Holism

The Drive For Economic Power. Really?

2011-12-09T11:58:00.000-08:00

It is high time I v/blogged on this subject. Earlier in 2011 I had the itch to respond to Ryan Comerson's video known as "VRS Our Economic Power?" but apparently the itch was not strong enough for me to respond until now. I've been observing recent developments such as 1) Sentences that were given to Yeh brothers. 2) The cheering of some people who were glad to see that the justice has been served for the Yehs. 3) Blame game that went into every imaginable directions. 4) Noticeable behavioral changes in VRS industries. 5) VRS Employees and VRS loyalists (users) are going out of their way to defend their employers and VRS service providers by trashing other VRS companies. 6) Conspiracies and accusations flew around the rooms through out the nation about the possibility of profiling and oppression against deaf VRS owners while hearing VRS owners got away with mere financial penalties.

The list goes on and on. And it is rapidly spiraling out of control. Out of control? You bet it is. I have read some of the latest blogs out there and saw some of the devastating trends. Some of the anonymous comments went so far to spill out somebody personal name and information and asked "what about this person who has done the same crime but has not been caught". Ugh, I said to myself. Well, if this person knows something about a specific person committing a crime then why has not it been reported to the FBI already? Why wait until now and spill the information in somebody's personal blog site? Does not this person realize that it's against the law, as in an accomplice, to be aware of a crime that was committed but yet did not report it?

And then I realized something recently. The Yeh brothers were one of the first people that were caught. And then the investigators along with the prosecutors eventually learned that it was not an isolated case. They learned about numerous other people and VRS industries who were doing the same thing. So, what did they do? Did they go after everybody and prosecuted them as criminals? No, they didn't. They made a strategic decision to turn Yeh brothers and their company along with sub-contractors and employees into a model of what will happen to you if you committed the same crime against FCC. They gave Yeh Brothers severe punishments and turned them into models of what will happen to you if you committed the same crime. The other way to put it is they have become scapegoats.

The Viable fiasco was picture-perfect for FBI, FCC and the Judicial system because numerous Viable's deaf employees were not savvy people. They were not business savvy people. They were not financial savvy people. Numerous of their employees have below than average English literacy skill. Many of them could not read and understand FCC regulations well enough to follow the rules, let alone defend themselves. That is why I said ASL failed and disintegrates in one of my older v/blog seen here at this link. I'll say this again for those who did not see my v/blog on this subject. ASL is convenient, faster and easier to use. That's true however it also has dire consequences. People become lazy and too comfortable with ASL and do not push themselves to excel secondary and primary language, that of English. This much is evident every where. Don't mark my words. Better yet, go out look for signing deaf people and make an effort to communicate with them. The more you meet the more you will realize how poorly they understand English language. Getting back to the point I was trying to make here... Viable was no different. The CEO was an immigrant from Taiwan. ASL was his second language and English became his third language. I know for a fact that John has never excelled English language to a level whereas he would be able to read and understand these FCC regulations. Neither did numerous of his employees who he depended on for ideas and advice.

Having said that, numerous Viable employees left behind hard evidences, for instance, paper notes, videos, email, and texts. It happened because they were their only source of communication. It was how they communicated. Now compare that with VRS companies run by hearing executives and employees. Do you think they would use the same communication techniques when they cheated the FCC? Evidently not. Some of them were caught with excessive billings but they had nobody to pin these evidences onto. So, about all FCC could do about it is to impose penalties and make these VRS companies pay the money back. Is that fair? You decide.

What is clear here is hearing executives and employees with different VRS companies got away, scot-free. The deaf executives and and employees did not. The reason is clear. They both use different method of communication. One method was detectable and the other was not.

I remember receiving a Christmas card from John Yeh from many years ago after he sold his older company and while he served as Trustee of Gallaudet University. In his Christmas card he wrote, 'How is you?'. I sat down, in great disbelief because he was a truly remarkable and successful man but yet his English was far from perfect. It told me one important thing that made all the difference for me. It told me that America was the land of free and the land of opportunities. But yet, such language deficiency is why he got into trouble with the law. I was going to make this point in my characteristic letter for Yeh brothers but I was told that I should not question the court's intelligence. About all I could tell the court was how great of a man he was and what he's done for me and the deaf community. Thinking back I wondered if it would have made any difference if the Judge understood the factors behind linguistic deficiencies. Would it have made any difference if the Judge realized why deaf executives and employees were caught, red-handed, and why the hearing executives and employees got away, for all the same crime that was done? I have to wonder.

I'd like to move onto the main topic of this v/blog, that of "VRS Our Economic Power" by Ryan Comerson, who made an excellent presentation. With respect to Mr. Ryan Comerson, I have never met him or spoken to him. I've never heard of him until he surfaced into vlog-sphere. He raised numerous valid points in his video however I respectfully disagreed with some of them. Is VRS industry the answer to our quest for economic power? The honest answer would be no. Look at Viable and numerous other VRS industries. They're struggling, financially and strategically to a point where nearly every one of them stooped down to an unimaginable level and cheated on FCC. If the economy power was really there then none of them would be using some kind of 'cheating tactics'. The cheating tactics did not have much to do with people's greed. It had more to do with keeping their companies afloat instead of sinking into red (bad debts). The Yeh brothers made it abundantly clear, numerous times, on how much money they actually made from Viable. They made less money than their interpreters did. They did not rake profits and took them home. Instead they reinvested into research and development. They reinvested into new technologies because they had to maintain competitive edge over other VRS companies who were probably cheating as well. And then some of them were caught. The differences were; Deaf executives and employees are going to prison because they depended on visual communication methods, which were highly detectable and collected as evidences while hearing executives and employees used invisible communication methods, that of oral communications via phones. Thus no hard evidences of personal wrong doings against hearing people.

And no, I'm not questioning the court's intelligence. I'm only sharing some really important factors here.

Is VRS our economic power? Unfortunately it didn't really exist in the first place. It was only an illusion. People hit the calculator and calculate the potentials and said wow... let's get into VRS industry and make our fortune. Everybody got into this dark room in search for several pans of delicious pies. Guess what? Only few found it and hung onto them. The rest of them stumbled upon each other and got hurt. And there was some cheating going on. Somebody pulled out a flashlight and caught a glimpse of who had the pies. And when everybody saw the spotlight they all went into the same direction. That's why you see people attacking Sorenson Communication. They wanted a piece of the pie too but the trouble is everybody want a piece of pie too. But if we think about it, there are not enough pies for everybody. So what do you do? Get out of the room for your own safety! The demographics of signing deaf population is very small and that's a fact.

Furthermore this so-called VRS economic power has become smaller and smaller in the recent years. FCC made some recent moves and cut the budget for VRS industry. In short, there are fewer pies and they're also smaller pies than what were originally out there in this dark room full of pioneers who didn't know what they were getting into.

Bottom line, do you really believe that these VRS industries would go to the trouble of cheating FCC if the economic power was really there. The answer is no. They cheated because they 'financially' had to. The cheated because the economic power was not there and because they were already financially committed. It's not something they could just walk away from and say, we can't afford it. To do so would be equivalent to financial suicide. In theory, do you accept death when you could no longer earn enough money to feed yourself? Have you ever experienced it? What if the field was full of hungry people competing for the same batch of food? Do you sit back and say 'dang it' and accept death or do you grab and pull something out to eat in order to survive, with hope that others will understand your desire to survive? Many business people have the same mentality when they committed a lot of time and money into a project only to realize that there are not enough pies for everybody. I know that it still does not make things right but that is what happens out there in this business and financial world. They are no different from a hungry man with a driving desire to live.

On a final note, I'd like to share something, a mere common senses, with you. So, where is our economic power, you ask? The answer lies within outside of your confines. By this I mean it's not uncommon to find deaf people trying to sell something, whether it be goods or services, to other deaf people. In essence they're circulating old money. Think about it. The same dollar probably passes around from one deaf person to another so many times. How do you expect to build economic power this way? You just can't. One does not build economic power by becoming employees either, due to nasty tax brackets. Instead we build economic power by building companies and making solid investment decisions. And more importantly, we build economic power by marketing our goods and services to the public at large. Forget deaf people. They carry same old money that you don't want. Forget VRS industry. It's a very competitive field and it's heavily regulated by FCC. Spell FCC and red-tapes in the same breath and you'll get the gist of it. Forget deaf education because nobody becomes rich from it. Forget ASL courses because you're making the colleges / universities richer. Both fields will not help and build economic power for our community. So what do you do?

Start thinking about developing technologies, services and goods for hearing consumers. That is when you'll begin to build economic power for deaf people and their communities. I, for one have never made a single pretty penny from deaf customer. I've never sold any kind of deaf-related goods or services to deaf people. The reason is simple. Their economy base is way too small. They carry old money. I don't want anything to do with their money because it won't get you very far in this world. I see all the same stuff at some being sold at these deaf expos, which is why I don't attend any more.

The point here is, people like Ryan Comerson are why some deaf people went into this dark room in search for several pans of pies and got hurt. They actually believed that VRS industry was our opportunity to build economic power. It never occurred to these people that there simply were not enough pies for everybody. I've had my fair share of opportunities to get into VRS industry and when an opportunity came up I declined because I knew there was not going to be enough room for everybody. Something also smelled funny. I figured it was going to evolve into a competitive cutthroat industry where only few giants would be able to survive. And I was right about that. But I never thought I would see it all come down to this nasty outcome.

Ryan, I appreciate the work that you've put forth into your presentation. They were sound presentation and quite logistic. However what it lacked was experience and expertise in business world and economics and marketing that goes with the territory. It was just not there. Business and marketing is clearly not your field and I meant no disrespect when I said it. I know you have much to offer and I look forward to your further videos in the future.

Our Embattled Leader, John TC Yeh

2011-11-22T07:15:00.000-08:00

I've been meaning to v/blog on this subject for a while now but didn't until I was absolutely sure that the hearing date was set on the stone. Now that we're nearing upcoming sentence hearing for our embattled leader, John TC Yeh and his brother Joseph Yeh I decided to v/blog about it, to talk about my lifelong friend and mentor. Here's a story on how I met him 25 years ago and became friends. He was a personal friend as well as a mentor in the business field.

I've written a letter to the Judge asking for leniency if it was at all possible. I explained why and what he's done for me and the deaf community. It is also my hope that the deaf community will offer support for this embattled leader who is going through a difficult period. In this video I also shared my personal message for John. The video is done in sign language and subtitled for all to enjoy. Thank you for watching.

Two Visions

2011-10-15T07:53:00.000-07:00

A true Lakota story on two visions. Two elders had different visions with different outcomes for the same tribe. One vision showed total destruction of their people. One vision showed harmony and growth for their people. So which vision turned out to be true? The answer is both. Both visions became true. It boiled down to what the people believed, as in “word becomes flesh”. The same principle applies to the deaf community. The video is subtitled for all to enjoy.

The Damage Has Been Done!

2011-10-03T10:56:00.000-07:00

Sometime ago I v/blogged on the subject of Closed Society and how I thought it would be defeated by the Open Society, every time, due to information age that we all live in. Some time passed before I found an excellent example of the earlier point I made.

Somebody in the facebook posted this video seen here at;

I watched it and thought it was a simple inspirational story but no... it was more than that. This story has gotten bigger than life.

The video showed a 29 years old severely deaf lady who's been deaf since birth. With the assistance of new technology she heard her own voice for the first time in 29 years. Within the first day of video release at youtube it attracted over 400,000 (four hundreds thousand) unique viewers and so many comments, some of which were ugly coming from the culturally big "D" deaf community. I left an encouraging comment and told her that I was happy for her and that she was my newest hero. I told her that I was carrying the 7th generation of deafness label in the family with my son carrying the 8th label. And then I sat back and observed the massive traffic the video was attracting in so little time. It was an awe and shock moment. And then I remembered something and thought it was a classic example of what an open society will do to a closed society, every time.

Several days passed before I found this story again. This time around it was on MSBNBC.com front page!

She was interviewed by Matt Lauer on TODAY Monday. Upon reading this article I decided to check and see how much traffic this video had on youtube. The answer was mind-boggling 4,431,443 unique hits, over 18,000 comments, 43,818 likes and 618 dislikes. All that in only SIX days! And it's still counting.

What started out as a personal and amateur youtube video evolved into an international media shock wave, favoring the makers of hearing aids, cochlear implants, implanted hearing aids (in this case), the users as well their communities. Just like that. At that time it was not even promoted by an audiologist or a representative from companies that make and develop such technologies. It was just a raw and amateur video coming from the patient herself who had only release one amateur video prior to this one.

Not only that but the groaning and moaning sound coming from the culturally big "D" deaf community were also exposed to at least 4 million viewers in six short days. Millions more viewers are sure to check this video in the coming days. Meaning? The ignorance coming from culturally big "D" deaf people are going to be exposed even more, giving hearing parents even more reasons to steer away from culturally big "D" deaf community. Pretty soon there is going to be an international song called "Go For The Fix" because the ugly side of culturally big 'D' deaf people have been exposed.

Some of the ugly comments contained terrible English. I'm not saying it's a shame. I'm saying that they were even more damaging. It told the whole world that deaf education, as we know it, have failed many of us. Thus, greater numbers of deaf school closures coming up? It would not surprise me. I mean, they have no choice but to reflect on what they see out there, especially with the poor English comments found in this video's comment thread.

Many of the angry comments also targeted her for her ability to speak so well. Many did not believe that she was born deaf and remained deaf all of her life because she spoke very well. It goes to show how ignorant and uneducated culturally big "D" deaf people were. For your information, it is not uncommon and impossible for a deaf person to learn how to speak fluently and better yet, fool you for a hearing person. Those culturally big "D" deaf people didn't want to believe that. It could be due to their ever-so isolated world, in which they have only been exposed to deaf people who signed but do not speak. Those who speak well are able to disappear into the thin air and co-existed with the rest of the world. Therefore they've become invisible to our bare eyes. Furthermore, they've proved our lifelong point for us.... our deafness is invisible... I might add, unless we choose to sign. And that's a hard fact we all will have to live with.

Anyway, this "amateur video" incident is one big example of how a closed society will be destroyed or defeated by an open society, every time. This video could be the paradigm shift many of you have been afraid of. I've warned many of you against making stupid and ignorant comments towards those who choose to exercise their personal rights to choose however they see fit. Yet, many of you would not listen. Unfortunately the damage has been done, I am afraid but you can't say you've not been warned.

For more details of the interview, go to this link; http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44756127/ns/today-good_news/

Take note of MSNBC editor's choice of word for the link. Good_news. They categorized the story as 'good news'. Now, don't be upset over it because what might be good news to others might not be good news to you. Once again it boils down to personal preferences and personal choices. Get it?

Deafhood Losing Its Hood

2011-09-28T06:06:00.000-07:00

Greetings readers.

It has been a while since I've blogged on a subject. I figured it'd make some of you happy because of the nature of my controversial subjects. It was too much for some of you and your nerves. At least you could not say I didn't give you a break because that's what I have done. Now what brought me back?

There were several new developments and recent stories regarding deafhood and their so-called underworld cult. I took great interest on this subject because I, of all people, know quite well what deafhood and their leaders are all about. I know what they were after and what they were set out to accomplish. Many of you will remember the fact that I was one of the core member of Deaf Bilingual Coalition, which turned out to be a mere mask worn by deafhood hijackers who seized the DBC (Deaf Bilingual Coalition) movement for its own publicity gains as well as financial gains. They also hijacked CAD (California Association of the Deaf) and took advantage of their tax exempt status. Mind you, this much evidences have been documented and recorded.

A recent dispute between between two women in regards to the melt down of a "war room" is one classic example of what is really wrong with the leader of deafhood, known as "The Poodle". She showed her true colors once again. In a meeting she snapped at a hearing father of a deaf child, saying some of the personal and nastiest thing she should not have said. When the meeting was over she walked out acting as if nothing happened and that she was always diplomatic about things. It was far from the truth. The truth was, in that "war room" she turned into a undiplomatic Poodle, as usual, thinking that the rest of the world would never see her true colors. And if anybody dared to spill the truth, boy and be hold they would be rejected and disowned by the deaf community. This scare tactic was quite typical coming from her. Many of us have seen it before. Having been part of a core member of her deafhood movement I have seen it as well. Therefore, what happened in Indiana and their so-called "war room" didn't surprise me at all.

You can read more about it at this link; http://dawnschriver.blogspot.com/2011/09/alert-elephant-is-trumpeting-or-is-she.html

And then you could watch this reaction video by "The Poodle". She became violently angry when the truth was being disclosed, that of creepy conversations, which took place between her and a hearing father of a deaf child. It reminded me of what she has done to many others when they found the courage to come out and disclosed the ultimate truth about her. She blew her tops as well when I disclosed the ultimate truth about her disdain for hearing people, hearing parents of deaf children, oralists, cochlear implant companies and cochlear implant users. In this video her temper flared once more, thinking that she's free of the blame. Instead she'd always blame others just like she would blame this "hearing world" for ALL of her problems. Don't mark my word. See this video for yourself.

I said very little on this matter because I was not a part of this "war room" in Indiana. I figured people were going to figure this "Poodle" character sooner or later. Surely enough. A new vlog called "Tayler Is Our Knight" came out on 09/27/2011 at youtube and deafvideo.tv. This lady known as DeafIndigoHorse at DeafVideo.tv found the courage to come out and disclose the ultimate and shameful truth about this "Poodle" character. Go to this link if you would like to leave a video comment under her vlog.

http://www.deafvideo.tv/116079#comment-884083

- Or, leave a text comment at her youtube account. -

Clearly what happened with B.R.A.D. (Baton Rogue Association of the Deaf) and L.A.D. (Louisiana Association of the Deaf) as well as NAD (National Association of the Deaf) is shameful, at best. Turning their blind eyes on corruptions like that will not help their cause. These associations are already at their all-time low, with decline in memberships and fundings. This particular testament is a living proof of what's really going on within these Associations. It certainly will not help their image. Nor will it help their cause.

Now, what's the real culprit here? The answer simply lies within the term, "hood". The deaf community now has a negative notion of 'hood', likening them to some kind of gangster or cult community working together for the best interest of deaf elitists who love to categorize themselves as the big "D". These people seem to believe that the big "D" status gave them the license to oppress against deaf people in general. This much is already clear.

In short, deafhood has lost it's 'hood', what was once thought to be hideous leverage but is no longer a leverage but a liability. The reason is simple. The people discovered the truth, thanks to the information age we live in. Remember my "closed society" vlog? If not, check it out at http://www.deafvideo.tv/69901.

Go figure.

2012, the Fifth Sun World

2011-05-22T04:35:00.000-07:00

420 337
What December 21st, 2012 really means according to nearly 600 Mayan Elders. It's not the end of the world but rather the end of Fourth Sun World and a new beginning known as the Fifth Sun World. Our earth will have entered the very center of galactic equator by that date and receive a new fifth element known as Ether, in addition to our already four elements, that of earth, air, water and fire. According to the Mayans, Ether is a spiritual energy. It's an electromagnetic radiation, which will make us even more human. However as we get closer to the galactic equator we will witness an increase in earth vibrations (earth quakes) and major changes in how we live our lives. The material world we currently live in will change. We'll be much closer to nature. There will be losses of lands and new lands will appear. Some people will suffer. Some people won't suffer as much. It all depends on how prepared we are. This video is subtitled for all to enjoy and learn from, according to the interpretations of nearly 600 Mayan Elders. (disclaimer; It's not my interpretation nor does it mean I subscribe to such interpretation or theory. Thank you for watching.)

Why I said ASL Failed and Disintegrates

2011-04-25T05:51:00.000-07:00

Why I said ASL failed and what I meant by the statement. Carrying the 7th generation "deaf family" label I witnessed and observed at least four generations of deaf people and their so-called communities. I can safely vouch the important fact that ASL lacks structural values necessary for our own defense and how it seem to disintegrate deaf people's vocabulary and grammatical skills. The video has been subtitled for hearing people so that they will begin to understand the underlying issues within our deaf community.

Intertribal Deaf Council

2011-04-21T05:36:00.000-07:00

Ella and few others came up with desperate final shots and accused me of destroying Intertribal Deaf Council. I thought I’d grab the opportunity and explain what really happened. In 2006 when I attended IDC gathering they were over-taken by “wanna-be” white leaders. I might be the person that broke the IDC’s back but it was only because of their lengthy dishonest and abusive organizational practices before I joined.

For several years numerous deaf Native Americans came forward to vouch this truth with video comments at DVTV. This time around I decided to do a main vlog just to demonstrate how foolish and desperate Ella and her followers were, constantly believing hear-say rumors. Quite desperate of them but it was the only thing they had on me.

More importantly, I have some really great news for everybody. I’m officially “so out of deafhood”, according to Deafhood Foundation’s very own Ella. She’s made a public declaration on 04/21/2011. It’s on my hard drive too. She finally acknowledged that I was in charge of my own journey. For the past three years it’s been exactly what I’ve fought for. Thank you, Ella. I’ve been liberated! It’s a victory for my fans as well. I rest my case.

Not A Leader?

