I Know You’re an Audist!

I promised yesterday that I would write my thoughts on audism, and I aim to keep that promise.  For the sake of this blog, audism is defined as a hearing person oppressing or discriminating a deaf person solely on the ability to hear.  However, audism is not found in the dictionary, and truthfully, the meaning of audism is still an ongoing debate that at times got quite intense and…emotional.  But does that mean some deaf people who were discriminated or oppressed by some hearing people didn’t really happen and is simply a figment of some deaf person’s overactive imagination?  Of course not.

Now, I want to share with some of you my experience in job hunting where I was actually discriminated by a hearing person.  A few years ago, I was really tight on money, so I had to go out job hunting.  One day, as I was walking down the sidewalk, I saw a ‘Now Hiring’ sign on the restaurant’s large, front window.  I had some previous experience working in a restaurant, I worked in one for four years, so I knew what to expect when working in a restaurant.  I went inside and asked for an application form, which I got one, and filled it out rather quickly.  It was my intention to show my eagerness and willingness to work anything inside the restaurant.  I communicated with the hearing manager through pen and paper, I did not need an interpreter.  We understood each other just fine.  The hearing manager was impressed and would call me a few days later to inform me whether I was hired or not.  Well, needless to say, a few days went by and he never called me back.  I decided to go back to the restaurant and meet with that manager, I asked him why he didn’t call me back.  He simply shook his face and wrote that he wouldn’t hire me.  Then, I asked him why, and he refused to write back his response.  He kept shaking his head, and his body language obviously indicated he was no longer interested in me.  I was surprised by this, because in our inital meeting, he was friendly and seemed to be impressed by my resume, which I had with me as I was out job-hunting at other places.  I gave up on him, so I left him.  But you know what was even more shocking to me?  A week later or so, I walked by the restaurant, and the “Now Hiring’ sign was still there!

At that time, audism wasn’t in vogue, so I simply chalked it up to another encounter with a bigoted person.  But as I reflect on the meaning audism now, I realize that what I experienced is a good example of what audism is all about.  While one may disagree on the usage of audism or what it actually meant, it doesn’t make all types of discrimination or oppression experienced by some deaf people less valid than had racism or sexism (which are legitimate words and found in the dictionaries) been used to describe their experiences.  But you see, the real problem is not the word itself, but how it is being used.  It is my opinion that such words as sexism, racism, ageism, or any other word that describe the specific type of discrimination or oppression have been so abused as to make their meanings useless.  Using a such word can go both ways.  For instance, racism can be used to describe a black person discriminating a white person on job.  Some women think they are superior to men, thus sexism is equally valid as in many cases of men discriminating some women.  In these cases, black people or women will get angry if racism or sexism is used on them.  So it is with some Deafhood people getting angry that we who might find Deafhood distasteful will dare to use audism on them.  In short, we can throw audism around and the debate will descend into chaos as everyone gets testy and defends himself from the charges of audism.  If I think many black people are closet racists, so I do also think some Deaf people are closet audists.

Now, if what I experienced in my job-hunting can be safely chalked up as an example of audism, then it is certainly safe to say that some hearing people do feel in some cases where a few Deaf people are elitist in their attitudes toward them.  I am a culturally Deaf person, and I don’t deny that some culturally Deaf peopel find being around hearing people repungant.  If one insists on using such a word, then it must go both ways.  But one thing I find unbelievable is that even some Deaf people will dare to accuse other D/deaf people of being audists!  I recall a story where Clarence Thomas, a black judge on Supreme Court, who grew up in Georgia and had some of his ancestors as slaves, experienced the cry of some black leaders accusing him of racism simply because he sided most often with conservative principles, which some liberal black leaders disagreed strongly with.  In fact, this is exactly what is happening right now in Deaf world.  Now, I understand what audism is all about, and in a certain way, I think it has more legitimacy than with Deafhood, but I fear that it will be overused and so abused as to make its impact meaningless.  I would urge that everybody stop being so trigger-happy in throwing audism around and refrain from using it except in certain cases where it is obvious that a person is being discriminated solely on the ability to hear.

Everybody should relax a bit, and just go about their daily life routines.  As matter of fact, may I suggest a helpful tip in relaxing yourself?  Good, all you have to is to root for Packers!  If you don’t, then I know for sure that you’re an audist! 

My Feelings on Deafhood

Howdy, everybody!  It’s been a long time since I’ve blogged, and to be truthful, I decided to abandon blogging, because it requires a certain amount of self-discipline, which obviously means I don’t have it.  Even so, I’ve always wanted to jot down my thoughts on Deafhood and Audism.  I could make vlogs on these themes, but somehow I feel so limited when vlogging, because it’s impossible to express everything I want to say in ten minutes, hence my blog. 

