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! 

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 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:

“It would be a horrible move. These regulations were a long time coming,” said Tom McClusky, a vice president at Family Research Council. “What they seek to do is protect patients, nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences.”

An abortion isn’t like a medical emergency, where decisions have to be made in a split second.  In fact, only 1% and 6% of abortions occur because of rape or incest, and potential health problems to either child or mother respectively.  93& of abortions occur because of social reasons.  So, for most women, they do have time to consider whether an abortion is the right choice to make.  Therefore, time constraints aren’t a major factor here.

What happens when a woman picks a doctor who may have moral objections to performing an abortion?  Wouldn’t it make more sense if that woman simply switched to a different doctor who have no such moral qualms than to force the doctor she has right now to perform a medical operation against his or her own conscience?  What happened to freedom of refusing a service, which you may find objectionable? 

Why is it always that abortion proponents are seeking to force abortions down the throats of doctors and nurses?  There are plenty of abortion clinics that are willing to perform such disgusting operations, why couldn’t women go to these places?  I think the answer to that question lies in what kind of liberal agenda many people are pushing onto America.  I think we all agree on one thing: liberals want a perfect paradise devoid of religion, moral values, liberty, and all things that make America a great country, even if it means forcing everybody to agree and accept the liberal version of a more perfect Union.

But the worst is yet to come.  Pretty soon, we’ll see a seat vacated on Supreme Court, and President Obama will have an opportunity to appoint a young liberal judge, confirmed perhaps largely by a Democratic-controlled Senate.  That means all effort put into fighting abortions for the last 30 years or so will have come to nought at least for conservatives.  This is why every election is so crucial.  I know this can’t be said enough repeatedly, but elections do have consequences.

And now, it’s not just ordinary Americans paying the price of Obama’s stimulus bill, but also doctors and nurses who have moral qualms with abortion issues.  I wouldn’t be surprised if some doctors and nurses will now have to reconsider whether they might have to switch to different careers, if they find themselves no longer able to practice medicine without being forced to do things against their consciences.

At this point, I have only one thing to say to women who want abortions.  I can’t stop them from having abortions, but I’d urge them simply to find a different doctor to perform abortions.  They do have that choice, and as far I know, nothing in law prevents them from making that choice.  So choose a different doctor, please.

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.

Our enemies are gearing up, while we’re gearing down. Obama will ask for defense budget cuts, while our enemies are increasing theirs. Mark my words, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Never say Cannae won’t happen to us, Romans were lucky to survive Cannae and other devastating defeats.  Can we afford to wait and find out if we could survive such military disasters?  I hope not.

If you were to ask me what areas I think our armed forces should maintain even in face of deep budget cuts, it’s a no-brainer for me to say US Navy and R & D departments.

It is theoratically possible for us to maintain a small land army with a large size of naval warships and other logistical units. I prefer we maintain a highly trained rapid deployed force capable of deploying anywhere within 48 hours, and the only way to obtain that ability is if we maintain vigilantly a high level of naval supremacy. So, we must have sufficient aircraft carriers with powerful, sleathy submarines to sniff out potential enemy submarines and be able to deploy Special Forces covertly. However, in order to avoid playing catch-up with our enemies, it is important for us to continue pouring tons of money into researching and developing the latest modern weapons, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and just about anything our men and women need to protect themselves.

Our enemies won’t rest while we make some defense budget cuts, they will go into overtime and work harder to catch up with us. May God help us should that day ever come true.

Sadly, I think that day is fast approaching us, as long we allow our politicians to neglect the defense of our country and throwing money on entitlement programs. Nowadays, I get the feeling that many people seem to think prosperity can only happen if we get rid of our armed forces. As more and more people are indoctrinated with liberal ideas, our armed forces will come under intense assaults that makes Iowa Jima look like a walk in park.

We need to maintain a large force if only to protect ourselves and preserve our way of life. Without this large force, our enemies will truly appear at the gates of freedom and liberty to crush us once for all. I’m not talking about an invasion of America, but eroding away its strategic interests and hog-tying us by going on offensive operations, knowing perfectly well that we can’t do anything about it. Once again, mark my words, that will happen if we let Obama and other people like him get what they want.

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!

This kind of story breaks my heart, because here is somebody who tried to obey law and actually did his part in enforcing law on his property.  The illegals should be thankful that this rancher did not shoot them on sight, he’s well within his right do that.  Though, I can only imagine the kind of outrage liberals and media would have if he did that, he would be immediately arrested on the charge of first degree murder and lose his property.

But what is truly outrageous is that there are some people who actually believe that suing somebody in court means it’s okay to break more laws.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the illegals in this case probably thought, “I’m doing the jobs no American wants to do, you should be thankful for me.  Just because I’m entering illegally doesn’t mean I’ll break every law in book.  Wake up and smell coffee!”  No kidding, Sherlock!  The point isn’t whether you’ll be following law once you cross the border, but that you broke law by illegally entering the United States.  I don’t care if you are indeed a hardworking person, you broke law and you should pay the price, not Barnett or any other rancher for that matter, period.

