Candyland still stuck in molasses swamp

“beyond the scope of his or her practice”

Why did Candy suggest we read something (latest AB 2072) and then omit / neglect to pinpoint the telling point q

From AB2072

“The pamphlet shall be provided:
(1) By an audiologist immediately upon identification of a newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall
not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond
the scope of his or her practice
.”

red emphasis – mine cuz i got me reading glasses on

if ya care to know what the scope of practice is for audiologists – scroll down to see the 23 items on this list

http://www.audible-difference.com/Articles/definition_of_an_audiologist.htm

Ya know the new part of ab2072 that now says that audiologist can only counsel re their speciality which is what folks q
A: H earing
Hmmmm.
Unbiased qqq
indeed …. not

And all along the rah rah rah we love ab 2072 (and u oppose folks suck) folks have been saying give parents the information of the gospel of options – especially those options that EXCLUDE a natural and fully accessible language and don’t for gosh sake send the parents and Babes that h ear not to language acquisition experts no way

Just mandate require legislate RULE that they all go to the fix it up chappy so he or she can make them all happy

It ain’t a small world after all folks
It is a h earing world

Or didn’t ya h ear that
Or read that part

The option on the table today is
Stand for justice or injustice

Believe in the spiritual audacity to assert our somebodyness (mlk)
Or
Believe it’s better to h ear and or behave as h earing folks do (ie audism)

The choice / the option is ours

We can be ostriches or allies for the oppressor or we can take a stand for that which is right, just, and good

We can wear yellow and take a stand

or

we can be yellow and be too afraid to assert the radical notion that it is ok to be Deaf

There is no way to peace – peace is the way (Gandhi AJ Muste)

Positive peace is not the absence of tension but rather the presence of justice (mlk)

mandating parents to see audiologist that can only counsel about fixing the ear is not an option folks

Ab 2072 folks – with u in spirit
Shine shine shine shine
Let the truth shine
And justice roll down like a mighty stream

It may help candy wash away the molAsses Muck

Peace
Patti

image from flickr

Advertisements

100 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. ASLElla
    Aug 19, 2010 @ 15:10:17

    Exciting to see a new more direct group formed called DP3 – Deaf People Protecting Parents!
    Thank u for all your support and trust in us small but determined folks who re fighting for justice for Deaf babies and truth for their parents.

  2. DeafA
    Aug 19, 2010 @ 21:45:16

    This is terrible.

    If I was to be at to their level, I would argue what if the audiologist scope of practice is hearing aids only. In my area, the nearest Cochlear Implant is about 2 1/2 miles, therefore all the audiologists in my area only specialized hearing aids and they don’t do cochlear implant mapping at all. The audiologist who does Implant mapping have to be near a cochlear implant ENT surgeon in case somethng goes wrong. Also, I heard a mother complained how her child’s audiologist only sold a certain brands of hearing aids (and some of them only do certain brands of Cochlear IImplant) and she wanted to know why the audiologist didn’t tell her about other brands. Therefore, an audiologist scope of practice may well be marketing the brands he is selling.

  3. handeyes
    Aug 19, 2010 @ 22:50:59

    thanks for the comment Ella

    im all for peaceful activism – direct confrontation – its all part of the soul force Gandhi and MLK worked for – even the suffragists featured in the HBO special Iron Jawed Angels

    the right to a fully accessible language for Deaf folks should be something we all r fighting for

    re: DP3 – cool – look forward to learning more
    peace
    patti

  4. handeyes
    Aug 19, 2010 @ 22:53:16

    DeafA
    thanks for ur comment
    seems “the scope of her or his practice” refers to:
    http://www.audible-difference.com/Articles/definition_of_an_audiologist.htm
    scroll down

    re: Audiologists peddling specific brands – oy. did u see the dept of justice suit against Cochlear Americas in kickbacks to doctors and audiologists etc for getting folks to use their brand

    peace

    patti

  5. Don G.
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 00:31:58

    SourCandy, Kookynuts, and their ilk are looking at AB 2072 and taking it totally at face value, without examining it for potential loopholes, pitfalls, traps, and glaring omissions (although they’re totally willing to make their own omissions). Willful ignorance and obstinacy is totally uncool.

  6. Jean Boutcher
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 00:59:50

    Patti, I am sorry for being off on a tangent, but I would like to ask Don who Ann_C is. From her comments on Candy’s, BS’s, and Mike McConnell’s blogposts, I gather that she lives in California.
    Would you, Don, by any chance, know who she is? Which school did she attend? A Gallaudetian?

  7. Candy
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 03:09:54

    Patti…

    If you look at my post, you will see that I quoted the amended portion (quote is darkly highlighted) and it did include “beyond the scope of his or her practice.” It’s all there. So, I’m not sure if your glasses need some more cleaning? 😉

    If a parent receives information via pamphlet and have questions about hearing aid, for example and starts to ASK audie questions, then the audie can talk about it as long as it is within his/her practice. But if the parent does not ask then they can’t , they just give the brochure. There can’t be a gag order on audie, obviously.

    Jean, why does it matter who Ann_C is? Don’t be like the others, going on a witch hunt. : /

    Ciao~

  8. handeyes
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 04:17:20

    well they may be trying to save face by presenting things at face value but even if u look at the face of it and the facts of it – some things r pretty dang obvious – like why it might not be desirable to have to be REQUIRED to see an audiologist if ya dont want to

    re: willful ignorance and obstinacy is totally uncool – AGREED

    shall we add in arrogance, audism, and aloofness too?

  9. handeyes
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 04:31:05

    Hi Candy
    thanks for stopping by
    I saw that you quoted the portion of “beyond the scope of her or his practice” but it seems that you neglected to discuss the FACT that this in fact legislates that it is fine for audiologists to go beyond just explaining a pamphlet and move into the area of selling their wares, promoting their specialty – to make folks hear more.

    how is this unbiased?

    if the purpose of the pamphlet is to ensure that no Deaf child’s language access gets left behind – why is NOT the bill legislating that they must see a bilingual specialist? Why are they NOT required to see a Deaf adult? why are they NOT required to see an ASL specialist?

    Why an audiologist? already have the full law re: the testing and tracking of the babe-that-does-not-hear – why now this legislated / mandated AUDIOlogist portal?

    who pays for this audiologist visit?

    what is the audiologist most likely to say and offer and prompt and prod given ” her or his scope of practice”?

    http://www.audible-difference.com/Articles/definition_of_an_audiologist.htm

    the latest language of the AB 2072 bill actually says that the audiologist can offer this info re: hearing aids, cochlear implants, avt, etc without being asked by the parent

    that me friend is a bit of the problem as it is “NOT UNBIASED” (I.e. its biased by its very nature)

    Candy – instead of digging urself deeper in the molasses swamp – how about digging yourself out?

    ill be the first to offer u me hand.

    dont ya even wonder about the sponsors of the AB 2072 bill being part of the oral / aural only extremism or audiologists or medical associations?

    dont the Dept of Justice suit against Cochlear Americans for kickbacks to audiologists, doctors, and other health care professionals even bother u a bit – cause a bit of a red flag re: some of the fluff words of “unbiased” and “option”

    dont some of the behind the scenes maneuvering to get the audiology and medical industry on the STAKEholders’ panel raise ur eye brows a bit?

    dont the fact that there is NO NO NO Oral / aural only association made up of oral / aural ONLY Deaf adults out their advocating for oral / aural only programs tell ya something? why is it we dont see the adult “successes” of oral / aural only, who never later learned sign, being VOCAL on oral / aural behalf – why is it only the programs, schools, services, specialists, and some parents who are all ga ga over it and not the actual byproducts/alumni of it.

    keep in mind that folks who are supporting access to a natural and fully accessible language via ASL and also English are not advocating for the banishment of oral / auditory development

    they are not painting a mutually exclusive picture like the oral / aural and/or English only extremists do.

    and also pls note that most of the folks who are opposed AB 2072 actually have experienced the detrimental effects (see the ICED Vancouver 2010 New Era agreement) of oral / aural only programs on themselves and their families

    they know an inalienable right when they have been denied it

    u were blessed with a natural and fully accessible language as well as the English language.

    i can not fathom why you would be supporting again and AGAIN – proposed legislation that will sanction and legitimize programs that actively EXCLUDE a fully natural and accessible language for Deaf children

    peace

    patti

  10. DeafA
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 06:25:34

    (need to make a correction on my post, the local CI center is 2 1/2 hours – not miles)

    Yes I did read about that and that was one of my point. Also, there are surgeons who are not trained to implant certain brands because it is made differently or have very little experience on it. Therefore, They will only suggest brands they are familiar with. Which is ok, because people like to know their risks. BUT, they may never tell parents about advanced technologies that is offered in another clinic. It may not be his job to do so.

  11. Barb DiGi
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 06:26:16

    There is a contact person relating to the h ear but when it comes to ASL that is most likely foreign to new parents of a Deaf baby, who are they gonna call? Is there a phone number or referral contact the parents have access to when they request for more information about ASL? With that bill, it left out the blanks as they only are able to call the ASL-busters.

  12. Don G.
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 06:40:49

    Nope, no idea, Jean.

  13. DeafA
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 07:05:45

    The way I see it is if they mandate a followup audiologist, mandate parents to take brochures, then I don’t see a problem them mandate to see someone from deaf prespective who dealt with the silent side of deafness…. since they are forced to see people from a hearing prespective.

    If you visit dark, why not visit light?

  14. handeyes
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 13:31:09

    ah Barb
    u r such a radical smile – u want them to see BOTH = BOTH?
    what hEARasy you speak (or rather sign cuz you are one of THOSE people)

    BOTH would mean equal / unbiased – they ain’t having that uh nuh

    why aint they doing both – oh cuz they are unbiased

    huh? u ask

    see folks – spin spin spin

    but we say shine shine shine – let it shine

    the truth not the b.s.

    re: ASL-busters – well since the ghostbusters were fighting bad and evil ghosts – maybe we should set up the B.S. Busters

    I ain’t afraid of no b.s.
    I ain’t afraid of no b.s.

