I'd like to respond to those who thought Candy was calling them stupid. First thing first... Candy never called anybody stupid. Secondly, she never said you guys could not read. She was only saying that some of you didn't read the bill and because of that there are numerous myths and lies flying around on what AB 2072 really means for deaf children in California.
I'd like to point something out for those that were offended by Candy's blog. Lack of knowledge does not make you stupid so please don't view yourself as stupid. We don't doubt the fact that many of you can read and yet you can't deny the fact that many of you can't read worth heck but that does not make you stupid either. It's just a clear cut case of failure on the part of education. In short, some where along the way your education failed you.
Under Amy Cohen Efron's blog she wondered where and how we could begin to build our clouts within the legislative branches. I gave her my thoughts and answer only to be scolded by Dianrez who thought I was being divisive and that I was alienating the deaf community. She was sore about my comment for Amy because I was not the 'yea' man she desperately wanted. Dianrez asked what I was looking to gain from all this and I thought I'd post my response here for the public to see.
Told her I had nothing to gain from supporting or opposing the bill. Heck, I don’t even live in California and have no plans to live there. I’m just telling people the way I see things and I’m entitled to my opinion just as she was entitled to hers. I just don’t call her divisive and alienating because I’m not out to change anybody’s mind. I have numerous experience working with legislative branches and have had numerous training in this field therefore I’m here to help the deaf community understand how things work over there and why certain language are written the way they were and such.
My input is on the table for anybody to pick on and digest upon, take it or leave it. It don’t matter to me and it won’t make any difference. The bill will be passed and signed into law because they HAVE to make an improvement to this existing ‘weak’ law. They don’t have a choice so they’ll pass something. This much she probably won’t understand but I won’t hold that against her or anybody simply because it's a classic case of lack of knowledge and that does not make them stupid. The education simply failed them. Thank you.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Stupid, no. Lack of knowledge, yes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I don't even have a degree and I do not think it takes a degree or being able to read to be smart, it is just a combination of common sense and being educated by taking the initiative to absorb things.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, it wouldn't make much of a difference, but, the fact that we even bothered to contribute to opinions and discussions shows that we want to help. We care, but the question is, do they? ;)
Exactly right Candy. That makes two of us. No degrees. And you're absolutely correct. It does not take a degree to understand AB 2072 for what it really is.
ReplyDeleteYou cared enough to contribute your opinions into some of the discussions that were out there. I offered the same because I care too.
You asked the boiling question. Do they care? No, not according to their recent choice of words and actions. They are clearly hungry for a victory that's been evasive for few years now. They lost all of their battles since I entered into the v/blog sphere. The more they lose the more desperate they seem to be.
Most people with degrees owes a lot of money to the student loan center. Who is smart in this? LOL
ReplyDeleteDegrees are also investment in yourself. You are your own CEO and who do you trust to run your own "company?" You. It's a return on your investment you seek. My M.S. degree paid off very well and I paid back every dime of my student loan several years ago while raising 3 girls at the same time.
ReplyDeleteAs for for this blog, yes, people continue to misread into this bill. I don't think many even bothered to read this very simple bill and yet rely on a bunch of conspiracy bunk about the bill using emotionally laden words like "eugenics," "Nazi era," etc.. etc.. rather than debate on the merit of the argument itself.
I see opportunity here to see that ASL expand from this bill. Yet they are so blinded with their own baggage of hatred toward other entities such as AGBell, Oberkotter, etc.. that they cannot for one second set that aside and focus on what this potential could turn out to be.
Get rid of that excess baggage and hate. It's not doing the Deaf community any good. Everybody else seems to see that but not them?
Sure it is Mike but it's not the only way to invest in yourself as most people would like for you to believe. There are MANY ways to invest in yourself. The name of the game is creativity. Has always been and always will be.
ReplyDeleteThey had a "livestream" video on last night done by Edwin Black. Many of the so-called leaders were in attendance and participated in the online chat forum. It was mind-boggling to read participant's conversation / discussion. These people are very afraid of upcoming changes so they decided to call it eugenics. They've been brain washed at some degree.
In reality they are using 'fear factors' simply because they do not know how to survive in the open society. They probably figured they'd be further isolated, socially and economically. For some reason they seem to believe that they're going to 'lose out' in the open society. And I'll say it again, their reality is not my reality simply because for the past 25 years I've always made money off hearing people and never received a pretty penny off deaf people or deaf-relayed society. If I could do it then surely they could.
