous names? If not, why not? Why ask such question of me if you don't do that yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  36. > The lobbyst story that quoted "hijacked the bill' came directly from David Eberwein's very own vlog. Heck I even recorded it on my hard drive in case he deletes it.

    Thank you for the reference. I haven't yet seen his vlog... Can you point me to it, so I can decide for myself if his opinion represents that of the greater opposition?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Be glad to. David Eberwein's vlog is seen here at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR3pd2oa8ak. Have fun.

    ReplyDelete
  38. > I've never dismissed any comments under my v/blogs provided they do not contain name callings and demeans others.

    Many others complain that you get rid of their comments just for disagreeing with them. I've seen some of these comments as posted elsewhere, and, unless you can show me where they toned it down in the second presentation, it's clear that, at least sometimes, you DO kill people's comments simply for disagreeing with you, much as I have today and last night.

    I have been following along on the arguments for a while now, and, sorry, but it's pretty well known that you DO regularly kill off comments that are respectful, but disagree with you in a way you find difficult to argue with.

    This has, in my opinion, allowed you to build up a whole "world" where the individuals in it already have predetermined opinions because you have lumped them ALL into your "opposition".

    Often as not, I believe that you see them as having FAR different opinions than the more nuanced ones they actually hold, in order to fit them into your picture of who we each are.

    So knowing our names doesn't mean you know us... You see DE's opinion, and generalize it to the whole group of diverse people who are united only in wanting the mistakes of the past regarding deaf babies STOPPED in the current generation.

    You have said before that you are 7th generation Deaf... Your own parents went to the Berkeley School during the times Edwin Black is talking about in CA law, right?

    You were this close to not even being here! You don't have any opinions about THAT?

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  39. Actually, I do try to figure out who is who behind the anonymous names, and usually, I can eventually figure it out.

    I think that's pretty natural to go looking behind the pseudonyms. Not much we can do about one-off trolls, but regular posters who survive under pseudonyms are pretty rare in the deaf world, I think...

    I don't need a long list. How about just 3 pseudonyms of people who regularly badmouth you where you don't know their real names? Or even 1?

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  40. Linda, look at yourself! You complained about assumptions on my part and then in nearly the same breath you made assumptions about and how I handled some of the demeaning comments that came my way. Shameful.

    I've never found any argument that was difficult to address. I've always addressed all arguments regardless of its difficulty levels. This much is known about me. What I do dismiss are profanity language that are used including but not limited to demeaning language. I do not tolerate such thing but bring forward a real discussion and I'm always game.

    You guys work together and yet when it comes to mistakes made by individuals you split up, waiving the liability, using certain folks like DE as the fall guy. I see it all the time.

    Please rephrase your question on Edwin Black and my father as an alumni at Berkeley School. I don't think anybody's going to understand the question you asked. A trick question, eh?

    I'd have made it here regardless. God does not shoot of babies and miss this world. In short I'd have made it here regardless and that's a fact. Surely you don't believe that our existence in heaven would have disappeared if our parents did not have the ability to produce. Hah!

    ReplyDelete
  41. No. Not me. I don't dig people up like that. I don't bother searching their IP addresses. I don't bother trying to figure who they are. I don't bother with that stuff.

    Want to know a couple of names? What's stopping you from visiting some of my previous blogs from last year or two. They're out there for the record. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Linda... one question for you. Are you trying to pollute this blog site? You're certainly filling this thread up with irrelevant issues. Please refrain from doing that and stick to the subject of the main blog. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thank you for sourcing your statement about the lobbyist saying "Basically, we hijacked their bill."

    Makes me even MORE curious about the bill looks now.

    Guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow to see if we agree that the bill has been "hijacked" or not... The legislative process is sure SLOW!

    I'll point you at the text when I find it, if you don't point me at it from finding it first.

    If we are careful to stick to sourced facts, we can begin a more respectful dialogue that just might help this generation of deaf babies avoid the all-too-common tragedies of the past!

    Later!

    ReplyDelete
  44. You're welcome Linda. I also think it's wise to wait until everybody are able to get their hands on a written transcript of what was really said and what the actual amendment looks like. Will visit with you again when that happens.

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  45. > Please rephrase your question on Edwin Black and my father as an alumni at Berkeley School. I don't think anybody's going to understand the question you asked. A trick question, eh?