2011-04-19T08:12:00.000-07:00

Hmmm... I decided to v/blog on this subject. One of a known leader abruptly made a declaration that she is not a leader but a follower instead. Let's take a deep look at why she said it. The timing of her statement is so essential. She's the one that brought deafhood to America and developed an American version of deafhood by trying to interpret deaf journey for us with hope that we'd all agree with her journey. And apply them into our journey. That's where she went wrong and she realized it just now. Instead of owning up her own mistakes as a leader she sidestepped and said she was only following others. Shameful. Solid leaders do not do that. Solid leaders apologize for misleading their people. This one didn't.

ASL Reductionists!

2011-01-20T06:44:00.000-08:00

Before you roll your eyes and spit out nasty words for me, take a deep breath and hear me out for few minutes.

Thanks to reductionists who manage to minimize ASL (American Sign Language) every time they tried to retrieve it. These are the same people that are constantly trying to discredit PSE and English with hope to give ASL the boost it desperately need.

Take a peek at this video done by David, known as deafchipmunk. He's one of the latest example of world class reductionist. In this particular video he struggled with himself, trying his hardest to belittle and degrade PSE with hope to promote ASL.

The irony is he also used PSE in that video. You see, he desperately tried to shoot down PSE as a lowly and filthy sign language that we should be ashamed of and yet in the same breath he used PSE in that video.

Oh, don't be confused as to why he's doing it. Many deaf professors and deaf-related service workers like him are doing the same thing because they seem to think that their career and employment would be jeopardized if ASL does not survive. They seem to feel the urge and need to promote ASL because they believe that without it they would be unemployed. They're doing it solely for economy reasons. This is something we could understand but lying about it isn't cool. It's even worse when they try to deceive others into believing that we all are signing in ASL, strictly ASL, without resorting to some of the values that are offered by PSE and English.

I've reached an important conclusion here. The role and theory of Holism and Reductionism have never been more important. If you claim to use ASL, strictly that then you are a reductionist. If you claim to use PSE, strictly that then you are a reductionist as well. If you claim to use Sign Exact English then you're a reductionist as well. However, if you embrace all of the above and use them freely then you're using what's known as holistic approach. My hat's off to those who embrace all the above, for their lives surely will becomes richer because of it.

My sincere sympathies goes to those reductionists who choose to limit themselves to one form of sign language. They seem to prefer an isolated world, that of closed society. It certainly is within their rights to choose that kind of life but it certainly is not for me and millions of other deaf people on the face of this earth.

Helping A Drowning Society

2011-01-14T05:23:00.000-08:00

I've been doing some serious thinking for the past several weeks about the society that seem to be making the desperate gasping sound of a drowning community. One thing came to my mind, that of helping a drowning society and the dire consequences behind the noble effort to rescue them.

And why it's happening.

Many of you know I've been v/blogging on various topics for several years covering controversial topics that were important to the signing community. No doubt about it. My unique insights on different topics helped many people. And yet it also produced some enemies who simply hate the notion of being helped. They cry foul when they see a floating life saver tube being thrown their way because it was wrong for us to think or believe that they were incapable of swimming. The noble effort seem to insult them. Some gladly accepted the help and some simply refused, out of pride even if they were drowning.

Or perhaps it's a classic case of a sinking titanic ship whereas there were not enough emergency boats and life jackets for everybody? Where are the leaders when the society needed them? Are they in the hiding because they were ill-prepared when they built a deaf community (a titanic ship) without providing them with adequate safety and security measures (life jackets and boats)?

Surely, numerous deaf leaders back in the 1900's meant well when they envisioned and engineered a plan and called it a world of our own. Back then it sounded good to everybody. In the 1900's they started building this Titanic D Ship and gave it a name, that of ASL! The effort continued well into the 1980's before this renowned ice berg (technology and information age) floated into the course and caught the ship by surprise. The collision course delivered a huge dent and penetrated this Titanic D Ship and delivered large amount of gushing water into the ship until it could no longer stay afloat. Not a pretty sight. You know the rest of the story so I won't go there and paint the rest of the story for you.

The leaders led the society to believe that the Titanic D Ship was unsinkable and unbreakable. The people were led to believe that ASL was the key to their future and that they would receive the best of education and the best possible life if we solicited strictly in ASL and by attending deaf school establishments. Today we know better. Today we're seeing numerous deaf schools going down the tube. Medical technologies are making rapid progress these days and bringing forth great promises, some of which have been delivered. Because of that people started to wonder about this "dreamy" and "ideal" world they were promised by numerous deaf leaders.

This reminds me of a quote I created some time ago, "Disappointment is a result of unrealistic expectation".

Once you develop an unrealistic expectation over something you're in it for a huge disappointment. This is what happened to the deaf signing community when their leaders allowed for unrealistic expectations of what our world was going to be like in the future as if they posed some kind of supernatural power to know what the future would bring. It sure was a humbling experience for many of us who realized that we can not and will never be able to stop progress.

I've been around long enough to remember how highly visible and accessible numerous deaf leaders were. They were highly recognized for their work. It seem to be the opposite today. Many current deaf leaders are hiding in their offices, their homes and even garages, producing "busy" noises with hope to lead us to believe that they are very busy and occupied with something else that were very important.

The recent resignation at Deaf Bilingual Coalition is one of many examples. Occasionally these self proclaimed leaders would take a peek at the "Drowning Society" and each time they did they could not stomach the desperate gasping sounds and sights of a drowning community. They'd close their curtains again and try to keep their minds occupied with something else with hope that the problem would disappear on its own.

One other thing to discuss here. The technique and tactic of helping a drowning victim is not an easy task. It's generally know that when you try and help a drowning victim you're likely going to be drowned as well. The drowning victim has the tendency to panic and grab your body with all of his/her weight and pull you down. You simply would not have the necessary strength to carry the load and swim both parties out of the water.

I say this because each time we tried to help the victims that are drowning into the system we would receive some kind of hammer treatment by these extremists (deafhood)leaders. These are the same corrupted leaders who make a living selling Grand Tour tickets to this Titanic D Ship called ASL. This Titanic D Ship is so majestic that it even contain ASL courses in name of numerous Colleges / Universities / Schools, provides Deafhood Workshops, and recruit sponsor for this Deafhood Foundation, and wears the mask of Deaf Bilingual Coalition, and such.

These are the same group of leaders that control California Association of the Deaf and changed their by-laws to reflect deafhood instead of deaf. They also hold great amount of leverage and influence over deaf professionals who work for the State at these deaf schools. These people are currently trying to infiltrate Gallaudet University and National Association of the Deaf. To a degree they've been fairly successful at it. It would not surprise me if both entities fell victim to this Titanic D Ship in matter of time.

And ultimately, it's all done in the name of Deafhood Foundation. The longer we allow them to sell the tickets to this supposedly unsinkable and unbreakable D ship the more destructive it is going to be.

You can't say you've not been warned.

Sleeping Mode

2010-12-11T05:40:00.000-08:00

Even though you are physically awake there is a high possibility that you are still in your sleeping mode. Here are some of the examples for you to consider. I've captioned the video so I do not need to elaborate my thoughts in writing. Enjoy this one and improve accordingly.

Update on Convo Relay & ASLRucks.net

2010-11-15T09:43:00.000-08:00

I v/blogged on the subject recently therefore I felt the obligation to provide my viewers and readers with an update. As of today, November 15th, 2010 Convo Relay has decided to terminate their relationship with ASLRucks.net.

I know that certain people from ASLRucks.net are going to assume that I'm excited about the news. It's far from the truth. The truth is I'm saddened by the fact that ASLRocks.net did not and could not seem to step up to the plate and clean their house. The matter was beyond Convo Relay's control. I wrote to the CEO of Convo Relay and told him that I thought that ASLRucks.net would be worse off if it was not for Convo Relay. In short, I appreciated Convo Relay's presence in ASLRucks.net because it was the only incentive for them to get their act together and do everything they could to stop cyber-bullying. And because they could not deliver their relationship with Convo Relay has been severed.

I also know that certain people are going to blame me and several other individual for it but the hard reality is they only have themselves to blame. Convo Relay gave them plenty of opportunities to get their act together. I know Convo Relay meant well and they did everything in their power to try and correct the problem. Unfortunately it did not seem to work. The cyber-bullying continued to take place in face of all the warning signs. My greatest fear is being realized this morning. ASLrucks.net is going to be worse off. I hope I'm going to be wrong about it but ASLRucks.net is probably going to become worse than what it was previously. The incentive to behave and vlog responsibly is no longer there.

And I'd like to say something else about Convo Relay. I've spoken to numerous individuals who used Convo Relay in the past. They all had favorable and positive message about Convo Relay. I did not hear a single negative comment about their service. It was one reason why I've tried to preserve their reputation and strike a delicate balance in separating them from being part of cyber-bullying that took place at ASLRocks.net without damaging Convo Relay and the wonderful service they seem to provide. I have yet to check Convo Relay's service and will check them out soon, as a way of thanking them for their prompt action on this matter.

Thank you,
Barry Sewell

Does Convo Relay Support Cyberbullying?

2010-11-11T19:44:00.002-08:00

I had to say something about what I am seeing here between Convo Relay company and ASLRucks.net. And no I did not spell rucks by mistake. It is Rucks as in Ruckus! The credit goes to my son and his latest vlog seen here on DeafVideo.tv.

Allow me to get right back to the point of this blog. I have absolutely no interest in ASLRucks.net and their contents however due to high volume of cyberbullying activities that's been going on over there I had to check them out to see it for myself. I also followed responses made by Convo Relay company. And I could not believe my eyes. I was rather surprised at how cyberbullying-tolerant Convo Relay company appeared to be. They created a video for ASLRucks.net seen here at youtube.com

This video was posted on November 6th, 2010. The underlying message Convo had was ASLRucks.net was still a baby project and that it was still learning the curves. They went on to say that they would remove the advertisement banner but continue to support the site. Upon watching that disturbing video I had to seek further clarification from Convo Relay and shared this video done by the owner of ASLRucks.net, who basically said that cyberbullying was not allowed when done upon the members of ASLRucks.net and that it would be okay if it was done to non-members of ASLRucks.net.

Take note here; This video by the owner of ASLRucks.net was posted on November 5th, 2010, one day before Convo produced a response on November 6th, 2010.

In the event the owner of ASLRucks.net decide to delete his video at youtube.com to save his face, don't worry. I've prepared a different site for your viewing at FileDropper.com.

The underlying question? Was this video message done by the owner of ASLRucks.net acceptable in Convo Relay company's eye? This much I wanted to know so I asked Convo who responded via email and said these exact words;

11/10/2010

Hi Barry,

Thank you for contacting Convo. Please take the time view this vlog by our CEO XXXXX XXXXXXX.

http://aslrocks.net/archives/16377

We want you to know Convo does not manage ASL Rocks. Convo also is neutral and does not support or discriminate against anyone who posts on ASL Rocks.

Convo provides VRS so that deaf and hearing people can connect with each other, and believes that deaf people need to connect with each other as well. For that reason we are sponsoring ASL Rocks so that we could have a video community in where we can ASL new ideas, share our imagination and push us all to innovative thinking.

However, your reaction to vlogs and other content on ASL Rocks is important to us and will help us in March 2011 as we evaluate whether to continue our sponsorship of ASL Rocks.

Again, thank you for sharing your views on ASL Rocks.

Best,
--
Convo Support Team
help@convorelay.com

Hello? I never accused Convo of managing ASLRucks.net. I never said anything about Convo being biased and that they supported or discriminated against anyone that posted videos at ASLRucks.net. That was not my concern. I was puzzled with their response so I went through their email several times before I realized that it was more of a mass-production email whereas they'd just copy and paste all the same messages in their response to people on the same subject.

Disgusted with the laziness nature of their response I wrote back and had this to say to them;

11/10/2010

Thank you.

Please understand that I've already viewed XXXXX XXXXXXX's vlog long before I made the decision to contact Convo. I was never under the impression that Convo managed ASL Rocks. I was never under the impression that Convo was not neutral or that it might have supported or discriminated against any of the videos posted by certain vloggers. That was not our concern.

Our concern is based on Philanto's selective tolerance and intolerance for cyberbullying. If you watched his video again and carefully, he basically made it clear that it was okay for the members of ASL Rocks to bully people that were non-members and that there would be no tolerance for bullying toward its' own members. Such policy would work to Convo's disadvantage.

This is cherry picking policy. I do not think Convo would stand to fare well, publicity wise, if they continue to support a web site with such policy. Our hope is that Convo would begin to condemn cyberbullying regardless of membership status within that web site or any other sites that Convo might choose to support in the future. Cyberbullying should not happen and must not be tolerated, especially if Convo truly wanted the video community to become successful and be prosperous. What was said by this owner of ASL Rocks is ethically wrong and it ought to be pointed out.

I have heard plenty of positive things about Convo and the quality service it offered. Based on that I do not comprehend Convo's reasons for accepting this type of gamble and gamble away it's precious reputation by tolerating the risk factor involving sites that allows for cyberbullying.

Thank you once again for your time and attention on this urgent matter.

Regards,
Barry Sewell

And then shortly afterwards several of my facebook friends sent me some more relevant information showing actual cyber-bullying done by this owner of ASLRucks.net. Click here to see it.

Upon reading it I felt it was urgent for Convo to know about it as well so I shared that information with them. Read below and see what this owner had to say to several people. They were approximately a month old but yet worthy of our review because it showed who he really was long before Convos produced that video.

End result? The CEO of Convo Relay personally wrote back and had this to say;

11/11/2010

Hi Barry -

Thanks for bringing it up to my attention.

We've made it clear we do not support cyber-bulling no matter where it occurs (ASLRocks or any other sites). Our position is that we're going to give it a try by providing resources, advice and knowledge to Raul on how to make ASLRocks.net a more positive environment to be part of.

If that is not successful, we will then evaluate our relationship with the site and go from there. At the same time, we believe it takes time for Raul to make the necessary changes. We will continue to monitor the situation til then.

Also I want to take time to address your financial questions. NECA reimburses all providers NET 60 after the month of providing service for the traffic. Line of Credit is used to shoulder the payroll costs, especially interpreter before being reimbursed. That reduces the capital interest. I hope that is helpful to you especially with the reason behind securing a Line of Credit.

Lastly, I've viewed your vlogs from time to time. I appreciate your super clear signing style in presenting information.

Thank you
XXXXX

According to Convo Relay they have already made it clear that they do not support cyber-bulling no matter where it occurs, ASLRocks or any other sites. That's good to know. However I'm not clear on where else they might have said it besides the email that was sent to me personally by the CEO of Convo Relay. Therefore I do not believe the owner of ASLRucks.net is aware of Convo's current position on this matter.

Now we know that Convo Relay do not support cyberbullying in any shape or form. But surely we all know what will happens next. Many eyes will be on Convo Relay and ASLRucks.net from this point and on. One silly cyberbullying action found at ASLRucks.net surely will be scrutinized. No doubt about it. ASLRucks.net and the owner now have a very difficult balancing act to follow.

I would like to personally thank Convo Relay team for their prompt responses on this matter.

And lastly, I have an important message for numerous vloggers and bloggers who frequently visit ASLRucks.net. You people have been quite busy promoting anti-cyberbullying movement in the recent weeks and months but when it came down to bullying done by the owner of ASLRucks.net and members of the web site you were mostly silent. For the most part you guys said nothing about it. Wrote nothing about it when the owner of ASLRucks.net basically said it was okay to bully non-members of ASLRocks.net. But you were always quick on your toes and cried foul when it was done else where. This practice known as "double standard" is shameful, at best.

Does Convo Relay Support Cyberbullying?

2010-11-11T13:28:00.000-08:00

11/10/2010

Hi Barry,

Thank you for contacting Convo. Please take the time view this vlog by our CEO XXXXX XXXXXXX.

http://aslrocks.net/archives/16377

We want you to know Convo does not manage ASL Rocks. Convo also is neutral and does not support or discriminate against anyone who posts on ASL Rocks.

Convo provides VRS so that deaf and hearing people can connect with each other, and believes that deaf people need to connect with each other as well. For that reason we are sponsoring ASL Rocks so that we could have a video community in where we can ASL new ideas, share our imagination and push us all to innovative thinking.

However, your reaction to vlogs and other content on ASL Rocks is important to us and will help us in March 2011 as we evaluate whether to continue our sponsorship of ASL Rocks.

Again, thank you for sharing your views on ASL Rocks.

Best,
--
Convo Support Team
help@convorelay.com

11/10/2010

Thank you.

Please understand that I've already viewed XXXXX XXXXXXX's vlog long before I made the decision to contact Convo. I was never under the impression that Convo managed ASL Rocks. I was never under the impression that Convo was not neutral or that it might have supported or discriminated against any of the videos posted by certain vloggers. That was not our concern.

Our concern is based on Philanto's selective tolerance and intolerance for cyberbullying. If you watched his video again and carefully, he basically made it clear that it was okay for the members of ASL Rocks to bully people that were non-members and that there would be no tolerance for bullying toward its' own members. Such policy would work to Convo's disadvantage.

This is cherry picking policy. I do not think Convo would stand to fare well, publicity wise, if they continue to support a web site with such policy. Our hope is that Convo would begin to condemn cyberbullying regardless of membership status within that web site or any other sites that Convo might choose to support in the future. Cyberbullying should not happen and must not be tolerated, especially if Convo truly wanted the video community to become successful and be prosperous. What was said by this owner of ASL Rocks is ethically wrong and it ought to be pointed out.

I have heard plenty of positive things about Convo and the quality service it offered. Based on that I do not comprehend Convo's reasons for accepting this type of gamble and gamble away it's precious reputation by tolerating the risk factor involving sites that allows for cyberbullying.

Thank you once again for your time and attention on this urgent matter.

Regards,
Barry Sewell

11/11/2010

Hi Barry -

Thanks for bringing it up to my attention.

We've made it clear we do not support cyber-bulling no matter where it occurs (ASLRocks or any other sites). Our position is that we're going to give it a try by providing resources, advice and knowledge to Raul on how to make ASLRocks.net a more positive environment to be part of.

If that is not successful, we will then evaluate our relationship with the site and go from there. At the same time, we believe it takes time for Raul to make the necessary changes. We will continue to monitor the situation til then.

Also I want to take time to address your financial questions. NECA reimburses all providers NET 60 after the month of providing service for the traffic. Line of Credit is used to shoulder the payroll costs, especially interpreter before being reimbursed. That reduces the capital interest. I hope that is helpful to you especially with the reason behind securing a Line of Credit.

Lastly, I've viewed your vlogs from time to time. I appreciate your super clear signing style in presenting information.

Thank you
XXXXX

Deaf, World Class Whiners

2010-11-08T05:17:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to point out the obvious for you.

Numerous so-called culturally and linguistically "D" deaf people are world class whiners.

Thanks to long historic line of Deaf Whiners, the deaf community is known as the society of world class whiners.

Mind you, whining is as contagious as our laughter and smile. When you laugh there is almost certain somebody nearby that's going to laugh as well for absolutely no reason at all. When you smile you will generate smiles on the faces of people that surrounds you. It's no different when you whine. It's so contagious.

There is also a famous saying that goes something like this... who you are depends on who you hang around with. One does not need to look very far to see this proof.

Thinking back and reflecting on my life experience in the deaf community I realized how often I have had to sit down and listen to all the whining done by the capital "D" society through the years. There is always a reason to whine about something. Or is there, really? Or is it a habit forming behavior where people feel the need to whine regardless of the good things that are happening?

I would like to cite a recent event. Amazingly some culturally and linguistically Deaf people found a reason to whine about The Extreme Makeover event at Oregon School for the Deaf. I thought it was a beautiful project that would enlighten our deaf education program but yet there were some of you who managed to find reasons to whine about it! Some of you lodged your complaints at facebook and whined about the promotion of hearing aids by this Extreme Makeover group.

Here it comes again, the same old tiresome sound of waaahhh waaahhh waaahhh. Did I say anything about it? No, not yet. I ignored the whining once more. I sort of expected it and asked myself, so what's new?

And finally yesterday my wife posted a video in her facebook. The video was done by Jubilee Project. She told me about it because she thought it was a beautiful story that promoted ASL. I took few minutes to watch it and smiled afterwards. I liked it and saw the bright side to it. I was never fooled by the notion that the actress might be deaf. As soon as the lady spelled 'deaf' in ASL I knew she was not deaf. But I didn't see a problem with that simply because the underlying message was more important than the details. They were promoting ASL at no cost to us.

And yet, did somebody whine about it? Unbelievably Yes!

By evening hours I saw the return of this whining society who found a reason to whine about the video. There was a blog done by Amy known as Deaf World As Eye See It.

I left a comment under her blog and stated my thoughts;

I could not help it but think about how our deaf community are perceived by this world as world class whiners after producing series of complaints.

FYI, acting means exactly that, a job of acting like somebody that you are not. Acting means pretty much anybody could try and act like somebody else that they are not. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of acting.

End quote.

This well known Deaf Whiner named Shel had this to say to me;

Barry, quit putting down the Deaf community and assuming how Hearing people would perceive us as Deaf people.

Would you have said Blacks were world class whiners when they went on the Civil Rights Movement? When Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus? Was she a world class whiner when she protested racism?

Were women world class whiners when they protested sexism and the prohibition against women voting?

Would you even dare call GLBT community world class whiners when they protest against heterosexism and homophobia?

Nosireebob, you would not, Barry! So kindly cut it out with us, the Deaf community, when it comes to audism!

Amy, pardon me for flaming Barry, but I have had it with his putting down the Deaf community.

