I was appalled to see this post forwarded to me by a friend ( http://www.deafvideo.tv/video/watch/33905/) for two reasons.
The first one is that she says the community has decided on Obama's name sign, and she is notifying him. The community? WHAT? I don't remember being consulted. No one where I live was consulted. No one in MOST of the country/world was consulted before deciding on this name sign. That was arrogant and unacceptable.
Second, this name sign does not follow ASL rules for name signs. Name signs are supposed to only be based on first letters in a person's name or on a person's physical features. This sign is neither. Its movements aren't right for name signs either. Name signs are not supposed to look like they could be signs for something else, because that causes confusion. Need proof? Look in "The Book of Name Signs" by Sam Supalla.
Obama is easily fingerspelled, and I think too many people are afraid of fingerspelling. Let's just fingerspell his name and turn it into a lexicalized sign. It's beautiful fingerspelled.
Let's reject this ridiculous name sign.
1.24.2009
9.02.2008
Boo Dashboard DeafRead Custom!
What was wrong with cookies for DeafRead Custom? I understand the argument that TaylerCo is making, but really, why couldn't they have left the cookie option too? That way people would have a choice. I don't appreciate being required to sign up for something, and I avoid it every chance I can. Big Brother, privacy issues, hackable data, and all that...
BRING BACK THE COOKIES, DEAFREAD! What's wrong with letting people choose if they want to use the Dashboard or rely on cookies?
UPDATE: Jared Evans posted a little explanation of the move from cookies to the Dashboard. If this was written in response to my post, it completely missed my point. If it wasn't, it's a good idea to make sure people know what's happening.
BRING BACK THE COOKIES, DEAFREAD! What's wrong with letting people choose if they want to use the Dashboard or rely on cookies?
UPDATE: Jared Evans posted a little explanation of the move from cookies to the Dashboard. If this was written in response to my post, it completely missed my point. If it wasn't, it's a good idea to make sure people know what's happening.
7.16.2008
Integrity? Ethics? HA!
Barry Sewell and his followers talk repeatedly about the need for integrity. Well, remember how Karen Mayes said that she saw something about letters being sent to DE's and Barb DiGi's bosses on DBCFacts.com, but that info disappeared within a few hours? She was telling the truth.
Breaking News
Letters are being submitted to California School for the Deaf and California Department of Education regarding CSD's Principal who made inappropriate comments in a meeting held by DBC core group. The comment clearly showed disrespect for cochlear implant community, especially deaf children who uses cochlear implants and hearing parents who choose to use it on their deaf children. The group of concerned citizens felt it was highly inappropriate for this CSD staff to use violent language such as 'strangle them' with a scarf and felt it offered warning signs.
Letters are being submitted to Rochester School for the Deaf and New York State Education Department regarding one of their staff who publicly announced views against cochlear implants and oralism.
Letters are being submitted to California Association of the Deaf and National Association of the Deaf regarding ethics and conflict of interest involving an individual who serves on the board of CAD, operates DBC and owns Deafhood Foundation. This individual serves on CAD Board and makes a profit through CAD's support for DBC in order to promote her Deafhood Foundation.
DBCfacts.com is working diligently to secure copies of these letters and hopefully they will be available. When and if it happens we will post them here as soon as they become available.
Reports were made to U.S. Dept. of Ed., CA School for the Deaf, CA Dept. of Ed, Rochester School for the Deaf, NY State Dept. of Ed, CA Assoc. of the Deaf and National Assoc. of the Deaf regarding concerns for depredatory comments made by DBC core group, some of whom works for these agencies.
A friend sent me this e-mail that contained what was posted on DBCFacts.com Tuesday morning:
Letters are being submitted to California School for the Deaf and California Department of Education regarding CSD's Principal who made inappropriate comments in a meeting held by DBC core group. The comment clearly showed disrespect for cochlear implant community, especially deaf children who uses cochlear implants and hearing parents who choose to use it on their deaf children. The group of concerned citizens felt it was highly inappropriate for this CSD staff to use violent language such as 'strangle them' with a scarf and felt it offered warning signs.
Letters are being submitted to Rochester School for the Deaf and New York State Education Department regarding one of their staff who publicly announced views against cochlear implants and oralism.
Letters are being submitted to California Association of the Deaf and National Association of the Deaf regarding ethics and conflict of interest involving an individual who serves on the board of CAD, operates DBC and owns Deafhood Foundation. This individual serves on CAD Board and makes a profit through CAD's support for DBC in order to promote her Deafhood Foundation.
DBCfacts.com is working diligently to secure copies of these letters and hopefully they will be available. When and if it happens we will post them here as soon as they become available.
THEN this is what is on DBCFacts.com as of now:
Wow. You people really went that far??? Congratulations. It's a witch hunt. Don't you realize this could have horrible repercussions for both schools? This isn't just about individuals, it is about all the employees and children. You may have just handed the states of California and New York the chain to pull the plug on schools in those states. This could be the end of state schools for the deaf. Many students could be without a good school and many fine teachers, administrators, and other staff members could be out of a job.
*Note: Comments closed again.
*Note 2: Find Karen Mayes' comments here: (Thank you, Karen)
http://blog.deafread.com/pote/2008/07/14/im-outta-here-adios-and-be-well/
7.15.2008
Thank You, Crabs!
I'm in shock. Patti Durr has left DeafRead. A kind, gentle, and reasonable person that never left her principles has decided to stop blogging because of all the hate in the Deaf Blogosphere.