    Not sure I understand what you mean. I simply meant that your parents were in danger of being swept up in consequences of the old California eugenics laws that Edwin Black lectured on in Sacramento.

    > I'd have made it here regardless. God does not shoot of babies and miss this world. In short I'd have made it here regardless and that's a fact. Surely you don't believe that our existence in heaven would have disappeared if our parents did not have the ability to produce. Hah!

    THAT is an answer... You and I will probably need to agree to disagree on whether or not you would have made it anyway.

    > Linda... one question for you. Are you trying to pollute this blog site?

    The subject of the main blog is the progress of AB 2072, and I HAVE tried to stick to it.

    I admit that I've been verbose here, but have not intentionally been filling up the comments with irrelevant issues...

    Please note that I am answering issues and questions you have brought up... You countered my request for even one pseudonym with the claim that I have not done my homework. THAT alone shows you do not know me, because I DO TRY to do my homework before making my points, and go back to DO my homework if I've found out I've missed something.

    My homework says that you've had a bunch of onesy-twosy trolls, but nothing like Candy, or Paotie, or you in the early days, when people were wondering who YOU were. You weren't the first to announce it; I saw others guess who you were before you admitted it.

    So, please argue more fairly. I am not DE, but I wind up agreeing with him sometimes. You need to be able to deal with the more complex, LIVING situation, where the people who disagree with you are not all of one mind.

    My opinion, and you will be glad to know, I'm going elsewhere for a while, but reserve the right to answer any questions or points you raise later on, ok? That's what blog comments are FOR, right?

    Later!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Linda,

    Had a good laugh on whether I'd have made it here had eugenics took place in California. You want to know why? My dad married a lady from Utah lady before he tried to produce children in Arizona. So, from the look of it I'd have made it here. LOL. But seriously God does not miss his targets so I'd have been here anyway, perhaps as your son or you as my daughter. LOL.


    Take note of this... the pseudonym issue was not yours or mine to begin with. It was Edwin Black that brought it up and I answered back only to find you dragging on with the issue. And again I have no interest in knowing you better. That's impossible. We're cyber figures here. Not possible to get to know you better when I'm only seeing a flat screen in front of me. LOL.

    I never claimed to be one minded individual so not sure where you got that wild notion in your head. I'm also headed out of the door and was going to tell you the same.

    You may reserve the right to answer any questions or points I raise later on but mind you, it's a privilege, not right, to post under my v/blogs. Ha ha...

    Until next time.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hello all. To be honest, not being a blog-experienced person, I cannot follow who is addressing what to whom in these posts above. You may find out more about my work at www.edwinblack.com or my eugenics work at www.waragainsttheweak.com. While I do not correspond with anonymous or unidentified persons, anyone may go to inquiry@edwinblack.com and send me your full name, city and phone number. I will call you and you may ask me any question on any eugenics history, California or otherwise, or my appearance in Sacramento. To the person identified theHolism, Linda, and anyone else you may unmask yourself now. Now means this moment. Your identifications are safe with me, and I can answer any question. Five or ten of you can make it a conference call. Since I do not know who is deaf or not, you can make a VP conf or voice teleconf as you choose. Contact me now and I will call you back now while I have a moment. That said, I repeat my advice: be gracious when referring to your neighbors. Be accurate when referring to me.
    Edwin Black

    ReplyDelete
  49. One person on this blog has now forwarded further remarks made theHolism that I had earlier seen. Therefore, please contact me about these remarks. I am now seeking out your phone and address to communicate with your more personally and direct and if I am right you might detect a message on your voice mail at home shortly. I can answer any question you have and directly address the remarks you have made--and the same goes for anyone else who may a question. I deal with statements immediately and directly. Edwin Black

    ReplyDelete
  50. For your information, we, vloggers and bloggers do not make it a habit to ask each other for each other's contact information through the internet. The reason is simple. Identity thefts and security issues. There are numerous stalkers out there who collect such information and stalks people. Not saying you're not Edwin Black but for all we know you could be somebody else. Seeing your name here does not mean it's actually you. For the time being it's the ugly side of internet. There is no way to verify if you're really Edwin Black. In fact, anybody could sign in using your full name and we would not know if it's really you or somebody else.

