Why Free Rights are Really Free and Weak.

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!

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.

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?

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....

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.

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!

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.