End quote.

I responded;

Funny how you saw my comment as putting down the deaf community. I saw it as a form of encouragement for the deaf community to learn how to see bright side to everything. I saw that video and thought it was awesome because it had a bright side to it only to learn that there are people whining about it. Some people like yourself, perhaps, love to bring out the negativity in everything they touch or see. It’s a reflection of sad mentality. I’ve always saw bright side to everything that hearing people do therefore I’ve always thrived where ever I go. And because I see things differently you categorize it as putting deaf people down.

Would I have said blacks were world class whiners when they whined? Yes, if I was a black person I certainly would. Would I have called women world class whiners when they whined? Yes I would if I was a woman. Would I call GLBT community a world class whiners? Yes I would if I was gay. But I’m not black, woman and gay so I’ve not made such claim but if I was that then yes I would because I know there is bright side to everything and there are ways to educate people on these subjects in a positive way, something you seem to struggle with.

End quote.

My message to this so-called "D" society. Kindly remind yourself of how contagious whining is before you whine again. And more importantly, remind yourself of how ugly your "D" society would look every time you let out this waaahhh waaahhh waaahhh whine of yours.

A Special Inventor

2010-11-01T23:11:00.000-07:00

This video is captioned so I won't write anything here. In the event you wish to leave a video comment please Click Here.

Court Docs. on Imperia Invest

2010-10-08T05:40:00.000-07:00

Is this going to be the next wave of legal proceedings against some of the deaf people who actively pursued deaf investors and recruited them for Imperia Invest IBC?

According to the court documents prepared by U.S. Security & Exchange Commission it could happen. This is no laughing matter because the investment involves 6,000 deaf people who poured four million dollars ($4,000,000) into the system believing they might get lucky. But what many of them do not realize is the ramification of illegal activity that is involved here.

I personally know several deaf people who were quite active in recruiting investors, including but not limited to several vloggers at deafvideo.tv. Several of them approached me as well and even called me on VP with hope that I'd invest some money as well but because I'm an experienced investors I knew it was a scam investment opportunity so I did not lose any money there. But it was disheartening to read that approximately four million dollars were robbed from six thousand deaf people who participated. I did my math and came down to an average of $666 dollars in investment per deaf person.

And again, like I explained one of my earlier vlog there are only two legal investment regulatory systems in the United States. One of them is Security and Exchange Commission and the other one is with Secretary of State. If the investment program that's offered to you do not register with either system then you will be well advised not to invest at all. It is that simple.

Trust Your Leaders On AB 2072?

2010-10-01T15:29:00.000-07:00

I've been watching different announcements and statements coming from deaf leaders on AB 2072 after it was vetoed by California's Governor. Some of them tried to save their faces by celebrating. Some of them went even further and misled their people. Some of them misinterpreted the veto statement by the Governor. What kind of leaders are they? How could they allow their people to be misguided and misled with misinformation on top of misinformations?

For a couple of days people asked if I'd be willing to vlog on the subject of AB 2072 veto to help them understand what's going on. I declined until somebody pointed my attention to a video done by Ken Davis with Deaf Newspaper. The subject was AB 2072. In the middle of the message I could not believe my eyes because the information were grossly incorrect.

According to Ken Davis, the bill known as AB 2072 would have encouraged the parents to go with cochlear implants and oralism programs and even pay for it. I wondered where he got that information. How could a leading newspaper for the deaf community give out misinformation like that? This begs the question. Can they read? If so, did they read the bill? Or was it a classic case of bison jump, following the crowd and believing other people's words. Whatever happen to credible journalism?

Because of the carelessness in journalism I felt obligated to vlog on the veto event so that people are going to have their facts together. Will somebody please step up to the plate here?

Happy With The Veto.

2010-09-30T09:48:00.001-07:00

This wonderful news found its way to my desk this morning! The AB 2072 was vetoed, and rightfully so. I completely agree with Governor Andrus on all points. You can read about it at the link I'm going to attach here. That is more than John Egbert really want to show you, readers.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_vt_20100929.html

BILL NUMBER: AB 2072
VETOED DATE: 09/29/2010

To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 2072 without my signature.
I appreciate the strong feelings from advocates on both sides of this
issue. Parents, when first advised that their child has been
identified with a hearing loss, are in need of information. It is in
the parents' and the affected child's best interest to have
information that is timely, appropriate, unbiased, and linguistically
and culturally sensitive. This bill is an attempt to provide that
type of comprehensive information. Unfortunately, the mechanism is
through an advisory committee that is anything but unbiased. It's
also an advisory committee that will not only duplicate efforts by
other state programs and materials by nationally recognized and
respected organizations, but it represents a significant workload
that will require fiscal resources that cannot be spared.
I do believe that our state's Newborn Hearing Screening Program,
along with other state agencies and departments, already coordinate
and work to provide the best programs for California children that
are deaf or hard of hearing. This bill is unnecessary and
potentially contradictory to those successful efforts.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

End quote.

You see, parties from both sides quickly formed advisory committees to represent their own best interests, including deafhoodized folks. The Governor stated how important it was to provide the parents with unbiased information. All communication options. That was really simple but the radical deaf-power group wanted to enhance ASL as the superior choice. End result? It produced a long wrangled battle and complicated the bill. I was happy with how the final bill turned out but always thought that the original draft was unbiased and yes, much better.

Now that it's been vetoed, it's being sent back to the drawing table. Going back to the basics, that of "all communication options". Keeping it simple is what the Governor wanted and California is going to get exactly that.

The Governor also did not want anything duplicated with what's already offered by other State programs and national organizations.

And lastly, the Governor did not want to expend anything on this bill therefore the complicated and costly information packages won't be financed. Sorry Californians. Private organizations like AG Bell, DCARA, NORCAL, GLAD are now financially responsible for their own promotions, if any. Say good bye to this free publicity machine that was once offered. The audiologists are now back in power, thanks to the radical few who did not know a good thing when they had it.

This was an interesting experience and I know many of us learned from it. I'm moving on now that the bill is dead and you Californians are back to square one.

Good job Governor!

New! Deafhood Video Game!

2010-09-28T16:39:00.000-07:00

My son Cobi created this humorous vlog after watching Jeff's vlog on Deafhood Church and following the turmoil that occurred at aslrocks.net. He created the entire game from scratches and did an excellent job, in my opinion. And then he asked me to join him in doing a play for the video. Was fun while it lasted. Enjoy it but don't watch it if you do not have an ounce of sense of humor.

Deafhood Church Is Here. What's Next?

2010-09-26T16:59:00.000-07:00

This embedded video done by NLDesierto from youtube, formerly known as deafjeff. It's shown here for your review. Don't worry if they delete this video because I saved the video on my hard drive, for the record, including video comments generated by David (DeafChip), Mike (DeafOIC), Mike Gallangher, and several others who cheered on.

David (deafchip) excitedly said he wanted to join! He went even further to poke fun at Total Communication, something that would go against his words in the past. He used to defend the sincerity of deafhood and claim to respect other people's choices but it does not appear to be the case any more. He's loosely joking about it now. These are the same people that have been trying to convince us that it's nothing more than a serious personal journey. David, if you are reading this you're probably going to rush over to the site and delete your comments before the whole world sees it. Worry not, I saved your comments into my hard drive as well.

Not very long ago they talked of this so-called deaf bible by Paddy Ladd, calling it a Bible. (Note: I saved that video in my hard drive as well) And then this.... Deafhood Church. I could care less if it's only a joke. That is not the question here. The question is how careless can they get? I've been keeping track of their carelessness as they continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

I'm blogging about it because these people labored long and hard trying to lend some credibility to deafhood movement and yet in the same breath they turn around and make a mockery of the theory themselves. I'm not complaining about how dumb they want to be. In fact they are helping my cause by inflicting the damages but I am surprised at how they continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Think about it. There are numerous deaf people out there who committed their time, energy, money and participate in some of the deafhood workshops. Some of them received trainings so that they are able to teach on the subject. These people took deafhood issues seriously and yet these same deafhood leaders poked fun at the theory. Does that make sense? Have they not considered how some of their participants might feel about it? Apparently not.

I sat in this chair and pondered on this subject as I tried to make some sense out of it. I wondered if they were really that stupid. Two quick answer came up.

One, yes, they must be.

Two, they are evidently without souls.

It might begin to explain why they are constantly doing their soul searching with hope to discover their so-called deaf center. They would not be looking if they had their souls in the first place, would they? Is it why they are in search for a new Bible and a new church. Just a joke, you say? Then this begs the question. Why joke about it? They're joking about it to see if it would actually generate enough support and interest. History will teach us that numerous projects started out as a wild idea and even a joke, on purpose, with hope to see if it'd generate enough support and interest. Naturally they're going to claim it as a joke but down deep on the inside they might be testing the water.

Personal journey? Unfortunately no. It's a trap. Good luck to those who fell for it. Should not be too difficult to get out while you can still... these people are not too bright.

My New Family

2010-09-24T13:52:00.000-07:00

Enjoy the video and learn what "special something" happened to me this summer. You may also want to turn up the volume and enjoy the customized music I created with my round drum.

Mi-yo!

ASL Community, a Society of the Infested?

2010-09-11T05:31:00.000-07:00

Upon receiving numerous emails from some of my fans and viewers I learned about the unfortunate incident involving Ridor9th and his so-called criminal record. It is my understanding that he is currently in jail.

I would not care to elaborate on that but wanted to say that I traced the news all the way to an individual I've never heard of. His user name with youtube was Gratefuldeaf. Apparently he was the first source of the news itself. I watched the video and could not help it but notice a comment from Kalalau52 (known as Carl S.) and smelled a skunk. And then I thought of a scenario in my head... I see it as a body of water, a community that was infested with sharks that were beginning to go after each other.

Kalalau is known to have laughed and cheered Ridor9th on for attacking many deaf people, including myself. Numerous acts of defamation and slander occurred while Ridor9th attacked people and yet this Kalalau character cheered him on knowing it would only encourage him to continue behaving that way. And when this Gratefuldeaf vlogged about it, in pain, Kalalau congratulated him for coming forward on the issue.

This is what he had to say... "Yes, Jason, I could still remember initial attackers in your facebook who were out to drag your name through the mud. I was proud that you took up your guts to make this vlog about "a pack of haters." They do have their queens.".

I left a comment under Kalalau's comment stating that he was the one that laughed and cheered alongside Ridor9th when he attacked people. And that I thought he should have condemned the behavior as soon as it started, not after this individual has been jailed. Went on to tell him that words were like mirror, a reflection self, referring to him as the "queen" he spoke of. That comment was not published, I assume because Grateful and Kalalau knew each other and were perhaps even friends.

Mind you, this legal issue Ridor9th is currently dealing with may have nothing to do with defamation and slanderous work that he's done towards many individuals. The point here is, Ridor9th had Kalalau as a loyal ally up until that point. This type of behavior is exactly what I envisioned in that photo of water infested with sharks.

Upon thinking about it some more I realized that it has more to do with how desperate this ASL community has become in this cyber world. Their world is getting smaller and smaller each year. They've assimilated themselves into a world of illusions, to a degree where they do not want anything to do with people that were slightly different. They would assail those that were not deaf enough in their view. They end up being by themselves, living amongst their own until there were no more fishes to assail and consume. They came up with a new diet and called it AUDISM. The notion of attacking hearing people appeared ideal. And when they ran out of examples they ended up more isolated than ever.

At some point, which we're beginning to witness these days, their own are beginning to appear appealing. They're beginning to experiment with a new diet called cannibalism. Eating each other up seem appealing because they drove everything away and had nothing else to assail and consume upon. The rest of the world drove on forward and made huge progress on solutions of their own, without the blessings of the sharks.

Never thought I'd see the day when Kalalau would turn against Ridor9th and assailed him. This is why I've denounced the community by calling myself sharkless, as in deafless. I want no part of this stupidity.

And lastly, I am not excited about the fact that Ridor9th is in jail. I do not wish that upon anybody. And yes, I am saddened by the news. I do not think anybody in their right mind should find this news entertaining. And that's not why I'm blogging about it. I'm merely making a point here about the ASL Community and how the radical "Deaf Power" and "ASL Powerhouse" are hurting themselves. I, along with many ASL users, want no part of it.

Ella, in case you're reading this. You of all people know the primary cause. Thanks to you, this part of history is written for the rest of the world to see and read about.

Last Stand? Prayers Have Been Answered.

2010-08-16T06:44:00.001-07:00

Just wanted to say that my prayers may have been answered. I've been praying for the radical "D" people to make their "Last Stand" at some point. And finally there seem to be an indication of an upcoming Last Stand!

This morning I ran into a blog site, issuing a call to make the last stand. How exciting! It could mean we're going to finally witness the fall of extremists, known as capital "D" deaf people. The closed society that we all have come to known and heard so much about will finally fall flat on their back, just the way the General Custer fell down and never got up again.

If you feel so strongly about it then I'd encourage you to put on your $2 yellow t-shirts and march on towards this important historic Last Stand in California. We're going to erect a monument and remember you guys the way we remember General Custer, the party that miscalculated everything and lost badly.

It's quite a bit of an irony because earlier this summer I took my family to visit the very place where General Custer fell. The picture shown here is the actual photo I took up at the Little Bighorn Battle Field, inside of Crow Reservation.

AB 2072 Opponents, One Confused People!

2010-08-06T15:22:00.000-07:00

I have to say something here about the opponents of AB 2072. They are one really confused group of people. Seriously.

Most of you will remember my initial v/blog on AB 2072 where I stated for the record on how I saw the original bill as an opportunity to market ASL. It was the truth because it allowed organizations like CAD, DCARA, GLAD, NORCAL and such entities to compete and provide information on 'ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS' to the parents.

That particular privilege was erased away because the opponents were worried-sick about the potential for a mismatch, between themselves and entities like AG Bell. Lacking the confidence, they decided to complain away, effectively erasing the privilege away from everybody, including themselves. That was a dumb strategic move on their part but then I've seen these same group of people make so many strategic mistakes through the years so it no longer surprised me. It was just who they were... illogical people.

Some time passed before they realized their strategic mistake. They desperately tried to conceal the stupidity by claiming victory in removing the much feared competition, entities such as AG Bell, away from the game. What they did not tell you was they also paralyzed their own favorite organizations like CAD, DCARA, GLAD, NORCAL and such. Upon realizing they've dug up their own grave they battled away with some more bad strategic moves.

Remember the peacock effect they desperately used, in which they coordinated this $2 yellow t-shirts campaign thinking it'd make them appear bigger than they really were. They came in great numbers and they all were told what to say, as if they lacked individual intelligence (in short, incapable of thinking and speaking for themselves).

Needless to say it did not help them. It made them the party of the pathetic. And yet, this peacock came out that night and the next day claiming some kind of victory. Remember David Eberwein's vlogs that night? He claimed that the entire original bill was thrown out in favor of the new bill they wrote in the back room before the start of the day. According to them, it all happened rather quickly, as if they've found a magic wand and lucked out with a surprise victory!

Don't know about you but I remember this event as if it happened yesterday. I was surprised to see how far these corrupted leaders would go to maintain their base. They knew they could not afford one more defeat so they rallied their hands in the air, in an effort to excite their base. Well, it worked but not for very long.

It was an amazing acting job on their part. Perhaps it's because they're from the Hollywood State where they grew up being glued to their television sets and became trained to believe everything they see in a show. It came across as rather odd for some of us who were outside of California because we knew how things worked in the legislative branches. What they tried to echo was clearly a big fake.

Instead of allowing them to continue dumbing down deaf people I arranged to have this interpreter friend of mine prepare a very accurate transcript of the panel hearing. And it was posted as soon as it was done. Much silence took place afterwards. Ella and many others were caught off-guarded by this effort and refused to acknowledge the transcript. It was done simply because they knew it would deflate the hot 'victory' air they were spewing out. Some time passed before people began to acknowledge the accuracy of the transcript. Much silence followed after that.

Several new blogs on AB 2072 are beginning to resurface on both sides. I'm glad they are coming back because for a while I thought people were trying to sweep this one under the rug. The picture is becoming clearer now. The original bill was not thrown out in favor of a new one, like the opponent side claimed.

The language of 'visual language' is still the preferred choice. The opponent side desperately tried to change it to ASL but that did not fly either. The opponent side begged to have the Department of Education oversee the matter rather than the Health Department and the wish was granted. And now the opponent side are complaining about it, raising new concerns on the subject.

That's right. They fought to have the Department of Education oversee the matter and now they (Yes, they are all the same people) are trying to fight it. Read about it here at Stop AB2072 Now! I won't be surprised if they decide to delete this blog because they just contradicted themselves in a BIG way. They're now asking their base to oppose Department of Education's involvement.

This is too peculiar for my taste. Not very long ago they claimed victory and led their base of people to believe that they got what they wanted. It boiled down to one simple word. Shameful. Remember the video footage of David Reynolds and Karl White of EHDI? That was shameful too.

The frightening part is these same people are working hard to infiltrate National Association of the Deaf. I have to wonder what stupidity we're going to witness next. Heck, as much as I respect and appreciate Bobbie Scoggin as a person I need to say that she did not have any real answers to my questions on 'Audism Definition', which was adopted by N.A.D.. I could sense that she was only doing her job, diligently and yet these corrupted scholars and leaders really believe that they are going to get away the crime of dumbing down deaf people.

It's even more shameful when I take a peek across the valley of this nation and see very little or no reaction coming from the deaf community. It could be that they no longer care. If that's the case then I can't blame them for giving up on this Closed Society.

Deaf Culture?

2010-07-17T06:32:00.000-07:00

I posted a comment under Candy's Blog and thought I'd blog about it as well. Here goes....

Candy's blog offered an interesting read again. I decided to post my thoughts on the subject because of the irony. Last night I was having an interesting ‘cultural’ discussion with members of K’amligihahlhaahl. They're also known as Nisga'a. This Native American tribe is located on the coastal side of British Columbia. They are people of totem poles. They’re one of the most traditional tribe you will run into today, culture-wise. The photo seen here is a wooden mask used by K'amligihahlhaahl.

We talked about culture and the rules that people of ANY culture must follow. In this discussion I made several references to deaf culture. The goal was simple. We wanted to understand the principle of rules behind any kind of culture. A K’amligihahlhaahl woman showed me a book called “From Time Before Memory, The People of K’amligihahlhaahl”. She opened pages 14 and 15 and brought my attention to the rules of ANY culture. Needless to say that the article captured my attention.

It explained about Family and Identity as the primary ingredients and source of a culture. Ones’ identity is developed after he or she becomes actively involved as a member of a group or something. If someone asked who you were you might say “I am Bob” or “I am Kate”. But what if they wanted to know more? You might say, “I like to read. I am a fast runner. I have two sisters. I am honest. I like the color green”. These are all facts about yourself and together they make up your identity.

The book also identified two facts that are always used to identify person's identity. It boiled down to person's "tribe” and “house”. In white man’s layman term it would mean 'group’ and ‘location’, where we were raised. Some of us were raised in the big cities. Some of us were raised in a small town or on a farm out in the country. Therefore the culture of the very location where we were raised will play a role in our identity. Approximately 5% of us were raised in a deaf family therefore the culture of a deaf child of a deaf family will not be the same as a deaf child of a hearing family therefore it is impossible for us to expect ALL of us to share the same ‘deaf culture’ that we hear so much about.

Because we all came from different parts of the nation where there are multiple cultural bases, as in cultures of western folks, traditional tribes, red necks, hilly billies, etc; Everything that we’ve accumulated through the years do play an important role in how our identities are developed. Therefore the folklife of a deaf person will always vary greatly when we compare the two.

The book also pointed out the very basic rules of ‘membership’. It laid out four simple things to follow in order to hold an identity necessary for a cultural value. 1) Family 2) House 3) Tribe (group) 4) Nation (location).

Upon reading these basic rules I could not help it but ponder about deaf culture. Do we all share the same family? No. Do we all share the same house? No. Do we all belong to the same Tribe (group)? No. Do we all belong to the same Nation (location)? No.

Now, why are these things important? The book had an answer and I’ll share them with you. It says, “There are important rules in a society about how members of these groups behave toward each other. They are much like the rules that people of any culture must follow. These rules help a society know how to behave in different situations and during difficult times. They help keep the society strong”.

In short, without these basic rules a society will never be able to reach its prime as a cultural group. This made me think and ponder about Deaf people who love to tout their so-called cultural values on daily basis. Are these people mindful of the basic rules? At this point I have my doubts.

Why? If deaf people really understood the basic principles here they would know how to behave toward each other. They would know how to behave in different situations and during difficult times". I'm seeing an exact opposite of how a culturally based group are supposed to behave. I think I'm beginning to understand why there is a long history of divisive behavior within the deaf community. It may be due to lack of 'rule' laid out by the People of K’amligihahlhaahl.

My life long journey with the Native Americans continues... because I know they have much to teach us.

NAD, a society of the Illusions?

2010-07-10T06:52:00.000-07:00

I'm presently enjoying myself some where in the far north this morning, smelling the scents of pine and tamarack trees with a world class view of a very calm river. I see a couple of fishing boats sporting for hearty meals, tempting me to try my luck some time soon.

As I sat here this morning watching the faithful sun making its regular visit this time of the day I had to wonder about NAD's ongoing events in Pennsylvania and reflect some the things that I've been able to monitor, thanks to DeafRead.com and DeafVideo.tv.

