Mike McConnell posted an entry claiming that Deafhood is classified as an extremist group and lumped it with the likes of Church of Scientology according to Wikipedia, an internet source where anyone can enter a post on a topic or make revisions, hence often unreliable as a source.
Linda decided to play detective. Here is what she found:
Editing to "Extremist Groups" Wikipedia page was done under the IP address
Full-screen IP-Adresse: 206.169.206.91
Provider: Time Warner Telecom
Organisation: Valley Telephone Coop - Tucson
Region: Cochise (US)
Cochise, AZ, is the suburb of Tucson where Barry Sewell lives.
That is going too far, Barry. You entered this basely solely on your personal opinion on Deafhood. You are trying to spread misinformation to the general public. This is not based on fact. Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual (at least, as close as possible) source, not a personal opinion of a person hellbent on discrediting a certain group of people.
Barry IS entitled to his opinion that Deafhood is a cult, that it is full of nonsense, that people who support the ideology are extremists. In fact, it is perfectly okay. However, in this case, it is going too far. Barry even said "it was fun." Literally a confession.
One MUST respect the beliefs and opinions of others without going all-out to discredit or harm the reputations of others. Is this not a free country? Last I knew, it is. If Barry truly believes Deafhood is a cult, then he ought to stay out and keep out.
WHAT did Deafhood ever do to Barry or Mike McConnell for that matter? Oh yes, I forgot. Barry once upon a time supported DBC and was on the board. They removed him for political reason. Barry became bitter. Now he is doing his damnedest to discredit the people who rejected him from DBC.
It is time to move on. It's been 3 years now. It is a well known fact you loathe DBC. We get it. Ok?
As for Mike McConnell entering that post - one has to wonder if he was in the cahoots with Barry or did he swallow a big fish when he saw the entry on Wikipedia and excitedly published it? It is the best policy to check your sources or for facts before you do anything, Mike.
Profound thanks to Linda for her suspicious nature. She smelled a rat and dug it out.
Deafhood people can go into Wikipedia and revise the entry Barry made. Please do.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Rogue Bloggers Backpedaling On AB2072
Sheesh! The rogue bloggers are trying hard to put wool over our eyes AGAIN. They claim that the opponents of AB2072 didn't win because they wanted the bill KILLED and that did not happen therefore there is no victory.
Any logic in this??
The opponents has always been about biases in this bill and the source of information being from audiologist. Senator Mendoza, THEIR hero, actually overthrew the original bill and REWROTE it. This new bill was presented to the Deaf group who was actively involved with AB2072 to review it. This group gave them 3 DEMANDS to be amended to the NEW bill. View David Eberwein and Ella Mae's vlogs for in-depth recaps. These 3 demands are what WE wanted.
1. Monitor system - who oversees the program?
2. ASL
3. No audiologist
Those 3 demands were ACCEPTED and amended to the bill.
We managed to get Mendoza to re-write the bill in our favor. Mendoza was the one who got the health committee to accept the 3 demands amended WITHOUT requesting for extension to discuss the amendments and immediately put AB2072 on floor for vote.
The table flipped against the rogue bloggers' favor, actually. Mendoza, their hero, did a 360 turnaround. Romero, who was OUR hero, voted against the bill on her own integrity of her own principle as a supporter of the deaf. I believe had she have the time to discuss with the deaf group, she would have voted in favor once she knew they were in favor of those 3 demands.
Ella was not exactly thrilled. Really, there is no bill that will fully satisfy everyone. There is always compromise and give/take situation when it comes to politics. I do wish Ella is content with what we can get.
So, rogue bloggers, enough already.
Any logic in this??
The opponents has always been about biases in this bill and the source of information being from audiologist. Senator Mendoza, THEIR hero, actually overthrew the original bill and REWROTE it. This new bill was presented to the Deaf group who was actively involved with AB2072 to review it. This group gave them 3 DEMANDS to be amended to the NEW bill. View David Eberwein and Ella Mae's vlogs for in-depth recaps. These 3 demands are what WE wanted.
1. Monitor system - who oversees the program?
2. ASL
3. No audiologist
Those 3 demands were ACCEPTED and amended to the bill.
We managed to get Mendoza to re-write the bill in our favor. Mendoza was the one who got the health committee to accept the 3 demands amended WITHOUT requesting for extension to discuss the amendments and immediately put AB2072 on floor for vote.