    Who u gonna call? – B.S. busters!
    If you’re all alone
    pick up the phone
    and call – B.S. Busters!

    If you’ve had a dose
    of a freaky boast
    U’d better call – B.S. busters!

    I ain’t afraid of no B.S.
    I ain’t afraid of no B.S.

    Don’t get caught alone, oh no
    BS Busters!
    When it comes through your door (or internet, or wifi, or legislature)
    Unless u just want some more
    I think u better call – B.S. busters!
    OW!

    who u gonna call? – B.S. busters!

    and barb digi – u be a mighty good B.S. busters

    thanks for trying to shed a light on the truth – it is the biggest b.s. buster we got

    peace

    patti

  15. handeyes
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 13:34:33

    DeafA

    well i love ur last question
    “if u visit dark, why not visit light?”

    that is is the question of the day folks – why isN’T this neutraless proposed legislation mandating parents get both

    really my central issues are:
    that they are mandating anything.
    stay out of the ears of babies i say

    if u gotta be mandating and legislating cuz u ultimately dont want children deprived of LANGUAGE – then u best be mandating that all Deaf children have access to a full, natural and accessible language (ASL) and English

    let there be light

    peace

    patti

  16. DeafA
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 14:51:26

    I agree 🙂

    I hate it when gov’t are requiring Audiologists to take and give brochures to parents that is heavily funded by oral school and cochlear implant companies (which the wording of the brochure done probably by oral only organization– you know how people love to play with words– like calling ASL as communication method instead of Language. It already confirmed that ASL is a living language) . The gov’t really need to stay out of deaf children’s ears.

  17. Dianrez
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 15:24:17

    On one side the oral-oriented professionals and schools are advocating their side. On the other Deaf people are advocating for theirs. Both claim successes. Who is the parent or the legislator to believe?

    They’ll believe what they know best–hearing. They’ll also believe the glossiest, most professional-looking, prettiest stuff about it–which the hearing aid and the CI industries have plenty of. Where the money flows, they’ll have the best materials.

    On the other side, the people who sign have an uphill battle. Not only are they in the minority by numbers, they also have less money flowing to them because they aren’t a business other than in publicly funded education. Boy, talk about stacked decks.

    Here we have a bill that is confused between medical and educational approaches. It sounds like one has to choose between the two, basically. Not so. Here the parent becomes hopelessly confused.

    The bill should be trashed and efforts restarted. The first thing that should be done is to divide the topic into two–medical approaches and educational approaches.

    Separately.

    Two separate brochures each with lists of resources. And with contributors that specifically include ASL, as it is a language as well as part of an educational approach. In order to see this issue more clearly, just substitute a foreign language in place of “sign language” in the bill. The issue becomes more clearly defined.

  18. handeyes
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 21:02:43

    Hi Diane

    i believe u have hit something here:
    “Here we have a bill that is confused between medical and educational approaches.”

    i would wager we should go a bit deeper still and see that it is really pathological approach vs. linguistic and human rights approach

    do we continue to allow governmental, educational, medical entities to allow and sanction linguistic and cultural genocide (ie endorsing oral / aural only programs)?

    do we continue to make babies “work for their language” when Hearing babies get it naturally?

    peace

    patti

  19. Dianrez
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 22:43:01

    Hi, Patti,
    Maybe if we kept it simple for these parents…by separating the medical (audiological and surgical) approach from the educational approaches, we can get the devices out of the way first. That part is entirely up to the parents and their comfort with that approach.

    Focusing upon the educational, we can analyze the oral, the auditory-verbal, the bi-bi and variants of signed English without any emotional ties to the medical. It will be easier to expand on the pros and cons and present evidence available for each.

    Theoretically, parents will be easier to talk to about educational approaches to their deaf child. The “fix” mentality will be decided already one way or another, and put aside in its own time frame. Since education is seen as a flexible and fluid movement, it doesn’t demand the “decide! or all is lost!” frame that surgery does. All it asks is “start now”.

    That reduces the critical issues to a minimum–“start now” is universally agreed upon; so it could be just “through the ear or through the eyes?” Most parents will want to opt for both and it will be easier to convince both the legislators and the parents of the wisdom in a comprehensive approach at the beginning.

  20. handeyes
    Aug 20, 2010 @ 23:00:43

    diane thanks for ur comment and this dialogue

    me like like what u r saying and i think that is how the oppose 2072 folks have been framing things – removing the term hearing loss, advocating for language rights, cognitive development etc all re: Educational approach etc

    now wondering how u see the “must see an audiologist” mandate in terms of an educational approach and removing the medical component?

    the babies and infants r already mandated to be screened and tested. why once it is determined that they are Deaf MUST the parents go to an audiologist to get the pamphlet?

    see the “scope of practice” of the audiologist and it is all pathology / medical based

    much peace

    patti

  21. Dianrez
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 00:41:43

    When my twins were tested in the newborn nursery, we were given only “Passed” or “Failed” The next logical step was the audiologist to find out the degree of hearing our boy was born with. Once we knew he was severely to profoundly deaf, there was a three month follow-up. Somewhere along the line we were asked if we would consider a cochlear implant. The answer was no. No further information or questions were given us. Effectively, the door had closed.

    At this point, as knowledgeable Deaf parents, I began researching educational options. After I visited several programs, our boy began in the infant program at RSD. Again, an audiologist involvement at RSD, after which education began in earnest using baby sign, hearing aids, sound awareness and visual stimulation.

    It’s true that the audiologist is medically oriented but that is the required entry point to programming. Otherwise no funds will be available for infant stimulation programs. Once we got past the medical (diagnosis) we were fully into educational approaches.

    Missing is a multidisciplinary referral and support service that guides parents, starts them on a year-long baby program, teaches all communication pathways including ASL, models infant stimulation techniques, and guides them throughout adjustment and experimentation. During the year cochlear implantation and hearing aid referrals may be included at the parents’ option. By the end of the year the parents will have a better idea of the best options for their child and can proceed with confidence and knowledge.

    Today the only programs like this are direct pathways into CI-AVT therapy, or oral training, or infant stimulation associated with specific programs such as John Tracy, Oralingua or similar private oral schools, or state schools for the deaf. Here “choice” is demanded at a time when it shouldn’t be.

    The people promoting AB2702 are effectively enforcing the present system.

  22. Shel
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 03:32:53

    Dianrez,

    Like Patti, I like what you have been saying. You should blog on this issue, and do definitely include all the points you raised here. I think a lot of people would be quite interested in what you have to say, which makes a lot of sense.

    Y ou stated: The people promoting AB2072 are effectively enforcing the present system. Precisely!

    What’s more , in the panel, the Deaf would be in the minority, little better than tokens without real power to effect change or advocate for bilingualism. Compound this with the confusion between medical vs education views, and a healthy dose of “father knows best” (plantation mentality), and a serious lack of understanding of Deaf issues, history, and language, and you have a recipe for a worse mess for the Deaf children to come in terms of language competency and literacy as well as self esteem and sense of identity. We will have many more solitaires and lost souls.

    I like your suggestion about trashing the present bill and coming up with a bill that requires two pamphlets. That is an idea worth exploring.

  23. Karen Mayes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 11:19:26

    Ahhh… this is the first time I saw this latest blog.

    Hmm… don’t we all love it when politics get involved? :-/

    Hm. I believe in parents’ choice. But I also believe that they deserve to be presented with all options INCLUDING BOTH pros and cons, fairly. But at the same time, the parents need to be told that the foundation of language and the cognition are essential, that they need to expose their newly diagnosed babies/children to visual means (ASL, for an instance) right away, not to wait until they meet with specialists via referrals. Time is essential… 0 year old to 5 year old… brains are like sponges. Visual, visual, visual… If sufficient residential hearing, add sounds to visual. Either way.

    The way I see it… as I have said in the past… one could view AB 2072, if it passes, as a new opportunity for ASL advocates to up their marketing of ASL. Remember, whenever a door closes, another door opens.

    Don’t need to throw mud at me. I am out of here 😉

  24. Karen Mayes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 11:26:37

    One more thing… the lady from Indiana who was one of the people who helped drafting up the AB 2072… she heads Hands and Voices chapter in Indiana. She saw to that the law pass in Indiana a few years ago… whenever an infant or a child is diagnosed, the information is sent to Indiana’s Dept. of Health and Dept. of Health contacts Hands and Voices chapter and it sends Parent Guides to the parents to present the options and to act as counselors. My husband went to the three days of training last year and the lecturers emphasized on being neutral in presenting the options and if the parents had more questions, they were to contact the numbers/websites/etc to get more information. So I am guessing that’s what California is planning to.

    Here’s the link for you to have an idea:

    http://inhandsandvoices.org/gbys.html

  25. handeyes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 13:55:07

    blog blog blog this

    copy and paste and put up at Musings on Communication Dianrez – pretty please

    its grand

    re: the follow up audiologist visit – i feel it should be YOUR choice

    as parents to choose if that is needed or wanted – not mandated

    peace
    patti

  26. handeyes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 13:57:31

    re: ur last line – huh?

    peace

    patti

  27. Karen Mayes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 14:03:20

    I am viewed as one of “naysayers”, sooo…. I am mostly guilty by association with certain people ~shrug~

  28. handeyes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 14:13:33

    heye karen –
    re: being viewed as “one of the naysayers” – what is ur own view?

    do you support a state government endorsing oral / aural only programs – programs that actively exclude a natural and fully accessible visual LANGUAGE (not signed system) for Deaf infants, babies, and children????

    re: the link above – i checked it out but no parent guide there for me to see and compare with the wording / framing of the latest version of AB 2072

    i also checked the national Hands & Voices site and under resources / resource guides found the :: Indiana Family Resource Guide for Children with Hearing Loss :: but the link was a dead end

    if u happen to have a copy of it – can u link me or send?

    ya might be interested in the latest People of the Eye entry
    https://handeyes.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/ab-2072-why-it-chucks/

    i didnt name u as one of the folks who has been singing the praise of AB 2072 and thus advocating for oral / aural EXCLUSIONARY programs to be sanctioned by a state government but if should have – let me know

    my guess (but guessing is dangerously close to assuming) that when you say you advocate for BOTH that means that you don’t support programs that EXCLUDE / OMIT / FORBID / BAN / DISCOURAGE bilingualism (ASL and English)

    by saying u want both – you are saying bi-bi

    the folks saying AB 2072 is GREAT because it includes Options that exclude is dis-congruent with your assertion that Deaf infants, babies and families deserve both and im inclined to agree

    but if im misunderstanding ya – holler and i’ll add ur name. don’t like to omit or exclude folks

    peace

    patti

  29. handeyes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 14:36:39

    also – even if u were a “naysayer” and i ain’t saying u r

    is mud slinging what i do?

    i kinda been seeing me self as a muckraker

    me wrong?

    peace
    patti

  30. handeyes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 14:49:10

    Shel –
    the angels sing when u pop up

    yep – i agree. Dianrez should blog her testimony.