    Regardless, the link you provided in your comment will help those who might have the desire to get in touch with you. I will email you when and if I ever have questions relating to eugenics history. At the moment I don't. Simply put I'm not even curious about it. I do not feel threatened by eugenic movement not do I see AB 2072 as a form of eugenics. But if I ever do I'll know who to contact.

    Barry

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sending an email to me on my secure email is something that people all, over the world do every hour. I get about 100 per day and I try to answer all. I need your name to know to who I am speaking. I need your city to know whether your are in Paris France or Paris Texas. I need your phone for the personal quality of traditional communication. There is no identity theft here and that argument is hardly plausible. Nor can you write a letter to the editor of Time Magazine or most newspapers without a daytime contact. I could not even post here without my pre-existing Google account being verified. I wish to speak to you about remarks you have made so I can clear up any confusion. If it will be more convenient for you, I will call up and save you the long distance call. Since I am reasonably certain by now your location, I will be careful not to call at hours that would be inconvenient. BTW, nice hat.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Sorry Edwin but I do not own an answering machine. You must be talking about my daughter's answering machine. I don't own one simply because I have no use for it. Even if my daughter is home I would not allow her to speak to a perfect stranger on my behalf. Like I pointed out earlier, we would not have any way of knowing if it's really you.

    Probably best if you emailed me directly.

    ReplyDelete
  53. That's understandable. People email me all the time as well and I get about as much as you do on daily basis. Numerous of them are perfect strangers and it's not unusual for me to receive bogus names.

    And yes, I build really nice hats for buckaroo clients from all over the world. It's a fun hobby, something I enjoy doing during my spare time.

    What, if any, confusion do you sense here? Feel free and state your concerns here so that the rest of us would be able to better understand you and whatever concerns you might have.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Of course you would know it is me. I call scores of people each day and why would only you not be sure. You wrote: "Probably best if you emailed me directly." That's fine. Email me the most convenient email to contact you at. You may add an authenticating remark. Or just pick up the phone when I call you in the next five minutes, if that is convenient. You are just a few feet from the phone. Do you require a video phone conf. I can arrange that. I hope I can be helpful when I call in clearing up remarks. We don't need to speak about eugenics. I may even order one of your hats.
    Edwin Black

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thank you to the various people--all identified first name and last with city--from this blog who have just emailed me with detailed information on Barry that will help be better understand the situation. I welcome any further information. Some of you may notice, I have just emailed you free copies of my book. Enjoy them. Barry, if you think you have a moment, send me an email so I can call you. I can't debate or exchange in public but I am hopeful I clear up some comments you have made. Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Sorry but I have a two years waiting list for customers who are waiting for their hats to be built. And no I do not do anybody a special favors. I take all the time in the world to build quality hats. I doubt you've got the patience and money for it.

    Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Perhaps if you spent less time on this blog commenting, you might be able to speed up your orders. Ditto for your Facebook account. That is why, I don't blog, or maintain Twitter or Facebook accounts. In any event, I think we have explored this matter Mr. Sewell. Enjoy the rugged and beautiful mountains out there. I will be regularly monitoring the progress of your interesting and artistic enterprise, and remain available to answer any questions you may have about any of the topics you have expounded that intersect me or indeed any topic. Good luck and good tidings.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Perhaps Edwin but that's my problem, not yours.

    It proves one thing though. Money does not buy me nor does it buy my time. I do what I want to do because I've earned the rights to do exactly that. Try and watch my v/blog called 'the third mask' and you'll understand.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Important warnings for all concerned parties;

    According to the evidences we've gathered to date we believe that there is an imposter character in this thread by the name of Edwin Black. We believe it is not the actual Mr. Edwin Black that some of us have come to known during the past week relating to his involvement with AB 2072 hearing.

    Last week we copied and stored the videotape that was taken of actual Edwin Black while he was speaking in Sacramento California. And then we compared his actual voice with two voice mails that we've received from this so-called Edwin Black imposter. The voices heard from actual Edwin Black in Sacramento did not match the voices that were left on our answering machine.

    This so-called imposter also left several intimidating comments in this thread, leading us to believe that the actual Edwin Black would not do such thing since he's supposed to be a man of great credibility.

    For that reason we have already contacted the local Sheriff department who will relay the evidences, including recorded voices to the FBI for further investigation.

    This is being done because of the death threat we received several months ago. This is the disclaimer to let everybody know that hard copies of this thread has been secured and will be used as an evidence.