I took a peek of 'College Bowl' to get an idea of the so-called excitement and was disappointed to learn that it was more of a Trivial Pursuit, a popular game for those so-called geniuses with bulky memory drives in their head. I was hoping it'd be more of a debate club containing selections of qualifiers from three institutions. It's not just the base of intelligence and knowledge that will make or break our community. It's our ability to articulate thoughts and place them into a debate that will take us where we need to go. And then I watched to see how the representatives of Gallaudet University touted itself as the best "higher education" program for the deaf. Forgive me but it was a laughable moment for me when they made such declaration. Did they really give all other Universities with Deaf Education program the same opportunity to compete in this College Bowl? Surely not. The best, eh? Dream on...

And then I came across Candy's Blog. That was an interesting read. I had not followed NAD's CEO candidates so for that reason I appreciated what little information I was able to pick off and read this morning. I know and I understand that Candy's blog reflects how she felt and how she might see things.

Based on what was said in Candy's Blog I can appreciate Darlene’s desire for financial independence. I’ve made numerous financial suggestions to NAD through the years with hope that they would eventually learn how to build their financial estates rather than dwelling on membership dues and grants. Unfortunately such advice fell on deaf ears for a very long time so for that reason I’m surprised to see some lights in the tunnel. However, based on her view of abused rights of deaf babies, it rang a familiar sour tune for me. Radical. Extremist. I started to smell DBC, AFA, Deafhood and such. This, will spell death for NAD if they’re foolish enough to go down the same beaten path.

Experience has taught us to know that we ought not to confuse ourselves between the difference of a proven teacher and a proven leader and politician. It takes an exceptionally talented individual to accomplish the feats of a financial guru. I have yet to meet a teacher that was a financial guru.

As for Howard, I think I’ve seen him in a video once or twice but I’m not sure where. I’ll worry about that later. However, based on what Candy laid out, I’m concerned about the ‘lawyer’ mentality. A leader that has the mentality of an attorney is not always productive. They seem to think that everything is solved through legal means. They’re usually emotionless because they were schooled and trained to think that way. This much was assured when you laid out 7 E’s (Equality, Enforcement, Education, Employment, Enjoyment of life and Expansion of our members, most through enforcement). Scary because history will teach us how well ‘freedom’ and ‘enforcement’ mix. Not too well, if you ask me. The statement ‘most through enforcement’ caught my eyes. I’ll tell you why.

Enforcing equality? The law has tried it for many decades and we’re still very off the base. Enforcing enforcement? Sounds like a heavy hand tactic.

Enforcing education? As an advocate of John Holt’s unschooling philosophy I know for a fact that education will happen with or without a teacher. It’s human’s nature to learn the things we need to learn. In short, education will happen with or without enforcement. I have a problem with enforcing education upon others because we’re at an age where the things we need to learn are rapidly changing. Much of what we learn in the educational system are obsolete and outdated.

Enforcing employment? That’s the path our nation has undertaken numerous times and each time they did, they failed miserably. This is other word for artificial economy, as in stimulus economy. They tried to force employment growth, through unnatural methods and each time it resulted in ballooned debt and failed policies. I do not know Howard’s background and training in the financial sector but he would learn immensely if he began to study and observe these matters. Enforcing employment is a bad policy.

Enforcing enjoyment of life? Funny because our nation tried it many times in the past century. Sure, we had a blast in the 1910′s, 1930′s, 1950′s, 1970′s, and 1990′s. These years were the hey days where people enforced enjoyment of life and what was the result? Debts. More debts on top of debts, leading us to this mountain of debts we’re facing today. As a society we’re slowly learning the meaning of ‘spending within the means of our life’. In short, it means we ought to learn to spend less than what we bring in, barring the concept for liabilities and debts.

Enforcing an expansion of NAD members? I’d love to see them try and enforce me to join NAD. Mind you, it is not how they are going to win the hearts and minds of deaf people. I do not need to tell you that people are most effective and empowered when they join at their own free-will. The same is true for parents of deaf children. Forcing them to do something that’s against their will and you’ll create a powerful alliance you’ll wish y0u never created.

My choice for NAD’s next CEO? Those who know me know that I do not settle for second best so I’ll have to say that none of the candidates would have won my vote. And yes, I drive a very hard bargain every where I go. It’s how we excel in everything that we do. Too many people these days are too willing to settle for ‘second best’ therefore it becomes them, a society of the cynics.

Regardless, I’ll wish them the best of luck in choosing their next CEO.

Instead of a trivial game for these so-called geniuses I'd love to see some kind of debate club containing numerous deaf education programs from different colleges come together for a College Bowl event. It's high time we placed a greater challenge for ourselves.

And lastly, I'm still waiting, patiently, for answers on the four definitions of Audism that were endorsed by NAD. I certainly hope they have not swept the issue under the rug thinking we're going to unconditionally forgive them for their misgivings.

I'd better get back to the nature and reclaim some of my sanity. Be Hopi! (be happy)

Our ethnic group is in lieu of what?

2010-06-30T13:13:00.001-07:00

This blog is in response to John Egbert's recent posting of an article titled "Deaf-world an ethnic group not a disabled group". It sounded like a severe case of self-denial on Harlan Lane's part as well as John Egbert. Allow me to explain this further.

First, let's look up 'ethnic group' in Collegiate Edition of Merriam Websters. It says;

1 : Heathen
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background enclaves b: being a member of a specified ethnic group c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics

You and I do see "linguistic and/or cultural origins or background" as the grounds for Professor Harlan Lane's argument in that article. However what he has not disclosed is the fact that the status of deaf ethnic group is based on their disability, that of deafness. In this article he desperately tried to separate people's deafness away from them and make them believe that they would have belonged to this "Deaf World" ethnic group even if they were not deaf. How do you separate the two? I mean, who is he trying to kid here?

Because of our deafness (a form of disability) we developed a language (ASL) and a culture of our own, making us an ethnic group. If it were not for our deafness we would not have the need for ASL. Without ASL we would not have a culture. It's quite simple.

And lastly I do not need to remind anybody of primary definition on 'deaf' as defined by global scholars, based on the global usages. Deaf means 'lacking or deficient in the sense of hearing'. You see, it will always be identified as form of disability therefore there will never be shortage of new researches, technologies and medical solutions. And that is by no means a form of eugenics. To assist or help someone with medical solutions is not a form of eugenics.

Thank you.

Are We Really That Helpless?

2010-06-27T16:25:00.000-07:00

The subject of "earned rights" versus "free rights" came up once again when I asked a friend to help and prepare an unofficial transcript on AB 2072 Senate Health hearing. I made it happen within 2 days and yet Ella discouraged people from reading it. What is she afraid of? Is she trying to dumb down the deaf community and keep them on the dark side? Does she really believe that we are a helpless society? Is she afraid that people are going to learn the ultimate truth? Or did she understand what really happened at the hearing?

Take a peek at Eh? What? Huh? blog site and read some of the dumbing down comments from Ella and her deafhoodized followers. This is a very sad thing to witness so if you have a weak heart, don't take a peek. It's really a discouraging thing to see. These people actually believe that deaf people are so helpless and incapable of earning their rights, by making this unofficial transcript happen.

Regardless, several independent sources went through the trouble of verifying the unofficial transcript, without being asked. And they found the transcript to be 99% accurate with the 1% unknown due to inaudible sound bytes. Did Ella and her followers really think I would prepare such transcript knowing that an official transcript would eventually come out?

This offers one more proof of closed society that they represent. One of the traits of a closed society is they will almost always refuse any information that's coming from the outside. What they continue to fail to understand is information age will defeat their closed society every time. Welcome to information age. This is what information age looks like. People are coming out with independent and verifiable sources of information at a rapid pace and catching these closed society off-guarded.

I'll copy and paste what several independent sources have said about the transcript so far.

Mike - "I've listened to the video in its entirety alongisde with Barry's transcript (with help of a hearing person doing the job). The transcript is 99% accurate. Look to Barry's blog for my explainations there. He should approve my last comment there shortly and with my inputs on identifying the inaudible parts that I was able to do. Ella needs to apologize to the person who did this transcriptioning work. The person in question committed 20 hours of work just so that YOU and others can be FULLY INFORMED of what was said at the committee hearing since about 50% of the time none of what was spoken was interpreted. Barry's helper filled in the gap for you guys. Again, Ella, if you are "one of the Deaf leaders" then it'd be in your best interest to apologize to the person who did the transcriptioning work and to Barry for making a false claim against him. The transcript is real and accurate." End quote.

Laura - "FYI, my hearing husband and friend heard it alongside with the transcript, yes, it's very accurate, real and not an a piece of exaggeration. Whoever did a transcript has done great job! Seriously." End quote.

More people are going to come forward and say the same thing. And you, Ella, of all people want to hide in the closet? Be my guest but it reveals who you really are. Thank you.

Complete Transcript of AB 2072 Hearing

2010-06-26T20:08:00.000-07:00

Unofficial Transcript

AB 2072 Senate Health Hearing

June 23, 2010

(Disclaimer; This twenty-five pages transcript was prepared by an independent and private individual who does not wish to be named. It is a transcript of an official video provided by CalChannel.com found at https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/1541. This effort took two days, totaling over twenty hours to produce. The transcript was thoroughly reviewed between three to four times to ensure accuracy as best as possible. The goal here is to assist the deaf community in understanding some or all of the things that were said, discussed and done during the Senate Health hearing on 06/23/10. We are not responsible for any inaccuracy due to inaudible sound bytes and/or human errors. In respect of privacy, we have omitted personal identifications of individuals who supported or opposed the bill. We decided not to disclose this portion of information and will leave that for the State of California to use at their discretion. Thank you.)

(Note; The mark, * represents edited portion with the help of individual inputs in this thread. Thank you Mike.)

Alquist: Before we begin, I’d like to make a few comments. We have a bill before us that I know has sparked a lot of passion, on many sides of the issue. I’d also like to say that back when I was 18, I decided to volunteer for 4 years of my life while in college at the Illinois School for the Deaf, in Jacksonville, Illinois, where I went to college for my undergraduate degree. I care very much about this issue, as does assembly man Mendoza. We may have differences of opinion, and this is a democracy, and I want to be sure that we have the kind of environment here today that is respectful, and conducive for people to say what they believe, within the procedures allowed within the hearing.

I’ve asked and (inaudible) this special order. Instead of having 2 witnesses, for 2 minutes each, we will have 2 witnesses for 3 minutes each, both for support and then again for opposition. And is with the case on all our bills, everyone after that simply will state their name, and that they are in support or that they are in opposition. The sergeants will have people line up on the side of the wall, to register their support or opposition for a bill. Some other comments, we have a very long agenda. I do understand that we will be spending quite a bit of time on this bill, we do have 27 bills today. We have no bill on consent, so our committee will be hearing all of the bills. So before we get started, I’d like to talk about some of our rules. We don’t allow any signs or flash cards in the committee room, we ask that it be quiet, no cell phones, which is what we always ask. And that before we begin, that you understand what the bill with the amendments taken, really does. What I would like to avoid is a situation where people on either side of the issue, and I’ll be frank, as I always am, I’ve asked for amendments from assembly man Mendoza. The bill is in a form that I think is best for parents of babies who are deaf. We, along with this fantastic staff, committee staff, have done our very best. I don’t expect that anyone will completely agree on either side with the direction that we have taken. And, I do believe it is fair. So, I could say more, but at this point, I will ask Mr. Mendoza to speak. After he does, if there are some points that are still not clear as to what the bill currently does, I will clarify and make the points. As a former teacher, I will make them very clear. And when people come up to testify, on either side of the issue, please, the 2 people, the 3 minutes each, please limit your comments to the bill in it’s current form. That way, nobody will get confused. So with that, assembly man, if you would like to present AB 2072, file item 1.

Mendoza: Thank you, thank you madam chairman. Just to be clear, I have listed 3 witnesses, 2 minutes each, and?

Alquist: That will be fine. As long as it’s a max of 6 minutes.

Mendoza: A max of 6 minutes, and then we could, okay, great. (Inaudible) Okay, great. Thank you so much, madam chair. First of all, I would like to begin with something the committee suggested, amendments, and I must be honest with you, when I first got the committee amendments that day, I was kind of disappointed, but then I heard, when you were talking to me, and I heard what you were telling me, and I took it back to my office, I understood that we’re trying to accomplish here. And it will have to take a little bit of time, and I’m open to that. And I appreciate the amendments, I actually appreciate working with Mia and Peter for their great help, I know they’ve worked tremendously on this for the last couple of weeks, or actually longer. But, I do want to step back and say thank you, for all your help and helping this bill move along, and helping this bill be a better bill. Cause I think the end result is what we want, which is having our parents with some information when their child has been diagnosed and again, I just want to be clear that this bill is not about choosing one language option over another, this bill is solely about providing information to parents who have just learned that their child is profoundly deaf. With the committee amendments, AB 2072 would require Department of Developmental Services to develop a pamphlet that is comprehensive and provides information to parents on American Sign Language, as well as Auditory , Oral approaches. DDS will develop this pamphlet, would then put up a stakeholder group that would include representatives from various communication groups...

Alquist: You might speak a little slower for me?

Mendoza: Okay, sure. The cost of developing the pamphlet and conducting the state color?? panel, will be covered by private donations that will be deposited into a special fund. This information is to be provided by the audiologist who tells parents their child has been diagnosed as deaf or hard of hearing. That information will also be given to parents a second time when they meet with their early start provider. I introduce this bill because I met with families in our district who explained the difficulties they have in common. Many of the families that I’ve met speak Spanish as a primary language, and they told me that they had no information, especially at the time of the diagnosis. I also heard stories from parents who said they were steered away, towards to, or away from certain options, rather than being told about all the options out there. Now, that is why AB 2072 is so important. Parents have a right to know. Parents need to know about the resources that are available to their children, and parents should not be steered toward or away from any type of information. Currently, there is no consistent information provided at time of diagnosis, and nothing consistent at the hearing coordination centers. It is critical that parents receive information (inaudible) at the diagnosis. Again, this bill is not about choosing one option or encouraging parents to make a choice, but the bill simply ensures communication options have been related to parents so that they can decide what is best for their family, and their needs. Here with me, I have 3, actually 4 people, but all within the 6 minute limit. First, I have a parent of twin daughters, who will be speaking. Alicia King?? , followed by a deaf adult, John Fortias? , and an oral deaf adult, Cherry Burgman? . Thank you, madam chair.

Alquist: First witness, please?

Cherry: Hi, thank you for letting me speak here today, and I’m in support for AB 2072.

Alquist: And it will be 3 witnesses, 2 minutes each, yes.

Cherry: Thank you, and my name is Cherry Burgman, and I was born with a profound hearing loss, and without my hearing aid, I can’t hear anything. I cannot hear an alarm, I can’t hear a baby cry. (Microphone adjustment interruption) Oh, thank you. I’m here speaking to you today because my parents chose the oral option for me. Since Kindergarten, I received a complete mainstream education, and I graduated from Washington State University, and I enjoy listening to music, and to my hearing husband and my son. And they’re fun, I love talking to them. And I understand that there are those who do not choose oral option for their child, and I respect that. But what I don’t understand, is why someone would want to deprive parents of being presented with detailed information about communication options for their child. And if my parents had not known about the oral option...

Alquist: And what I might suggest is that when we have people speak, if you could just state in a positive way what you believe, rather than what somebody opposed to your position might think. And I will say that to the opposition as well. Just speak about your own, from your heart, what you believe.

Cherry: Sure, thank you. Basically, I would not be able to speak to you today, and I’m just glad that my parents had the choice and the information. Thank you.

John: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortias, I am 32 years old, and I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I’m here today in support of this bill. At a young age, when my Mom found out that I had lost my hearing, she decided that she was going to do the Oral Auditory approach, and this in part because she had prior training to my birth, she had a speech pathologist. As a result of her guidance, and some education through Oral Auditory school, I was mainstreamed in preschool and on. Some of my (inaudible) since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Wananet?? University in (Inaudible) where I was a college football player, and just a year ago, I recently graduated from law school. And continuously, from the time that I graduated from college, I’ve been continuously employed when not in school. Just most recently I’d been working as a deputy district attorney in (inaudible) county as a volunteer. Currently...

Alquist: And why are you supportive of the bill?

John: Why am I supportive of the bill?

Alquist: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.

John: It gives people an opportunity, a chance to have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be (inaudible), it would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not, I’m going off my speeches, I’m the first to admit, that I am not part of the deaf community, I don’t associate with it, but I am an advocate of you know, just the best thing, the best course of action, whatever that might be, for disabled people. And so that is a big part of why I’m here today. And...

Alquist: Just speak to me.

John: What’s that?

Alquist: I like what you’re saying, don’t look at your notes. Why are you supportive of the bill?

John: Okay, basically, what I’m getting from, is when we’re faced with such an important decision in our lives, when is not being fully informed the best solution? And it’s logical, it’s common sense, and I believe (inaudible) that being fully informed in any big decision in your life is very important, and so that is a big reason of why I’m here today in support of this bill.

Alquist: Thank you very much.

John: Thank you.

King: You’ve just heard how parents need to...

Alquist: And your name, please?

King: I’m Alicia King, and you’ve just heard how parents need to have information so that they can make an informed decision. I am a parent, I’m the mother of profoundly deaf 6 year old twin girls. Their hearing loss was discovered at birth, and when the audiologist diagnosed the girls, we were given no alternatives. Our school district did step in and offer us a sign language program, but we did not realize that there were other communication options. And we quickly found that sign language was not well suited for us, as there are no other deaf or hard of hearing people in our immediate or our extended family. It took a friend to let us know about a listening and speaking program in our area, and ultimately, that was a better choice for us. My girls are cochlear implant wearers, and by their 4^th birthday, they had age appropriate speech and language skills, they’re completely mainstreamed into our neighborhood school with their hearing peers and they require limited support services. And I’m here basically to support this because it is my parental right to make decisions for my children, and it is best to do so with complete information. We live in a country that’s based on the freedom to choose, and rarely is there a situation where any one program fits everyone. For all future parents of children born with hearing loss, please give them the information that they need, to make an informed decision in a timely fashion, and one that best suits their family situation.

Alquist: Thank you very much.

Barry: Madam chair, (inaudible) 30 seconds left over?

Alquist: Yes, there is 30 seconds left over.

Barry: Okay, madam chair, members, Barry Brokaw, on behalf of the California academy of audiology, we are the licensed health care professionals that address people with hearing impairment, we’re *agnostic over the options that are available to parents, but we think they should be informed of all of the options. We treat the kids, and we strongly support this measure.

Alquist: Thank you very much. And for everyone else, who are in support, please just state your name and that you are in support.

“Madam chair, X with the California medical association, we were in support of the previous version of the bill, we’ve had a quick opportunity to look at the amendments, they seem very positive and consistent with the reasons we were supporting the bill all along, so we hope to remain supportive, and we thank the author for his leadership on this important issue.”

Alquist: Thank you. Others in support?

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, a parent in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, with California hospital association in support.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“I’m X, and I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I’m X’s mother, I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, California association of private school organizations, and private special education schools in support.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I’m grandmother of X, and I definitely support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X and I’m support this.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

Alquist: Is there anyone else in support? If not, we will go to the opposition, so if people at the table could leave, please, and have the witnesses in opposition.

(Clapping)

Alquist: No clapping, please. No clapping, no boo’s, just very quiet so we can all pay attention to what is going on. And what I’m going to ask, is that we adhere to the same rules, that you speak not about someone who holds an opposing point of view, but why you have the position you have. And welcome, Senator Pelanco. And what I would ask, since this is a special order, do you want to do 3 witnesses, 2 minutes each, or 2 witnesses, 3 minutes each, so I understand?

Unknown: I think we’ve pretty much, have concluded that it’s a 1 minute. We broke it up to keep it within the 6 minutes, if that’s okay, madam chair?

Alquist: Okay, so I’ll just be aware of that, and when it’s 5 minutes and 45 seconds, I’ll say it’s almost time.

Unknown: Time’s up.

Alquist: Okay.

Unknown: Madam chair, members, thank you very much. Let me acknowledge the work from staff, I think we’ve come a long ways from where the original version of the bill is. Today, you’re going to hear from the opponents. Very quickly, if I could just highlight the areas of concern, (inaudible) as it relates to the amendment, and then my supporters of the bill here, the supporters of the bill will go into detail as to the basis for their position. With regards to the first recommendation, of where the analysis would put it iin DDS, there is a strong, deeply felt opposition to that. The current program sits within the California Department of Education. The issue before you is not a medical model issue, regional centers that fall under the DDS category fit that model. As we talked to many of the senators, we’ve stressed the education component, and it’s importance, we have an existing structure in that department, we would very much ask that the bill be amended to reflect that. They’ll go in further. The other we would ask that we change visual language to include American Sign Language, it would be showing respect, be consistent to the community...

Alquist: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear, to change what?

Unknown: You use in the current language of the amended version, visual language, we would like it to be replaced to American Sign Language. This would be consistent and respect the deaf constituents. Sign language rights have been endorsed, as you know by the U.N. treaty signed by president Obama. We would also ask to change listening and spoken language, to just spoken language. And then, the real sticky bone of contention, I think has to do with the audiologist role as it relates to the information. There, we will hear from the witnesses, the importance of making sure that there is no inherent conflict, that if there is going to be a role, that it be a role that is nothing more than a referral of information that comes as a result of this body that is going to be created, and that it be done so in a manner that does not allow for any incentives whatsoever on referrals. Having said that, the witnesses are ready to address in more depth, the issues.