You're right about them not seizing the potentials and opportunities that were there. Sad. Thanks for posting here.
Oppose AB2072 website is now calling the bill "Mendoza's Eugenics Bill", what hyperbole! Next the opposition will call Mendoza a Nazi, it's Godwin's law repeating itself again.
ReplyDeleteThose words don't hold much credibility with lawmakers. Especially since ASL is one of the options listed in the bill.
The opposition wants the bill killed to keep the status quo, yet they don't like the status quo. What does that dichotomy tell lawmakers?
Ann_C
You rang?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of hyberbole, have you guys seen this amended AB2072 bill?
ReplyDeletehttp://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_bill_20100609_amended_sen_v95.html
Looks like the bill is limited in options and choices despite to what RussellE and you were commenting on.
Am I missing something?
D
ist,
ReplyDeleteYou've not said whether you've read the original bill so for that reason I don't know what you already know or didn't know.
I liked the original bill better than I do now but the more the deaf people protest and oppose the more leverages / clouts they seem to lose. Some of the deaf people did not know a good thing when they had it. They won't know it until they lose it.
I have not read the original bill so I cannot comment on that. Honestly, I am a bit behind with the Ab2072, but caught wind of it via RusselE and your vlogs on dvtv a few days ago.
ReplyDeleteDespite to the bill spelling out the audiologist as first point of contact as a possible predetermination of certain ideologies, the modified bill mentions that NIDCD will provide these resources and choices, but if you go to their "publications" - (http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/order/pubs_type.asp?type=hearing)
The ASL version is only accessed online while the others are both print/electronic. If the parents were to meet with the audiologists, I assume that all of the printed material will be given and then tell the parents to refer the ASL version online? This does not seem to produce neutrality in a determined choice?
To me, this isn't a choice. A choice under these circumstances has to be grounded on neutrality (at least as much as possible) and on common ground.
Well ist, I'd highly recommend that you try and find the original bill and read it. Then compare that with the current amendment. You'll understand why I said the original bill is an opportunity and why I said deaf people did not know a good thing when they had it. In short, they blew it.
ReplyDeleteI didn't waste much time studying NIDCD because I knew that some of these corrupted deaf leaders were going to complain no matter how the language was written. This much is evident already so why bother trying to make my point again and again? They want ASL to be the primary choice but what they don't understand is the law makers are not allowed to favor one choice over the other.
And again, these corrupted deaf leaders BLEW it in a big way. They literally dug their own grave on this bill.
Regardless, do yourself a favor and find the original bill and compare it with the latest one.
Will find the original bill.
ReplyDeleteI am hopeful that EHDI programs remain strong and am pleased that it is backed by CDC. The resources available by CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ehdi/links.htm) is pretty impartial. The question becomes; which of these resources are provided and which are suppressed?
It is logical (not in a negative way) that the audiologist is the first point of contact; however, what makes it an issue are the limited resources given to parents by that audiologist, after all, they are trained in the medical spectrum of deafness.
I want to beat the same drum you are; not many deaf people are looking at the bill from a opensociety perspective; that is, that they are a minuscule of the larger society and they either forget or are ignorant that our society is heavily driven on speaking/hearing from the western perspective. This is probably why the original bill has been watered down.
Now, American Indians would probably not need a Bill or EHDI to already know what is in the best wishes of their deaf child, after all, they are not heavily rooted in the western philosophy of life. This is of course for a different blog article.
Thanks again for your time.
D
Thank you ist for posting your thoughts here.
ReplyDeleteYes. It's logical to point towards audiologists as the first point of contact. Audiologists are not machines. They are human beings therefore they're not without opinions. Their job description does not forbid them from expressing their opinions. Having said that I know some audiologists who are pro-deaf as in pro-asl so who are we to say they're wrong for supporting that option? I mean, who's going to regulate all of the conversations that takes place between audiologists and the parents? Are we going to turn the system into a big brother program where we're going to monitor every conversation that's going on inside audiologists' offices and say hey as soon as they spell cochlear implant? Or ASL for that matter? I mean, common sense always prevail here.
Instead of turning audiologists into an enemy we ought to get on their good side and educate them the way other professionals do. If you watched a video from the rally today at Sacramento you will see some of the unsuitable language that were used about the law makers. It was demeaning and degrading. What are the law makers supposed to make of their choice of words and actions from today? I mean, lets be civilized about it and remain on the high road and show them what we're made of. It's just not happening with this group of people.
Regardless, thank you for your time as well.