    Thank you,
    Barry Sewell

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Contact me now and I will call you back now while I have a moment."

    "I am now seeking out your phone and address to communicate with your more personally and direct and if I am right you might detect a message on your voice mail at home shortly."

    "I need your phone for the personal quality of traditional communication."

    "Email me the most convenient email to contact you at. You may add an authenticating remark. Or just pick up the phone when I call you in the next five minutes, if that is convenient."

    "Barry, if you think you have a moment, send me an email so I can call you."

    Spooky stalkville, that's five times in five separate comments, one after another in one day, Barry. That's 10-foot pole business. Glad you reported it. :\

    Ann_C

    ReplyDelete
  62. I wonder whether Mr. Black believes that medical science should not endeavor to discover a cure for deafness. Would the elimination of this medical condition by itself constitute eugenics? If so, I believe this would be abusing the term.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Barry, why not go to www.edwinblack.com and contact the man, he can confirm whether the Edwin Black who posted here is an imposter or not.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ackroyd4, I'm not going to that web site because it appears that somebody is trying to tag my IP number once I visit the site. Furthermore we did a search on registrant (owner) of the domain name and found it to be highly suspicious. You'll understand if you did a 'whois' search on the domain name. Edwin Black was not the registered owner and the email address used for it was bogus. The phone number provided takes you to Nova Scotia. The address took you to an island west of Africa. Highly suspicious so I refused to visit the site.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I checked the Wikipedia entry for Edwin Black, and it cites his personal website as www.edwinblack.com . That's good enough for me. If not for you, so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. That would have been good enough for me Ackroyd4 until I sensed eccentric behavior / comments in this thread. I need not say more since it's in the hands of the law enforcement. I think I have a good idea who this imposter.

    ReplyDelete
  67. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  68. BBF,

    At the bottom of your link, it gives the same address as was given by the Edwin Black who posted here, which is also what ackroyd4 said, and also the same address in the Wikipedia article.

    Finally, if you type "Edwin Black" into Google, that is the website that Google will return first.

    - Linda

    ReplyDelete
  69. I don't usually follow blogs which promote misinformation and hate against Deaf people who use American Sign Language.

    However, the Edwin Black who has been commenting on this blog is authentic. I strongly suggest Barry Sewell get in touch with Edwin Black to discuss some concerns regarding the misinformation on this blog.

    It raises significant concerns and it would be better for Barry Sewell to understand the truth about everything and the political process before more confusion is spread to readers.

    I hope he will. Now is the time for dialogue not more misinformation and hate. It's not the time to continue to oppress and destroy Deaf people who communicate in American Sign Language and contribute a lot to society with a rich culture and beautiful language.

    Tim Riker

    ReplyDelete
  70. Linda,

    FYI, a web site does not prove anything. Neither does it confirm anything. In this case the registration of the domain name does not even point to Edwin Black as the owner. There were plenty of anonymous information under the registered record.

    Tim,

    Apparently you don't practice what you preach.

    You complain about blogs that promote misinformation and yet you gave out misinformation yourself. The people that support AB 2072 do not hate deaf people that use American Sign Language. That's false. Many of us support and treasure ASL but we also respect other people's communication options, techniques and methods.

    As for Edwin Black in this thread, I really wish that it was the real Edwin Black himself but the more we observed the matter the more we sincerely believe it was not really him.

    He claim to have left a message on our daughter's answering machine. I checked with my daughter and she said there were two messages and neither one of them contained a return telephone number. If he was really him then he could have left a return number for us to trace and verify to make sure it is him.

    I also asked him to discuss any concerns he had in this thread for everybody to see. He would not because he said he could not do that.

    You see, Tim, he does have a choice here. He is perfectly capable of putting the question to rest but why he has not done that yet is beyond me.

    In the same breath I do not appreciate your effort to spread more misinformation and hate towards the supporters of AB 2072. The sticking point here is for the parents to receive ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS. That's all we care about and we're glad to see that the language is still there.

    Now is the time for dialogue, I agree, but kindly explain why I've never seen you under my v/blogs. I'm always out there talking about certain issues but this is the first time I've seen you any where.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Just wanted to point readers' attention to blog site, http://bigbenfactor.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/rebuking-barillas-article-in-the-cutting-edge/

    I left two comments there reflecting what transpired from this blog site.

    ReplyDelete