Tim: Good afternoon.

Alquist: Good afternoon.

Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur, I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter. I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy. We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the positive changes to the current mark up language of the bill, and it means progress, but the language of the bill still needs a little bit more work to make it so that we can really put the focus on the deaf children and getting the parents access to the information that they need. I wanted to point to a 2003 state senate resolution number 20, it formally apologized for the outrageous attempt to *socially engineer people out of *existence. The regional version of Mendoza’s AB 2072 bill leads us towards a slippery slope of *eugenics. So the proposed amendment is a very good step in the right direction. It is fair, if we have a few changes to the amendment. The proposed amendment by the health committee, it still threatens the fundamental values of a deaf education and language development, by giving audiologists the power to discriminate information for which they are not trained or licensed. The audiologists’ training gives them the buyer that’s inherently unacceptable, if the audiologist ought to have a role, it must only be to identify that child is deaf, as soon as possible, and then refer the parent to an appropriate professional or entity with a focus on the educational aspect of raising a deaf child. That needs to be determined by the panel of people who are, represented by people involved with the...

Alquist: It has been 5 minutes, you have 1 minute left.

Unknown: Sherry... Sherry. You do it. Sherry... no, Sherry, no Sherry, you present.

Alquist: You have one...

Sherry: I just want to respect the parents’ right to speak...

Alquist: There is one minute left.

Sherry: I will get right to the target and the heart of the matter, I want to thank you again for recommending the proposed amendments, and my name is Sherry Ferina, I’m here representing the California Coalition of Stakeholders of Parents, and the deaf community. We oppose, unless amended with the proposed amendment, the bill, unless it’s amended as proposed. We recommend there are 4 different changes to the amendments, we hope that the committee will adopt these recommendations, and we have papers for you so you have a hard copy of what we would like to see. So I want to emphasize with regard to our involvement and our commitment to seeing an improvement in the educational system for deaf infants and children. We have a history regarding the U.S. congress commission on education for the deaf, and their report verifying the need to identify gaps, and the reason why we need to have a system overhaul. We have the California superintendent of education, Delaine Easton, called for a task force to restructure deaf and hard of hearing programs in California...

Alquist: We’re at 6 and a half minutes, if you could complete your (inaudible).

Sherry: We have the establishment of the California deaf newborn and infant screening program, and the americans with disabilities act, and so forth, all of this points to why it’s an education issue, and why the state entity with oversight needs to be the California Department of Education.

Alquist: And in closing? Okay, we’re beyond time...

Unknown: Thank you, thank you.

Alquist: Thank you very much, if everyone else would just like to state their name, and that they are opposed to the bill, please come forward.

Unknown: Is it okay if I do it now, while I’m here?

Alquist: Pardon me?

“My name’s X...”

Alquist: Just your name and that you are opposed.

Unknown: I speak for my son also, we’re opposed to this bill.

Alquist: Thank you very much.

“Hi, my name is X, I’m deaf, and I (inaudible).”

Alquist: If we could just state our name, and that we are opposed, please.

“X and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you very much. Next, please?

“My name is X, and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose as it is. I’m...”

Alquist: Thank you very much, next please?

“X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

“X, and I oppose.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“I represented the 100 and thousand in northern California and I represent the parents, and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you very much, next please?

“X, and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Excuse me, excuse me, madam chair, I just, I notice that the T.V. screen is not picking up who is speaking, and I’m going to ask sergeants maybe, if we can either direct individuals here or at least to have the screen reflect who is testifying, because I’m hearing voices, I’m not sure either who is *presenting. Thank you very much, senator Romero, yes so if we could have the screen reflect people as they speak, yes. And if not, maybe people have to stand in a slightly different place. There, now that’s fine. We can see here. Okay?

“X, and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I am against this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, X and I oppose this bill as it is currently written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“I oppose as written.”

Alquist: Your name, please?

“X.”

“I oppose this bill, X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X.”

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: Thank you, thank you.

“My name is X, I’m against this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“ X, I’m opposed to this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as (inaudible).”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X and I’m against the current bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose the bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I’m opposed to this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and those were my children, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as it’s currently written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill, I’m a teacher for a deaf family.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I am from Fresno, California, and I oppose this bill...”

Alquist: Thank you.

“AB 2072.”

“Hi, I’m from the California association of deaf educators and we oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: And your name, please?

“My name is X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, I’m X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you, X.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose the bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill the way it’s currently written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and no amendments, then please shred the paper.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Thank you.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill...”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Unless amended by the consensus.”

“Good afternoon, my name is X, as a medical student, I strongly oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill except for amended by...”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Consensus.”

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose AB 2072 as currently written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: And her last name?

“X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless it’s amended...”

Alquist: Thank you.

“By C.E.N.I.S.”

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and representing american river college, and we are against this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose the bill except with amendment provided by C.N.E.I.S.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, last name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is... xmail, gmail.com, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: And what was his name? I didn’t quite catch it.

“X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello everyone, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: X’s last name, please?

“Oh, I’m sorry... X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I strongly oppose this bill, AB 2072 as written.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, my last name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, hello, I’m X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, I’m X, president of Sacramento valley registry of interpreters for the deaf, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, american river college, I oppose the bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written.

Alquist: Thank you.

“Oh hi, my name is X, X is my last name, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I strongly oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I strongly oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

Alquist: I’d like to make some comments about the bill, and first of all, I’d like to thank everyone. Both those in support of the bill, and those in opposition to the bill, who have testified. This is a democracy, and we really appreciate your keen interest in what I know is a very passionate issue. I’d like to explain, and first of all I’d like to say I have no idea what is going to happen to this bill today. My staff and I have worked very hard with assembly man Mendoza, to amend a bill that we believe, that I believe is fair, and good, and time sensitive, and comprehensive, to provide good information to parents with babies who are deaf. I’d like to spend 3, 4, 5 minutes, explaining what the bill in it’s current form does. And at some point, why, I think that’s a good idea. My colleagues on the committee will have full opportunity to state their opinions, and of course, assembly man Mendoza will have full opportunity to state whatever he thinks. I’m sure my staff and I, and this is really Mia and Peter, and also my chief of staff (inaudible), have spent many, many hours looking at this bill, and having a heart to heart about what is in the best interest of families, with babies who are deaf. This bill does 3 or 4 main points, and we do have enough for a quorum right now, so while we are all sitting here, I’m going to stop for 30 seconds, take the vote for a quorum, and the reason I want to do that, is that means that once we establish a quorum, then we can actually vote on bills. So, we will call for this vote.

Unknown: Senator Alquist?

Alquist: Here.

Unknown: Alquist here. Strickland? Aanestad? Sedillo? Cox? Leno?

Leno: Here.

Unknown: Leno here. (Inaudible) McCloud?

McCloud: Here.

Unknown: (Inaudible) McCloud here. Pavley?

Pavley: Here.

Unknown: Pavley here. Romero?

Romero: Here.

Unknown: Romero here.

Alquist: Thank you. We have 5 members here, that establishes the quorum. So this means that we will be able to vote on this bill when we are through with the discussion on the last bill which was speaker Perez, and then all the bills that will follow. Some of the conclusions we came to, and the process that we used, number 1, we decided that the authority for this procedure needs to be within the department of DDS, Department of Developmental Services, rather than the Department of Education. The reason I have this strong belief, is because I think DDS is best qualified in a timely, and I know that you all don’t agree with me. I believe that DDS is best qualified to be of support in these beginning years, with a child who is deaf. Second, what the bill really does, is to say that there needs to be a brochure that is better than the brochure put out by the federal government. A brochure that gives unbiased, and complete information, on all the options in one pamphlet, available to parents who, all of a sudden, don’t know where to go and want to know what options they have. It does not exclude anything, it would be objective, and this advisory committee would be established in a way that no one group would be in majority, and that there would be fair and equal balance for all people, including with American Sign Language. Which we know is in great use, and extremely valuable. I do believe that on a brochure, and we sort of crunched the time so that what we’ve said to Mr. Mendoza is that, okay, we’re going to establish this advisory committee, whatever recommendation comes out from this committee will be given to DDS. DDS will still have the authority to put in the brochure, and I will be peering over their shoulders as a good Greek yaya, a Greek grandmother, I will look to see that it is fair, objective, and that it is information that parents can use. Now, on this committee will be representatives from American Sign Language, also representatives from those who believe in Cochlear Implants, and those who believe in anything else that has to do with helping parents figure out how to best help their children. Because it is the parents’ responsibility, with good information, to do that. We have said to assembly man Mendoza, that should the bill become law, and I have no idea if it’s getting out of this committee, it may die in this committee, but I do think the issue needs to be resolved in a fair way, for the sake of the babies.

That, should the bill get out of committee, should it get out of both houses, should it be signed into law, those are a lot of shoulds, that there would be 12 months, during which, a source of funding would need to be established, which is not in conflict with any view. So it would have to be, not in conflict, with the result of then, then within another 12 month period, creating the brochure. We don’t want any conflict of interest, we want American Sign Language, we want those who believe in Cochlear, and everyone else to be able to look at this and say, yes, this benefits babies. This effects their quality of lives, this helps parents, who may not know where to go, get good information. And I would say, that if the brochure is objective, which it will be, should all the shoulds fall into place, if the information is objective, then we shouldn’t be concerned so much with who hands the brochure out. We may disagree on that, but I have a strong feeling about that, I’m also a former teacher, a former school counselor. And like you, I want what is in the best interest of the families, and of the babies, who will become adults, and we need them to function well in our society.

Mr. Mendoza, in a few minutes, after committee members, will have a chance to speak. I know that in the beginning, he was not favorable about all the amendments, but I think we have worked closely, and I think he does care on this issue. I will stop at this point, that’s not to say I may not want to say something later, if I hear something I need to talk about.

Mendoza: Madam, madam chairman, a quick question. Should I bring my witnesses up here, in case there’s questions, or should we just?

Alquist: Just for a moment, if it goes in that direction, they will be allowed to do...

Mendoza: Should I not bring them up at all?

Alquist: Well, you can bring 2 or 3 of them to sit here, that would be fine.

Mendoza: Oh, Okay.

Alquist: If you would like. Would you like 2 or 3 to sit up here with you?

Mendoza: Yeah, in case I have a question.

Alquist: Fine. And with this, I will go to my committee for any comments, concerns. Senator Romero.

Romero: Thank you, madam chair. I have looked at this bill, and I am urging the, I’d like to urge the assembly man to consider the amendments and to adopt the amendments that have been brought forward by the opposition. Madam chair, I appreciate the work of the committee, some of these I think I can share, but others I do have concerns about. As a psychologist and educator myself, I do think that it sends an, intended or not, an unintended consequence that by moving this out of the Department of Education, into DDS, it clearly establishes this in the medical model. If we keep it within the Department of Education, I think it reaffirms that language is learned. And in looking at American Sign Language, this is not just a popular language, this is the third most popular language in this country. I think it is...

(Clapping)

Alquist: Excuse me, we will have no clapping. The sergeants are here, we will have it quiet so we can all understand what is going on. Thank you very much.

Romero: So as I approach, and as I have learned quite a bit, from both the opponents and the proponents, and from mothers whom I know in my own life, the question that I start with asking is, what are we trying to fix? That’s the question that I have to ask. What are we trying to fix? Are we trying to fix deafness? And I would have to answer, if that is the question, then I would say, no. Because American Sign Language is a, maybe one that maybe many of us are not familiar with, but it is a language. It’s recognized. And if we start from the premise of asking, what are we trying to fix? Then I would have to ask, how far are we willing to go? Are we going to fix gay children? Are we going to fix dark skinned infants, and give brochures to parents saying, this is how you can bleach skin? Are we going to fix the curl of the hair? I mean, I must honestly ask this question, because I think these are some of the concerns, and I’m not saying it’s intended in this bill. But if we’re talking about fixing, those are questions even in the history of this state, that I think, look at this beautiful mural, but there’s another mural that we could perhaps paint of California. So that’s the question. What are we trying to fix? In terms of looking at the amendments, and that’s what I fundamentally believe that by moving it to DDS, it clearly establishes it in the medical model, in need of fixing something. As opposed to the Department of Education, which maintains that this is a linguistic skill ability, and opportunity to continue to oversee. I think, and I would ask the author to consider that, and the chair as well, my views.

In terms of the question of the audiologists, I do believe that this is an inherent financial conflict of interest. And I would not feel comfortable by having the audiologist with a clear financial interest, to be the gatekeepers to parents for information on issues related to hearing. In terms of, I mean there’s other issues as well that we can raise, the advisory committee that’s been proposed, I think is balanced and fair from the opponents, I would ask us to look at that. But I go back to that fundamental question, I do not understand what we are trying to fix. And it does become a question of understanding and embracing the culture of deafness, a language which exists, a language which is the third most popular in this, a language which I’ve tried to learn, in fact as well. Haven’t been good at it. So I would ask the author, I appreciate your effort, I understand, I think good intentions in bringing this forward, but I am compelled by the opposition and would ask you to consider adopting the amendments that have been offered by the opposition.

Alquist: Who else would like to speak? Senator Pavley, and then Senator Leno.

Pavley: Just briefly, I viewed this as not something to fix, but something to inform parents of options, and that’s how I looked at it. The more information is usually the better the parents, and I have nothing but respect for members of the deaf community, and families. So, it wasn’t about fixing, cause that sounds like something’s wrong. Nothing is wrong. But what’s wrong with more information to have in front of parents? But I would like a little more *protracted discussion on DDS versus Department of Education, because my understanding is, but maybe I’m wrong, is that many times the information that would be given to parents, would be when the child is very young. Several months old, or up to a year. Historically and traditionally, I didn’t think that the Department of Education was directly involved. Wouldn’t that be, for the first few years, more of a role of DDS? And so is this an indeed a real expansion of the custom and practice and tradition of the Department of Education, and the people they serve? So that’s where I was confused...

Alquist: Okay.

Pavley: And I, and that would be one issue, I’d like to discuss that a little more.

Alquist: And we’ll have a full discussion of both your comments, and Senator Romero’s and other members’. And then, if you could wait a few minutes, assembly man, then you’ll be able to address. And I understand that former Senator Dun is here? Hello. I just wanted to acknowledge you, sir. And Senator Leno, you were next.

Leno: Thank you, madam chair. I apologize to everyone here that I wasn’t here for all the testimonies, because I would have benefitted from it. I was casting votes in another committee. But I want to thank our chairwoman, for putting so much time and energy into this. I think it’s been an uncommonly productive collaboration with the author on what has become a very controversial bill, though I also want to thank the author for being open minded, and also through the process of this bill, I think a lot of consciousness has been raised in this building. And I always appreciate when I have an opportunity to see things in a broader and more sensitive way. I align my comments with Senator Romero’s, in that, short of any real concrete reasons, why DDS could better facilitate the implementation of the bill, I would, if it were a split decision, I would side with education. Impressions and perceptions can mean a lot. And I think we could, when possible, be respectful of those issues. And to approach it as a language to be learned, as Senator Romero has said. I wish I knew American Sign Language, just as I wish I knew Russian. I don’t know either, but they’re both languages to be learned. For that reason alone, I think Department of Education may be the place to be. But, as Senator Pavley suggested, maybe we need to better understand how it is going to be facilitated and implemented. And so, I’m open to that. But otherwise, this has been a very informative bill, for me. And it really is about providing more information to parents, and to families, and that’s always a good thing.

Alquist: Senator (inaudible)? No? Okay. Just a few of my thoughts, I mean, I think DDS is a better place, but that’s certainly is...

Mendoza: Can I answer some of the concerns?

Alquist: It will be the assembly man’s decision. I don’t think there’s anything to be fixed, having grown up in St. Louis, in my $12,000 dollar house where I lived for 20 years, with a family across the street where 2 of the children were deaf. It is not something to be fixed, but what we are simply trying to do, is in a time sensitive fashion, convey complete information to parents so that they have choices. And that it is unbiased information, with all the options open. And I do believe if we end up with a brochure that is unbiased, which is certainly the goal, anybody could hand it out. And certainly, it shouldn’t be just audiologists who hand it out, but anybody could hand it out. What we’re seeing right now, is, from what we’ve seen, there’s about a third of the families who are just not getting information in a timely fashion. That’s a huge amount. And that’s really what I believe this bill is about, and it’s going to be completely up to the assembly man, he’s listening to you in terms of how we proceed. And as I started out saying, I have no idea what is going to happen to this bill. I think it’s a good bill, and should it be in a different department? Well, that certainly is up to the assembly man, if you would like to speak, assembly man Mendoza.

Mendoza: Sure. I would like to address that concern and maybe let me know if that swayed you either way, that way I understand where we need to go, but the reason I believe that DDS was a provider for us, is because currently, when the child gets diagnosed as being deaf, the people handing out that information, it’s called a newborn screening program. That’s being run out of the Department of Healthcare services. So, it’s not even run out of the Department of Ed. So we’re trying to get this information out to the family at the early stages, which is not where the Department of Ed. comes in. You understand me? So this is going back to where Ms. Senator Pavley was talking about earlier in the development stages when some of these programs, some of these options are available, the family needs that information early on, when they’re 6 months old, less than a year, but they’re not getting it. When we had the *same hearing, (inaudible) both sides were talking about, we didn’t get enough information, or we got the wrong information, or we were being steered a certain way. Well, this will fix that. This will give you a pamphlet with all the information, right? So, but the reason we chose, the DDS would provide it for us, because that’s where the hearing coordination centers are run through the Department of Healthcare services, all that’s in the earlier stages, not through the Department of Ed. So that’s why, but if you think the Department of Ed, I just don’t know if they’re in charge of this right now, it’s just the reason is that DDS is more appropriate, and then they provide services, they provide referrals. They know how to maneuver people around and help them with kid services they need.

Unknown: Madam chair, if I may? Thank you. Senator Pelanco, can you give your view of that?

Pelanco: Yes. Historically, what has been taking place, is the information is provided by the California Department of Education. It involves the early start teachers, it involves and it works with providing parents with a packet, a full packet of information, currently. The parents are referred to these centers that are, 3 of them, through out the region. It’s imperative that the parent get the information as soon as possible. We all agree to that. So when we look at the process, when a child is born, the first diagnosis occurs at the hospital level. Question for the body here, is that one location where we can begin to inform and present this packet as the mother leaves? Can we do it also, even before then, at the early prenatal family services? Everyone agrees that timely information, unbiased, scientifically based, is critical to be provided to the parents. Put it into DDS, unintended consequences, perceptions, it’s a whole different population. If a child who happens to (inaudible) has disabilities, developmentally challenged disabilities, they’re going to find themselves in that particular model of care, DDS. To put everyone there, is putting it in the wrong direction, creates mis-perceptions, number 1. Number 2, it doesn’t drive to the educational enrichment of that individual child. And we can get to the core, which is, at what point is the information given, and by whom? And we argue that the current system, if we need specific days, by the time the audiologist does that examination and identifies a hearing loss and, or deafness, and at that point in time within the next 30, 48 hours, whatever the body here feels, that parent needs to be contacted, that information needs to be informed, provided again, the audiologist is not getting anything else beyond that. No consultations, no recommendations, contact to the parent with the information would be...

Mendoza: Madam, madam chair?

Alquist: And that is fair, also. Assembly man?

Mendoza: Let me address that, going back to whether it be DDS or CDE, you know what? We’re embarking on a new way here, we’re embarking on providing information for parents. I’m open to it. If it’s CDE, that’s fine, just get the information out. So when you look at the amendments, whatever they proposed, cause I haven’t seen them, whatever they don’t like about the current amendment, (inaudible) of what the chair and the committee has suggested, I’m open to that, I’m good with it. If you want CDE, fine, the CDE, but let’s get the information out, as soon as possible.

Alquist: I would be fine with Department of Education...

Mendoza: Me too.

Alquist: If it is done in a timely fashion...

Mendoza: Yes.

Alquist: Because now, it is not always done in a timely fashion.

Mendoza: That’s correct. So, I agree with madam chair, let it be in Department of Education, let it be given at the first opportunity, when the parent finds out about their child being diagnosed as deaf. We want it in their hands... (inaudible)

Alquist: So that is one point.

Mendoza: I’m open to that, that’s not a problem.

Alquist: Are there other points that, Senator Romero, that you would like to discuss?

Romero: The one invocation is that I have for the audiologist, because if you move it to the CDE, does that remove the audiologist?

Mendoza: No, well again, the intent of this bill, the intent is to have the audiologist, once they have identified the child as being deaf, they provide this information for them, right there. And you got to keep in mind, the audiologists, they’re trained medical professionals, they know about all this. That’s their job, that’s what they’ve been titled for. So, for them not to, if a parent has a question, they’re suggesting, don’t talk to them, just get the paper and run.

Alquist: Perhaps, perhaps, you, I mean, I think it’s fine if audiologists hands it out, because if it’s a fair brochure, it’ll be fine...

Mendoza: Yeah.