The rhetoric has grown more and more heated and angry. People like Dan are screeching at the top of his lung about DEAFHOOD CULTS. (Dan: a cult is not a person. It is a group/organization/society. You may be trying to say cult member, maybe? It doesn't matter. Your anger- and hate-filled rhetoric does no favors to anyone, least of all yourself.)
DrDonG tried to tell us all to STOP THE INSANITY yesterday. People who don't like him jumped all over him, saying mean and awful things. Observer said: "People, you're bashing someone for saying, 'Let's discuss this without name-calling, insulting, or being mean to each other.' I'm confused. Are you saying you WANT to be mean?" Very good question.
Candy called the people she didn't like assholes then when someone said something about that, she said something like "They started it." Other people in the group are doing the same thing, saying, "They did it first so we can do it too." So what? That doesn't make it okay. Paotie, Dan, Candy, and other members of a small group are insulting others, putting other people down, and criticizing people. They don't care about really talking about this and listening to other people. They just want to force their opinion on everyone and hurt people.
There are some commenters who don't like DBC and Deafhood, but they are being much more polite. MishkaZena is saying she doesn't like what she thinks is happening inside DBC, but she stays with the issues and criticizes actions, not people. That's the healthy way to give feedback. Focus on what actions you think are wrong and offer suggestions for improvement. There is no reason to tell people to go fuck themselves, insult them, or BS like that. Give them constructive feedback and discuss actions, not insult people.
I am not going to call individuals names, but I will say something to the people who started this whole thing against DBC and who are fanning the flames: Congratulations. You're damaging DBC, the Deaf community, the Deaf Blogosphere, and DeafRead. Your actions have done so much damage, it is far worse than anything I've ever seen.
*Note: Comments closed. It's not safe to let people comment on your blogs lately. There are many other blogs where both reasonable people and destructive people can say what they think.
6.17.2008
Deaf Village - A True Village? Nay!
Guess what? I have severe doubts about deaf village's (taking a cue from Tony Nicholas) ability to truly include everyone and to be respectful about all perspectives. So I submitted my blog to test their commitment to their mission.
I was right. They said no. Here is the e-mail I received:
I freely concede that my last post was very strong and probably unpleasant for some people. However, the post described my feelings and not actions I would ever take toward anyone else. The quote Aaron referred to was taken out of context. The full quote is:
See how different that is from saying I'm going to do it. I was describing how this particular blog makes me feel.
And their interpretation of respect differs from mine, and many others in DeafBlogLand. There was a good post somewhere about how Rachel, Melissa and Elizabeth have failed to show true respect toward ASL, Deaf culture, and Deaf people. They say "Oh, that's interesting," (sweeping it aside) and go on as if our perspective had never been brought up.
Aaron, you want to talk about respect? BRING IT ON! I'd be glad to split hairs with you, because you certainly are.
And the kicker? I'm actually glad this blog, however sporadically I publish (this will only be my 10th post in almost 2 years), isn't on that partisan aggregator. I'm glad I tested their resolve and found them wanting. If they'd accepted the blog, I would've posted that for everyone to know.
Hey, speaking of that, I'm finding it absolutely fascinating that very few Deaf-centered people have signed up for deaf village too. Speaks volumes. Volumes, I tell ya.
Bye-bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Wait. LET it. (whistle) (wave)
Saunière,
The Deaf Village team has reviewed your blog and discussed whether to
allow your blog to be part of the new aggregator. We do want diversity,
but we feel that your latest blog seems to be contradictory to our vision
of what we want Deaf Village to be.
I personally have issues with certain statements you made such as
"bitch-slap her, her mother, and Elizabeth." This seems to be a direct
attack on the individual and not their ideals, which is something we do
not condone on Deaf Village.
Even though we have not posted the guidelines yet, we feel that we cannot
allow your blog to be part of Deaf Village until you show that you are
willing to respect other people's views and experiences.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Aaron
I freely concede that my last post was very strong and probably unpleasant for some people. However, the post described my feelings and not actions I would ever take toward anyone else. The quote Aaron referred to was taken out of context. The full quote is:
It's clear to me that her blog is nothing but relentless, one-sided, condescending propaganda for cochlear implants that makes me choke and want to bitch-slap her, her mother, and Elizabeth.
See how different that is from saying I'm going to do it. I was describing how this particular blog makes me feel.
And their interpretation of respect differs from mine, and many others in DeafBlogLand. There was a good post somewhere about how Rachel, Melissa and Elizabeth have failed to show true respect toward ASL, Deaf culture, and Deaf people. They say "Oh, that's interesting," (sweeping it aside) and go on as if our perspective had never been brought up.
Aaron, you want to talk about respect? BRING IT ON! I'd be glad to split hairs with you, because you certainly are.
And the kicker? I'm actually glad this blog, however sporadically I publish (this will only be my 10th post in almost 2 years), isn't on that partisan aggregator. I'm glad I tested their resolve and found them wanting. If they'd accepted the blog, I would've posted that for everyone to know.
Hey, speaking of that, I'm finding it absolutely fascinating that very few Deaf-centered people have signed up for deaf village too. Speaks volumes. Volumes, I tell ya.
Bye-bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Wait. LET it. (whistle) (wave)
6.05.2008
The fur's a-flyin'!
Everybody online seems to be in a major snit about Rachel's blog being ejected from DeafRead. I'm personally glad that that piece of relentless propaganda is off DeafRead, but I don't think the argument for removing the blog is particularly sound. There's something that nobody seems to be blogging about in this whole brouhaha, though.