The table flipped against the rogue bloggers' favor, actually. Mendoza, their hero, did a 360 turnaround. Romero, who was OUR hero, voted against the bill on her own integrity of her own principle as a supporter of the deaf. I believe had she have the time to discuss with the deaf group, she would have voted in favor once she knew they were in favor of those 3 demands.
Ella was not exactly thrilled. Really, there is no bill that will fully satisfy everyone. There is always compromise and give/take situation when it comes to politics. I do wish Ella is content with what we can get.
So, rogue bloggers, enough already.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
AB2072: Clarification - It Passed for OUR Side.
The rogue group of bloggers who are celebrating prematurely on the passage of AB2072 in the committee is misinformed or is giving misleading information that they won against us.
Watch Karina Pederson, who gave a wonderful recap on today's hearing, in her vlog.
Yes, AB2072 passed, BUT the 3 demands were AMENDED! FOR US. Audiologist goes out as first source of information which is outstanding! What needs worked on is to recognize ASL as the ONLY visual language by re-defining the meaning of "language." Instead of CDNAIS, CDE will oversee the program. CDE is more focused on education and has strong background with the deaf.
A taskforce has been proceeded to begin working on the ASL part of the amendment. They will reconvene and proceed to tie up on this bill at a later time. The first and third demands are accepted as is which is OUR victory!
No, don't rest on your laurels! Work with the taskforce to monitor this bill to ensure it passes into law as accepted upon today without hidden revisions and such.
So, you rogue group, go ahead and celebrate if you think you've won just because this bill did not die on the floor as you thought we wanted for it to happen. We would if the senators had refused to accept those 3 demands, but they surprised us and accepted them as amendments to this bill which translated into a victory for us!
Watch Karina Pederson, who gave a wonderful recap on today's hearing, in her vlog.
Yes, AB2072 passed, BUT the 3 demands were AMENDED! FOR US. Audiologist goes out as first source of information which is outstanding! What needs worked on is to recognize ASL as the ONLY visual language by re-defining the meaning of "language." Instead of CDNAIS, CDE will oversee the program. CDE is more focused on education and has strong background with the deaf.
A taskforce has been proceeded to begin working on the ASL part of the amendment. They will reconvene and proceed to tie up on this bill at a later time. The first and third demands are accepted as is which is OUR victory!
No, don't rest on your laurels! Work with the taskforce to monitor this bill to ensure it passes into law as accepted upon today without hidden revisions and such.
So, you rogue group, go ahead and celebrate if you think you've won just because this bill did not die on the floor as you thought we wanted for it to happen. We would if the senators had refused to accept those 3 demands, but they surprised us and accepted them as amendments to this bill which translated into a victory for us!
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
PAH! Candy Identified??
Blogger Candy's true identity always has been a mystery for the past several years. Nobody seems to know who she is. She claims to be from deaf family and an advocate of the deaf and ASL, but yet her actions show the opposite. She has been quite baffling for many of us. It did not make sense that she claims to be a DOD and supporter but is on the bandwagon with McConnell and Barry Sewell who are anti-Deaf, including Deafhood, DBC, supporters of assimilation, AB2072...you get the picture. She is the epitome of contradictions.
Ridor, as everyone knows, loves to dig up dirt on people, especially on those who wronged him or the deaf community, as Candy has, apparently found the true identity of this so-called Candy. His vlog showed an old picture of Candy, presumably, as the picture was black and white, from when she was young. The way she writes, she sounds older - in her thirties or forties, at least. She is identified as Gina Sutton, a resident of Wisconsin.
SO, anyone knows Gina Sutton?? Anyone who knows her background?? Any truth to her claims as a DOD?? Ridor's commentor claims she works for ZVRS??
Ridor's vlog is a little long as he spent most of his vlog on NAD but wait for the end.
Ridor, as everyone knows, loves to dig up dirt on people, especially on those who wronged him or the deaf community, as Candy has, apparently found the true identity of this so-called Candy. His vlog showed an old picture of Candy, presumably, as the picture was black and white, from when she was young. The way she writes, she sounds older - in her thirties or forties, at least. She is identified as Gina Sutton, a resident of Wisconsin.
SO, anyone knows Gina Sutton?? Anyone who knows her background?? Any truth to her claims as a DOD?? Ridor's commentor claims she works for ZVRS??
Ridor's vlog is a little long as he spent most of his vlog on NAD but wait for the end.