Alquist: But perhaps you want to take an amendment, and I think probably both of these points would be, you would promise to do before it gets to the next committee, would be that the audiologists are not doing a selling job, that it is just...

Mendoza: Of course.

Alquist: Giving the information. I know there’s some concern on that point.

Mendoza: Can I have an, excuse me, an audiologist comment on that?

Alquist: Very briefly. And then, very briefly.

Audiologist: I think audiologists as professionals, we’re not interested in benefitting financially from what these families are doing, and I think the fact we’re required to give out the information, speaks to that point. That they are giving unbiased information so that parents can make an informed decision.

Alquist: Right. And I believe that information should be given quickly, and often. So it’s not going to be just audiologists who hand it out, but if this advisory committee is done in a fair way, and it will be, and with a fair recommendation that shows both sides, all the sides. I don’t like to say both sides, because you know what? We’re talking about babies.

Mendoza: Mmhmm.

Alquist: We should all be, and we are all on the same side. Comment over here?

Sherry: Hi, yes, I just wanted to offer a response to Senator Leno and Senator Romero’s questions, and Senator Pavley also. To a technical point, for your information, related to the federal law, I.D.E.A, part C, already requires audiologists to give California Department of Education the results within 2 days. They follow up with the parents. And current California health law requires the Department of Healthcare services, audiologists give them within 1 week. So the audiologist already is required by law, to give the HCC, that’s the California Department of Healthcare services, via the HCC, provide them information, and the California Department of Education information, and they do their follow up, and provide the parents with information. The HCC has given parents 1 week for follow up, after they get the diagnosis and they follow up. And they give them an information packet.

Mendoza: Madam chairman...

Alquist: Thank you very much.

Mendoza: I’m not opposing that, that’s fine.

Alquist: I understand that, yes.

Mendoza: Information along the way, it’s all helpful.

Alquist: I understand you’re not opposing that. And thank you for the information. Okay, are there any other comments from committee? Senator Leno?

Leno: You may have already covered this in my absence, but did we resolve some of the questions regarding using ASL in place of visual language?

Mendoza: The only concern, I think with that is that we have Cued Speech, it’s also visual, and we don’t want to exclude them from just calling them ASL, you understand me?

Alquist: Please, please.

Mendoza: Again, if we let the committee or the (inaudible) committee look into that, because we want to exclude others just because we want to put on one?

Alquist: I would suggest on that point that, well, if the bill dies, it will die, but if it moves forward to the next committee, there’s still ample opportunity for Senator Pelanco, who’s a great advocate, and others, to talk with the author and I’m sure the author would be willing to keep having an open mind, as he has with me.

Mendoza: Yes, that’s fine. Thank you.

Alquist: Okay? Okay. Assembly man, (inaudible) close.

Mendoza: Again, madam speaker, madam chair, I just again, we’re just trying to get to the providing families information along the way, at every step of the way, from when they first get diagnosed of being deaf. So, anything we can do to provide the family some information, and *madam make sure this committee and everything gets established.

Alquist: And you’re willing to take the amendments of the next committee, that would be the Department of Education, and the other amendment that simply clarifies, that when the audiologists hand out the information, they’re not doing a selling job.

Mendoza: Right. Just give the parents the information and whatever they’re licensed to do, but not selling, cause that’s not their job.

Alquist: And we know everybody will be fair about this. Okay, thank you very much. The author has closed, is there a motion? It’s been moved by Senator Pavley. Senator Romero? Senator Romero?

Romero: Can I hear from Senator Pelanco with respect to the amendments that have been agreed to, and the position from the opposition at this point?

Pelanco: As I understand, the amendments are, Department of Education, and not DDS. As I understand, the issue of Visual Language, and American Sign Language to be worked on.

Alquist: (Inaudible) to be worked on.

Pelanco: To be worked on. As I understand, let’s see, the spoken, with regards to the audiologist...

Alquist: Clarifying language on that.

Pelanco: Clarifying language on that.

Mendoza: Just to be clear on that, clarifying meaning, that they’re not selling it, but they’re still presenting the information.

Alquist: Clarifying information, that they are presenting the brochure, in an unbiased format, you’ll think of better words, I’m sure.

Mendoza: Right, right.

Alquist: I’m Greek, and whatever, so. But that it’s fair, and that they’re not doing a selling job.

Mendoza: Right, okay. And they’re able to answer questions to the parents...

Alquist: If the parents ask.

Mendoza: Right.

Alquist: Will respond to the questions of the parent.

Pelanco: Madam chair, what I would also ask, is if we cannot work out the language, that the bill come back here. I think that the audiologist issue is a big issue, the U.S. federal court justice department sued on that issue, as it relates to kickbacks, and there was a settlement as the result of a whistle blower, who provided the committee with that evidence, not to say that Californian’s audiologists are guilty of that, but those who did practice it, did do it, and so we don’t want to create the incentive, or even the opportunity for that to occur. I would suggest, and I would ask the chair, that, let us, let us work out. I’m not sure that, that issue is clear yet. Come back, to the committee with regards to the final product, so that we have one more, one more hearing, I believe. And not move the bill forward, let us, we have one more hearing. If I learned anything while we’re here, members, is don’t move the bill out until you know, it’s... if we have one more week, let us work towards that. The deadlines are not upon us, but it’ll certainly put us to a position where we need to figure this out.

Mendoza: Madam, madam chair, you know, pretty much, it’s the same story they’ve been saying all along. They just want to delay it, delay it, delay it, and it really makes it more difficult to move the bill out, especially when we’ve got deadlines coming up. And right now, we’re trying to, you know, make sure we work out all the differences, and they just...

Alquist: Okay. I’d like to speak, please. Several thoughts, one, we have spent almost an hour and a half on this bill. We have 27 bills. We have many bills next week. I feel good about the amendments that we’ve taken, on the idea of the audiologists, I’m clear, that if it’s an unbiased brochure, anybody ought to be able to hand it out. And that we have to have some faith, that it will work that way.

Mendoza: Madam chair? I think audiologists are trained professionals, they are...

Alquist: You might want to stop now. Is there a motion? And Senator Aanestad is here, and he was not, well he was probably in (inaudible), so although we’ve gotten to this point, you’re on, Senator Aanestad.

Aanestad: Just one quick concern, I didn’t know in the amendments that it, the language that says that no public funds shall be used, because we might be eligible for federal funds. Has there been any thought however, of putting in a phrase, no state general fund money shall be used?

(Inaudible)

Alquist: And that is the intent. And the bill, the amendments would read in such a way that there would be, if it gets through both houses, if, if, if, and signed into law, then there would be a 12 month period where funding would need to be found for it. And then after that 12 month period, after that funding is found, then 12 months to do the brochure.

Aanestad: So we are going to say there will be no general funding?

Alquist: Yes, and does that need to be clarified?

Mendoza: We made that suggestion earlier this week, but whatever the... I’m good with that.

Alquist: And with some of the amendments we’ve taken, the bill now goes to a prose, as I understand it. So there’s actually another place, although this is the policy committee, and I think we’ve done a good job. So, anything else?

Aanestad: Move as amended.

Alquist: Okay, so it’s been moved by Senator Pavley, and Senator Aanestad as amended. Okay?

Mendoza: Thank you, madam chair.

Pelanco: (Inaudible)

Alquist: Yes, the one outstanding issue, and you will work with the author on the sign language, yes. Thank you very much, we will call for the vote now.

Unknown: Senator Alquist?

“Aye.”

Unknown: Alquist, aye.

Unknown: Strickland, Aanestad?

“Aye.”

Unknown: Aanestad, aye.

Unknown: Sedillo, Cox, Leno?

“Aye.”

Unknown: Leno, aye.

Unknown: (Inaudible) McCloud?

“Aye.”

Unknown: (Inaudible) McCloud, aye.

Unknown: Pavley?

“Aye.”

Unknown: Pavley, aye.

Unknown: Romero?

“No.”

Unknown: Romero, no.

Unknown: It’s got 5 votes.

Alquist: That bill has 5 votes, it is out. And I’d like to thank... I’m sorry, are there other members here? Who else is here? Is he in the building?

(Murmuring)

Alquist: The bill has enough votes to get out, what we are going to do, we know that Senator Sedillo is in *rules committee, we will hold it open, should he wish to add on. And I want to thank everyone, for being here, for being respectful, and for working for the good of children. And I thank you very much.

Mendoza: Thank you, madam chair, members.

Saving Faces on AB 2072

2010-06-24T04:25:00.000-07:00

The AB 2072 oppositions are now trying to say they won the battle at the Senate hearing. It was interesting because at the end of the day the opposition side came out slowly and appeared unsure of themselves, desperately trying to save their own faces. The latest messages seem to be that they managed to squeeze in their own amendment and it passed in their favor.

According to them, their hired lobbyst told them that they basically hijacked the bill and took over. All of suddenly they found a reason to celebrate.

My question is, if what they were saying were true then why did Senator Romero voted against the bill at the end of the day? Initially Senator Romero took sides with the opponents of the bill and spoke against the bill. And yet at the end of the day she voted against the bill. If the turn of event actually favored the people that opposed the bill initially then surely Senator Romero would have voted 'yes' for it but she didn't. She didn't. She didn't. Anybody want to try and answer this one?

Regardless, I'll shed several important facts here. 1) The bill passed the hearing stage. The information given to the parents will still include ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS. That was the opponents' main sticking point. Don't tell me you forgot. They wanted to kill the bill because of it. 2) The audiologist will still be the source for parents to receive written information from. And according to the Senators at the hearing they acknowledged parents' rights to discuss options with audiologists if the parents sought to discuss the matters with them. The Senators realized they do not have the power to place 'gag orders' on audiologists. Of course, the opposition side did not tell you this.

Victory for those who opposed the bill? Could not help it but felt sorry for the desperate party. In case you are still confused, kindly do yourself a favor and ask Senator Romero why she voted against the bill at the end of the day.

A Flattened Peacock on AB 2072

2010-06-23T15:05:00.000-07:00

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.

Peacock Effects on AB 2072

2010-06-22T16:37:00.001-07:00

Apparently somebody went to a zoo recently and observed some of the peacocks. And came up with a brand new strategic idea, a new trick called illusions.

They have to. Illusions are the only thing they have to work with. They can't even drum up enough support any where so they depend on world of illusions to help their causes. DBC and AFA were full of it.

They formed alliances from numerous individuals and grassroots movement and coordinated so many opposition letters, thinking they would be able to fool the resourceful California State Senators. Take a peek at Amy Cohen Efron’s earlier blog where she posted a list showing who supported the bill and who opposed it. I saw numerous bogus entities on the ‘opposition’ side and had to wonder about it. And then I realized what it was... a peacock effect! They are known for their extravagant tail, making themselves appear bigger than they really are.

That’s what some of them are doing right now to drum up support for AB 2072 opposition force. Going back to the post found under Amy Cohen Efron's blog you will see a long list showing who supported the bill and who opposed it. Some of them are highly questionable. I mean, anybody could declare they represent a cause and draft an opposition letter. It's not that difficult and it does not give them folks the clout they desperately seek.

The Senators are not stupid so quit treating them like they were. The Senators are equipped with world class research team so they'll see through this one. They are going to notice the peacock effect. Not kidding you here. It's probably why they decided to limit both sides to two speakers with two minutes limit each person during the hearing. It usually mean one thing. They've already made up their mind on the bill and did not want to be dragged through this senseless eugenic debate, thanks to people who brought E. Black in to speak on eugenics. It was not a bright thing to do simply because politics do not touch these stuff.

Whoever idea it was to bring E. Black into the picture surely flunked as a strategist. Upon seeing it happening I immediately knew what the Senators reaction were going to be. Two speakers from both sides with two minutes each person at the hearing. These people basically spooked the Senators, something you just don't do.

I also noticed how these opposition side rushed to add NAD as part of the opposition side. Funny because NAD’s letter did not say whether they supported or opposed the bill. They only wanted to question the language of the bill. But yet these desperate peacocks claimed credit for their letter. Peacock effects. That is what it amounts to. These people seem to have mastered the skill of screwing things up. They've done it again and again and lost nearly every battles since I took a peek into this v/blog sphere.

I'm still here and watching the entire saga with great interest because I'm really curious about one thing. How long is this stupidity going to last and how long are these people going to try and fool themselves. That is what is so interesting.

Stupid, no. Lack of knowledge, yes.

2010-06-15T17:24:00.001-07:00

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.

Open Letter to NAD and the Community

2010-06-09T19:54:00.000-07:00

This 'captioned' open letter video is in response to NAD's Bobbie Beth Scoggin's v/blog on definition of audism, seen at DeafRead.com and DeafVideo.tv. We encourage you to participate and provide input(s), if any, provided they contain healthy comments.

I personally would like to thank Bobbie Beth for her patience and willingness to address numerous video comments I generated under her vlog. Her effort is appreciated by many. Thank you Bobbie.

The video was captioned because hard copies are being prepared and mailed to dictionary companies, which also received NAD's letter on 'audism'.

And thank you viewers / fans for watching.

Why Free Rights are Really Free and Weak.

2010-05-29T06:07:00.001-07:00

This is the comment I produced under Sharyn's Blog who titled her blog "Is free rights really free rights?'. Not sure why she did not post a comment under my blog though.

--------------my comment-------------------

Good blog. Not sure what stopped you from commenting under my blog though.

Free rights are free because we did not pay for these rights. It's the public that paid their taxes in order for us to enjoy certain rights. Fighting for rights by the means of marching and protesting and even begging are not earned rights. Politics and public cave into our requests and grant them. My entire point is no matter how much rights we receive from the government or the law makers and even the public, there is no guarantee that our rights are going to remain shall the government collapse. Shall the government face a budget crisis. Shall the public lose respect for our community. The list goes on and on. These rights are not guaranteed and the protection of the law is not a sure thing. History will show how fragile these things are. One should take steps to ensure that our basic rights are not taken away by earning them. I never said that civil rights are not important or unnecessary. I'm only saying that these rights are not guaranteed as many people seem to think or feel. Look at mankind's history and you'll understand.

Having said this, history will always repeat itself. There will always be a point in time where everybody are going to have to take care of themselves. There is a famous saying that goes by "Every man for himself". If it's every man for himself, then people are trying to save themselves from a difficult situation without trying to help anyone else. As soon as a system collapses, people will quickly disperse collectivist efforts and turn to their basic rights. This is where and when you will wish you'd have earned your rights, by preserving your privileges.

The Third Mask!

2010-05-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

Beware of the third mask created by the same deafhood leaders. This third mask is known as Deaf Civil Rights group. Deafhood leaders started with DBC and it almost worked. Over 700 people fell for their original mask trick but the crowd dispersed to less than 10 during their next rally. They went back to the drawing board and created AFA. Needless to say that I caught them red handed and the leaders acknowledged their involvement in setting AFA up. Busted before they even started, which was why AFA did not fly that well. And now they've created a third mask with hope to fool us again. Guess what? It's not going to work because the shapes, forms and contents of these leaders are rather easy to notice now. It's coming to a point where we'd be able to smell them a mile away.

Regardless of whatever they decide to do with their time and energy, I'd like to point something out for you, viewers and readers. These people are repeating all the same mistakes they made. They clearly do not understand the real difference between 'hand me down' rights and 'earned rights'. Understand this and you'll understand which rights are easily taken away and why. Compare that with rights you'll be able to keep, permanently.

It's high time for these so-called leaders (I call them self appointed leaders) to be replaced. If you really care about these leaders you'd want to help them save face rather than allowing them to make a fool of themselves again and again.

Deaf Sherlock, reflection of a closed society.

2010-05-25T05:58:00.000-07:00

I left a comment under your recent blog and decided to post a new blog on this subject because I had a feeling you would not publish it. I believe it's my first ever comment under your blog but whether you publish it remains to be seen. It'd make no difference to me if you decide not to publish it because we live in an open society where we're able to re-post our comments if they don't make it through.

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed your blog with the exception for the part where you made some strategic mistakes. Strategic mistakes? You assumed about some of the things that were not exactly correct. In short, not the truth. To assume is a dangerous business to get into and I'm sure you already know that.

Here are some of the things I wanted to share with you.

1) Mike is angry, not. I do not see him as angry and I happen to know that he is not.

2) He's taking it out on the deaf community, not. He's merely sharing his views and has every rights to do that. You do not pose such power to know whether somebody's angry and what his readers and followers might think of his issues and posts.

3) You warned that his readers and followers might not read his posts any more. I checked some of his posts as well as yours. I saw no difference between the amount of traffic the both of you attract. In fact, he is getting about the same traffic that you're getting, give or take. Traffic and interest depends, not on the writer but the topic itself. Take me as an example. Many people HATE me but yet many people follow my postings whether it be blog or a vlog.

4) You also suggested that he apologize and post it. I respectfully disagree. One should never apologize for his difference in opinion. Your suggestion is a mere reflection of a closed society and how it likes for people to think and behave.

5) You also suggest that he get some counseling. I respectfully disagree again. One does not get counseling for their difference in opinion and view. Once again, your suggestion is exactly what a closed society would recommend. Fortunately for Mike and myself, we're not part of a closed society.

And lastly, thank you for the free and unsolicited advice. I'm sure Mike would not have paid for it anyway if they were not free. I know I would not, based on ill-advices you had in store for him.

I have one suggestion for you. Observe yourself and do some research on character traits of a closed society. It'll serve you well down the road.

Regards,
Barry

Blaming us?

2010-05-18T04:59:00.000-07:00

This video was created in response to some of the frivolous open letters to Purple (VRS Company) asking them to unsponsor Tayler and his Deafvideo.tv and DeafRead.com because they felt that Tayler was not "Deaf" enough as in "deafless". They went on to say that their so-called deaf centrist group were becoming weaker and weaker because of Tayler and DVTV / DR users.

Amazing what these people are willing to do to promote their cause. I rubbed my eyes because I could not believe the statements they were making. These people continue to fail to understand what information age would do to a closed society like theirs. It's not as simple as blaming it on Tayler or Purple or anybody in particular. I vlogged on this subject previously and talked about the weakness of a closed society. Her recent statement offered the proof.

Having said this, the Purple company as whole offer wonderful services for all ranges of deaf people with different hearing losses and communication needs. Each one of us have different needs therefore we have different core values. It's evident that we do not share all the same deaf center values that's shared by deafhoodized few. It's ridiculous for them to ask Purple to favor one group's center over others.

It's becoming clearer and clearer. They failed to realize that they are the minority of a minority of a majority. This makes them an extremely small group of people, a closed society that's not willing to respect and recognize other people's degree of hearing losses and their communication needs.

Merriam Webster says....

2010-05-10T10:49:00.001-07:00

I received some news today and thought National Association of the Deaf (NAD) would like to know about it. Not very long ago NAD made an effort to submit a letter of recommendation to Merriam Webster and asked them to add 'audism' into the dictionary.

Someone contacted Merriam Webster and inquired about the letter and stated his opinion on the matter, making it clear that he did not support NAD's letter. In turn he received a response as follow;

---------------- quote --------------------------

05/10/2010

Dear XXXXX:

Thanks for your e-mail. We do not take petitions into consideration when entering words into our dictionaries. To know more about the defining process, you may want to visit http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm.

Cordially,
Merriam-Webster Editorial Department,
Merriam-Webster, Inc.

-------------------------- end quote ------------------------

From the sound of it, NAD did not understand the process. According to a Board Member of NAD, NAD spent approximately six years working on this subject and ultimately produced this letter of recommendation with the assistance of 1,000 members forum. End result? Today we learned how ineffective it was.

Simply put, Merriam Webster do not take petition or letter of recommendations in order to consider new words to be added to the dictionary. Now, how does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary? This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked.

1) The answer is simple: usage.

2) Tracking word usage.

3) To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.

What does it mean for NAD and those who want to add 'audism' into the dictionary? One, use it often. And yes, it usually will mean 'recklessly used' if one really wanted to push it. You might get lucky and have this word added into the dictionary one day but then you'll be doing it recklessly and it will not be without a price, that of degrading the value of the word. By this I mean you could always push it so hard, as in abusing the word the way you've been doing it in order to have this term added into the dictionary. BUT the word would lose value by the time you're done.

In short, you can't fake it through. If you do, you'll devalue the word.

Furthermore, there are so many different interpretations on what audism should really mean therefore at this time it would only confuse the scholars / editors at Merriam Webster, thanks to those who decided to use the term prematurely. Their decision to rush the usage of the term only produced one result. Greater confusion and greater debates therefore it'll only confuse the scholars / editors. My hat's off to you deafhoodized people for one more example of reckless action.

The underlying problem remains the same. Lack for strategic planning and execution. I've seen it again and again since day one. Day one? Since my tenure with Deaf Bilingual Coalition. Some things never change.

When Narcissists looks like one but is not.

2010-05-08T08:05:00.000-07:00

I enjoyed the v/blog done by ASCdeaf. I could relate to the topic because I have been accused of using my child to promote an agenda. My 15 years old son is very interested in politics and loves to follow DeafVideo.tv and he makes it a habit of monitoring my activities there. He loves to try and find humor in everything that we do. He has been accused of doing things for me, as in being my puppet. In short, as a deaf child he is not given the credit where it is due simply because his father happens to be a well-known controversial v/blogger. Technically speaking, he feels as if he is stuck in my shadow, which I can understand. It’s natural for children to look up to their parents and do some of the same things themselves. A parent that loves to fish will likely have children who love to fish too. Parents that love to camp will likely have children that love to camp as well. It does not mean they’re being told what to do. It does not mean they do not have their own unique perspective on things.