    Dianrez – blog blog blog

    Shel – re: minority on the panel – YEP
    pretty slick how they slipped in:
    “An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating
    infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
    (L)  A physician who specializes in pediatric otolaryngology,
    appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
    (M)  The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her
    designee, who shall be an ex officio member. ”

    so much for self-determination and full participation in decision making as it pertains to Deaf folks and their language rights – ya know the thing that ICED 2010 Vancouver New Era agreement declares is a must have

    nothing about us without us – cha important

    much peace

    patti

  31. Karen Mayes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 14:55:36

    Ah… I am what you’d call a “moderate”. I am for bi-bi, yup. If infants/children have residential hearing, include speech and listening and hearing aids, etc… as long as they SHOW any aptitude for it. It’s just a matter of meeting a child’s needs and following the child’s lead. What is missing here in this whole AB 2072 fiasco… is the need for language and cognition foundation so it looks like too much emphasis is placed on audiologists and CIs. Just don’t wait for medical professionals to help out; focus on placing down bricks for developing language and cognition right away.

    I like Barry Sewell. I like Mike McConnell. I like Candy. I like Paotie… they all have different point of views. I like Barb Digi. I like Dianrez. I like you. Etc…. it’s a matter of a balance… ying/yang, so to speak. All of you have valid points. I don’t like taking sides; what’s important to me is to make sure that the Deaf children’s need for langauge and cognition development is immediately met. And that the information about the options are presented in a balanced way… with pros and cons. No transparency. Which is not often easy, because each Deaf child is different, depending on the degree of hearing loss and the aptitude. My son is an aural late-deafened teenager with CI who has consistently shown his comfort with talking and listening even tho he’s comfortable with ASL as well while my hard of hearing daughter show a more preference of ASL over talking/listening. And I make it clear to both of them that it’s OK for them to like whatever they feel comfortable with.

    Regarding Indiana, that’s all I have… we had the notebooks, brochures, etc… but we tossed them out just before we moved to NYS, since NYS does not have Hands and Voices chapter. You could contact Lisa Kovacs who works in training Parent Guides in Indiana to get an idea of how it works…

  32. Karen Mayes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 15:06:23

    The email address I just gave to you… it’s from Hands and Voices website.

  33. handeyes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 15:10:20

    heye karen
    re: Lisa’s email – i just removed it from ur comment above as i dont want it to get accessed for spam purposes etc – its fine if they list it on their own site just dont want it posted it here for the trolls or auto spamming systems to grab and spamalot

    thank u for giving it to me

    what is the name of the person u said drafted AB2072?
    i havent seen ANYTHING coming from the Hands & Voices folks re: AB2072 and i dont see them listed as one of the original sponsors of the bill

    re: all u wrote above – i think we are in agreement re: Deaf infants, babies and children should not be denied a fully natural and accessible language

    still not sure why u seem to be saying that AB 2072 can be a good thing and an opportunity when it is endorsing oral / aural only programs (programs that actively exclude ASL and natural visual language)

    that is where im confused

    i totally agree with u that all kids are different and language and cognition FOUNDATION are paramount

    peace

    patti

  34. Karen Mayes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 15:19:56

    Lisa Kovacs. She works for Dept of Health in Indiana and she is one of the people who helped draft the bill. Hands and Voices was NOT involved in drafting the bill. Lisa was just one of the consultants, along with the guy from Utah, I forgot his name, and a few others, last year. From my experience and my observation of Hands and Voice chapter in Indiana, I think the bill would be a good asset to the parents in California. That’s my opinion, that’s all.

  35. Karen Mayes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 15:34:49

    I just paged my husband who’s at Silent Eagles picnic now and asked him if we did threw out the books by the Guide program and he said he doubted that and that they were likely packed in one of the boxes in the garage. So I will go through the boxes and if I find it, I will bring it over this Wednesday. Okay, gotta go and have a wonderful day… my daughter and I are going to the lake.

    Ta da.

  36. Ann_C
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 18:34:09

    Jean Boutcher,

    Lol, guess I’m persona non grata.

    patti,

    I agree with some of the things that Karen brought up in her replies. I do hope that the CA brochure will put great emphasis on “the earlier the language acquisition, the better a deaf child can communicate”. Like, start right now with your newborn as the baby’s brain soaks up language like a sponge, and not wait til 3 years of age.

    But it’s not our business (meaning the deaf community’s) or the govn’t’s or the audie’s or the Deaf advocate’s business to influence the parents’ decision. We’ve seen examples of parents’ decisions influenced by audies, by govnt agencies, by non-profit’s, and by ASL advocates as well. They are all well-meaning ppl, but…

    that’s the trouble– bias creep. I’m not saying that AB 2072 will eliminate bias altogether, but it will reduce it when it is required that parents are given info about all language/ communication modalities BEFORE they consult with the “experts”, be that a Deaf advocate, an audie, a doctor, a Deaf non-profit org, whoever. I hope the brochure does outline the pro’s and con’s of each option, a realistic view without the marketing slickness, and that it reflects a balance of all options, not relegating one option to 2 to 3 sentences while others have pages-long descriptions. Parents need to have this info in their hands as soon as possible so that they’re not left wondering what they can do for their deaf infant. Hands and Voices is a good org, I hope it is listed as a resource in the CA brochure, along with others.

    I do believe that the panel required by the bill will make every effort to create a balanced brochure.

    AB 2072 is not a perfect bill, no bill ever is, as many bills reflect the input from all sides. We win some, and we lose some. Supporters get some of their desired points, and also lose some. Opponents get some of their desired points, and also lose some. Nobody’s walking away with the whole enchilada, patti. There was dialogue, and the deaf community has begun to learn how to negotiate points. That was the point of the “Plant a Seed” blogs that Candy and I posted.

    BTW, artful Monopoly board made from tiny beads. You make that? 😉

    Ann_C

  37. handeyes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 21:17:37

    heye Karen
    hope u have a good time at the lake
    re: the materials and info – big thanks

    peace

    patti

  38. handeyes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 21:33:36

    Ann_C’s in the house

    Heye Ann_C

    ya wanna provide a wee bit of info re: who u is here??? up to u

    re: the whole enchilada – why not – why can’t we all walk away with the whole enchilada???? oh cuz one of the “options” says you must exclude / omit / ban natural signed language – yep that is a problem spot eh

    re: what “the Deaf community has learned”: oh girl i have learned so so so so much about spinning, twisting, jumping

    One thing i ain’t quite figured out yet is what have you and Candy et al learned about “how to negotiate points”? What advocacy did you actually do to get AB 2072 IMPROVED – i did see u blogging and commenting on how we all should be doing things but it ain’t quite clear to me what u all did to make sure that AB 2072 was a just, fair and good bill

    i may have missed it while trying to read all ur blogging about “Oppose 2072 ‘s Farce”, your letter of support to the CA Senate Health Committee, and your blog entry where u speak of the anti-christ and Hitler in relations to Deafhood

    im learning girl – definitely learning.

    i’ve learned how powerful and beautiful the Deaf Multilingual community is when it is out and about and ACTIVE – peaceful direct confrontation in the spirit of Gandhi and MLK

    re: folks who are trigger happy with labeling folks as audist, deficit thinkers, colonizers etc – nah that ain’t for me. but i will call actions and words for what they are and will name b.s. when i see it – ya know kinda what the muckrakers did

    re: the monopoly board – its actually from Candyland (from flickr)
    i added the link to the website in case u want to browse the other images there

    interesting u thought of monopoly in relations to AB 2072 – hmmm

    i do thank ya for stopping by

    peace

    patti

  39. Karen Mayes
    Aug 21, 2010 @ 23:07:41

    Hey I am back… you can check out my FB for the photos. Sugar Mountain Sweete Bakery rocks.

    Sorry for going off of the point. Have a nice weekend… I am somewhat in sugar overload now, ha.

    Ta la da!

  40. Ann_C
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 00:00:19

    patti,

    You read the most recent 8-20-10 amended version of AB 2072? I recommend that you do so at the leginfo.ca.gov website.

    ASL is definitely in there and not as “visual language”. It has not been omitted or fudged over. The amended bill doesn’t say “not limited to ASL” either.

    I have never said anything against ASL and have always supported ASL as an option to be included in info for parents to learn about, but not to the temporary exclusion of other options, as CDNIAS’ reform statement espouses. That statement is hardly a transparent document, with no inclusion of other stakeholders– such as hearing parents and oral deaf/ hh ppl, for examples. There have been much “spinning, twisting, jumping”, as you say, on the opponents’ side.

    When Candy and I wrote “Plant A Seed”, there were many suggestions made about desired changes in the bill, that Candy and I were in effect replying, “Don’t tell us, go tell/ write your senators about what you want to see in that bill– just don’t go around blowing hot air over it”. Plant that seed of an idea, which meant the deaf community had to communicate with ugh, their “enemy”. Mendoza and other hearing legislators are probably still wondering WTF happened. The deaf community finally roared, no pun intended, instead of just thumbing “no, you didn’t include us”. I’m not taking any credit, there were many forces at work and blessings in disguise. Many v/bloggers contributed their part, including yours.