Are You A Broken Record, McConnell?
This blogger has been harping repeatedly on how good AB2072 is, insisting that this bill offers a broad of range of options, including ASL, for the parents of newly identified deaf babies.
Number one. Options are only ONE part of this bill that is worrisome. It offer physical resources for all other options except ASL - it only offers online information. Is that balanced? How will the bill ENFORCE audiologists to include ASL as an option? There is NONE!
Number two. Audiologists as the sole source of information on newly identified babies? That is not balanced. Audiologists are not experts in LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT which is more essential than the ability to speak and utilize CI. In fact, they know nil about language development. That is not their area of training.
Number three. Medical perspective in the bill. Nothing in the bill focus on language development. It reeks of "fix the patient" approach. It doesn't acknowledge that deaf children's abilities very widely; some will develop skills in speaking, some will be able to utilize their CIs or BTEs, and some will survive without ASL. However, it ignores the vast majority that still need ASL while having other services.
Enforcement is the key to ensure ASL is offered as an option and this bill offers none which is the most worrisome part of the bill.
These are three VERY simple rationales for why this bill is not balanced or valid.
So, McConnell, stop harping already! Nobody likes a broken record. It is time FOR YOU to listen!
Number one. Options are only ONE part of this bill that is worrisome. It offer physical resources for all other options except ASL - it only offers online information. Is that balanced? How will the bill ENFORCE audiologists to include ASL as an option? There is NONE!
Number two. Audiologists as the sole source of information on newly identified babies? That is not balanced. Audiologists are not experts in LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT which is more essential than the ability to speak and utilize CI. In fact, they know nil about language development. That is not their area of training.
Number three. Medical perspective in the bill. Nothing in the bill focus on language development. It reeks of "fix the patient" approach. It doesn't acknowledge that deaf children's abilities very widely; some will develop skills in speaking, some will be able to utilize their CIs or BTEs, and some will survive without ASL. However, it ignores the vast majority that still need ASL while having other services.
Enforcement is the key to ensure ASL is offered as an option and this bill offers none which is the most worrisome part of the bill.
These are three VERY simple rationales for why this bill is not balanced or valid.
So, McConnell, stop harping already! Nobody likes a broken record. It is time FOR YOU to listen!
Monday, June 21, 2010
WHO Will or Should Stand Before the AB2072 Hearing??
The AB2072 blogsite recently announced that there will be a hearing on June 23rd at 1:30, and only four people are allowed two minutes each to stand before the hearing to speak in favor and in opposition to the bill.
With so many people writing in opposition to the bill, it would be a challenge to select just two. WHO should be selected to speak before the hearing?? It is a given that the speakers have to be California resident. Many letters were written by people who live outside of California but they had such a profound impact upon the senators that they suspended the bill on 16th of this month to request this hearing to give the opportunity for the people to speak, to lend their voices to the bill.
We sincerely thank those non-residents for writing in opposition to the bill for the residents of California.
The non-residents wrote not because they wanted to lend a hand but to protect THEIR home states. Were this bill, AB2072, to pass, it definitely may lead to a domino effect. Other states may follow. The non-residents foresee that and knew to write to "nip this in the bud," so to speak.
Writing the letters was the farthest thing they could do to assist. Only a Californian can speak at the hearing. There were several people from the organization in Riverside who wrote in opposition to the bill. Tina Jo Brindel-Dannis and Theresa Maxwell are leading this organization. I would think someone from this organization ought be selected. The other speaker should be someone from the Bay area, representing Fremont.
However, it would make more impact if someone from the larger body of representation for the deaf children who are in mainstreamed programs to speak before the hearing as she/he would represent the proof on how CI and oralism barely succeeded in disseminating their students which is what the bill is based on. The Riverside and Fremont campuses represent only a fraction of the deaf student body in state of California. The vast majority is in the public schools.
Does anyone think a good representative from that larger body of deaf students could be sought to speak before the hearing in opposition to AB2072? Or do people feel those said representatives would support AB207s despite the obvious failures seen in their students in the public schools who, by a vast majority, wear CI and speak? Hence it would be in our best interest to send speakers from the smaller bodies of representation namely the Riverside and Fremont campuses?
Whoever they choose to send to the hearing as speakers, they must choose CAREFULLY and WISELY!