Let's suppose you are a mother of a daughter who loves to interview people on videos. And let's supposed your daughter happens to be very active with DBC, AFA and Deafhood movements. What do you do when you are being accused of using your child? What do you do when you're being labeled as a narcissist? What do you do to encounter the problem and make sure that the credit is given where it is due? I’m sure that many parents find themselves in the same boat because their children would pick off the same interest off them just as my son picked some things off me.

Based on my observation of DBC, AFA and Deafhoodized folks, they also used their children to promote their agendas. There were many children at their events, namely rallies and protests. There are no shortage of pictures and videos of deaf parents with their children (hearing and deaf) at these events. Sometimes they do it to boost participation numbers to make their crowd appear larger. The children even carried signs in some of the places. Does that make these parents narcissists? Does that mean they're using their children?

The example that was created on a father and a son in Russia, needing access to a bathroom is not based on narcissist character but co-dependency traits. Using the child to ask for access to a bathroom has more to do with one's co-dependency trait, for the fear of being rejected and for the fear of receiving no for an answer. That, is a co-dependency trait, not a narcissist trait.

And lastly, there is a difference between a true narcissist and a look-like narcissist. A true narcissist would do or say anything to win the popularity contest. I agree. A look-like narcissist but not an actual narcissist is someone who sticks to the principle even if he or she is the alone with the point of view / opinion and does not worry about the poll (popularity contest). A true narcissist do not roam freely and they are not independent of public opinion. They fret and they worry about people’s opinion and views and will flip-flop and do anything to maintain their popularity status. A look-like narcissist but not a narcissist do not worry about such thing simply because they still see things the way they do and they stick by the principles whether it's a popular view or not. Huge differences.

It's recklessly dangerous for any professionals to try and label any parents of narcissist character for their children's behavior without knowing several things first. 1) Are the parent(s) worried about their popularity count or are they firm believer of a principle regardless of popularity count? How do you prove either points? 2) How do we know if the child is not acting on their own and if this child does not have their own unique perspective on things? And how do you prove either points? 3) How do you know if the parent or the child are not without co-dependency traits?

In short, it's not as simple as blaming it on narcissist traits. And even shameful for any professionals to stereotype majority of narcissists as 'mostly men'. The reason many men do not show up for therapies has to do with pride more than it does their narcissist traits.

Audism Failed!

2010-05-04T17:38:00.000-07:00

Somebody by the name of Jamerica posted a very interesting vlog, sharing why he thought Audism has failed. I thought he raised a valid point, coming from a Christian's point of view. It's common knowledge that people DO pray and ask to be healed. Assuming a deaf person made a decision to ask for such blessing from God or Jesus Christ with such faith that he or she will be healed. And this person is healed. Do we call God or Jesus an audist? Surely not.

Based on the Bible, Jesus has healed some people with different form of disabilities therefore this individual, Jamerica raised a very important question. Don't know about you but for me his argument is the very stake that killed the heart of audism unless you are an atheist.

AB 2072, not a case of 'disfranchisement of deaf community'.

2010-04-29T20:34:00.000-07:00

Just read Amy Cohen Efron's blog and went over to watch boiling red Ella Mae Lentz's vlog at youtube. Watched it with pleasure knowing that she had just lost a senseless battle.

I understand Amy's argument on ‘disfranchisement of the deaf community’. However such argument has no legal grounds and I’ll tell you why if you’d like to know.

Deaf people were involved. There are evidence of that. However when Amy spelled ‘deaf’she was making reference to the fourth or fifth definition in the dictionary, that of Deaf culture and language. For your information, the law does not require anybody to categorize and identify deaf people by their choice of language or communication methods. After all, in this world deaf means exactly that, just deaf, regardless of our language or communication methods.

Furthermore, the legislative branches are not required by law to summon every categories of deaf people with different language(s) and communication methods. Were we disfranchised? Might have felt like it but legally we were not.

Time for legal action? Sure Amy, if you're planning on losing.

My Response to NAD on Audism.

2010-04-22T20:20:00.000-07:00

To National Association of the Deaf;

I just went over NAD's letter to Merriam-Webster, Inc. I did not find any new information or argument in the letter. Rather, the letter in itself was nothing more than a recommendation of same old points that were made and argued, for and against by the sign language community.

However, here are some of the boiling questions for the Board of Directors and Members of NAD who saw themselves as the nation's premier civil rights organization in the United States of America.

How do you begin to explain and prove somebody as an audist? What good is a term, like audism, racism, sexism, and ageism when we're unable to legally prove it 99% of the time? In this nation we're innocent until proven guilty. We simply do not pose the power to know one's true intention behind every action people make. It's like putting ourselves into an endless chase, knowing we'd never be able to legally prove 99% of the case.

For that reason, people will throw each other around in a reckless way, knowing it would be very difficult for anybody to prove the accusers wrong since the accusations can not be proven "right" in the first place. It is the inability to prove something that will spur recklessness, every time.

In case I'm not making myself clear here, I call you an audist in a reckless way just because it is so easy. Just because I could do it knowing that there would be no way for you to prove that I am wrong and that I have made a false accusation. The notion in itself will spur recklessness on people's part. It's human's nature so why mess with it in the first place? Why give them deaf people the tool that's extremely difficult to prove either way? Why create a tool for the deaf people knowing it would only lead them to an endless chase?

Now let's put it the other way around. Let's say, audism is extremely easy to prove. People won't be so reckless about it because then it'd be easy to prove that their accusation(s) are wrong or false.

One other point I would like to make. In that letter NAD defined itself as nation's premier organization with interests represented at the national level. National level? True representation? This is highly argumentative and not a proven fact. It would not be difficult for one to employ a civil attorney and dispute this particular argument. It'd be relatively easy to prove that NAD is a membership based organization, essentially amounting to nothing more than an elite club of the deaf. I made such argument in Idaho and got the Governor to agree with my view, limiting IAD to one seat with ICDHH (Idaho Council of the Deaf and HH), leaving the rest of the member seats to public at large.

In short, it won't be difficult to discredit NAD and put them in their rightful place if one decides to employ a civil attorney to file a complaint on 'false representation'. Such incident is not far fetched as some people would think. I've been keeping my eyes peeled on NAD because I knew it would not be long before they are going to try and over step their boundary and claim false representation over deaf people at large. This NAD letter on audism is one example and I find it quite alarming.

I dare NAD to tempt its fate with the people. My sleeves are already rolled up.

Regards,
Barry Sewell

My Letter to EHDI Chairman

2010-04-22T06:06:00.001-07:00

04/22/2010

Dear Karl White;

I would like to take the opportunity to say that we, deaf community, appreciate you for the things you have done to help deaf babies. I learned about you through a recent legislative hearing at Sacramento, where AB 2072 hearing took place.

The reason I'm writing you is because I ran into a video at facebook showing the conversation between you, David Reynolds (Core member of Deaf Bilingual Coalition) and Ralph Singleton (President of California Association of the Deaf). Apparently somebody had you set up without your consent and video taped the conversation between the three of you. Upon seeing the video I made a hard copy because I felt that the source of the video would eventually delete it and sure enough it was, within the next fifteen minutes. And then I sensed that you were being set up by somebody with an intention to take your comments out of context.

Sure enough, few hours passed before somebody posted a smaller version of the video and called you an audist (an oppressor against deaf people) in the facebook for saying 'no'. Upon seeing it I created a new v/blog showing the entire video to show the entire video and was able to re-establish the truth. This vlog generated close to 4,000 views in the past 24 hours with nearly 100 video comments, seen at http://www.deafvideo.tv/72976. All of the commenter under my vlog expressed disappointment and disbelief in how David Reynolds and Ralph Singleton handled themselves. Many of my fans expressed their appreciation for you especially when they saw that you knew some sign language.

I'm known for bringing Deaf Bilingual Coalition down to their knees after I opposed their rally in Milwaukee few years ago when they rallied against AG Bell. They had the support of the entire ASL community but after I was done with v/blogging about them (DBC) they only had less than 100 supporters nation wide. Most of the deaf people do not support them any longer. In turn these same DBC people started a new movement known as Deafhood Foundation. They rallied once again thinking they would have a new lease on life with a new mask but it did not fly for very long. They tried the tactic again and invented a new mask known as Audism Free America. It did not fly either because we kept v/blogging about them, showing them for who they really are, that of self-appointed radical activists.

Having said this, please know that these self appointed DBC, AFA and CAD leaders do not have the backing / support of the ASL community. Their support base is very small. To give you an idea, their visible network do not exceed more than 100 people. And when they run a nation wide campaign on something they have not been able to register more than 800 petition signatures from the ASL community.

I just wanted to relay some of the messages that I've received from ASL community. They appreciate you and they support AB 2072. They support all communication options and we trust that you do as well.

Regards,
Barry Sewell
aka TheHolism and DRHocokan

Our Third Class Leaders

2010-04-21T08:24:00.000-07:00

On the day they had a hearing on AB 2072 in Sacramento, California I logged into my facebook account and noticed a brief video clip at the hearing. After watching the video I could not believe my eyes so I downloaded the video with a program that was designed by facebook and saved it on my hard drive. The reason I did it was simple.

The video demonstrated a clear cut ignorance on part of our so-called deaf leaders. It was a total embarrassment so I knew it'd be deleted shortly. Sure enough it was deleted quickly after I shared the video on my facebook. Because the origin of the video was deleted it was no longer visible on my facebook under 'share' option.

Regardless, this video may help us understand why the deafhoodized few continue to fumble around the nation. They fumbled in Milwaukee when they took up on this gigantic AG Bell. Fumbled again during a bill hearing in Wisconsin. Fumbled in Washington D.C. during a rally against AG Bell. Fumbled once again during AB 2072 hearing in Sacramento. There had to be a reasonable explanation on why they continue to screw up. This video may offer an explanation. These third class leaders seem to lack ethics.

Watch the video and you'll see David Reynolds, a Deaf Bilingualism Coalition Core Member, asking for 50% stake in EHDI. Such manner! Did he really think or believe that the ASL community made up for 50% of the deaf population? And then he went on to argue for 'deaf involvement' as if there were none at this point. Kirk White, Chairman of EHDI stated that there were deaf people involved but if you watched the video carefully David did not want to hear his answer. Kirk explained that EHDI contained 20 different groups so it was not possible to arrange for ASL community to have 50% stake in EHDI. Sorry David but you just demonstrated terrible math skill.

During the conversation in this video, California Association of the Deaf's very own President, Ralph Singleton demonstrated impatience and turned to walk away while Kirk was still talking. Such manner! He then realized his mistake and came back to bid Kirk farewell only to repeat the same mistake, turning his back before Kirk was even done talking to him. Watch this video carefully and understand why these third class leaders are not getting any where. Their bad manners are all too evident in this 54 seconds video. It made me wonder what other damaging and embarrassing things they may have done that day.

And if you watched the video carefully you will notice one thing. It was a set up. They set Kirk White up, likely without his consent. Take note of how David presented himself, positioned himself for the camera and established an eye contact with the camera. Slow motion was arranged on the video for your review.

Few days before the hearing Ralph Singleton, President of CAD posted a vlog on deafvideo.tv and stated that CAD was opposing the bill without explaining why. So I left a video comment under his vlog and asked him to explain CAD's reasons for opposing the bill. He responded back and promised to elaborate on these points the next day. The next day came but nothing came. I checked again by 11 p.m. that night but nothing came. I left a second video comment for him and reminded him of his promise. Such leader.

Now, that is a total embarrassment. Such behavior coming from these so-called leaders are doing more damages than good. I propose we kick them out or send them to ethics workshop or both.

Enough of these deafhood craps.

Revised AB 2072

2010-04-14T08:06:00.000-07:00

Hello everybody. Just wanted to keep you guys posted on progress that's been made on AB 2072 since I've vlogged and blogged on the subject. They postponed the hearing on 13th towards the 20th in order to improve the language of the bill.

From the look of it they added new language in (a) section. Read below.

SECTION 1. Section 124121 is added to the Health and Safety Code to read:

(New Language added here)
124121. (a) Parents of all newborns and infants diagnosed with a hearing loss shall also be provided written information on all communication options for children with hearing loss, including, but not limited to, information about deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations, agencies and early intervention centers, and educational programs.
(end of new language)

The information shall be provided:

(1) By an audiologist or other related professional at a followup appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss

(2) By the Early Start Program, provided for pursuant to the California Early Intervention Services Act (Title 14 (commencingwith Section 95000) of the Government Code) when a newborn and infant enters the program and when the newborn and infant is referred to the program by a state agency.

(b) The state shall not incur any cost, nor shall the state be involved in the implementation of this section.

-----------------------------end quote---------------------

It still does not change the fact that ALL Communication Options are still required and that information would include deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations, agencies, early intervention centers, and educational programs.

Now that should make DCARA, NORCAL and GLAD happy since they will be included in the information. But guess what? The new language will also make AG Bell and the rest of the programs you love to hate, happy as well. The new language will also include all the pro-oralism pro-CI programs such as AG Bell and others programs. It amounts to free advertisement for every deaf and hard of hearing organization, agencies, centers and programs including the centers / programs some of you love to hate.

The point is, whatever else you may wish to push for will also benefit AG Bell and the rest of the guys that some of you don't like. Anything else you guys wish to push for? This should be interesting.

Good luck Californians.

What's your confidence level?

2010-04-13T10:33:00.000-07:00

Greetings everybody. My previous vlog made me think about something I never thought of previously. The confidence level deaf people have in their own language, that of American Sign Language.

If you followed the thread of video and text comments under my vlog and blog you will begin to sense a severe gap in deaf people's confidence in ASL. Allow me to explain further.

Several people explained why they did not want 'communication option' in this California bill known as AB 2072 and I took their argument to heart as I tried to understand the real reasons why they were afraid. The underlying point seem to be this;

DCARA, NORCAL and GLAD are spooked by the fact that they would be required to include ALL Communication Options in their written information. For years these deaf advocacy organization promoted ASL more than anything else and they see this bill as a threat to their entity. This, we can understand.

And then I remembered something. For many years these same deaf organization as well as Deafhoodized few went on a rampage and rallied against Audiologists, AG Bell and other Professional related services and demanded that they include American Sign Language in their option package. Some of you will remember what I had to say about 'the push' and the effects it would produce.

Well, these same people in turn decided to give us 'the push' by proposing an amendment that would create a level field for ALL by including ALL communication options. Guess who bailed out? Our own deaf leaders did.

Did these deaf leaders really understand the nature of politics and utilize 'two way street' approach? It's doubtful since they have fumbled once too often in the past two years. They fumbled in Milwaukee. They fumbled in Washington D.C.. They fumbled in Wisconsin. And now they appear to have fumbled this one in California.

And lastly, what message are we sending out when we said we did not like 'ALL Communication Options' language that was used in the bill?

I'll be frank with you. It basically says we have zero confidence in ASL. We're relaying the message that ASL can not hold its grounds and can not compete against other options. If we had total confidence in our own language we would not be worried about other communication options. We'd know that ASL was going to stand out and the language would prove worthy in people's eye. This is how I see ASL. I have total confidence in the language and know that the benefits will out weight the rest of the options.

But what about you? What's your confidence level in ASL? Think about it.

AB 2072, is an Opportunity!

2010-04-08T10:19:00.000-07:00

I've been asked by some people on what I thought of AB 2072. I admit I did not take a peek on this subject until now. Instead of listening to secondary sources such as GLAD (Greater Los Angeles of the Deaf) and DCARA (Deaf Counseling, Advocacy & Referral Agency). Instead I went directly to the source, that of http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_bill_20100405_amended_asm_v98.html.

Upon reviewing it several times I saw absolutely nothing wrong with it. I then took the time to try and understand why GLAD and DCARA were against this bill. The only reason seem to be selfishness. In GLAD's web site seen at www.gladinc.org, they quoted, "This law would replace deaf/hard of hearing consumer organizations with early education centers on the list of resources for parents and families of newborns identified with hearing loss". End quote.

This is nothing more than selfishness on their part. The hard truth is they are trying their hardest to remain a closed society, perhaps because it is the only way they know how to survive and it's beginning to show.

This bill is actually a great opportunity for us to tell the parents what we want them to know, at no cost to our deaf community! I mean, how is it a bad thing? It's free advertisement! This bill will force all medical service providers to provide ALL information on communication options as well as resources for deaf infants and children. I see this bill as a great opportunity for us to reach out and show the parents what we want them to know about us, our language and culture.

The notion of going against this bill puzzled me because it'd only show the world that we're a closed society and we are so afraid of options. The parents will learn about all other options anyway, with or without our blessings, due to the information age we live in. I know I already explained this in my earlier vlog on 'closed society' so I do not need to repeat myself here. The fact is, the parents will learn all about other options anyway so stopping this bill won't do us any good. Instead of whining about this bill I think we ought to play it smart by allowing this bill to pass and then hold them accountable if they do not provide adequate information about ASL, deaf culture, deaf schools and deaf studies.

The bottom line is, with this bill we have a unique opportunity to tell the parents what we want them to know about us.

I've taken action and wrote letters to every assembly member in California and told them why I thought they should support this bill. It's my hope that you will do the same. For email addresses, go to GLAD's web site posted above and you'll find everybody's email addresses.

Regards,

Barry

The Death of Galladuet University and Deaf Education?

2010-04-06T05:52:00.000-07:00

Greetings brothers and sisters. I could not help but wonder about the fate of Gallaudet University (known for its Liberal Art Education) and Deaf Education when I ran into an article seen at Newsweek.

Upon reading it I was reminded of something a Native American Elder said not very long ago. He said that our schools do not teach people the things they need to know. And that the day was coming when their education will fail them because they did not teach them the spirituality. Instead they learned how to get a job, make money, and manage business, but they do not know spirituality.

Then he asked a question. What can we use our education for when there is nothing that will work? He went on to say that everything will be coming down and there will be a time when money will be of no use.

He went on to say that the people have to have the education that won't fail us, that of spiritual path. People are afraid now. The way of life they were taught turned out to be different. It is like they were taken in with a lie. Not everyone got rich or had a big house and fine cars. They gave everything they had to a company or a corporation (Note: Universities and Special Education are corporate entities as well) and then they found out they did not have a job. Now everybody's trying to take care of themselves because everything around them fell apart. Nobody knows where to turn. So people are angry and look only to take care of themselves. If we continue as we are doing, we will destroy ourselves.

End quote.

Upon thinking about what this Native American Elder had to say not very long ago, I could not help but think about the deaf community and how they have been reacting to certain issues and why. It was no accident when deaf people formed Deafhood & Audism Free America and touted 'audism' every time they struggled. They are doing it because their education failed them. They're sensing the death of Gallaudet University and Deaf Education. The problem is they're blaming it on all the wrong people, failing to realize that they have themselves to blame. They accepted an education that lacked spirituality therefore their education are failing them today.

Instead of realizing the core problem they're blaming it on hearing people and touting 'audism'. Well, guess what? The education is also failing hearing people as well so we are left with one boiling question.... who will we blame next? The white men with "old europe" mindset who brought their own version of education and books to this nation over 250 years ago. Gradually through the time they led this nation astray.

The funny thing is, not long ago Paddy Ladd, an European white man brought us a book called Deafhood. The history has a way of repeating itself.

Closed Society is WHY!

2010-03-01T06:17:00.001-08:00

In the past few weeks I've been receiving answers on why I just don't get along with Deafhood, Deaf Bilingual Coalition, Audism Free America and their so-called big "D" status. The answer is quite simple. Closed society. That's what these people are.

I went to a Cowboy gathering with my daughter few weeks and enjoyed the experience immensely. It was when I ran into an article containing an interview with world renowned poet, musician and story teller known as Baxter Black. Some of you may know his trademarked face and name since he's very popular in the western culture. I came across an interesting part of the article where the interviewer asked if he favored the idea of licensing a poet to perform poetry at gatherings and if he liked the idea of providing awards for winning poetry, music and stories. Baxter Black said he disliked the idea and do not favor such trends because it represented the 'closed society'. Baxter went on to say that he favored an open society whereas everybody would be welcomed regardless of their background, culture, or skills. The point was to have fun and have a good life.

The term 'closed society' never crossed my mind until Baxter Black said it so I did some research on the subject. Needless to say that I learned immensely. I learned the very reason why I just could not get along with these deafhoodized and big "D" deaf people. I've read numerous articles written on this article and learned that 'closed society' will always fail simply because freedom of information will always defeat a closed society. Some of the things I've read are listed below for your review.

-------------------------quoted articles-------------------------------

- Closed society - claims to certain knowledge and ultimate truth lead to the attempted imposition of one version of reality. Such a society is closed to freedom of thought.

- Open society - each citizen needs to engage in critical thinking, which requires freedom of thought and expression and the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this.

- Authoritarianism, totalitarian, dictatorship, theocracy and autocratic monarchies are examples of the "closed society".

-Democracies are examples of the "open society".

- Closed Society – authoritarianism - political parties, are often allowed to exist, although under tight control. They were closed to normal processes of change. It’s not possible to remove from office rulers who fail to respond to justified criticism. Leave little freedom or tolerance of belief.