    The bill may continue to evolve into the eleventh hour, who knows.

    As for my background/ identity context, ain’t gonna go there. Ppl in this community blow context way out of proportion when the focus of discussion should be on what one speaks about. Suffice it to say that I’m oral deaf and wear one HA. And that’s enough context, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t question who are you, are you culturally Deaf or oral, where did you go to school, etcetera, do I? Never done that to anybody in the deaf blogosphere and I’m not about to. 😉

    You and I both struggle with wordiness. I’ll try to keep it short and simple next time. 😛

    Ann_C

  41. Jean Boutcher
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 00:11:42

    Hi Ann_C: You “persona non grata”? LOL, Au contraîre! Actually, I hoped that you would live in California because I thought perhaps you and Don would be interested in working together to help address the concerns of California’s deaf community to the state senate in regard to Mendoza’s bill, AB-2072. 😀

  42. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 00:24:21

    heye Ann_C

    i did not say that ASL is omitted from the bill

    i said that the bill includes folks and approaches that actively exclude ASL

    ie the bill is sponsored largely by Oral / Aural only programs
    ie the bill requires 5 auditory-oral ONLY folks sit on the stakeholders panel
    ie the bill requires that the pamphlet be funded by donations which will most likely come from the original sponsors of the bill
    who are they:
    the original sponsors of AB 2072 are:
    * California Coalition (private schools and programs)
    * CCHAT Center
    * Echo Horizon School
    * Jean Weingarten Peninusla Oral School
    * John Tracy Clinic
    * Auditory Oral School of San Francisco
    * Oralingua
    * American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
    * California Academy of Audiology
    * California Association of Private Special Education Schools
    * California Hospital Association
    * California Speech-Language Hearing Association

    re: the amended bill does not say “not limited to ASL” – i was working from the Aug 17 version – thank u for the link to the latest version that is up now

    glad to see they have removed the “not limited to ASL”…

    can u point me to the CDNIAS reform document pls

    re: the purpose of ur “plant a seed” blog – thanks for sharing
    what were the purposes of your other blogs on the topic of AB 2072???

    Re: the Deaf community roaring – oh i think we have been roaring for a mighty long time – with and without yellow t-shirt

    as jessie jackson said of the Gallaudet Board in 1988 the problem is not that the students can not hear but rather that the board does not listen

    we r D E A F hear us roar
    just like women have been roaring
    just like African-Americans have been roaring
    just like Jewish people have been roaring
    just like Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender folks have been roaring

    just like many other disenfranchised groups

    my question is – i am uncertain as to what u have been roaring for Ann_C

    it has not appeared to me that it has been a call for social justice and equality of condition

    instead it has looked like alot of preaching at us about how we all should be doing things in the way and manner u think we ought to be doing it

    which is very irksome

    but again – may be i have been reading u all wrong

    i do misunderstand stuff at time

    i know u and Candy r real good and picking through the blogspheres for quotes here and there that u feel are damaging – i know that Dianrez found some mighty interestings negative comments re: ASL+English over at mike’s place re: the cons of bi-bi

    there has been alot of myth spining about the ASL advocates being ASL only folks – and that simply aint true – they are bilingual / multilingual folks – no one wants to repeat the reign of error (ICED Milan 1880) in the opposite direction

    what i try to do meself but often fail is to re-read me own stuff and find out just how far off the mark i have flown or how harsh i have been

    i can be VERY VERY VERY firm and in doing so – sometimes folks can not see or hear the love behind my words. my love of self, of Deaf and Hearing folks, of you and all the to other folks who have crossed me path in the blogsphere

    re: sharing your background – i thank ya

    re: me background – i am partially Deaf (moderate to severe dB loss) – congential bilaterial sensory neural damage – cause unknown but may be hereditary

    i am a ginger people ; ) (recently learned that redheads r discriminated against in some parts of the world and many myths about them and even a facebook group called “kick a ginger”)

    i am an XX person

    come from Hearing family and me own created family is all Hearing

    i sign, i talk, i walk, i dance, i skip, i think

    i love

    anything else?

    re: struggle with wordiness – girl i am with u on that one.

    less is more is a wonderful aim for me but one i often miss the mark of

    re: ur aim to keep it short and simple next time

    no need to here. no worries. we r talking complex stuff and sometimes that requires volume and if we r destined to be folks of the wordy words – so be it!

    i do value and appreciate all u have written

    thank u

    peace

    patti

  43. Dianrez
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 01:14:36

    Wonder how much difference one’s background makes in our advocacy. A lot, I’d say. It influences what we say to advocate for our own kind.

    Example: I am a former oral child, DOH, profound. Probably most Deaf are like me that began oral and learned signs in the teens. So, based on my often-frustrating experiences, I’ll be supporting anyone who advocates families learning ASL from the beginning. I don’t care what other avenues of communication are included, as long as ASL is involved.

    Those who have different backgrounds and hearing levels are going to make sure their side is adequately represented and nothing wrong with that.

    What is wrong is exclusionary methods being applied to ALL varieties of deaf babies–even profoundly deaf babies. (i.e. AVT and pure oral methods that exclude ASL.) It may not harm hard of hearing babies but it certainly has a high chance to harm profoundly deaf babies.

    The ASL extremists are behaving as if all identified babies are profoundly deaf. Not so; most are probably hard of hearing. However, they are making the point that ASL is a beneficial safety net and does no harm; and can be eliminated later on if not needed.

    The loopholes in the AB2702 bill could cause some profoundly deaf babies to fall between the cracks because of “wiggle room” for oral/aural/auditory professionals to promote their agendas. Maybe just a few rare ones, if we trust to the general professionalism of most audiologists and the completeness of the “brochure”.

    Still, one more Deaf adult without language competency or with poor literacy skills is one too many.

  44. Ann_C
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 01:15:24

    Ginger ppl, hmmm, my grandmother would have liked that one.

    My nephew who inherited her gene for red-hair once contemplated dying his hair.

    I asked him “Why on earth would you want to do that? You stand out with that lovely red hair”.

    He took my point. Methinks the word “lovely” got him there, but I’d like to think he stands out because the color red stands out of the multitude of brunettes, and oh, yes, dyed blondes.

    Even among young men these days 😛

    You see, KISS with one subject at a time.

    I’m learning.

    Ann_C

  45. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 01:26:36

    direct link to the latest version of AB 2072 – (dated Aug 20)
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_bill_20100820_amended_sen_v92.html

    thanks for the main portal entry url Ann_C

    i see some removals and additions

    interesting

    do u think this is the final version going for the Senate vote or more to come?

    peace
    patti

  46. Ann_C
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 01:30:56

    Dianrez,

    “The ASL extremists are behaving as if all identified babies are profoundly deaf. Not so; most are probably hard of hearing. However, they are making the point that ASL is a beneficial safety net and does no harm; and can be eliminated later on if not needed.”

    AB 2072 doesn’t prohibit parents from going with more than one language/ communication option.

    They have the choice of using ASL with their HH/ profoundly deaf baby while using an HA and later opting for a CI and AVT therapy if the infant qualifies later on. ASL can be continued or discarded as the child progresses in communication, up to the family.

    I agree, one more deaf adult without language competency is one too many. That’s what I hope for in AB2072, ridding “experts” agendas, so that the deaf child can be his own person, whether as an ASL-user or as an oral deaf person who speaks.

    I apologize, patti, this is your blog, so I’m outta here.

    Ann_C

  47. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 01:39:30

    where are these ASL extremists – let me at ’em

    don’t know any really

    all i know are folks who say – folks who are Deaf – regardless of the varying degrees or amounts of functionality DESERVE the right to a fully natural and accessible language (ie ASL) and English

    whereas there are folks who are pushing for this bill that believe in Oral / Aural ONLY – actively demanding the exclusion of ASL from a Deaf infant and child’s life etc

    re: hard of hearing folks not needing ASL – sure i can “get by without it” but not without labor on my part

    looking for a labor free language existence even for the hard of hearing that also includes rather than excludes a language (ie bi-bi)

    looking for more than “getting by” and aiming for equality of condition for all

    call me nuts

    re: “one too many” – yep!

    peace

    patti

  48. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 01:41:50

    GREAT

    glad u asked him “why on earth would u want to change ur hair color”

    Deaf and Hard of Hearing folks r stigmatized and many folks try to change themselves rather than change their outlook and the perception that to be Deaf or a red-head ain’t cool

    Deaf is cool. Red-hair rocks!

    oops me combined two subject – sneaky but still KISS ; )

    me learning too

    peace

    patti

  49. Ann_C
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 01:42:08

    patti,

    Dunno.

    All I do know is that yesterday on the 20th was the last day for the authors of bills to submit amendments to their bills for this last session. August 30th is the last day that the CA legislature can pass any bills. Sept. 30th is the last day Ah-nold will be able to sign/ veto any bills, after which the CA gubernatorial campaign frenzy commences up to the Nov. 2 elections. Won’t be til January next year when the CA legislature will re-convene and start new legislation or consider unfinished business from the year before.

