Friday, August 20, 2010

AB2072 - Deceit is not Sweet (Vlog)

Mike McConnell and many Republicans' favorite conservative, Ronald Reagan, but seems too many conservatives tend to impose the mandatory government requirement upon people. Reagan's famous quote - "Get the government off our back!" What a hypocrisy and contradiction!

Guess what? The Reagan administration shoved many big government mandates into people's throats like threatening the state government to raise the legal age of drinking to 18 years old or will lose the federal highway funding, etc. Sheesh!

Patti Durr have all good points about why why why why the government insist that everyone ought to see the audiologist. Is that really trampling upon our constitutional rights to decide what is best for our own children? See Durr's vlog! The title of vlog is "AB 2072 - Deceit is not Sweet".

Everyone puzzled why all deaf children in California must see an audiologist after being confirmed the hearing status at hospital delivery room. Duh! Is another government bureaucratic layer to butt into people's lives as what the politically conservative government tend to do? Look at the Meese Commission on Pornography in the 1980s! Mike McConnell defended Russell the Deaf Bunny's right to display the degrading materials in front of deaf families and children at the one of the Deaf Expo. Don't forget that!

Deaf children from deaf families have to drag the poor deaf child all the way to the audiologists office which the child already know that he/she is definitely deaf! What a waste of taxpayers' money and insurance money! No wonder why conservatives whine and whine about the Obama health care being too intrusive into people's lives, but all right for them to impose their values and beliefs upon us, the Eye of the People!


  1. Just to let you know, not everyone is sure their baby is deaf if their baby failed the hearing screening test at the hospital during their birth. Fluid in the ears and other issues usually affect their hearing. They do a followup to confirm if the child is deaf then they discuss how they should raise their deaf children with their audiologist. And sign up for early intervention program for either oral or ASL

  2. Either oral or ASL, Anonymous?

    That is what the issue is! Does it have to be one or the other only? Bilingualism means ASL and English.

    When you say oral or ASL, you really mean Spoken English only or ASL only, but NOT both. How is that OK?

    That is our issue... ONE OPTION ONLY. Parents get to choose only ONE? People complain that the activists against AB2072 want ASL only, when in fact they are fighting for bilingualism. Yet we hear NO objects to Spoken English ONLY. English ONLY via aural-oral (listen and speak) modality. No one objects to that, to the exclusion of ASL? Interesting. Think about that.


  3. ah, if I was going to go in depth, I would say cued speech, SEE, bibi, TC, but I didn't feel like it.

    I just know that
    Early intervention program help parents learn ASL because they already have a spoken language. But most use it for oralism. And yes both as well, sorry if I left that out.

  4. Anonymous
    should not the follow up with the audiologist be OPTIONal?

    up to the parents discretion and decision making?

    Parental choice u know?

    why is it being regulated, mandated, required, ordered?

    Pls know that i am NOT NOT NOT advocating that parents be FORBIDDEN from seeing an audiologist but i believe it should be THEIR choice - not the state governments

    The Early Start Program should be charged with explaining about language acquisition for for chidlren who do not hear (i.e. who are Deaf - varying degrees often dont seem to matter as much as:
    1. is a fully accessible and natural language available to the baby - yes GREAT
    2. are the parents actively involved in providing such language to the baby- yes GREAT
    3. are the parents active READERS - yes GREAT)

    Re: your "either Oral or ASL" comment which i guess you would now amend to read "either Oral or SEE, bibi, TC or ASL"

    to clarify what Shel's pretty dang clear point is -

    We are not saying either / or

    that is pretty much an eye for an eye making the Deaf babies blind to FULL NATURAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

    ya know the very thing we should be most concerned about - not how much the ears hear or they don't (but if u go that way - it is ur legal right - just to make it MANDATORY for me)

    so this is the question that is on the table

    why is it ok to have "options" that exclude a natural and fully accessible language for Deaf babies?

    if there were an ASL ONLY approach out there (and i promise u there is not) - rest assured i would OPPOSE it vehemently. no eye for an eye here.

    ASL and English is what we be advocating for - the radical notion that Deaf babies should not have to work, labor and be physically altered to acquire what is rightfully theirs - a fully natural and accessible LANGUAGE and the language of their country English

    one they can learn easily and naturally and comfortably like Hearing babies do and one they got to work for (with or without aids)

    cuz language is power and two languages are better than none

    sadly most of the Deaf babies being educated in the U.S. of A - are really given neither / nor

    they are started on the Oral Only Exclusionary track and when it fails they are thrown into the "anything goes speech with some kinda signed system tracks" and they end up semi-literate

    that ain't cool folks

    totally ain't cool

    Why would anyone OPPOSE the right to Deaf babies from having access to a fully natural and accessible language?

    linguicism and audism and phonocentrism ain't cool folks



  5. RLM
    thank u for blogging about me vlog
    thank u for all u have been trying to do to make the invisible visible on this important issue

    liberty and justice for all

    much peace

  6. I shall put it in order to make hearing parents and oral deaf parents understand why culturally deaf people oppose AB-2072:

    1a. First Option: ASL for deaf babies
    1b. Parents must learn ASL to expose it to their deaf babies.

    2. Second Option: Written English for deaf babies. Parents must read stories in ASL to
    their deaf babies.

    3. No time for Third Option (Spoken English) until deaf babies pick up ASL and Written English. Afticulation of the spoken English deorives deaf babies of learning ASL and written English.

    Soit (So be it!)

  7. Thank you very much, Shel, Deaf Cinema and Jean Boutcher for being the beacon of reason and human rights dignity! :)


  8. No, Jean. You cannot force parents into using ASL. Only parents make the informed decision for their deaf or hh baby. Like someone once said, you don't own the baby. There are varying degrees of hearing loss and types as well as having bilateral versus unilateral hearing loss. Sorry. Parents decide what's best for the children as long as they get the proper information that would be appropriate for a child's hearing loss.