Liberals have this weird mentality that some laws are meant to be broken, and we should overlook some of moral flaws on part of people like…tax cheats in Daschle and Geithner, not to mention the husband of Hilda Solis (it’s impossible for her not to know about the tax liens).  You know, it’s funny that the liberals went after Joe the Plumber for his tax troubles, but all of a sudden, fell silent on Daschle, Geithner, and Solis.  I guess it’s just not only okay to sue so that you can break laws, but as long you’re a registered Democrat and a bona fide liberal, it’s okay not to pay taxes at all if you’re not being nominated for Cabinet positions.  But I digress.

In Washington Times article, Barnett acknowledged that over a span of ten years, he stopped over 12,000 illegals.  That’s an average of 3 or 4 per day, nonstop. 

It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

Can you imagine walking out on patrol with a gun in your hand on Christmas Day or even Thanksgiving Day?  No rest for this guy, and really, he should get a medal or something like that.  He could simply moved out of there, but he choose to stay there.  What concerns me the most is the fact the border is increasingly getting more dangerous as Mexico starts to lose control of its government and law enforcement agencies with the rise of deadly drug cartels with highly trained grunts killing each other in power grab plays.

If the illegals win the case, $32 million could buy a lot of weapons and ammunitions, not to mention drugs.  Not all illegals enter the US in order to earn more money, some of them are here for illegal reasons: terrorists, drugs, arms smugglers, and perhaps even sex trafficking.  In addition, it could mean ranchers like Barnett will be stymied in doing something about the illegals.  With President Obama in power, it’s unlikely he or people in  his administration will be friendly toward guys like Barnett or border patrol agents doing their jobs too well.  It’s a wet dream come true for many illegals, which is disgusting to say at least.

It’s really amazing that Barnett hasn’t sued Mexico yet for the wanton desctruction left behind by illegals.  He pays out of his pockets to repair the damage done to his property, expecting nothing in return from “hardworking” illegals.  He’s the real victim here, and nobody at top level in government is doing anything about it. 

“This is my land. I´m the victim here,” Mr. Barnett said. “When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back.”

And it’s more unfortuante for victims, because let’s face it, criminals have more rights than them.  The criminals get due process to be determined guilty or innocent, on the other hand, victims don’t have this luxury when they face somebody violating their personal space and taking away the peace of mind from them.

Always remember this: liberals are only interested in you if you agree with their liberal philosophy or if you do so much as looking down on them, you’ll get the special treatment.  You get that when, God forbid, you actually follow law, and people so favored by liberals suffer mentally and physically by being forced to comply with (gasp!) law.  Only liberals and illegals get preferred treatment, while everybody else not in their camp get special treatment.  Always remember that!  Always.

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.

When it comes to following the clock, Obama closely resembles Bill Clinton, who was famously late to events when he was president. By contrast, Bush despised being late and punctual to a fault. He set the tone early in his presidency — he arrived at the Capitol five minutes early for his inauguration.

“To me, being tardy, it’s got to be one of two things,” said presidential historian Doug Wead, who advised both Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush. “Bad organization that can be corrected, or it’s arrogance. It sounds to me like this is arrogance.”

Mark Lindsay, a Democratic consultant and former senior White House adviser to Bill Clinton, disagreed, explaining that Clinton was late sometimes because he was making accommodations for logistics or average citizens.

How is being late an accommodation for ”average” citizens or an elected representative?  If you are late for an important meeting, then that tells people who attended it that you don’t consider it important enough to be on time.  Imagine a Pro-bowl player not showing up on time for team meetings, and watch what happens in the locker room.  The teammates won’t be happy with him, and coaches can’t impart some valuable tips to that player simply because there’s not much time to do it.  This leads to a small crack in team chemistry, perhaps only a minor one, but when you start adding up all those times, and you start to understand what an ugly picture it is for the team who needs this Pro-bowl player’s talents and leadership.

Guess what?  President Obama is our Pro-bowl player, for better or worse, he is effectively our new and current leader of Free World.  And he’s not  showing up on time.  He’s just acting like Bill Clinton.  Mr. President, being a president isn’t like playing in sandbox, where nothing gets hurt.  There are important decisions to be made, and if you can’t be bothered to be on time, then obviously it means you don’t consider us important enough.  In the other words, we’re just pawns in your playboy presidency.  This is pure arrogance at its worst.

I don’t like President Obama, but I want him to get serious on, you know, actually acting like a real president!

Allan Lichtman, a political history professor at American University, had a different explanation for Clinton’s tardiness.

“President Clinton was always late because he wasn’t very disciplined in general,” he said. “This was a man who marched to the beat of his own drummer, who liked to talk, liked intellectual discussions, had his finger in every pie.”

There are two kinds of presidents, Lichtman said: “Foxes and hedgehogs.” 