    Ann_C

  50. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 01:47:06

    heye Ann_C

    no need to scat

    i dont got a monopoly on this thread

    seems my point about AB 2072 should not allow for the state govt to endorse, sanction, or legislate oral / aural ONLY options as part of the pamphlet cuz that is an EXCLUSIONARY practice is not really clear to folks

    i would say the same if someone was advocating for the inclusion of ASL ONLY programs to be listed and represented on the pamphlet / panel

    regardless of if any pamphlet ever truly makes the light of day – we do know some Deaf folks will be raised oral / aural only – i just dont want it to be because they were put into programs that a state government sanctioned as being OK

    i know its gonna happen – i just dont want a state govt to approve / bless / sanction / legitimize it

    its private schools – so be it. just dont need to be part of a govt approved pamphlet

    again i would say that for an ASL only program (but their ain’t none so…)

    peace

    patti

  51. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 01:50:41

    thanks for all this i nfo

    very helpful

    peace
    patti

  52. Ann_C
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 02:51:07

    patti,

    The brochure will include all options, including ASL. I would object if there was anything exclusionary or not balanced in the brochure, and if there weren’t pro’s and con’s included with each option. There is language in the bill that says the brochure is not to say that parents are restricted to one option.

    patti, by making ASL legitimate in legal language–(you realize that this will be the first time in CA legislation that ASL will be recognized as a viable language option?), the state also has to make auditory-oral options legitimate. There are some deaf/ hh ppl who HAVE benefited from those modalities as well. I’m one of them. 😛

    The bill also has a section that covers public input to the panel, if I’m not mistaken. Not sure if that has to be in writing or emails, whatever, to the CDE while the panel is considering input for the brochure. I am sure there will be a TREMENDOUS volume of input. 😉

    Ann_C

  53. Ann_C
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 03:05:18

    Yeah, I knew you’d do that, ragin’ redhead.

    “Deaf is cool. Red-hair rocks!”

    Double-whammy. 😉

    Deaf is cool all by itself.

    Ann_C

  54. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 03:25:47

    heye Ann_C

    keep this up and i might just think u ain’t a naysayer after all smile

    re: first time ASL is recognized in CA legislation – SWEET! – go Oppose 2072 and DP3 folks for getting the Aug 17 to Aug 20 version leap accomplished where the “visual language” euphemism got tossed

    re: the “I would object if there was anything exclusionary or not balanced in the brochure…”

    how do you reconcile the probability that the Oral / Aural only option (which actively excludes a natural signed language) would be listed on this pamphlet with this statement above

    by its very nature and function is not oral / aural ONLY exclusionary

    this is me point

    again -i dont got a problem with teaching the babes to talk and listen – i just got a problem of when program that forbid them from using a natural and fully accessible language get listed – THAT!

    can u pinpoint me the language in the bill that says: “There is language in the bill that says the brochure is not to say that parents are restricted to one option.” if this is the bit about approaches CAN BE used simultaneously – not really the same thing as what im saying

    when u say: “the state also has to make auditory-oral options legitimate. ” if by “options” you mean the one that EXCLUDES / FORBIDS / BANS the use of a natural and fully accessible signed language – no i dont think a state govt “has to make it legitimate” in fact i think it would be wrong if they did.

    not the listing of oral / aural skills etc – nah that is fine in me book. i understand the purpose of sharing that info to parents etc but the listing of oral / aural programs that PROHIBIT the use of a natural fully accessible signed language – that should not be listed

    just as any program that was ASL only and PROHIBITED the use of English should not be listed

    When i speak of oral / aural “option” programs – i am referring to the ones that prohibit the use of natural signed languages

    im not speaking of being raised without sign language due to the circumstances in which you grew up (mainstream, no bi-bi program near u, wee wee bit of dB, etc) i am speaking of the programs that ACTIVELY EXCLUDE sign language – ie most of the sponsors of AB 2072

    THAT

    so i want to see ab 2072 actually RESPECT both the importance of acquiring a natural and fully accessible sign language AND English

    no only anything in either direction is to be listed as an “option” cuz in doing so u omit / exclude and deprive and that ain’t what just governments are supposed to be about

    They will still be out there and exist – they just dont have to be sanctioned and listed in a state brochure

    i dont got no problem with teaching the kiddies to talk and listen – i just got a problem when the “option” excludes a natural and fully accessible language

    dang i hate when i get so repetitive – ugh

    end up shouting – dont eye?

    re: the public input – yep i saw that part and yep i agree they probably will get volumes – ROAR!

    i do apologize for me length and me loudness here. one good thing u helped me realize in trying to economize my word count and articulate me point clearly – i think that my use of the word ONLY has been confusing

    i mean it about the oral / aural option programs that exclude the right to ASL but when i said only maybe u thought i meant that i thought the whole pamphlet would exclude ASL and only endorse auditory-oral

    i see now how that is confusing – i hope im being a bit clearer here – or we can email tmw
    off to bed now me

    oh one last thing Ann_C if ya dont mind – help me understand what the overall process will be for a baby in CA:
    step 1 – screening at the hospital to see if Deaf or Hearing (this is done by a technician or an audiologist has to come in for that?)

    the immediate giving of the pamphlet – is that at the hospital or is that a follow up visit?

    step 2? “immediate” follow up visit to audiologist to get the pamphet and get further evaluation and treatment?

    step 3 meeting with the Early Start Program folks (why arent they giving out the pamphlet and walking the parents through things???)

    sept 4 – see the VERY bottom of the ab 2072 – what is this about? another visit?
    SEC. 2. Section 124122 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
    read:
    124122. It is the intent of the Legislature that every newborn
    and infant who does not pass his or her preliminary hearing screening
    test receive a followup hearing screening no later than three months
    of age. The Legislature strongly encourages the department to work
    toward this goal.

    is this part of the audiologist visit or separate or what?

    me pretty confused by how many visits to who for what

    seems lots of details re: the “screening, testing, and treatment” and not so much about cognitive and language development?

    again thanks for all ur time and info

    peace

    patti

  55. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 03:36:44

    Ann_C
    re: “Deaf is cool all by itself.”

    this is a truth and i will accept it.

    re: ragin’ redhead – guilty as charged

    poof to bed me

    again i thank ya – feels good when we can play nice, eh?

    peace

    patti

  56. Ann_C
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 04:10:33

    Tmrw, red-head.

    Have had a long day myself.

    Gonna have to take your many questions in chunks later. Don’t have all the answers either, I don’t claim to be an expert.

    *sigh* the wordiness of complex issues and I was just starting to have some fun. 😦

    KISS next time, girl. Me learning too.

    Ann_C

  57. Karen Mayes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 10:24:50

    Good morning.. nice dialogue going on.

    Exactly… we are NOT naysayers as some people have been trying to paint us to be. We happen to have perspectives that might strike them as “different”, so “different” usually comes as “negative”. So we end up being called deficient thinkers, audists, etc. Even though we do support the Deaf community. I use ASL, I have Deaf friends, I send my kids to Deaf school, etc. Like me, I see AB 2072 as an opportunity for Deaf people to up their marketing of ASL and to make Deaf Culture more visible. We see both sides and we take a more realistic approach, trying to see a big picture.

    Oh, we can think of ASL extremists, but we won’t say their names on your blog.

    Which reminds me one thing… I grew up in a heavily Jewish populated suburb in St. Louis and I had lived with a Conservative Jewish family in New Hampshire (I rented a room in their house during a year between colleges) and they told me how Reform and Conservative Jews who were passionate about Zion cause, were after United Nations to recognize a Jewish state… and that Hasidic Jews were against it. Once Israel was declared a country, Hasidic Jews turned around and supported it. I guess you know, since your religion is Judaism. I am not saying it could happen to us, but I see some relations here.

    From my understanding, California might follow what Indiana and Arizona are doing nowadays in case the bill is passed. I just explained how Indiana did with parents of newly diagnosed infants/children in my previous comment… with Parent Guides. I don’t know what kind of organization California would use (Hands and Voices? ) to help guide parents through the confusing time, to sort out the options, to weigh pros and cons, and to help them realize that having a Deaf child/children would be an exciting enriching journey.

  58. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 10:35:24

    Ann_C – look forward to ur answers and no worries re: “expert” title
    i see that disclaimer and i respect it

    i do appreciate ur taking the time to think and travel this wee stretch of thorny road with me

    re: KISS – here me try

    peace

    patti

  59. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 11:02:03

    Heye Karen

    good morning to you

    re: “different” opinions – i dont got a problem with that but some folks have been awful loyal to spreading b.s. and reporting falseHOODs to governmental bodies etc and promoting audism and linguicism

    that is more than just difference of opinion

    re: ASL extremists – well if u be saddling folks with that label (even if just in ur mind) ya might be best to put it on the table so folks can actually talk about it and show u that really its a difference of opinion or yes in fact they are an ASL extremist

    i have been waiting to see if such a group does materialize

    during the civil rights movement Malcolm X played a CRITICAL role in preaching an extremist rhetoric (he never acted on what he preached re: “by any means necessary” and launching a rifle club but he did preach it) – his Extremist posturing made MLK more acceptable to mainstream America. Malcolm X was an important force in the process. without him we might not have seen the passage of the Civil Rights Act

    now me – im a MLK Jr kinda gal. always will be always have been – but when i was reading Martin & Malcolm & America: The Dream and the Nightmare by Cone i was amazed to learn lots of stuff

    i could tell u about it but im on a KISS word diet – DANG

    on-line book club anyone ???

    re: AB 2072 – it has only become an opportunity cuz folks have been SWEATING their feet and heads and hearts over this one. Folks have been hitting the pavement, lobbying the representatives, going over the language with fine tooths combs. it has not been an opportunity because of the few of us who have been blogging and vlogging about it. i know we have been a wee part of the big picture but really its the folks on the ground who have been do do doing that are morphing this bad bill into something with a glimmer of a hope

    this is kinda what happened behind the scenes with ICED Vancouver 2010 New Era document folks too. lots of aiming for the stars so u can at least land on the moon and then getting something mighty nice

    1001 victories be coming mighty fast now ‘justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream’

    if folks wanna sing the folks on the ground a MIGHTY MIGHTY dose of praise then ill be comfortable with the key board activists and moderates and naysaying folks taking a bow too – we have all played our part but credit is largely due to the folks who have been ACTIVE beyond the computer monitor despite some of our efforts to mock, belittle, chastise, judge and dismiss them.