- Open societies are based on activity, creativity, and innovations. Humanitarianism, equality and political freedom are characteristics of an “open society”.

- Closed Society - Organic society presents some very attractive features to the observer: a concrete social unity, an unquestioned belonging, an identification of each member with the collective. Members of an organic society would hardly consider this an advantage, ignorant as they are that the relationship could be any different; only those who are aware of a conflict between the individual and the social Whole in their own society are likely to regard organic unity as a desirable goal. In other words, the attractions of organic society are best appreciated when the conditions required for its existence no longer prevail.

But innocence, once lost, cannot be regained - except perhaps by forgetting every experience. In any attempt to recreate artificially the conditions of an organic society, it is precisely the unquestioning and unquestionable identification of all members with the society to which they belong that is the most difficult to achieve

If it is entrusted to a closed society institution, it is likely to be performed with inflexible and ultimately ineffective manner. The institution will seek to prevent changes, but in the long run it cannot succeed.

In ‘Open Societies’ the government is responsive and tolerant and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The State keeps no secrets from itself, in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedom and human rights are the foundation of an open society.

"Open Society" ensures that political leaders can be overthrown without the need for bloodshed while "closed society" will likely result in a bloody revolution, is needed to change the leaders. Open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society".

Popper argues that the ideas of individuality, criticism, and humanitarianism cannot be suppressed once people become aware of them, and therefore that it is impossible to return to the closed society.

Totalitarianism forced knowledge to become political, which made critical thinking impossible and led to the destruction of knowledge in closed societies.

Popper's theory that knowledge is provisional and fallible implies that society must be open to alternative points of view. An open society is associated with cultural and religious Pluralism . Open society is always open to improvement because knowledge is never completed but always ongoing.

----------------------end quotes----------------------------

Sound familiar? It does for me, having worked with Deaf Bilingual Coalition in the past. It also rang true for me as a blogger and vlogger when I wanted to talk about DBC, AFA, Deafhood and the so called big "D" society. The more I researched on 'closed society' the clearer I understand why I endured 2 years of battle with them. It was because I represented the Open Society while they represented the Closed Society.

As a bonus of this article I decided to cover a related topic on 'hood'. Few months ago I ran into an interesting article on 'personhood' and thought it'd shed a great example on deafhood. Here goes...

----------------quote----------------------------

Judge throws out Nevada ‘personhood’ initiative

Friday, January 8, 2010 9:32 PM PST
CARSON CITY (AP) — A state judge in Carson City threw out a proposed ballot initiative Friday that sought to define a person as “everyone possessing a human genome,” saying the language was too vague and violated state law that limits questions to one subject.

The Nevada Personhood initiative proposed to amend the state Constitution by defining a person and extending due process rights from the beginning of biological development through end of life. The petition does not specifically mention abortion, but says its intent is to codify “the inalienable right to life for everyone, young or old, healthy or ill, conscious or unconscious, born or unborn.”

Carson City District Court Judge James Russell said the measure was too broad and general in nature to be put before voters in November. “The issue to me is, are we adequately informing voters on what they’re voting on,” Russell said in a ruling from the bench after listening to about two hours of arguments.

-------------------------------end quote------------------------

Next time we see an argument or discussion on deafhood, big D society, audism and hate crime we will know better and categorize them as a closed society and identify ourselves as an open society. Simply because an open society will always defeat the closed society, every time. It's a simple fact.

Barry (DR Hocokan & TheHolism)

Your Corner(s) and Your Center (Part 3 of 3)

2009-11-09T06:52:00.001-08:00

Most people do not realize it but horses have their own culture as well, just like us. In order to understand and appreciate the values of a Circle and the Center we need to experience the Square and the Corners. Many people have their favorite corner(s) but do not know where their center is. Come and see why.

The Medicine Wheel (Part 2 of 3)

2009-11-09T06:48:00.000-08:00

What Medicine Wheel means to our Lakota Brothers and Sisters. You will also learn something important about horses, thanks to Medicine Wheel Model and Natural Horsemanship taught by this friend. Once you watch this video you will never look at horses the same way again.

2009-11-08T05:43:00.000-08:00

I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine, a North Cheyenne leader who truly understand spiritual beings, humans and horses. He's a national figure, presenter, speaker, renowned horse trainer, world champion bronc rider, world champion grass dancer, teacher and leader of his people. He is one of few people who understands Spiritual Language. Come and meet him.

Who Is He?

2009-10-12T05:09:00.000-07:00

A person's journey at Labelville, a village that loves to label people.

My comment under Deaf Pundit's blog.

2009-10-12T05:00:00.000-07:00

Enjoyed reading DeafPundit's recent blog and the thread that’s been generated. Wanted to drop a couple of thoughts on the subject. Eye rollings are permitted. Thought I’d say it in advance.

Likewise, I don’t agree with what Barry Sewell is doing to CAD. However I do agree that there are merits behind the argument. The goal was to ensure that profiling is not happening. Now, why did Barry step in and take action as a foreigner? Apathy. Apathy was seen everywhere on the part of deaf Californians. Before he stepped in, he made the issue known to everybody a year ago with hope that somebody from California would pick up the tab and pursue the matter. More than a year passed. Nothing happened. Nobody took action. I did some more research and learned that vagueness was tolerated since 2005 and yet nobody spoke up? A clear case of apathy. Perhaps because they were directly or indirectly frightened of certain few who developed U.S. version of Deafhood.

Unfortunately it took a mere action by a foreigner before a roaring cheer surfaced across the nation. More than 4,000 visitors visited his vlog in approximately one week. This prompted the new President of CAD to step in and do some damage control. He vlogged in DVTV and acknowledged the importance of being inclusive. He promised prompt action and went even further to say that it will be FIXED. Even better, he addressed these messages directly to Barry Sewell, the whistle blower.

Speaking of numerous dead links (removed sites) due to the outrage at presenting the evidences. Some people did not appreciate the way some things were exposed to the whole world. And then these same people turned around and speak of lack of evidence. They also accuse us of misinformation. At times we’re being tempted to re-post these evidences. It’s a case of damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Just thought I’d point that out.

BR, want some evidence of blacklisting and castigating? Ask me about it. Nobody gets it worse than I did and everybody knows that. Are you turning a blind eye on the problem?

BR, you are entitled to your opinion. I’m pointing this out because you felt that the term “deafness” is a negative concept. I respectfully disagree and I’m entitled to my opinion as well. My take on this is it is an English term. Nothing more and nothing less. The term does not reflect any type of behavior or precedent of an individual. Just like Deafhood. People love to take a word out of its context and make it into something more than it really is.

BR, you claimed that there are people having discussions about the meaning of Deafhood all the time, including with Ella and she welcomes the productive debate, including with people who disagree with her. Hello? Care to know what happened to me when I first questioned her version of Deafhood. I was the new kid on the block at that time and had no idea who Ella was. I asked nicely and politely. End result? Cold shoulder treatment until I made the decision to part ways with DBC. Shortly afterwards I learned of several others who were treated the same way. Upon seeing that I was just another victim I spoke out and exposed DBC / Deafhood / CAD for who they really were. I’ve been on a mission since then… the mission was to kick some rears and boy, did I.

BR & Valhallian… I do not opposed capitalism not do I think anybody opposes it. Making a living from workshops is not a sin. It’s a wonderful opportunity. However it’s different when profits are made off deaf souls. I am referring to the way these Deafhood presenters managed to colonize deaf souls and turned them into deficit thinkers for their own personal gains, a profit taking venture. Paddy Ladd is equally as guilty because he admitted that he was surprised at how the United States turned his theory into something that was beyond him. But yet he did nothing to stop the rhetorics. Why? He stood to make money from it! People flocked to the book store and bought copies of his book. Why in the world would he want to step in and correct us for misinterpretations, misinformation and misleading actions? The incentive was not there so he’s just sitting there and laughing all the way to the bank, thanks to the rhetorics. If he has any decency he should feel ashamed and hollow. I say this because he’s been pretty much absent in much of our v/blog discussions. Now I meant no disrespect for Paddy Ladd. His book is probably a good book and should be a stand alone icon, representing one individual’s thoughts and feelings. Nothing more and nothing less. That’s why I did not bother making him any more richer than he needs to be therefore I do not own a copy of his book. No intention of owning a copy any time in the future.

And lastly, I created a video comment recently under TheKoobifora’s vlog and stated that my soul was being raped by certain Deafhood promoters who wanted to take credit for my personal journey, in which I earned, without the help of Deafhood book or Deafhood workshop. Mind you, these certain Deafhood promoters were “so in awe” of my dictions, knowledge, experience and wisdom. They tried to use many of the words and examples I produced and brought to the table. For example; Strategic planning and strategic values. Human Beings. Holism as in Whole. Liability and Assets. Brothers and Sisters. Equality of all people, using the five fingers of my hand and lowering the thumb as a symbol, representing equality for all individuals. The void. Circle as in Hocokan. Lasso, as seen in CAD’s latest flyers when it tried to promote Deafhood vision, seen here at http://www.cad1906.org/index.php?pr=Newsletter_and_Events_Flyers. The list goes on and on. I could almost swear they’re trying to clone me in the Bay Area.

Having said this, it is not difficult to see why they’re desperately trying to convert me and place a Deafhood label on me. They’re desperately trying to take credit for my dictions, knowledge, experience and wisdom. They are desperately looking for the much needed short cut to reach their desired destination. I went to the trouble of dissecting and discrediting Deafhood in order to protect myself and the journey that I’ve earned on my own, without the help of Deafhood book or workshops. My journey is mine to keep. The credit goes to ME. It belongs to me and rightfully so.

I did not go to college for all the same reason, not wanting to grant credit to any form of institutions for who I was, for my dictions, knowledge, experience and wisdom. I’m a self-taught individual and I intend to keep it that way. Try and rob me of my soul and I’ll dissect you to the very end. Respect is all I’m asking for and I believe everybody deserves the same treatment.

Good blog DP.

Barry

Deafness For Dummies

2009-09-27T17:37:00.000-07:00

Deafless Barry introduces "Deafness For Dummies" to Aidan Mack. The question? Is deaf heredity caused by ASL? By deaf culture? Or by genetics? Should we be ashamed of our history? Erase or hide our history? Deny our history?

The Bison Jump

2009-09-27T09:40:00.000-07:00

A story teller tells a story about The Bison Jump, a classic example of why we should appreciate and treasure independent thinkers, for they are survivalists.

2009-09-18T12:45:00.000-07:00

Will Audism face the same fate as Racism? Come and watch to see why it might.

Hocokan

2009-09-15T11:01:00.000-07:00

To deafhood folks, upon seeing how angry, disappointed and hurt you were, I made a decision to create this vlog to disclose the very reason I used Hocokan as my prior screen name. The incident, your leaving DeafRead.com and DeafVideo.tv, indicated that it has come to a full circle. You are now experiencing what you have done unto others, a taste of your own medicine. It is my hope that you will learn from this and extend respect for all people, recognizing the importance of diversity and tolerance.

Fenced in? There is always a gateway!

2009-08-07T16:12:00.000-07:00

My response to a journal article written by Jane K. Fernandes and Shirley Shulz Myers, known as "Inclusive Deaf Studies: Barriers and Pathways.

Greetings brothers and sisters.

I find myself in this beautiful Great Basin Buckaroo Country (pictured here is the actual view of our family's ranch in northern Nevada) this afternoon, contemplating the idea of creating a blog in response to this important article, "Inclusive Deaf Studies: Barriers and Pathways.

Speaking of Barriers and Pathways, it's a bit of an irony for me as I am sitting next to a 24" x 36" window at the family's working ranch, with a world class view of vastness of open space with no signs of civilization. Use your imagination or better yet, rent a DVD known as the "Open Range" and you'll get an idea. Allow me to explain why.

As I gazed through this cozy window I see no shortage of rolling hills in every endless directions. Such endless view is what makes the valley even more precious and prettier. I see the valley as the coveted and desired "lush green" home place for these endless rolling hills, with each hill containing great wealth of characters, different colors, multiple shapes, and steep or shallow traits. I see hundreds if not thousands of black dots scattered through out the area, covering both hills and the valley. These are the black angus cattle with such liberty to roam wherever they please, always in pursuit of better grasses. This is a picture-perfect scenario I see from my window. Such beauty is an ideal world because everything has its' rightful place in this world.

As I step outside and face the reality I know that there are numerous barriers (roadways and fences) and pathways (gates and trail) scattered all over the place. See a fence line (barrier) and you'll always find a trail leading to a gate (pathway). This is the law of any ranching community.

I see the same kind of world out there, a world filled with barriers and pathways. I see a wealth of knowledgeable characters. I see great numbers of cultures and communication modes. I see different races as well. And I see them in multiple forms, steep and/or shallow traits. These people are born with the birth-right freedom to choose how to live their lives, but always in pursuit of pathways leading towards better and happier life. This is a picture-perfect scenario I see from my head. Such beauty is an ideal world because everybody has their rightful place in this world. I'm talking about human beings in general. It's a beautiful world.

However as I step inside and face the hard but un-necessary reality, I see exactly what has been verified and written by Jane K. Fernandes and Shirley Shultz Myers, a deaf world dominated by hierarchy few who took advantage of their privileged life to tout themselves as the Deaf superiors at the expenses of "deaf" others, placing the barriers upon these people that were not born into exactly the same world (ASL-life experience). Upon realizing the advantage they hold they like to tout their own definitions on what might be ideal and what might not be. It is how they begin to define the things that are acceptable and unacceptable, as in norms and the abnormals. They want us to believe that there is no pathways except through Deafhood Journey.

Thus the birth of U.S. version of Deafhood. I call it Deafhood II. The United States version of deafhood was created for this exact purpose, to draw a huge crowd and put them in an eternal chase that will never end. It's like the King or Queen who positioned the people in such condition that will forever keep them in the lower position where they would always find the need to beg and pray for betterment by worshipping and honoring the superiors. Therefore the birth of ranks and files. Deafhood II literally have a queen who savors such title. Not kidding you here. This queen has always imposed conditions upon me and others by requiring that we would have to agree with her long list of point of views. If we didn't agree with her then we'd face rejection by her and her controlled hoodized community. Naturally I choose rejection every time to show defiance against this self-appointed queen because she acquired such title at the expenses of other deaf people with lesser privileges.

The Deafhood II's adoption of Audism theory did not happen by accident. It was adopted because it worked to their advantage since it encouraged the deaf people to believe that they were being oppressed upon by "hearing people" and by so called colonized "deafless people" who were not deaf enough by Deafhood II's standard. It was a perfect recipe for anger, which will fuel these angry people towards the Deafhood II pathway, funneling them into one pathway towards the hierarchy's trap, under the control of a so-called queen.

These people failed to understand one thing that's been laid out by the JKF and Myers article. What might be ideal to Deafhood II is not necessarily ideal for other deaf people therefore the sense for people's security has been breeched repeatily when the Deafhoodized people tried to impose their hoodized world upon other people's world.

The questions coming from these people were frequently asked, "have you attend a deafhood workshop"? Have you read the deafhood book by Paddy Ladd? This particular question was asked often by Deafhoodized people because it gave them the desired power to declare that we're unqualified to discuss the subject if we've not read the book or been to one of their workshops. Such bogus notion I declare! I, of all people am from a very large deaf family and carrying the 7th generation label with my two boys carrying the 8th generation label. I grew up with nine deaf aunts & uncles as well as deaf parents and grandparents. Who in the world appointed these Deafhoodized people into hierarchies that they are, so that they are able to say that I'm not deaf enough? Talk about typical behavior coming from a hierarchy figure.

The "not deaf enough" argument was born as a form of barrier to keep us down. We were constantly labeled as "not deaf enough" because we lacked an identity by their standard. Thus the birth of DEAFLESS term, which I invented for fun but now view it as a PATHWAY to liberty, freedom and independence, steering us deafless individuals away from this so-called hierarchy's spell. Hell broke loose at DeafVideo.tv and DeafRead.com regarding the DEAFLESS term I created because the Deafhood II stronghold saw it as a threat to their hierarchy stronghold. Over sixty or seventy v/blogs were created during the stir over the new term simply because the Deafhood II stronghold felt threatened by it and rightfully so. We, not deaf enough, had no identity up until now and when we finally discovered an identity for ourselves as deafless, it generated so much energy coming from Deafhood II for an obvious reason. Such term violated their false sense of security, more particularly, their air space.

Bottom line? As explained in the article, many of us struggled in our quests to meet the expectation of the norms, failing to realize that we will never meet their expectations simply because we were not born into the same privileges and resources. Therefore barriers were un-necessarily placed upon us by pivileged few. But fear not, there is always a pathway wherever the barriers are.

In closure I wanted to say that I've read the entire article, word for word and I am very impressed with the contents. As a natural born strategist and critic I searched hard and long for certain line(s) that I’d want to disagree with but could not find any. Much of what was written was what I’ve fought for since day one so I’m very pleased with it. This article emphasized us as human beings, something I’ve preached every where. It also emphasized on the importance of recognizing different modes of communications and wealth of diversified cultures rather than limiting ourselves to what’s ideal to the hierarchy few. Watch my earlier vlog at DVTV known as "Deafless Dynamics Explained" on the subject of cultural wealth and how we invest ourselves.

I also created this blog with one other specific goal, to verify and confirm the article's contents / references that were made from my v/blogs. I did not see any incorrect information therefore I do not have any concerns.

Barry Sewell (aka DR Hocokan)

I'm Deafless...

2009-07-27T07:25:00.000-07:00

Recently my children posted a vlog in DVTV on homeschooling called "why homeschooling is fun". Several people questioned whether it was a good idea to home school deaf children. They said they understood why it might work for hearing children but questioned whether it'd work for deaf children. I was sort of expecting this kind of crap to show up in my children's vlog so I created this vlog in preparation for potential ignorance. Sure enough, the ignorance showed up. Several vloggers mocked our kids and began to question whether it was a good idea to home school deaf children... hence, I posted this vlog in response.

The headline, "I'm deafless" was created in comparison to "ageless" term. For instance, I see a 80 years old man that's very active and is into jogging, rowing and exercises. I say to myself, my gosh this guy is ageless. I see myself under the same light as in 'deafless'. The term deafless was also created with sense for humor in mockery of audism, which is also an invented term that has not been recognized by panels of scholars. I figured why not poke fun at audism while I'm at it. If you didn't have any sense of humor when you read this then I'm sorry.

The point of the video is to emphasize the fact that we're more than just deaf. We're human beings therefore why not seek equality / common grounds with the rest of the world by reclaiming ours statuses as human beings? Why degrade ourselves, voluntarily, by allowing the term 'deaf' to own us and control us the way it has been done for many years.

In the good old days when many deaf people held respective jobs across the nation they did not find the need to identify themselves as 'deaf' but today we see high unemployment in the deaf community, I suspect, largely due to how we introduce ourselves as 'deaf' and degrade ourselves voluntarily. In short, we've become slaves to this term, deaf, which is unnecessary in my view. Naturally the choice is yours but I've made my choice by introducing myself as a human being first rather than making an issue of my deafness.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not asking us to conceal, hide or be ashamed of our deafness. I've said it many times and will say it again. I'm not ashamed to be deaf but I don't see the point of being too proud of it as if we're some what less than human beings the way deafhood people does it. What they're trying to do is make us forget the fact that we're human beings first before we're anything else. They want us to forget that we have the same leverage as the hearing people. Instead they want us to be colonized and isolated in the deaf world whereas they could control us by turning us into slaves of 'deaf' terms. Well, for your information, it's not going to happen to me. Don't know about you but I say it's deafless for me. Good riddance to deafhood. Go and fish else where.

What is Holism?

2009-05-30T08:36:00.000-07:00

Holism is what I am but what are you?

Holism or Reductionism? And the history behind Holism vs Reductionism. Which one are you? You decide for yourself.

Since I became a v/blogger I've noticed how oddly people would stare at me for my opinions and views as if I was some kind of oddball that did not suit ASL powerhouse or deaf powerhouse society. What were you thinking? They asked. Are you trying to drag us down or are you trying to tell us something? After seeing this again and again I made a decision to share the real me and the theory behind much of my v/blogs and point of views.

Holism is exactly what I am even though I'm still a student of Holism theory. Even after fifteen years of learning and practicing it I am still learning but I find myself teaching it more than ever before. It must have something to do with confidence, knowing I'm able to defend the term, Holism now than ever before. Regardless, Holism has proven to be very fruitful and effective for me including but not limited to how I manage and operate my business, investment strategies, family affairs, community and such.

In order to understand Holism it's necessary to compare wholeness with reductionism, that of parts and specialties. Over 2,300 years ago Aristotles said, "The whole is more than the sums of its parts". It was when he discovered holism theory but the term "Holism" was not born until 1926 when Jan Smuts gave the theory a name. He went on to publish a book called "Holism and Evolution". In 1983, Culcom, a research team from a University in England discovered that the modern studies (Universities and such) have moved too far in the direction of specialization. Henrik Sinding-Larsen of Culcom Research said, "Holism has been abandoned in studies of modern society".

The opposite of Holism is known as Reductionism. Reductionism is what we frequently witness coming from specialists such as professors, educators and such. They find Holism too difficult to comprehend and digest because they were trained in the studies of modern society, that of reductionism.

I know for a fact that Holism is what I am but what are you? It's a worthy question to ask in order to help us understand each other.