For the record, I think that the decision to remove Rachel was handled badly. If Cochlear Implant Online went down in flames, either real or electronic, nobody would be happier than me, but I don't really understand why it was removed. The explanation is nebulous, coming in bits and pieces through comments throughout the deaf blogosphere. She volunteers for a network that has ties to a major for-profit corporation. And that somehow conflicts with DeafRead's sponsor, which is a phone company. O-kay. It's clear to me that her blog is nothing but relentless, one-sided, condescending propaganda for cochlear implants that makes me choke and want to bitch-slap her, her mother, and Elizabeth. True, her blog is a mouthpiece for the glory of cochlear implantdom and it probably is a huge part of her volunteer efforts for the Cochlear Awareness Network. But I still don't see anything in DeafRead's current policy that explains this decision. I think Patti Durr had a great point here when she essentially said that if DeafRead had had a policy clearly explaining what audism is and that it would not be tolerated (in a comment she left later), that would be different. CI Online is one of the few blogs that I gleefully chose to HIDE. In fact, it was the first I chose to hide. But the explanation for showing her the door is not laid out in a convincing, concrete manner. So I'm with those who are questioning the decision.
But I'm surprised at all the people who are rushing to Rachel's defense. Have they forgotten how Tayler defended Rachel's, and everyone else's, right to be on DeafRead? A while back, I wrote, quite crudely in one part, about how DeafRead was just letting itself be overrun by endless CI propaganda. The truth is, I was reacting more to Rachel's blog than to anyone else's. The glut of activation videos at that time was also getting to me, but not nearly as much as Rachel's endless stream of so-called "success stories" and her horrible attitude towards sign language and a visually-centered way of life. She pays lip service to respect by SAYING that she does, but she doesn't. Not really. Her mom has brainwashed her by teaching her that she's better than us and that she doesn't need sign language or us. I saw comments from her mother before Rachel ever came into the deaf blogosphere, and I gotta say that Rachel sounds exactly like her mother. No one, except for Elizabeth, (who let loose some of the most infantile jabs, at Deaf Militants, I've ever seen in response to this brouhaha!) has been as partisan or as militant as Rachel and her mother. Yet Tayler and the DeafRead team all defended her right, and everyone else's right to be on DeafRead.
My, how quickly we forget.
This closing the ranks around Rachel and this exodus from DeafRead amuses me. It's so blinkin' obvious that there's more to this decision than simply "They don't like you so you're off." Tayler refused to listen to me and to many other people who approached him in person and online and boot Rachel off for months and months. Why would he suddenly start listening to us now?
Tayler and the DeafRead team need to do a lot of clarification fast, but honestly, I think a lot of you guys are being too reactionary. You've forgotten how hard Tayler has fought for inclusivity. Be pissed off at him for mishandling this, but don't accuse him of hating Rachel because she has a CI or of booting her off because many of us can't stand being hit in the head over and over with her crap. Demand a clear explanation, but don't assume he's either hatin' Rachel or pandering to Rachel-haters. Mmkay?
*Note: No comments allowed again. I don't feel like dealing with oral militants, their mothers, green couch laughers, candy-dispensers, kokonuts, babblers, heavily-made-up "little college girls," Casper wannabes, or their acolytes. Apologies to those of you who would engage in a real discussion.
For the record, I think that the decision to remove Rachel was handled badly. If Cochlear Implant Online went down in flames, either real or electronic, nobody would be happier than me, but I don't really understand why it was removed. The explanation is nebulous, coming in bits and pieces through comments throughout the deaf blogosphere. She volunteers for a network that has ties to a major for-profit corporation. And that somehow conflicts with DeafRead's sponsor, which is a phone company. O-kay. It's clear to me that her blog is nothing but relentless, one-sided, condescending propaganda for cochlear implants that makes me choke and want to bitch-slap her, her mother, and Elizabeth. True, her blog is a mouthpiece for the glory of cochlear implantdom and it probably is a huge part of her volunteer efforts for the Cochlear Awareness Network. But I still don't see anything in DeafRead's current policy that explains this decision. I think Patti Durr had a great point here when she essentially said that if DeafRead had had a policy clearly explaining what audism is and that it would not be tolerated (in a comment she left later), that would be different. CI Online is one of the few blogs that I gleefully chose to HIDE. In fact, it was the first I chose to hide. But the explanation for showing her the door is not laid out in a convincing, concrete manner. So I'm with those who are questioning the decision.
But I'm surprised at all the people who are rushing to Rachel's defense. Have they forgotten how Tayler defended Rachel's, and everyone else's, right to be on DeafRead? A while back, I wrote, quite crudely in one part, about how DeafRead was just letting itself be overrun by endless CI propaganda. The truth is, I was reacting more to Rachel's blog than to anyone else's. The glut of activation videos at that time was also getting to me, but not nearly as much as Rachel's endless stream of so-called "success stories" and her horrible attitude towards sign language and a visually-centered way of life. She pays lip service to respect by SAYING that she does, but she doesn't. Not really. Her mom has brainwashed her by teaching her that she's better than us and that she doesn't need sign language or us. I saw comments from her mother before Rachel ever came into the deaf blogosphere, and I gotta say that Rachel sounds exactly like her mother. No one, except for Elizabeth, (who let loose some of the most infantile jabs, at Deaf Militants, I've ever seen in response to this brouhaha!) has been as partisan or as militant as Rachel and her mother. Yet Tayler and the DeafRead team all defended her right, and everyone else's right to be on DeafRead.
My, how quickly we forget.
This closing the ranks around Rachel and this exodus from DeafRead amuses me. It's so blinkin' obvious that there's more to this decision than simply "They don't like you so you're off." Tayler refused to listen to me and to many other people who approached him in person and online and boot Rachel off for months and months. Why would he suddenly start listening to us now?
Tayler and the DeafRead team need to do a lot of clarification fast, but honestly, I think a lot of you guys are being too reactionary. You've forgotten how hard Tayler has fought for inclusivity. Be pissed off at him for mishandling this, but don't accuse him of hating Rachel because she has a CI or of booting her off because many of us can't stand being hit in the head over and over with her crap. Demand a clear explanation, but don't assume he's either hatin' Rachel or pandering to Rachel-haters. Mmkay?
*Note: No comments allowed again. I don't feel like dealing with oral militants, their mothers, green couch laughers, candy-dispensers, kokonuts, babblers, heavily-made-up "little college girls," Casper wannabes, or their acolytes. Apologies to those of you who would engage in a real discussion.
5.06.2008
What happened to DeafRead Custom?
*wail* I've been going through life quite happily not having to pollute my eyes with hate-filled blogs until this afternoon. My cookies for DeafRead Custom were completely wiped out... both on my pager and on my computer. WHAT HAPPENED, DEAFREAD??? Please restore the cookies - stat!
5.04.2008
More Labels? Cool! Keep 'Em Coming!
It's hilarious how certain people are willing to hurl more and more outrageous names at people who happen to agree with the Deafhood concept. They've been called militants, extremists, and now depressed people, cultists, or Deafhood priests and priestesses.
I, an independent thinker, have read the book and asked around about this concept, discussing it with a variety of people. I've thought about it and completely independent of any so-called prosletyzing, agree with Deafhood. It explains so much, including the behavior of certain bloggers and commenters who laugh all over cyberspace, attempt to dispense tooth-breaking hard candies, and scare people by emulating a pale specter. And no, I'm not depressed. But I'm proud to call myself a Deafhood acolyte.
There are many, many people outside of DeafBlogLand who are self-actualized and willing to shake off oppression, unlike what a few bloggers and commenters would have you believe. The anti-Deafhood priests and acolytes are the vocal minority, not us. Just in case you were wondering.
I'd like to take the ownership of the "Deafhood priest" concept one step further. Let's establish a Greek organization around this concept. Delta Epsilon Alpha Gamma Eta Theta Theta Delta, you are born as of this moment. Let's come up with wacky rituals and a pledge period. Let's figure out how we should march when we're pledging. Let's invent some rituals involving the Deafhood book along the lines of an egg toss or something. How about how we should use our eating implements? Silence or no? Sew our own pledge clothes? Colors what? Spell our full names? Come up with silly name signs for each other that only members can use? What would the robes look like once we become full members? How long before we have nationwide chapters? International chapters? Would we smile during pledging and rituals or not? Mascot look like what? What would the application and interview look like? What names would we use for the officers? What would the president be called? Archon? El Presidente? Grand Rajah? Monseigneur? Proedros? Something else from another language entirely? Would we come up with arcane acronyms and refuse to tell anyone but the initiated what they mean? Would we come up with ASL songs, poems, and stories to tell about Delta Epsilon Alpha etcetera? Let's find a dark, mysterious basement somewhere in Bristol marked only with our Greek letters and refuse to let anyone inside until they've gone through probation. Think of all the Greek products we could buy - shirts, bags, sweat pants, shorts, sweatshirts, and more!
Oooooo. This is gonna be soooooo much fun!!! I can't wait for the hazing to begin!!! *said tongue-in-cheek*
*Note: No comments allowed again. I don't feel like dealing with laughers, candy-dispensers, babblers, Casper wannabes, or their acolytes. Apologies to those of you who would engage in a real discussion.
2.08.2008
DeafRead, take a stand!!
Before I begin, I want to announce a one-stop center for people who are upset with the nosedive that DeafRead has taken. You may leave comments here, so the editors can go to one place to hear your/our collective voice instead of going all over the Deaf blog-o-sphere.
I'm upset for many reasons. But right now I'm upset because I want to blog about a few internal community issues, and I feel muzzled. I feel like I need to be careful because I don't want to alienate hearing parents. We're ALREADY doing more than enough damage control, no thanks to AGB, AVI, Cochlear Americas, and other for-profit corporations scaring parents by telling them that being deaf is isolating, it's not normal, and that sound is a freaking miracle, for fuck's sake. I don't want to have to do even more by airing community issues out in public. What happened to our safe zone? Our ONLY safe zone on the Internet?
I am completely fed up with DeafRead allowing anything under the sun (and moon!) to invade its hallowed portals. I'm sympathetic to Tayler Mayer, because anyone with half a brain can tell that starting and operating DeafRead has to be a huge task. I have to believe that the only people that would've done such a thankless job have to be community-oriented. He, Jared Evans, and the Human Editors are to be commended for taking on this responsibility. All the personal attacks are completely uncalled for. Before I continue, THANK YOU to Tayler, Jared, and the Human Editors!