    re: Hasidic Jews and Israel – it is interesting how these political landscapes move and morph

    that is a VERY complex situation and u have condensed it down real tight

    what im wondering is – are u saying that u and others have served as a source of adversity so that some of us would fight harder and now we should use this hard won progress to force an extremist agenda? i aint really too happy with that

    im only interested in being an extremist for love not for injustice or reverse oppression
    see: https://handeyes.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/what-kind-of-extremists-we-will-be-qqq/

    re: the indiana and arizona can u pls link me to where these guides are – searched without success so kinda puzzled how effective they are if i cant even find them ; )

    re: Deaf infants and children and an exciting and enriching journey – amen to that

    i know folks do often have an grief period and worried period and it would be GREAT for us to be able to help folks see the light – Deaf – “its a good thing”

    i know for some that is an EXTREME concept

    re: my being Jewish – i am not but my family is. It is a beautiful religion as are most – they just all go a bit bonky when put into the hands and hearts of extremists who do not follow the principles of being an extremist for love

    now karen – a question for u –
    do u really think a state govt should sanction / list / endorse in a pamphlet ANY program that is extreme in nature – that EXCLUDES and PROHIBITS another language? that is the question on the table for me. that is my personal opposition to AB 2072

    why? cuz in doing so then a state government is saying:
    audism is ok
    linguicism is ok
    cultural and linguistic genocide are ok
    eugenics is ok

    and that ain’t ok with me

    see me old letter to the Senate re: ab 2072 (june 10)
    https://handeyes.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/my-letter-opposing-ab-2072/ so ya know what ur dealing with ; )

    dang – im so far off KISS here – maybe i can install a word counter to limit me

    i do thank u for this dialogue – i may not be learning KISS but i is learning a lot of other good stuff so thanks

    peace
    patti

  60. Karen Mayes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 12:50:29

    I can tell you in person of my definition of “extremist” and you’d understand where I am coming from, so I’d rather not say anymore here on your blog. BUT I do agree with you that we need “extremists” to shake up. We do need the opposites in order to create changes. I am aware that no one likes oppositions, but we need them or we’d never learn the art of compromising, nonviolences, violences, diplomacy, you name it.

    When I find the guide book, if we did not throw it out, I will bring it along so you’d have a good idea. So meanwhile, why don’t you contact Lisa K. in Indiana to have a better idea? I am sure she’d be happy to explain to you how it worked. As for the government, I have no idea how it would work in California in case the bill passed. In Indiana, dept. of health has connections to Hands and Voices chapter and ISD is UNFORTUNATELY under the dept. of health. Well, that’s politics and I am not going into it. But I learned a lot about it when I lived in Indiana and it was an interesting ride for me.

    By the way, I don’t view you as an extremist. I see you more as an activist. But let’s not get into labeling, ha.

    We can discuss it more this Wednesday.

    Gotta run… off to Starbucks to meet with an old friend whom I have not seen for more than a decade!

    Hugs.

  61. Dianrez
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 14:24:01

    What is needed here is a definition of “ASL extremist” and “naysayer” as it applies to both this bill and in general.

    To me, an ASL extremist is one who supports ASL ONLY programs, and excludes ALL forms of oral or aural training as irrelevant to future life as a Deaf adult. The CI and hearing aids are viewed as audistic, unneccessary and forms of torture for children.

    I only know of one blogger who fits this description, and she probably has psychiatric issues. She has been banned in several forums.

    A naysayer is someone who opposes anything that REQUIRES inclusion of ASL even if it is part of a comprehensive program. He is opposed to ideas that diverge from Hearing standards. (even if comparative programs mandate inclusion of Spanish or French in schools.)

    Unfortunately, I can think of more than one person who takes this position. They are likewise passionate and their motivations are unclear. I have felt it was because they were rejected by Deaf people and prefer to blame it on ASL issues when it actually may be personality issues.

    In between are the people who try to stay in the middle and embrace all philosophies even though they conflict. They take fire from both sides. Their motivations are varied–trying to be cosmopolitan, pleasing all sides, or advocating for hard of hearing or late-deaf persons, and in doing so may be advocating for a limited a part of the d/Deaf community like the extremists do.

    We all have our biases and our problems with outside interests such as the audio and medical establishments that live off our community. If we all can cut out these extraneous interests and personal motivations and simply view the deaf infant as a unique individual with primary needs: love, nutrition, input, security and maintenance. Anything that comes to the baby and family should have no strings or limitations attached.

  62. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 14:40:08

    karen
    thanks for ur note

    will contact lisa

    have a great day
    peace
    patti

  63. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 14:55:26

    heye dianrez

    big thanks for all u have shared here

    re: ASL only extremists – i assume it would mean folks who advocate for ASL only – no English etc. and i really dont know anyone like that
    re: CI etc – i do think it is important that we be allowed to examine the audism behind CIs and also advocate to get answers and facts about them – that is real important

    re: the audism behind CIs – bell hooks – an African-American feminist scholar examines the straightening of African-American women hair and their children’s hair as being embedded in racism. the belief that to be White and/or look / act associate as White is right

    she does not call the folks who choose to straighten their hair or the manufacturers of the hair straightening chemical to be racists but she does call upon us to examine that push to be “White”

    im less familiar with Asian studies but im sure there are folks examining the industry around lightening the skin and cosmetic surgery for the eyes and the racism behind that

    similarly with breast implants

    no one is saying those things should be outlawed UNLESS THEY ARE PROVING TO HARM FOLKS but they are still asking us to ask WHY those things are needed and desirable and if PARENTS are choosing those things for their kids they do mighty shout outs – mighty

    that dont seem extreme to me – it just seems “just” and right and good that we examine the unexamined

    i have seen far more EXTREME activism and rhetoric in the Oral / Aural only camp than i have ever seen anyone say ASL only – English Out

    NOTE: i do not support folks calling someone who is oral or uses HA or uses CI an audist. we are not what we use or don’t use. we are much more than that.

    I do not support folks calling me closed society, afraid of progress, a militant, a radical, an anarchist, a friend of the anti-christ, a nazi ASL person etc based on the fact that i say audism and linguicism is not cool and should not be allowed in Deaf aggregators

    for your definition of naysayer – i believe that is my understand of a pure oralist – (not a person who themselves are oral) but a person who advocates for the EXCLUSION OF ASL for a Deaf child’s life. that is definitely an EXTREMIST

    naysayer is defined as:
    someone with an aggressively negative attitude
    One who consistently denies, criticizes, or doubts; a detractor

    remind ya of anyone??? or anytwo or any three???

    love what you wrote here:
    “If we all can cut out these extraneous interests and personal motivations and simply view the deaf infant as a unique individual with primary needs: love, nutrition, input, security and maintenance. Anything that comes to the baby and family should have no strings or limitations attached.”

    peace

    patti

  64. Ann_C
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 17:29:30

    Taking chunks:

    “how do you reconcile the probability that the Oral / Aural only option (which actively excludes a natural signed language) would be listed on this pamphlet with this statement above

    by its very nature and function is not oral / aural ONLY exclusionary ”

    I’m not fond of the position that oral/ aural option takes re: ASL. I presume you’re talking about AVT practitioners who forbid the use of sign language as they believe it interferes with nerve pathways to the language part of the brain or whatever. There really hasn’t been any convincing research to back up those kind of statements.

    However, there are parents who are breaking this taboo down. Such a policy is not a federal or state law, and some parents (take Miss Kat’s Mom or A.L. of the ASL-Cochlear Implant Community, for examples) have found AVT practitioners who are open to the use of ASL in the classroom. It’s just that learning the listening/speaking part is a separate activity and ASL is used in other activities in the classroom, as I understand it, as well as at home.

    I’m not one to tell parents that they should include ASL with AVT, that’s for them to decide. Ya see, trying to keep out the bias here. But the oral/aural option is here to stay because it is being used and I’m not going to say that it should be prohibited as an option in the brochure. Then I’d be accused of being exclusive, see?

    Think of what AB 2072 will achieve in breaking down this exclusionary practice against ASL–the bill specifically states that:

    “The pamphlet shall take into account the different values
    and beliefs of the parents of deaf and hard of hearing children. The
    pamphlet shall contain both benefits and risks of all options,
    convey educational attainment outcomes, and clearly convey that those
    options may be used simultaneously.”

    Note the last sentence. Options may be used simultaneously. The parents will have CA law and a brochure to point to in order to back up what they want.

    Aaaargh, my word count…

    Laters, gotta get out this morning to water the yards before it gets too hot.

    Ann_C

  65. Ann_C
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 19:33:35

    Most of the questions that followed the first one was more of same– repetitive, ah–word count , girl.

    Next chunk:

    “step 1 – screening at the hospital to see if Deaf or Hearing (this is done by a technician or an audiologist has to come in for that?)

    the immediate giving of the pamphlet – is that at the hospital or is that a follow up visit?

    step 2? “immediate” follow up visit to audiologist to get the pamphet and get further evaluation and treatment?

    step 3 meeting with the Early Start Program folks (why arent they giving out the pamphlet and walking the parents through things???)

    sept 4 – see the VERY bottom of the ab 2072 – what is this about? another visit?
    SEC. 2. Section 124122 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
    read:
    124122. It is the intent of the Legislature that every newborn
    and infant who does not pass his or her preliminary hearing screening
    test receive a followup hearing screening no later than three months
    of age. The Legislature strongly encourages the department to work
    toward this goal.”

    I’d have to go back to CA Health and Safety Code to give you all those references. I’m going to answer according to what I remember reading in the code earlier and refer back later.

    As I recall the newborn has to have the hearing screening test before he/she is discharged from the birth hospital. Believe H & S Code section 124116.5 stated that the hearing screening test can be performed by a licensed doctor (I presume an otolaryngologist, a mouthful for an ENT doc), a licensed RN, or a licensed audiologist. If the test results are abnormal, the hospital is required to report the results and name of the patient to the Dept. of Health Services’ newborn hearing screening tracking program. The parents are then given 10 days ( I think this is the time period, not certain) to report with their child to an appointment with an audiologist for a second screening test.