With so many people writing in opposition to the bill, it would be a challenge to select just two. WHO should be selected to speak before the hearing?? It is a given that the speakers have to be California resident. Many letters were written by people who live outside of California but they had such a profound impact upon the senators that they suspended the bill on 16th of this month to request this hearing to give the opportunity for the people to speak, to lend their voices to the bill.
We sincerely thank those non-residents for writing in opposition to the bill for the residents of California.
The non-residents wrote not because they wanted to lend a hand but to protect THEIR home states. Were this bill, AB2072, to pass, it definitely may lead to a domino effect. Other states may follow. The non-residents foresee that and knew to write to "nip this in the bud," so to speak.
Writing the letters was the farthest thing they could do to assist. Only a Californian can speak at the hearing. There were several people from the organization in Riverside who wrote in opposition to the bill. Tina Jo Brindel-Dannis and Theresa Maxwell are leading this organization. I would think someone from this organization ought be selected. The other speaker should be someone from the Bay area, representing Fremont.
However, it would make more impact if someone from the larger body of representation for the deaf children who are in mainstreamed programs to speak before the hearing as she/he would represent the proof on how CI and oralism barely succeeded in disseminating their students which is what the bill is based on. The Riverside and Fremont campuses represent only a fraction of the deaf student body in state of California. The vast majority is in the public schools.
Does anyone think a good representative from that larger body of deaf students could be sought to speak before the hearing in opposition to AB2072? Or do people feel those said representatives would support AB207s despite the obvious failures seen in their students in the public schools who, by a vast majority, wear CI and speak? Hence it would be in our best interest to send speakers from the smaller bodies of representation namely the Riverside and Fremont campuses?
Whoever they choose to send to the hearing as speakers, they must choose CAREFULLY and WISELY!
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Polling Rule: Impartiality!
A blogsite offered a poll on AB2072. It is no brainer. Most of the commenters will poll in favor for it because the blog owner is in favor of AB2072.
The rule of the site hosting a poll is IMPARTIALITY! The site has to be neutral on the issue, the bill, the commenters, and so on. This blogsite is decidedly not neutral.
Hence the poll is nullified due to the lack of impartality, compromising the integrity of the poll. This is not the first time this blog owner hosted a poll when there is a controversy going on. The outcome of the poll was always predictable which is why I said this is no brainer.
The purpose of a poll is to collect percentage of pollsters on a certain issue on which the community is divided on to give an idea of the possible outcome of the passage of the bill. So, the host has to be neutral hence why most poll hosts are the media - newspapers, TV News, telemarketers, and so on.
A non-impartial host may tamper with the polling results or get an inaccurate result because his/her "fans" are reflections of the host.
Granted, a poll could not possibly be 100% impartial, however, it is essential for the host to be neutral to give integrity to the poll and confidence in the result of a poll.
The rule of the site hosting a poll is IMPARTIALITY! The site has to be neutral on the issue, the bill, the commenters, and so on. This blogsite is decidedly not neutral.
Hence the poll is nullified due to the lack of impartality, compromising the integrity of the poll. This is not the first time this blog owner hosted a poll when there is a controversy going on. The outcome of the poll was always predictable which is why I said this is no brainer.
The purpose of a poll is to collect percentage of pollsters on a certain issue on which the community is divided on to give an idea of the possible outcome of the passage of the bill. So, the host has to be neutral hence why most poll hosts are the media - newspapers, TV News, telemarketers, and so on.
A non-impartial host may tamper with the polling results or get an inaccurate result because his/her "fans" are reflections of the host.
Granted, a poll could not possibly be 100% impartial, however, it is essential for the host to be neutral to give integrity to the poll and confidence in the result of a poll.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
AB 2072 is GOOD! Are We Betrayed By Our Own??
It's been going around that we poor deafies can't properly read and understand AB2072 because English evidently is not our first language. It's been going around that AB2072 is actually GOOD. To quote one individual, "it is an opportunity for ASL to grow." Anyone care to elaborate on that??
Audiologists are known to discourage ASL and are supporters of speech and aural therapies. They have medicinal perspective on deafness. They don't consider ASL language but merely a mode of communication to support oral and aural language for only some of deaf children - not necessarily all. Audiologists do not focus on language development or have any education, training, or knowledge in that area.
This group of deaf people in support of AB2072 is puzzling - they consist of some individuals from deaf families. Most of them use ASL. Yet they go against Deafhood. They go against Deaf Culture. They support AB2072.