But I am going to freely criticize their choices. Tayler and Jared, you have got to take a stand. You just have to. NAD did. Why can't you? People are talking about how bad it's gotten and encouraging others to stop reading. I'm about to stop reading, and I'm not alone. I've already set up my RSS feed to go directly to blogs I enjoy and I'm very close to deleting DeafRead's RSS feed. It is NAUSEATING to have to read an endless parade of propaganda about so-called "success stories" and more. Why should stories like "Deafness Sucks," "Deaf Militants," and "New Processor, New Places, and New Sounds" be on DeafRead's front page? Why isn't that in Extra? DeafRead needs to STOP pandering to the lowest common denominator and whoring itself at the expense of being a true cultural center, representative of an organic, beautiful community. Close those legs, DeafRead, and be more selective of what goes on the main page!
I'll allow comments this time, but only those who want DeafRead to go back to being Deaf-centered. And I will not tolerate any personal attacks against the founders, editors, nor any individuals.
I'm upset for many reasons. But right now I'm upset because I want to blog about a few internal community issues, and I feel muzzled. I feel like I need to be careful because I don't want to alienate hearing parents. We're ALREADY doing more than enough damage control, no thanks to AGB, AVI, Cochlear Americas, and other for-profit corporations scaring parents by telling them that being deaf is isolating, it's not normal, and that sound is a freaking miracle, for fuck's sake. I don't want to have to do even more by airing community issues out in public. What happened to our safe zone? Our ONLY safe zone on the Internet?
I am completely fed up with DeafRead allowing anything under the sun (and moon!) to invade its hallowed portals. I'm sympathetic to Tayler Mayer, because anyone with half a brain can tell that starting and operating DeafRead has to be a huge task. I have to believe that the only people that would've done such a thankless job have to be community-oriented. He, Jared Evans, and the Human Editors are to be commended for taking on this responsibility. All the personal attacks are completely uncalled for. Before I continue, THANK YOU to Tayler, Jared, and the Human Editors!
But I am going to freely criticize their choices. Tayler and Jared, you have got to take a stand. You just have to. NAD did. Why can't you? People are talking about how bad it's gotten and encouraging others to stop reading. I'm about to stop reading, and I'm not alone. I've already set up my RSS feed to go directly to blogs I enjoy and I'm very close to deleting DeafRead's RSS feed. It is NAUSEATING to have to read an endless parade of propaganda about so-called "success stories" and more. Why should stories like "Deafness Sucks," "Deaf Militants," and "New Processor, New Places, and New Sounds" be on DeafRead's front page? Why isn't that in Extra? DeafRead needs to STOP pandering to the lowest common denominator and whoring itself at the expense of being a true cultural center, representative of an organic, beautiful community. Close those legs, DeafRead, and be more selective of what goes on the main page!
I'll allow comments this time, but only those who want DeafRead to go back to being Deaf-centered. And I will not tolerate any personal attacks against the founders, editors, nor any individuals.
2.04.2008
Where's the respect?
Melissa, the hearing mom behind Cochlear Implant Online, wrote a comment on Jodi Del Dottore's post here (http://rallycapsdotnet.blogspot.com/208/02/pepsi-letter-screamed-show
-me-money.html), which compelled me to respond. I'm not saying she chose wrongly for her children. I'm saying that she seems to hate culturally Deaf people for some reason, and I'm tired of it.
(start comment)
Jodi, thank you! This is why I like you so much. You are open to Deaf culture, even though you've made different choices for your son.
Melissa, not all deaf children will succeed with the path you've chosen for your children. Your children were "lucky." Cochlear implants don't work for everyone, and neither does AVT. That's the way it is.
Truth is, your message is already out there loud and clear via countless media stories and there are very few deaf characters in the TV and movies who do not speak. Ours is getting swept under the rug. So I do NOT appreciate your constant efforts to sweep us aside. You're doing far more than simply ensuring that people get all their options. Pepsi is doing a great public service in bringing some of the balance back to the equation.
If AGB gets sponsorship from Pepsi or Pepsi recants in any way, I will hold you personally responsible, at least in part.
Jodi, I don't mean to hijack your blog this way. Thank you for being an ally.
(No comments allowed again. I apologize.)
-me-money.html), which compelled me to respond. I'm not saying she chose wrongly for her children. I'm saying that she seems to hate culturally Deaf people for some reason, and I'm tired of it.
(start comment)
Jodi, thank you! This is why I like you so much. You are open to Deaf culture, even though you've made different choices for your son.
Melissa, not all deaf children will succeed with the path you've chosen for your children. Your children were "lucky." Cochlear implants don't work for everyone, and neither does AVT. That's the way it is.
Truth is, your message is already out there loud and clear via countless media stories and there are very few deaf characters in the TV and movies who do not speak. Ours is getting swept under the rug. So I do NOT appreciate your constant efforts to sweep us aside. You're doing far more than simply ensuring that people get all their options. Pepsi is doing a great public service in bringing some of the balance back to the equation.
If AGB gets sponsorship from Pepsi or Pepsi recants in any way, I will hold you personally responsible, at least in part.
Jodi, I don't mean to hijack your blog this way. Thank you for being an ally.
(No comments allowed again. I apologize.)
2.01.2008
AGBell: PETTY
I am LIVID. No, make that BEYOND LIVID. PepsiCo decided to affirm natural signed languages by airing a 60-minute SuperBowl ad (found here: http://www.pepsi.com/bobshouse/) featuring ASL users looking for a friend’s house. I was thrilled to pieces, because there is so much media attention focused on “the miracle of cochlear implants” and on speaking deaf children. I thought to myself, “Finally! Some balance!” This post is not about whether implants are right or wrong. It is about balance in the media, so please do NOT insist that I’m some militant who hates implants, okay?
Well, it took AGBell all of one week to decide that they had to start an e-mail campaign objecting and urging its members to contact Pepsi to protest the “lack of diversity” and, in AGBell’s own words from the e-mail they sent out, “…to educate the public…and promote appreciation for those individuals that go above and beyond to overcome the absence of something many of us take for granted – the miracle of sound.” I am appalled and disgusted at AGBell and any members who support this absurd course of action.
I have never, ever, not once ever seen ASL advocates argue for ASL WITHOUT English. Everyone I’ve talked to who promotes ASL ….ALSO…. believes in the importance of the Deaf child acquiring English. We see TV shows and movies show Deaf characters/people speaking ALMOST EVERY TIME. We don’t start mass e-mails urging people to contact the sponsors of that show/movie to apologize for the lack of diversity, for perpetuating a myth (even though they do!), and to, twist their quote, promote appreciation for those individuals that go above and beyond to immerse themselves in a beautiful world and a beautiful language. (but, hey, maybe we should!)
I’m not going to sink to their level by calling them names or calling them wrong, even though AGBell’s argument is ridiculous. The message is already out there in many, many ways that there are deaf people who don’t sign. I’ll just let the facts speak for themselves and I’ll call for a more positive course of action.
This is a call for action for you to contact PepsiCo, thanking them for promoting diversity and for giving ASL the attention it rarely gets, and whatever else comes to mind.
Here is the URL: http://www.pepsiusa.com/help/help.php?or=
And let’s call on the NAD to take STRONG action: http://www.nad.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=2296273&en=dvJVK8PLKdLQJ2NMIfIZJaPOIfIZJfOTLoK1IhN3LuJ9KsK
I’d also like to call on signing AGBell members to speak up. Is this okay with you that your organization did this? I’m wondering whether you’re questioning the entity you’ve joined and supported? If you object, use your status as a member to speak up within AGBell.
(FYI – I’m too furious to allow comments at all. I just do not want to deal with hearing moms telling me I’m wrong, or deaf Uncle Toms telling me I need to be open to diversity. I am. I’m just objecting to AGBell’s action and to the general imbalance in the media about us. I apologize to anyone else who wants to comment and ask for your understanding.)
Well, it took AGBell all of one week to decide that they had to start an e-mail campaign objecting and urging its members to contact Pepsi to protest the “lack of diversity” and, in AGBell’s own words from the e-mail they sent out, “…to educate the public…and promote appreciation for those individuals that go above and beyond to overcome the absence of something many of us take for granted – the miracle of sound.” I am appalled and disgusted at AGBell and any members who support this absurd course of action.
I have never, ever, not once ever seen ASL advocates argue for ASL WITHOUT English. Everyone I’ve talked to who promotes ASL ….ALSO…. believes in the importance of the Deaf child acquiring English. We see TV shows and movies show Deaf characters/people speaking ALMOST EVERY TIME. We don’t start mass e-mails urging people to contact the sponsors of that show/movie to apologize for the lack of diversity, for perpetuating a myth (even though they do!), and to, twist their quote, promote appreciation for those individuals that go above and beyond to immerse themselves in a beautiful world and a beautiful language. (but, hey, maybe we should!)
I’m not going to sink to their level by calling them names or calling them wrong, even though AGBell’s argument is ridiculous. The message is already out there in many, many ways that there are deaf people who don’t sign. I’ll just let the facts speak for themselves and I’ll call for a more positive course of action.
This is a call for action for you to contact PepsiCo, thanking them for promoting diversity and for giving ASL the attention it rarely gets, and whatever else comes to mind.
Here is the URL: http://www.pepsiusa.com/help/help.php?or=
And let’s call on the NAD to take STRONG action: http://www.nad.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=2296273&en=dvJVK8PLKdLQJ2NMIfIZJaPOIfIZJfOTLoK1IhN3LuJ9KsK
I’d also like to call on signing AGBell members to speak up. Is this okay with you that your organization did this? I’m wondering whether you’re questioning the entity you’ve joined and supported? If you object, use your status as a member to speak up within AGBell.
(FYI – I’m too furious to allow comments at all. I just do not want to deal with hearing moms telling me I’m wrong, or deaf Uncle Toms telling me I need to be open to diversity. I am. I’m just objecting to AGBell’s action and to the general imbalance in the media about us. I apologize to anyone else who wants to comment and ask for your understanding.)
12.29.2006
New National Pastime: Pick on the Bay Area
The three themes of deaf 2006:
1. We are a divided community.
2. We need to unify through dialogue and reaching out to each other.
3. Let's pick on the Bay Area.
Seriously. I'm seeing these three themes repeated all the time, phrased differently, but these appear often in the deaf blogosphere. The first two are ones I have believed to be true for a long time. I've also done my part in putting the second one into action, and I will continue to do so whenever I can. The third, however, is whack, yo.
I mean, what, has picking on the Bay Area become our national pastime? And how does it relate to the first two? It completely defeats the purpose of unifying us as a people and a community when people unleash splenetic, venomed attacks, such as Chris Leon's latest roar at chrisleon.wordpress.com/2006/12/22/bay-area-getting too-big-for-its-britches/
To give Chris credit, he did not vilify individuals, nor cast aspersions on anyone, but his blog entry was irresponsible in how it maligned an entire community and in how it implied that all of California was somehow involved in this by imagining Dan McClintock drawing a big-headed California.
Let's be fair to Chris, though. His entry generated tons of discussion, so maybe there was genuine concern and honest questioning about the gala for four of the student leaders from the Gallaudet protest. However, fact-checking then discussing what he found would have been the responsible way to go in this, and just about any other, situation.
For example, here is what my fact-checking found:
1. The student leaders were selected simply because they were the public face of the protest. (Leah Katz-Hernandez and Delia Lozano-Martinez were appointed by the FSSA, but they faded quickly due to personal reasons, which I will not air here out of respect for their privacy). Ryan Commerson and LaToya Plummer were appointed by the FSSA, while Chris Corrigan was the mayor of Tent City. Tara Holcomb, in their perception, became the de facto replacement for Katz Hernandez and Lozano-Martinez, though it never became official.
2. The organizers are very, very well aware that many, many people played leadership roles at one time or another or in different ways and it was never, ever their intent to appoint these four to a higher level than the other people who were involved.
3. The gala was so expensive because the hotel was outrageously expensive (but comparable with what hotels charge), and they have not broken even yet. Food was free with admission.
4. The organizers announced the gala at a public event and invited people to sign up for committees. So this was not a hand-picked group of people in charge of the gala.
5. The focus of the gala was on the Bay Area contribution, while honoring as many of the student leaders as they could. They asked anyone who was a student and part of the protest to get up and say a few words to thunderous applause. The PowerPoint they showed thanked over 25 or 30, probably more, student leaders.
With all these facts, some questions may remain, and they may be worthy of discussion. For example, did they consult with the FSSA about who should be invited? If not, why not? (It could have been an honest oversight on their part.) Did they consider hosting something for free and giving up the fancy hotel surroundings? If so, why did they go the way they did? Some suggestions may remain as well, such as inviting all of the student leaders to the gala. This would have resulted in a more responsible item being posted, and it would have served as an outlet for those with concerns.
Another thing that irks me about the blog entry is how the comments section turned into a weapon against some selected individuals in the Bay Area. This is not Chris's fault, of course, and every entry anywere about the Bay Area seems to elicit vile comments casting aspersions on David Eberwein's character. This was no exception, and it seems to have dragged Joey Baer into the fray as well. Based on what I've read as well as on the info I've found while doing my fact-checking, it seems that some people in the Bay Area genuinely like Eberwein, some think he's a total asshole, while others merely tolerate him. Isn't this par for the course for many people we know? It's just that Eberwein is über-visible and he stirs up stronger feelings than most. My suggestion: Lay off the negative comments, and if you don't live where he lives, be grateful. If you do live in the same community and you don't like him, figure out how to tolerate him if you aren't willing to give him feedback. The same is true for all individuals that have been attacked in DeafBlogLand. Personal attacks are DIVISIVE, and they do NOT help us learn how to respect and listen to each other. Attacking people does NOT unify us as a community.
Another thing - why the heck are people attacking the Bay Area left and right? What did they ever do to attract such ire from the community? From what I hear, it is one huge geographic group, and there are many groups within the Bay Area. Ergo, it's unfair to lump them all together in one large deaf group, because that's just not how they function. Also, it looks like one or more group in the Bay Area is full of movers and shakers. They just DO instead of sitting around and talking about stuff. OK. What's so bad about that? I do NOT get why this community is the source of so much acrimony.
If there are genuine concerns about some groups in the Bay Area, then why can't the national/global deaf community act on them in a more positive, productive way? For instance, why can't some concerns be aired via e-mail or videophone discussions directly to people in the area? And if some issues need to be raised on the national stage via blogs, then why can't the entries be less inflammatory and more fact-based? Anything less serves to harm the unity that so many people have worked for this year.
Lay off the bashing, everyone, and resolve your concerns productively, please. Remember: UNITY via open, respectful dialogue should be your, my, and our ultimate goal.
1. We are a divided community.
2. We need to unify through dialogue and reaching out to each other.
3. Let's pick on the Bay Area.
Seriously. I'm seeing these three themes repeated all the time, phrased differently, but these appear often in the deaf blogosphere. The first two are ones I have believed to be true for a long time. I've also done my part in putting the second one into action, and I will continue to do so whenever I can. The third, however, is whack, yo.
I mean, what, has picking on the Bay Area become our national pastime? And how does it relate to the first two? It completely defeats the purpose of unifying us as a people and a community when people unleash splenetic, venomed attacks, such as Chris Leon's latest roar at chrisleon.wordpress.com/2006/12/22/bay-area-getting too-big-for-its-britches/
To give Chris credit, he did not vilify individuals, nor cast aspersions on anyone, but his blog entry was irresponsible in how it maligned an entire community and in how it implied that all of California was somehow involved in this by imagining Dan McClintock drawing a big-headed California.
Let's be fair to Chris, though. His entry generated tons of discussion, so maybe there was genuine concern and honest questioning about the gala for four of the student leaders from the Gallaudet protest. However, fact-checking then discussing what he found would have been the responsible way to go in this, and just about any other, situation.
For example, here is what my fact-checking found:
1. The student leaders were selected simply because they were the public face of the protest. (Leah Katz-Hernandez and Delia Lozano-Martinez were appointed by the FSSA, but they faded quickly due to personal reasons, which I will not air here out of respect for their privacy). Ryan Commerson and LaToya Plummer were appointed by the FSSA, while Chris Corrigan was the mayor of Tent City. Tara Holcomb, in their perception, became the de facto replacement for Katz Hernandez and Lozano-Martinez, though it never became official.