Now, as for Deafhood, please allow me to say this, I have no problem with Deafhood.  None at all.  In my lifetime, there were a number of instances where I might have felt a certain emotional connection to Deafhood, which is to say that I fully understand where proponents of Deafhood are coming from.  I grew up in a hearing family, so I naturally experienced many difficulties in communication, and occasionally I let my frustration be known.  Needless to say, I had some common experiences in school like hating speech therapy sessions and having lousy interpreters, so that led me wanting to be somewhere I can finally feel like belonging to.  The basic premise of Deafhood is going on a lifelong journey in developing your own Deaf identity, so according to this narrow definition, I can certainly understand how some people might want to be members of Deafhood.  I have my own Deaf identity.  I view myself as a culturally Deaf person. 

Thus, I think Deafhood can be a valid concept, as long it’s applied voluntarily and not arbitrarily, because not everybody wants to be a member of Deafhood, or viewing himself as a Deaf person.  We need to acknowledge that there are varying degrees of deafness, and how one views himself is largely dependent upon numerous factors like his background, the choices his parents made for him, the mode of communication, and his lifestyle.  For example, even though I am a culturally Deaf person, I do not view myself as a true ‘hardcore’ member of Deafhood. 

Why?  Because one thing about Deafhood is that many proponents believe that Deafhood at its core is all about collectivism, and this bothers me greatly.  Participating in Deafhood requires one to accept the idea that Deafhood is about sharing a set of ideals or principles propagated by Deafhood leaders.  For instance, Deafhood members label all hearing people as evil, which is like saying all capitalists are evil, filthy pigs who always steal money from poor, little guys.  They also want to blame the hearing community for every little or big problem.  They only tolerate diversity when it suits their purpose.  Furthermore, they demand government to do something to resolve their lengthy list of grievances, real or imagined.   The supposed basic premise of Deafhood then is replaced with the assumption that every Deaf, deaf, late deafened, and hard of hearing person has experienced encountering oppressive hearing persons.  So, this erroneous assumption leads some to conclude that Deafhood can be rightfully identified as uniting together to fight the perceived wrongs done against you, and the blame is placed solely on the hearing world.  We know this is not always the case with the hearing world.

Now, having just said this, let me emphasize this, one does not need to be a member of Deafhood to recognize a need to reform some areas or systems that’s set up to deal with Deaf, deaf, late-deafened, and hard of hearing people.  As a culturally Deaf person, I’m aware of some issues where the need for reform is urged.  There will always be discriminations made solely on the ability to hear, I know this, because I am too a victim of this discriminatory measure.   However, I cannot hold grudges against the hearing world for one very important reason — I fully know that there will always be some bad apples within the hearing world.

In closing my thoughts on Deafhood, it is my feeling that both sides, those who oppose and support Deafhood, have equally valid points, which are worth debating on.  If everybody were to stick with the basic premise of Deafhood — as a lifelong journey on forming your own private D/deaf identity and trying not to be so dogmatic about it, then I think that won’t cause tensions as much as we are witnessing right now in our own little D/deaf and hard of hearing world.  In the other words, you can have your Deafhood, but you better keep it to yourself, and not be so quick in labeling anybody else a member of Deafhood or as ‘not deaf enough’ (i.e., anti-Deafhood).

I will share my thoughts on Audism in the next post….if I get around to blog again!  Ha, ha, ha!  Have a good day.

I’m wondering if Obama supporters can explain why Obama is breaking a pledge?

Hello and good morning to everybody!

I have no work today because of bad weather, so I get to stay home and…bash President Obama!

Okay, I want Obama supporters to come up with a good explanation of why Obama is going to break a pledge on avoiding “earmarks” in the spending bill.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers’ pet projects, administration officials said. LINK

How come is it okay for Democrats to “overlook” Obama’s broken pledges, but not Bush’s? Let’s face it, what do you call Obama promising one thing, while not doing it at all? I have just one word for that type of action, and let us say it altogether:

HYPOCRISY

 

 

Why Don’t You Switch Your Doctor If He Has Moral Objections To Abortion?

We all knew that the moment Obama was elected as the 44th President, there would be some serious setbacks on abortion front.  Well, here is the latest setback for abortion opponents, Obama administration will announce next week its going to rescind Bush abortion rule.  It provides some job protections for doctors and nurses who have moral qualms on abortion (and birth control).

If We Have Defense Budget Cuts, What Should We Keep?

How many of us knew one day we would fight two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Let’s face it, if we never thought that one day we would witness a massive economic collapse on Wall Street, then it is indeed a safe bet to say that future is unpredictable. So, it’s always safe to err on the side of caution.

It’s easy to cut down the size of our armed forces, but it’s never easy to build up to new levels rapidly should a need arise in a major conflict. I’m sure Romans never thought that one day their empire would die a slow dying death, or that their armies would be annihilated for good. Beware of dangers of cutting down the size only to recognize finally the true danger once our enemies quickly build up to levels where it’ll be tough for us to beat them short of using nuclear weapons.

A brief Interlude: Rooting for Packers!

I’m just so excited about this coming season for Packers.  Switching to a 3-4 defense in my view is a smart and long overdue move.  It’s now in vogue, and forces mis-matchups to offensive teams.  Hawk and Barnett will have a field day chasing down quarterbacks or runningbacks.  I was surprised that Hawk floundered last season, probably due to his chest injury, but I’m loathed to make up excuses for any football player, even for my favorite team.  What was particularly troubling was that Hawk had no forced turnovers at all.  Perhaps Hawk’s last season was nothing more than a mere fluke, that happens even to the best players out there.

I don’t think Packers will be a major player in free agency for one very important reason: they’re very tight with money!  Even though Packers have $25 million under salary cap, they’re loathed to give up that much room to sign a major free agent, instead going with a build-up philosophy through drafts and second-tiered free agents.  Thompson is not known for chasing after big name players, though he did sign Charles Woodson and traded (or signed?) Al Harris.  He usually prefers to reward Packers players like Aaron Rodgers signing a $20 million contract recently this past season.  However, he could surprise us this time, considering he’s now in hot seat along with McCarthy, so he could do something drastic and unthinkable.  Unlikely, but you never know, right?

The main action will be in NFL Draft this April.  Packers pick at No. 9, so it’ll be exciting to watch who they will pick.  I strongly suspect Thompson’s philosophy is to pick value over need.  Maybe if Malcom Jenkins fell to that spot, Thompson will go ahead and pick him, as Packers isn’t sure if Al Harris is able to play lots of zone coverage in a 3-4 defense system.  Or if Packers go with drafting need, then hopefully a big DT, who will be a key NT in 3-4 schemes, will become available at that time.  Somebody like B.J. Raji from Boston College.  Some scouts and experts still think Ryan Pickett can play NT, but who really knows?  On other hand, Packers still could go after a linebacker, like Everette Brown from Florida State.  Aaron Kampan is an excellent athlete, and has ideal size to play the outside linebacker, so he can be moved over to that position.  But it’d be nice to draft a linebacker to back up an already elite crops of linebackers.

Packers will draft a lot on defense, but don’t be surprised if they draft a developmental player in OT.  And you can’t go wrong if you draft another wide receiver, after all, Jordy Nelson had a great rookie season, especially if he can do some kick returns.   But I think Packers is all set on offense, except for offensive linemen and perhaps runningbacks (I’m not entirely sold on Brandon Jackson).

Thompson and McCarthy will play smart even though they’re in hot seats.  A good friend once told me, “In Thompson we trust!”  Ha ha.  I trust whatever they do, it’ll be for good reasons instead of doing stupid things just to save their necks.  I can only hope rabid Packers fans will calm down for a minute and reflect on how good Thompson is really as GM.  After all, he did draft Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings!  I think Rodgers will be a perennial Pro-Bowl player once he has some experience under his belt, or in this case, towel.  Hehe.  Jennings, man, I love that player!  He sails past cornerbacks or safeties and make some tough catches, scoring touchdowns left and right.  I vividly remember his rookie year, where he played against perhaps the best CB ever, Champ Bailey.  It was in overtime, and Jennings lined up in front of Bailey, somehow, he sailed right past Baily and made a touchdown catch.  It was an unforgettable moment.

Oh, did I mention Ryan Grant?  Enough said.

Like I said, it’ll be a great year for Packers, you just watch out for them!  Pretty soon, you’ll stand in awe when Packers steamroll over Steelers in 2010 Super Bowl game.  You just wait and watch!  Go Pack Go!

Liberal Patent #2231134: Suing Somebody So You Can Break More Laws

Today in news, a rancher in Arizona is being sued for actually enforcing the law by illegals who, what else, are trying to across the border illegally.  The Mexican nationals are suing Roger Barnett for 32 million dollars, because they were held captive at gunpoint by Barnett with his big dog.  Barnett began to round up illegals trespassing on his property since 1998, shortly after they killed his calves, destroyed his property, and broke into his home.

Being A Foxy President Is Not An Easy Task

When you become the newly elected leader of the greatest nation ever to grace this sorry world, you are entrusted with many responsibilities that can’t be easily ignored.  Some of responsibilities may seem trivial to you, but you should never ignore even the most basic duties…like being on time.  Some people might laugh at punctuality as an awesome responsibility for a president, but think about it.  A president is only a human being, not a superman, and he is burdened with many duties, so he can’t do all of them at once.  But he has to make best of them by using time wisely.

It’s just like what the Bible says in Ephesians 5:16, “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.”  A president should use alloted time to each duty and attending an event wisely, after all, it does make an quite impression on ordinary people and elected representatives alike.  Being on time demonstrates that he cares enough about them not to waste their precious time, and display some seriousness in going about his presidential duties.  I am not saying President Barack Obama has to be on time all the time, after all, nobody is perfect, but one should not make it a habit to be late.

Real Dangers of Obama’s Revamped Faith-Based Program

I usually don’t blog here at all, but it’s time for me to toss in my two cents over the issue of Obama revamping the faith-based program first initiated by Bush.  Recently in news, President Obama signed an executive order to establish a revamped White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

But as we know, while President Obama speaks in the language of unity and strength in diversity, he remains a radical liberal.  In his inaugrational speech, he said that America is a nation of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and non-believers.  But what does it mean when addressing the revamped White House Office on faith-based programs?

The most contentious issue surrounding the updated office, potential restrictions on the hiring practices of religious groups that receive taxpayer dollars, will undergo a thorough legal review before Obama makes a decision on hiring guidelines.

If the religious organizations receive federal money, will that mean they have to compromise on hiring workers who may not share their religious beliefs?  Does that an evaneglical organization which receives federal money will have to hire homosexuals or workers whose religions are in sharp contrast with the aforementioned organization’s religious tenets?  Obama professes to be a Christian, but yet, he never demonstrates true Christian principles on touchy subjects like abortion.  So, it’s important to see what kind of hiring guidelines Obama will establish in regards to faith-based programs.

Obama’s advisers want to be certain tax dollars sent to the faith-based social service groups are being used for secular purposes, such as to feeding the hungry or housing the homeless — not for religious evangelism. The administration doesn’t want to be perceived as managing the groups yet does want transparency and accountability.

Herein lies the main problem.  There are some faith-based programs that use social services as a means of preaching the message of salvation through Jesus Christ’s atoned blood on the Cross for our sins.  By avoiding to preach the Gospel and offering social services at the same time really defeats the main goal of such programs.  And they are more likely to be excluded from receiving any sort of federal money.

If Obama professes to be a Christian, then how can he tell Christian organizations to shut up on offering the free gift of God while at the same time sending off people with cookies on way to Hell?  Yes, that’s right you heard it correctly, I do believe there is a literal place called Hell, and that’s for people who have rejected God’s love through Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.  I know that it’s a touchy subject, but I believe in being blunt here.  Religious evangelism is an imporant part of many Christian organizations.

I thin it’s only fair to let faith-based programs do their work without having to compromise their religious principles.  After all, as a born-again Christian, it pains me to pay taxes to federal government which has just lifted off bans on providing federal funding to agencies that promote abortion aboard.  In short, I’ve just paid taxes so that an unborn baby can be murdered at will, without giving it a chance to live a life full of potential possibilities.  There you go.

To be perfectly honest, it seems to me that Obama is using federal money as a means of enforcing his idea of religious unity on all faith-based organizations.  However, to be fair, if any organization receives some sort of federal money, there would have to be some strings attached to it, after all, there’s no such thing as a free ride.  But avoiding religious evangelism?  Come on.

How can Obama call for accountability and transparency if he nominates tax cheats and display flawed moral judgments on the issues like abortion?  But I guess the only thing Obama can say is, “I won.”  Yeah, right.

Are federal appropriations doing Gallaudet University more harm than good?

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a long time ever since I first developed conservative scruples about how we ought run our country and government.

I was doing a bit of grant research, and somehow for fun, I decided to research on my Alma mater, Gallaudet University.  I was very curious as what Gallaudet’s budget looked like.  What I really wanted to know if Gallaudet made any real effort in seeking out grants.  The more grants an institution or a nonprofit organization has the more accountability is demanded of the receiving organization.  Not to mention the incentive to go out and seek to win the grants which in turn cultivates better and more lasting relationships with various foundations.  It’s a good public relations move, and in some ways it can be seen as actively campaigning for specific issues to be brought to the public or a more specific audience.

Read on.