One has to wonder about their mindset. What is so bad about Deafhood, Deaf Culture, and ASL? Oh yeah, ASL makes deaf people dumb. Deaf Culture doesn't really exist. Deafhood is nonsense.
I am really curious WHY they actually think the audiologists are the best people to provide information and resources to parents of newly identified deaf babies. HOW would that bill help give opportunity for ASL to grow?? WHAT do they think will happen if this bill passes?
We all know AB2072 is all about capitalism. CI manufacturers stand to profit from this bill. Audiologists, speech therapists, hearing aid industry, and public schools stand to profit as well. Parents will send their children to them and away from schools for the deaf. What is amazing is this rogue group actually is OK with that.
However, it is a good thing this rogue group is in the minority. What is more worrisome, of course, is the larger public, who is unfamiliar about the deaf, who sees economical benefits of this bill rather than the true needs of the deaf of whom they know nothing about.
Audiologists are known to discourage ASL and are supporters of speech and aural therapies. They have medicinal perspective on deafness. They don't consider ASL language but merely a mode of communication to support oral and aural language for only some of deaf children - not necessarily all. Audiologists do not focus on language development or have any education, training, or knowledge in that area.
This group of deaf people in support of AB2072 is puzzling - they consist of some individuals from deaf families. Most of them use ASL. Yet they go against Deafhood. They go against Deaf Culture. They support AB2072.
One has to wonder about their mindset. What is so bad about Deafhood, Deaf Culture, and ASL? Oh yeah, ASL makes deaf people dumb. Deaf Culture doesn't really exist. Deafhood is nonsense.
I am really curious WHY they actually think the audiologists are the best people to provide information and resources to parents of newly identified deaf babies. HOW would that bill help give opportunity for ASL to grow?? WHAT do they think will happen if this bill passes?
We all know AB2072 is all about capitalism. CI manufacturers stand to profit from this bill. Audiologists, speech therapists, hearing aid industry, and public schools stand to profit as well. Parents will send their children to them and away from schools for the deaf. What is amazing is this rogue group actually is OK with that.
However, it is a good thing this rogue group is in the minority. What is more worrisome, of course, is the larger public, who is unfamiliar about the deaf, who sees economical benefits of this bill rather than the true needs of the deaf of whom they know nothing about.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Candy: We Are NOT Stupid! Thank You.
You keep harping on how stupid deaf people are for being unable to read the AB 2072. We understand the bill perfectly fine. It is YOU who don't get it or refuse to accept what it is all about. YOU always have been all about the medicinal perspective of deafness. All about SPEECH, ORALISM, HEARING LOSS, CI, and so on. We do expect you to stand in support for AB 2072 - no surprise here. That is what YOU are all about.
Please don't insult our intelligence by saying WE don't understand the bill, that it actually helps us, that it is for our betterment, that we misread the bill, that we misunderstand the bill. We ARE NOT!! Get it??
You just have a very low opinion of ASL/Deaf Culture centric community, and going against the bill means ASL/Deaf Culture will continue. You certainly don't want that. You'd love for this bill to pass so it will mean death of ASL and Deaf Culture. WE know that.
There are many HEARING people, including parents, college/university professors (who outrank YOU), education professionals (who also outrank YOU), and general public who wrote letters to the senators against this bill. THEY certainly can READ and understand the bill - better than you, apparently, that is, if you actually think this bill will improve the quality of life for the deaf (which I doubt).
The bill will be voted upon TOMORROW. I truly pray those letters to the senators will be read and heard! For this bill to be passed is just too scary to even think about....
Please don't insult our intelligence by saying WE don't understand the bill, that it actually helps us, that it is for our betterment, that we misread the bill, that we misunderstand the bill. We ARE NOT!! Get it??
You just have a very low opinion of ASL/Deaf Culture centric community, and going against the bill means ASL/Deaf Culture will continue. You certainly don't want that. You'd love for this bill to pass so it will mean death of ASL and Deaf Culture. WE know that.
There are many HEARING people, including parents, college/university professors (who outrank YOU), education professionals (who also outrank YOU), and general public who wrote letters to the senators against this bill. THEY certainly can READ and understand the bill - better than you, apparently, that is, if you actually think this bill will improve the quality of life for the deaf (which I doubt).
The bill will be voted upon TOMORROW. I truly pray those letters to the senators will be read and heard! For this bill to be passed is just too scary to even think about....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)