“Foxes know a little about everything. They have their fingers in every pie. … Hedgehogs only know a few things and know it well and leave the details to others. Clinton was a classic fox. Bush was a classic hedgehog.”

Obviously, President Obama shares some similar traits with Bill Clinton, and being late is one of them.  If both share this trait, it could only mean both are not disciplined at all.  And not being disciplined means somebody HAVE TO do some duties for them.  An undisciplined person means he’s not in control of himself, and to me, I don’t think either Obama or Clinton was ever in control of themselves.  They had someone to guide them around, because being late means they miss out some important information and have to play catch-up.  If President Obama cannot discipline himself being on time, then perhaps this is a symptom of not being experienced or ready enough to be the 44th President of the United States.

President Obama is indeed a fox.  And it’s very difficult to tame a fox, actually, I don’t know if it could be tamed at all.  And I’m afraid we’ve just left a fox to guard the henhouse.

And Obama? He appears to be a fox, too, Lichtman said.

It’s just so sad that 52% of voters choose Obama over McCain.  We get to see what kind of a fox President Obama will turn out to be.  In the world of post-partisanship, we can only have so many foxes running amok in Washington.  Despite this, at least we can take some comfort in the fact that being a foxy president isn’t an easy task to accomplish.  President Obama has the next four years to prove us wrong, but I don’t think so.

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.

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.

It turrns out Gallaudet University receives 70% of its income from federal appropriation. Surprisingly enough, I discovered that it doesn’t do much of grant-seeking or getting involved with serious fund-raising efforts other than $31 million building campaign for a new building, Sorenson Language & Communication Center.  Although I find it ironic that $3 million is being funded for I. King Jordan Chair on Leadership when in fact considering the recent protests which demonstrated the lack of leadership on Jordan’s part.  Of course, I’m being cynical, but that’s just me.

It also has an endowment fund of $165 million, but most of it is restricted to specific areas or programs, so very little of it can be used for general purposes. Moreover, as you know, endowed funds mean the principals must remain intact and half its dividends earned on compound interest must be reinvested back into the principals in order to keep them growing. In the other words, in some ways, an endowment fund is more of a limitation in certain ways.

A thought popped up in my mind, is this good for Gallaudet? It’s grown dependent on federal appropriation to get by.

I decided to dig more deeper in the world of higher education and states funding universities and local colleges. To my surprise, I’m not really familiar with how higher education is being funded, but it turns out that perhaps the most expensive item on a state’s budget is probably higher education!

For example, I took a look at Maryland’s state budget where I live right now, and it turns out that the University of Maryland, College Park receives ONE BILLION dollars (pg. 27)! To be sure, there are different amounts for restricted and general funds, but they add up to one billion dollars. That’s a lot of money. To be fair, the data I was looking at is only for fiscal year 2008, but even so. Of course, the U. of MD isn’t the only university Maryland is handing out money to. Towson University is mentioned in the budget as well. But most of local colleges and universities receive small amounts compared to U. of MD.

Next, I decided to take a look at Virginia’s budget, and it does hand out a lot of money to different universities, just like Maryland does.

It would appear that for some states a major portion of their budget is for higher education. Now, I know for the majority of hearing universities, this is probably okay, because despite state handouts, they are still competing with each other within the states and nation as well. So that means they have to be creative in recruiting prospective students and developing their strengths. For example, University of Chicago concentrates on its economic school, which is famous for its free-market economics orientation. Harvard is well known for its business management school. Yale is known for its law school. Stanford is considered the Harvard of West Coast. Berkeley is well known for its politics. Needless to say, there are countless more examples out there.

But Gallaudet University has no competition in its field. It’s the only center for everything related on deafness and Deaf culture in the world. It’s not really known for producing lawyers or even top quality business managers. Is federal appropriation hurting Gallaudet more than it helps? Maybe Gallaudet needs to do more aggressive grant-seeking efforts or improve its quality of education. Can this also happen to hearing universities, if they feel too comfortable and see no incentive to get ahead of each other as long they know they’re the only centers in the world in certain fields?

Now, I am a strong proponent of free market economics and principles, therefore it is naturally for me to believe the best thing that can happen to Gallaudet is more competition.  Obviously, it’s not the case here, so Gallaudet will need to find another way to build up its reputation and increasing its quality of education.  But it can’t be helped by thinking that if Gallaudet sees the lack of competition, there will be no incentives whatsoever for Gallaudet to do better.  Right now, Gallaudet, for all intents and purposes, effectively monopolizes the market on everything related to the Deaf world.  Okay, that’s fine with me, can you tell me what’s the next step?

Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea what’s the next step Gallaudet will be taking in near future.

Don’t get me wrong, receiving federal appropriatons aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but should Gallaudet depend on them primarily as its income?  Is that how we want to view ourselves, every time a problem occurs, must we always run to government at all levels to solve it for us?

Anyway, tell me what are your opinions on this issue?  Now, be courteous in your comments, this isn’t DailyKos.  Let’s keep it clean, shall we?