    My guess as to why a second test is to confirm the first test results. There have been a few false ‘positives’ from the first tests. If the infant fails the second screening, I believe the pamphlet is given to the parents at this point. If parents fail to follow-up on the appointment, this is when the Early Start providers contracted thru the Dept. of Health come in and advise the parents to follow up with an immediate appointment to an audiologist’s office. I believe that it’s not til the second test is done and deafness is identified for certain, before the Early Start provider gives the pamphlet.

    After confirmation of the second test, the Early Start folks contact the parents to help them start with the resources available in the parents’ area. The parents will get another same pamphlet from the Early Start provider as well.

    Re: new section 124122 puts a deadline of no later than 3 months of age to complete that second followup test. Currently it’s six months, if I’m not mistaken.

    So, I believe only two hearing screening tests are done, but I could be wrong on that. If so, correct me on that. I’d have to go back to the H & S Code to be certain.

    Got a ton of things to do today.

    Ann_C

  66. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 22:16:50

    Ann_C

    thanks for ur two chunks addressing me questions

    my understanding of the Option Schools (Oral Education programs) many of whom are the original sponsors of AB 2072 – they are oral / aural only throughout the day – not just during AVT specified sessions

    Re: Miss Kat’s Mom – my understanding of her blog entry re: the oral program she put Miss Kat’s in – there was some trouble in that the teacher would not accept signing in the classroom

    its oral / aural ONLY after all. but miss kat’s was allowed to have ASL pull out

    not sure what happened for miss kat’s at CID, which is another oral / aural only program, this summer beyond the intensive therapy, evaluation and testing, 2nd CI and mapping etc. – didnt see any mention of any work at CID re: ASL development or bilingualism but i may have missed it. not familiar with the other case u mentioned.

    Shall we list all the cases of folks who are constantly pressured from the moment of diagnosis on to go auditory-oral – it is INTENSE and endless.

    i ain’t advocating for the exclusion of listing English (written / speech) development on the pamphlet – im opposed to listing oral / aural programs that prohibit the use of sign language THAT

    re: the 2 testing and the 3 mo. and the whole tracking of the babe process – that is a bit clearer. still wondering how the TREATMENT clause re: the audiologist visit in the latest AB 2072 plays into this all

    a question for ya – but pls feel free to decline to answer. u mentioned u r oral – i assume this means u dont sign at all?

    does this mean you were raised in an oral / aural only program that prohibited sign language or that u just were raised without any exposure to sign language due to lack of proximity / opportunity – the sink or swim approach that many of us who were dropped in the mainstream experienced.

    Reason why i ask is cuz i dont encounter too many folks who are the byproduct / alumni of the oral / aural only system from start to finish and im just wondering where they all are and what they have to say.

    if u were raised orally by default as i was – im still very interested in ur perspective – im just beginning to be more and more puzzled by the muteness of the alumnus of oral / aural only programs

    thanks again

    peace
    patti

  67. Ann_C
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 01:40:17

    “a question for ya – but pls feel free to decline to answer. u mentioned u r oral – i assume this means u dont sign at all?”

    No, I don’t. Have taken a couple of semesters’ worth of ASL, but not at all fluent as I don’t have the time or opportunity to practice it with those who use it. Totally immersed in the hearing world, hearing family and friends.

    “does this mean you were raised in an oral / aural only program that prohibited sign language or that u just were raised without any exposure to sign language due to lack of proximity / opportunity – the sink or swim approach that many of us who were dropped in the mainstream experienced.”

    Both. I swam (if that’s how you want to put it) thru a public K-12 education from the first grade on.

    “– im just beginning to be more and more puzzled by the muteness of the alumnus of oral / aural only programs”

    Hey, I’m here and I ain’t mute, lol.

    Now, what kinda bomb were ya gonna drop today? 😉

    Ann_C

  68. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 01:47:59

    Hey Ann_C
    thanks for the reply

    so u attended public 9-12 first grade up. me same k – up.

    what im wondering about is where r the folks who went through oral / aural ONLY programs – not public school or private Hearing schools – but true blue oral / aural ONLY schools or programs like the OPTION schools. im talking about folks who attended Oral / Aural only schools k-12 – CID, Mystic, Clarke, etc

    the folks that i know to be a product of the oral / aural – forbidding signing and speech and listening is everyting are all anti-it or they have become bi-lingual bi-cultural folks and will acknowledge some of the merits of their oral / aural education but not the ONLY / EXCLUSIVITY part of it

    no u deafinitely ain’t mute but me think that is a good thing. over at mike’s kokonut’s place someone said – it is audiologist visit OR Early Start Program follow up in ab 2072 – that is false, correct?

    re: what kinda bomb me gonna drop today – ka pow! geez i thought u know me girl. im a pacifist. i dont believe in no bombing

    except perhaps if it be a truth bomb – no stink bombs or real bombs coming from me

    thank u again for the info

    peace

    patti

  69. Ann_C
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 02:28:04

    You and I have had different experiences in mainstreamed ed’s, methinks? Mine was strictly oral/ auditory, like a hearing student’s. No, I don’t mean oral school ed, I do mean public ed, no separate oral program either, no terps, no nothin’. Like a solitaire, girl.

    Ann_C

  70. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 02:32:32

    ditto here – solitaire girl me

    raised in the mainstream without any ASL or any support services (ie interpreter, notetaker, etc) but did have speech therapy k – 12 in public school.

    heye – maybe it is a small world after all

    peace

    patti

  71. Ann_C
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 02:34:48

    Didn’t McConnell attend an oral deaf school? I vaguely remember something to that effect. Why dontcha ask him? 😉

    A~

  72. Ann_C
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 02:38:42

    Lol, let’s start a solitaire club. 😉

    Between the two of us, word count is getting better.

    A~

  73. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 02:42:57

    ; )
    top that
    p

  74. Ann_C
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 02:46:05

    Dang!

    😉

    A~

  75. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 02:50:45

    ah u have a competitve streak, eh?

    re: mike – from what i have seen him blog before – he has not been singing the praise of oral / aural ONLY program / schooling.

    it just hit me about how folks r preaching at us about how to market ASL better – i mean ASL is pretty dang sexy. the biggest obstactle in the spread of ASL has been the folks at volta place

    but really if anyone has a publicity problem i think it may very well be the oral / aural ONLY programs like the “option schools” – yeah they might be able to convince the parents with their glossy brochures and their slick videos of the ‘demonstration star students’ but where are these folks when they grow up??? how happy are they about having been denied the right to learn ASL?

    that is me problem with these programs their EXCLUSIVITY and EXTREMISM

    for solitaries like ourselves – there is a whole different problem of lack of opportunity not INTENTIONAL / SYSTEMATIC exclusion / prohibition but more of a de facto segregation from “others like us” and a fully natural and accessible language

    passing is pretty much all we could do

    looks like we in a public chat room Ann_C

    peace

    patti

  76. Ann_C
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:06:49

    Re: “ah u have a competitve streak, eh?” Competitive, guilty. Actually, I don’t go around correcting other’s sp mistakes, lol. i’m a sp freak with my own writing, just the way I am. But I do love a good match, girl.

    Re: marketing of ASL. Why worry over what volta place thinks? is it possible to ignore those folks and proceed at one’s own pace? By attacking volta place you’re displacing all the attention you can put towards ASL onto ah, “your enemy”. AGBell gets the attention, not ASL.

    One-chunk-at-a-time, redhead.

    A~

  77. deafa
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:07:46

    I am profoundly (90db both ears) deaf and was raised in public school prek-12th (no program for the deaf rather it was oral, selfcontained class, etc. I was diagnosed early because my sister is deaf and so were my grandma’s sisters) and even though I did not have any sign language at all, just FM bodyworn, front row, notes on boards,SLP, etc. I promise you that public school do not restrict ASL– as in “No signing allowed” my friends and I did use some homemade sign languages with each other, as well as writing notes. The teachers did not cared how I communicate with my friends. I’m sure that’s different in oral school.

  78. deafa
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:10:27

    you can find alot about him on Alldeaf… he likes posting there.

  79. deafa
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:12:13

    BTW, I too was teh only deaf gal in school… It was not easy

  80. the one and only ridor
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:14:09

    Gina Sutton: Accountability is the obvious reason – you must be accountable for your divisive & destructive comments in the last few years. Deal with it, Gina.

    R-

  81. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:15:22

    smile re: sp – well i is way out of ur league as i am a lousy speller and dont give a noodle about it. i know some folks r real sticklers for it. i have been counseled many times many ways to talk and type pretty but i is happy just they way i am and even go a bit in the opposite direction at times just to mess folks up a bit or try to tossle their hair into having a wee bit of fun

    life is short, eh

    re: AG Bell Assoc – well if if they had no power, influence or control id happily ignore them but they are the pinacle of injustice Ann_C and my eyes will not waiver from them.

    and just fyi – i have never attacked them – i have only challenged them with love and peaceful direct confrontation

    we be pulling down their mask of benevolence Ann_C – wanna help?

    it is a mighty big chunk and we be taking it one piece at a time. extra good hands always help

    now off to bed me – thank u again and always for the chat. i can tell u is a good soul and that is important to me

    peace

    p

  82. the one and only ridor
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:18:11

    Hands & Voices?

    LOL! It all makes sense why you fell for it. HV is one massive biased organization. Name one event that they sponsored that addresses ASL as a language. ’nuff said.

    R-

  83. the one and only ridor
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:25:37

    That’s not true. I used to live in New York City and I recall seeing a group of Hasidic Jews protesting against Israel. Later, I found out that there is a group WITHIN that community that actively protests against Israel as a nation.

    Not all Hasidic Jews support Israel even in 2010!