2. The organizers are very, very well aware that many, many people played leadership roles at one time or another or in different ways and it was never, ever their intent to appoint these four to a higher level than the other people who were involved.
3. The gala was so expensive because the hotel was outrageously expensive (but comparable with what hotels charge), and they have not broken even yet. Food was free with admission.
4. The organizers announced the gala at a public event and invited people to sign up for committees. So this was not a hand-picked group of people in charge of the gala.
5. The focus of the gala was on the Bay Area contribution, while honoring as many of the student leaders as they could. They asked anyone who was a student and part of the protest to get up and say a few words to thunderous applause. The PowerPoint they showed thanked over 25 or 30, probably more, student leaders.
With all these facts, some questions may remain, and they may be worthy of discussion. For example, did they consult with the FSSA about who should be invited? If not, why not? (It could have been an honest oversight on their part.) Did they consider hosting something for free and giving up the fancy hotel surroundings? If so, why did they go the way they did? Some suggestions may remain as well, such as inviting all of the student leaders to the gala. This would have resulted in a more responsible item being posted, and it would have served as an outlet for those with concerns.
Another thing that irks me about the blog entry is how the comments section turned into a weapon against some selected individuals in the Bay Area. This is not Chris's fault, of course, and every entry anywere about the Bay Area seems to elicit vile comments casting aspersions on David Eberwein's character. This was no exception, and it seems to have dragged Joey Baer into the fray as well. Based on what I've read as well as on the info I've found while doing my fact-checking, it seems that some people in the Bay Area genuinely like Eberwein, some think he's a total asshole, while others merely tolerate him. Isn't this par for the course for many people we know? It's just that Eberwein is über-visible and he stirs up stronger feelings than most. My suggestion: Lay off the negative comments, and if you don't live where he lives, be grateful. If you do live in the same community and you don't like him, figure out how to tolerate him if you aren't willing to give him feedback. The same is true for all individuals that have been attacked in DeafBlogLand. Personal attacks are DIVISIVE, and they do NOT help us learn how to respect and listen to each other. Attacking people does NOT unify us as a community.
Another thing - why the heck are people attacking the Bay Area left and right? What did they ever do to attract such ire from the community? From what I hear, it is one huge geographic group, and there are many groups within the Bay Area. Ergo, it's unfair to lump them all together in one large deaf group, because that's just not how they function. Also, it looks like one or more group in the Bay Area is full of movers and shakers. They just DO instead of sitting around and talking about stuff. OK. What's so bad about that? I do NOT get why this community is the source of so much acrimony.
If there are genuine concerns about some groups in the Bay Area, then why can't the national/global deaf community act on them in a more positive, productive way? For instance, why can't some concerns be aired via e-mail or videophone discussions directly to people in the area? And if some issues need to be raised on the national stage via blogs, then why can't the entries be less inflammatory and more fact-based? Anything less serves to harm the unity that so many people have worked for this year.
Lay off the bashing, everyone, and resolve your concerns productively, please. Remember: UNITY via open, respectful dialogue should be your, my, and our ultimate goal.
12.14.2006
Food for thought
George Veditz, who was the NAD president almost a century ago, said
this:
this:
Deaf people are people of the eye.
I may write a post about my interpretation of this quote, but I'd love
to know what you out in DeafBlogLand think it means and how it applies
to you and your experiences.
12.06.2006
My First Post
People may wonder why I chose such a controversial figure for my pseudonym. They may wonder if there are supposed to be any religious undertones or any iconoclastic undertones. The answer is simply that both the real and mythic Saunières were protectors of the truth.
My perception of truth is that it is what you make of it. Perception alters reality; therefore, your perception, attitudes, and beliefs frame your own reality. I expect that my truth will resonate with some people and strike a dissonant chord with others. I'm starting this site because I feel my truth has come under attack from members of my own community and I feel compelled to take a stand and protect my truth.
I believe in free and open dialogue, as long as it remains honest yet respectful. But there are more and more attacks against those of us who believe that ASL should be available for all of us and who believe in a "deaf space." We are called militant, radical, and we are told that
people fear us. That's whack. I'm sorry, but it is. Why can't a small group of angry people who feel persecuted accept that we can stand up for our rights and our safe places WITHOUT rejecting people who came from many different educational, genetic, and linguistick backgrounds?
I believe that EVERYONE who is not hearing has the right to be part of our community. Why not? Think about it. If we start telling people they can't be part of the community because they grew up mainstreamed, we punish them because of choices they did not make. Isn't that dumb?
Later, we will tell people that they can't be part of the community because they are not brown-eyed, not from NYC, not from Fanwood, so therefore no one who is blue eyed, born in Boston, and went to Frederick can be part of the community even if he is a native signer, was always part of ESDAA tournaments, and is president of the MDAD. How stupid to start rejecting people for any reason other than his or her specific personality!
But sad to say, there are people who do exactly that thing. I went to a party one time and they were all mainstreamed except for me. Most of them were really mean to me, saying things like I was a retard and an animal just cuz I went to a school for the deaf. Other groups do that too.
The good thing is that most deaf people are smarter than that and accept everyone.
But why are some of us continuing to behave in ways that divide us? Both "superior" behavior and "victim/being persecuted" behavior are equally bad. Neither helps us learn about each other and learn about how we can work together to be a strong community. My suggestion is just forget about how horribly some people treated you and approach everyone with an open mind and an open heart. If someone is not nice to you just because you are different, stand up for yourself respectfully. But but but do not forget that not everyone will do that. Most people won't. Let's work together and be positive!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)