    R-

  84. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:27:04

    hi deafa –

    thanks for sharing ur background – really appreciated ur comments in the People of the Eye – Red Flag thread. ya got me thinking just as Ann_C has and i always appreciate that.

    re: ur background – it is similar to mine and Ann_C’s a bit in that it wasnt a “NO SIGNING HERE” environment and it was “life amongst the Hearing” with a bunch of accessories strapped on (although i grew up without HAs – may have had the only Ear, Nose, and Throat dr known to mankind that said – leave her au naturale this way if the batteries die or the hearing aid breaks she will be able to fare thee well as is – and so i did and when i later got me a Hearing Aid at age 20 i was like WTF YUCK smile)

    it is fortunate that u have a Deaf sister and great aunts and got to use homesigns in school.

    i remember i kinda self-taught meself ASL from an OLD book from me hometown library in 12th grade and did a mini-presentation on it and everyone was like COOL BEANS – me wanna learn. so yes this is MUCH different than an oral / aural ONLY environment

    in oral / aural only schools though – i am told – that plenty of folks signed on the sly but it was / is taboo (even some teachers would do so in private)

    re: being the ONLY and it not being easy – abbah (ASL mouth movement for UNDERSTAND for those non-ASLers)

    heye maybe we should set up the solitaires survivors club!

    thanks very much for sharing

    tmw tmw – maybe eye see u tmw

    peace

    patti

  85. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:28:47

    heye deafa – i did reply to ur latest reply up above Ann_C’s first smiley face

    not really liking how this blog replies work / line up – might pick another template if i do any more blogging

    peace and night all

    p

  86. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:30:11

    oh im gonna stay up a bit more ridor has popped up!

    peace

    p

  87. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:33:51

    R-

    darling i am all for accountability

    so if we hold Gina Candy accountable – so must we hold ourselves, eh?

    peace

    patti

  88. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:37:34

    Heye R –

    i know u is biting at Karen but i me can’t resist. i got lots of questions aobut Hand & Voices so plan to do a bit of investigating meself

    i think the concept could be mighty nice but the implementation seems a bit off

    not gonna be too quick to judge as i know how hard it is to make things fly

    it is obvious that there is a BIG need for resources, materials and support for parents out there

    peace

    patti

  89. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 03:44:06

    re: Zionists, Hasadic, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionists, Orthodox – pro-Israel or pro-Palestine etc – it is REALLY complicated and nothing can be watered down to all these folks were for or against this thing

    kinda like…… the Deaf community ; )

    i often think of the Deaf community in terms of the diversity within the Jewish Community in terms of how they practice their religion or transmit cultural traditions and values or take political positions etc

    there is also the factor that groups and political positions change over time

    Abraham Lincoln was a republican. the face of the republican party back then was pretty much what the democratic party has come to represent today – im not sure when they did the flip flop

    so re: Zionists and Hasadics – some things have changed and morphed for lots of complicated geo-political-religious reasons

    i think the point karen was trying to make might still remain (if i understood it fully) – AB 2072 – ya all might be able to weasel in there and ride that pony in the direction u want. but me – i aint for being a weasel. im just for telling the truth and standing and fighting for the truth so im gonna keep pushing that one til the end. Oral / aural ONLY education is unjust – period. learn to talk and hear – whatever, in the mainstream without any exposure or opportuni – problem we gotta work to solve – but programs that ACTIVELY EXCLUDE / PROHIBIT / BAN a natural and fully accessible language from the educational experience of a D E A F child pretty much are crimes against humanity (as Tove SKutnabb-Kangas noted) and also can lead to linguistic and cultural genocide. SO NO STATE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE SANCTIONING THEM BY LISTING THEM ON A PAMPHLET

    we will see see what AB 2072 ulitmately comes to be me think

    CA is definitely looking like the strongest geo-political Deaf epi center we got going – not sure if its time yet to make a hagadah and conclude with “Next year in Sacramento” but it would be nice to be led out of the bondage of oral / aural only methods and programs

    exodus – movement of the people!

    peace

    patti

  90. Ann_C
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 04:08:26

    Not concerned with the way other ppl spell their words or have to talk pretty. I’d rather get on with the subject matter of the discussion, that is what is more important, never mind the sp and dotting the i’s or crossing the t’s. Have never dwelled on the small stuff with other ppl, including the labeling, which is something that all of us can work on.

    I respect your views even though mine may diverge from yours. Maybe some day we will see the same thing together. I hope so.

    Ann_C

    p.s.– I agree about the reply feature in ur blog, make it chronological, one after the other, makes it a lot easier to follow.

  91. Ann_C
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 04:54:13

    Boy, this reply system sucks, red-head. :\

    Jean B,

    I’m a long-time resident of CA. Not sure if Don G would wanna work with me, lol. Don probably regards me as the enemy. That’s not to say I don’t have concerns about how the brochure will turn out for parents of deaf newborns.

    Thanks for understanding that we all have concerns about AB 2072.

    Ann_C

  92. Karen Mayes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 10:40:13

    There is a very constructive dialogue going on and we all appreciate it… that the fact that we all can come together with respect even though we don’t always agree. I just read an article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/22/ground-zero-protests-islamic-center_n_690504.html) and I see there’s a lot of ignorance and fear… I kinda see a parallel.

    Really, there’s nothing “un”bias going on in the world. Even marketing has its bias, usually for monetary gain. Again, you are right, we need to present the resources to parents… it’s a bit challenge to explain the resources/options without showing any preferences. We all agreed, have agreed in the past, and will agree in the future, that Deaf babies and children need to be exposed to language FIRST, like Dianrez just mentioned.

    All right, take care.

  93. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 12:42:16

    can ya add other folks’ punctuation too, huh? then ill know im safe and loved ; )

    re: labeling people yep – amen to that. im still for NAMING actions but not pigeonholing folks unless they r really worthy of it

    re: respect – likewise. don’t know if u learned the sign for it back in those classes ya took long ago but most folks sign it as 2 Rs going out from their face in the direction of the person or thing they are addressing / discussing

    but me favorite way folks sign it when in fact it does happen is when one of the Rs is coming from the other person’s direct towards the signing and the other R is going out from the signer toward that person – simultaneously – “mutual respect”

    its important

    i think we agree on a lot of stuff even the preference for how these blog replies r lining up

    i think me stance about NO program / approach that E X C L U D E S a natural signed language or the dominant culture’s language should be listed is a TRUTH but folks r not there yet smile

    luckily im patient – kinda ; )

    peace

    patti

  94. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 12:49:03

    heye karen

    i agree constructive dialogue

    its been a pleasure getting to know some folks here a bit more

    i appreciate how u and dianrez have been emphasizing the inalienable right to a language and cognitive development for the babies

    this is exactly why we should all be hopping mad about the inclusion of folks that ADVOCATE for and MANDATE that babies “work for their words” ie the folks that exclude a natural and fully accessible language ie in the Oral / Aural ONLY option schools and programs and sponsors of AB 2072 – not cool folks not cool

    re: nothing is neutral or unbiased – TRUE so why the heck do they keep saying in AB 2072 “unbiased”?

    that in and of itself is a problem aint it

    re: ground zero and the republican extremists right wing fanatics zero tolerance for religious diversity – WOW! its horrible to see in the good ole U. S. of A.

    now if someone was lobbying to erect a terrorist cell or a jihadist center sure – yep shut them down but an Islamic Center & mosque
    Islam does not = muslim extremist
    the founding principles of islam are actually very rooted in peace. it is sad that some extremists (true extremists) of hate have given it a bad reputation just as it is sad that some fundamental extremist Christians who say if u ain’t been saved u r going to hell give Christianity a bad name just as it is sad etc

    extremists for love unite – i say https://handeyes.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/what-kind-of-extremists-we-will-be-qqq/

    would that we could take a page from the amish folks who RAISED MONEY for the family of the man that came into their school and shot down their children – that is LOVE folks. that is FAITH in something greater than ourselves – humanity

    instead of protesting the mosque and Islamic center – would that we make a space for it and set up round table dialogue sessions for the survivors and families / friends who lost loved ones on 9/11 and the Muslim American community

    one heart at a time can we chip away at prejudice and hatred – one heart

    time for me to take a walk and listen to what mother nature’s got to tell me cuz human nature can surely bum me out

    peace

    patti

  95. handeyes
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 19:41:46

    Ann_C – i demand to know the color of ur hair so i can hence forth address u by ur hair color : )
    i switched the blog replying to incoming order – thinking it would only apply to the newer blog entries but now applies to all so this is a bit messy here

    i also was hoping to find a template that would number each comment so folks could refer that way but no luck with what i want yet – boo

    may have made it worse instead of better

    peace

    p

  96. Ann_C
    Aug 23, 2010 @ 21:00:54

    Lol, grey-hair? You know how many ppl have grey hair as opposed to red? Too many.

    Actually like the chronological order better, most readers scroll down to the last comment, so they’ll know if they caught up with the discussion or not. Don’t think ppl are gonna remember their number when they drop a comment. Many ppl address another commenter by@___.

    Ann_C

  97. handeyes
    Aug 26, 2010 @ 03:22:57

    Heye Grey-head:
    sorry for the delay in responding

    me think ill like the chronological order better too

    will see see

    re: @… good idea

    appreciate getting to know u

    much peace

    patti

  98. Ann_C
    Aug 27, 2010 @ 02:05:33

    @ Redhair,

    Grey-head *groan*

    Greyhair is better, methinks.

    Same here, appreciate knowing you better too.

    Ann_C

  99. handeyes
    Aug 28, 2010 @ 01:56:52

    Heye Ann_C
    i wont call ya by anything that is gonna make u groan ; )

    Karen – i did contact Lisa K and she said Hands and Voice Indiana not involved in any state law and she wasnt involved in the AB 2072 legislation drafting

    the parent to parent guide (guide by your side program) is funded via EHDI funds but they want to expand the program and looking for more funding

    nothing about any type of pamphlet or brochure etc

    peace

    patti

  100. Karen Mayes
    Aug 28, 2010 @ 11:34:19

    Thanks for sharing it with me. I tried Googling her but could not find her name; I am sure I saw her name when the news about AB 2702 first came out. Yup, that about Parent Guides… my husband was trained as one and he had books which he was to give to the parents of newly diagnosed babies, but when we moved, we tossed them out. I should have kept them in the first place… I do recall her giving a presentation two years ago, which I attended, that she said that she traveled a bit and worked with other people in EHDI.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: