One afternoon my wife Tamara and I were watching the Food Network on TV and we came across an episode of Bobby Flay’s “Throwdown“, where the chef will challenge randomly selected cooks/bakers. Bobby will take on an imitation of the challenger’s signature dish, and both dishes are tested by judges whose tongues will decide the victor of the day.

This afternoon’s episode was a donut episode, with Bobby taking on a donut-maker in New York City.

Naturally, this sparked a debate between Tamara and I—on whose donuts in our area reign supreme: those from the bakery of Shopper’s Food Warehouse (SFW), Krispy Kreme (KK) or Dunkin’ Donuts (DD).

It’s no secret that Tamara has a sweet tooth—I’d be inclined to say she has a full mouth of sweet teeth rather than just the one! I grew up with Dunkin’ Donuts—I have vivid memories of their Munchkins in the early mornings before school, or a yummy powdered Bavarian Kreme—whatever the mood called for!

Tamara maintained that SFW had the best donuts, with me picking DD. So, we decided to collect specimens and do a taste test to determine whose donuts reign supreme!

We included Krispy Kreme because, well, you can’t have a Donut War and just ignore KK. It’d be like Star Wars without Darth Vader.

The contestants were a glazed, a crème-filled, and a double-chocolate donut from each store. The Mrs. and I agreed on criteria:

Presentation, texture/consistency, taste, and size. Naturally we also factored in another variable—cost.

However—this Donut War was more about the taste, so we agreed to cleanse our palates (and minds) of any bias and sample with equal discrimination.

Battle 1: The Field of Chocolate Donut with Glaze

We sank our teeth into SFW’s donut, followed by KK and then DD. To our surprise, KK stole the show. The SFW and DD samples were too dry while KK was just right—good consistency and a light, fluffy texture filled with the warm comfort of CHOCOLATE!

Battle 2: Regular Glaze Attack

Next up were the samples of regular glazed donuts…Once again, KK took top billing with the right touch of glaze vs. donut and leaving me with a darn-it-why-didn’t-i-get-more-of-this-stuff feeling. To my chagrin, my lifelong satisfaction of a DD donut was quietly shelved without any fanfare. For Tamara, SFW topped out because of its size—they make their Colossal Glazed Donut (enough said!) in a way that it towers over the other donuts on our plate. Think of a 777 jumbo jet pulling up next to a VW Beetle.

Battle 3: Crème de la Crème!

Because I love crème-filled donuts, I added this element to the War. SFW topped out with their Bavarian Kreme which had just the perfect balance of harmony between the crème itself and the donut. The donut itself had plenty of powdered sugar which offset the moist taste of the crème—try putting a spoonful of powdered sugar in your mouth, and you’ll appreciate a moist touch to help it go down! DD saved some face by beating KK out for 2nd place in this battle. While KK may have won the first two battles, they need to work on their fillings. The glaze, frosting and crème didn’t really mix too well for me—too many flavors overwhelmed it. On top of that, KK doesn’t carry a Bavarian Kreme, so I had to settle for a chocolate frosted, custard-filled sample.

Overall, Tamara and I were blindsided by the entry of KK into our donut-debate. We both suffered the brutal reality of our memories in our respective donuterias being slashed by KK! However, Tamara noted that if KK does it the SFW way, they’ll really up their business by increasing the size of their donut. Free advice for the head honchos at KK—don’t forget us when it’s time to do bonus payouts!

Cost-wise, SFW goes at 98 cents, with KK at 89 and we forgot to check DD, so we leave it to you to be your own judge.

After all, taste is what counts, right?

Have you sometimes wished that someone could walk in your shoes for just one day so they could gain a better perspective of what you experience on a daily basis? Most people who are oppressed because of race, religion, gender, or disability have made this wish at least a dozen times in the last year. This cartoon puts in words the general consensus of what Black (or African American, if you want to be politically correct) people have been saying for decades:

Even so I found myself nodding in fervent agreement while reading this cartoon, I have a couple problems with it. For one thing, step 3 suggested to “…set them free, but subject them to horrific discrimination and oppression for another century or so.” Only a century’s worth of systemic discrimination? Try four centuries. Enslavement of black people did go on for over 400 years. 400 years of not being allowed to read. 400 years of having families broken up due to slave auctions. 400 years of feeling inferior. 400 years of black female slaves being raped and birthing children sired by their white masters, resulting in muddled bloodlines and mysterious paternity.

The other problem is the I.Q. tests themselves, as shown in step 4. What is the TRUE measure of intelligence? If you were to say tests and more tests, I would have to disagree with you. What about people who have great street smarts, but can’t put together a disseration to save their lives? One form of testing, S.A.T.s, is difficult for some people from different cultural backgrounds to take because the questions may be subjected to a certain cultural bias. Plus, some of these students of certain areas may attend schools where they have no assurances of having books and dependable, encouraging teachers. Does this mean that they are not hardworking, ambitious, capable, and–dare I say it–intelligent? No. It simply means that more likely than not, they won’t do too well on the SATs. The cartoon needs to add a “step 3a” to reflect this sobering reality.

Role reversal is a powerful way to gain insight and perhaps transformation. The oppressor gets to experience the oppressed people’s perspective. However, the grass is not always greener on the other side. Oppressed people who walk in the oppressor’s shoes may witness just how certain behaviors would be viewed from the other side, and that’s not always good news. The process can be a painful and enlightening revelation.

The two problems I had with this cartoon are just tips of an iceberg. So will the scientific method work on deconstructing and analyzing oppression? In my opinion, no, not as long as there’s cultural bias on the person performing the experiment. In the meantime, you may want to borrow my tattered and well-worn shoes for the day, which may help change your viewpoints on different matters.

God no longer has absolute authority in determining which child is born deaf and which is not. Some deaf parents have taken matters into their own hands, intentionally creating deaf children. This has led to an international uproar, as well as the proposal of legislation to prevent the selection of or creation of deaf babies.

The McCullough and Duchesneau Controversy
The most visible and oft-quoted case of a couple actively hoping to create deaf children was from, “A World of Their Own,” by Liza Mundy for The Washington Post Magazine about two deaf lesbians, Candace McCullough and Sharon Duchesneau, who found a deaf man with five generations of deafness willing to donate his sperm to Sharon, who has four generations of deafness on her mother’s side of the family. A genetic counselor informed them that they had a 50-50 chance of their child being deaf. The outcome was the successful conception of two children, both deaf.

The ensuing public outcry demanded that these parents justify their decision. Many characterized McCullough and Duchesneau as selfish, creating children to meet their own needs rather than thinking about the children’s future opportunities. Following this logic, McCullough and Duchesneau could be just as selfish as parents who decide to abort their fetuses who have Down Syndrome. According to a New York Times article, “about 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.”

The McCullough and Duchesneau decision is unique and controversial because they deliberately sought out a multiple-generation deaf donor to increase their chances of conceiving a deaf child and revealed their desires in an international publication. Unbeknownst to many hearing people, some deaf couples, consciously or unconsciously, seek partners who may increase their likelihood of conceiving a deaf child. According to the authors of “Attitudes of Deaf Individuals Towards Genetic Testing” in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, “Perhaps the most significant finding of our survey is that regardless of their cultural orientation, more than half of our respondents expressed an interest in considering the results of genetic testing when they select a marriage partner.” The research did not indicate if the partners wanted to obtain a test to increase or decrease the likelihood of conceiving a deaf child.

In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Genetic Counseling
The incidence of deaf couples who actively intend to create deaf children either by in vitro fertilization (IVF) or choosing high-incidence spouses/partners to conceive their children is probably a very small percentage and takes place on an infinitesimal scale (the culturally deaf community is quite small, arguably estimated at one million in the U.S).

In a 1998 study by Anna Middleton, a genetic counselor at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, UK, 87 deaf activists were polled. Middleton found that “16% of participants said that they would consider having prenatal diagnosis and, of these, 29% said that they would prefer to have deaf children.” After criticism of her questionnaire concerning her small sample size, according to a Nature article, “Genetics: Deaf By Design”, Middleton polled a larger sample of hard of hearing, hearing people with deaf family members, and profoundly deaf people — two-thirds of whom were not identified as culturally Deaf, according to the study. Nature reports that Middleton learned:

Across the deaf group, about one in five said they would consider prenatal genetic testing, mostly to prepare for the birth of a hearing or a deaf child.

Few of the deaf respondents said they would consider abortion, and in most of those cases, their choice was actually for a hearing child. None of those who said they would abort a deaf fetus was culturally Deaf. But three deaf people said they would consider aborting a fetus if it could hear. Two of these were culturally Deaf.

Nature shares the story of a deaf couple who was “devastated” to learn from a genetic counselor that they had a low likelihood of producing deaf offspring. Regardless of whom deaf people choose as their partner, they may harbor hopes of giving birth to a deaf child. A BBC television show, “My Family - Want a Deaf Baby“, covered the trials and tribulations of a deaf couple, Claire and Paul, about to give birth to a baby that they conceived together. They hope to have a deaf baby. When an audiologist reveals that the baby is deaf, the couple reacts with giddy delight. In Nature, Ted Supalla of the University of Rochester (who has hearing children and a hearing wife) shares a sentiment that some in the culture, like Claire and Paul, can relate to:

I don’t see anything wrong with [the preference to have deaf children]. I see it as being similar to how parents determine the religion or education of their child.

The U.K. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
It has been five years since the controversial Mundy article roiled American and international readers. On the other side of the Atlantic, a recently proposed legislation in the United Kingdom, called the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, has a section, 14(4)(9), calling for the rejection of any embryo containing genes that would cause a disability, including deafness. Ironically, language elsewhere in the bill proposes prohibiting the selection of an embryo on the basis of its gender. It is possible that the Mundy article, along with other similar stories in the United States, influenced the proposed legislation and current discussion. The explanatory notes to the bill, in section 109 states:

Clause 14(4) contains a provision that relates to the provisions on embryo testing (see note on clause 11). New sections 13(8) to (11) amend the 1990 Act to make it a condition of a treatment licence that embryos that are known to have an abnormality (including a gender-related abnormality) are not to be preferred to embryos not known to have such an abnormality. The same restriction is also applied to the selection of persons as gamete or embryo donors. This would prevent similar situations to cases, outside the UK, where positive selection of deaf donors in order deliberately to [sic] result in a deaf child have been reported.

Baroness Deech, a Lord in the UK, followed up with this point in the ensuing debate:

I hope that your Lordships will be pleased that the deliberate choice of an embryo that is, for example, likely to be deaf will be prevented by Clause 14.

The proposed UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill focuses solely on the selection process during IVF conceptions, which is not the same process in which McCullough and Duchesneau conceived their children. However, there may be IVF decisions that have not been publicized in the United States, according to “Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics”:

Three percent of IVF–PGD [Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis] clinics report having provided PGD to couples who seek to use PGD to select an embryo for the presence of a disability.

In addition, Nature reports that The Infertility Treatment Authority for the state of Victoria in Australia said it would not allow a couple hoping for a deaf child to use an IVF preimplantation test. The practice of choosing children who share their parent’s disability may be most prevalent among the deaf and dwarf communities since both were the focus of an Associated Press article about selection of embryos that would create disabled children.

Francis Murphy, a leading UK deaf advocate said in a Times Online article, “If choice of embryos for implantation is to be given to citizens in general, and if hearing and other people are allowed to choose embryos that will be ‘like them’, sharing the same characteristics, language and culture, then we believe that deaf people should have the same right.” Is he right that the focus should be on preserving individual rights, not having the government impose rules on the actions of a “pinch of sand on a beach”?

Furthermore, Nature concludes:

Given these diverse viewpoints, some experts argue that it is unfair to focus on the minority of the culturally Deaf who say they would consider aborting a hearing fetus. “It is offensive to keep harping on about this scenario. While many deaf parents may harbour a preference for having deaf children, the data suggest that the majority would never consider doing it,” says Barbara Biesecker, a genetic counselor at the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda.

The BDA Response to Proposed UK Bill
The British Deaf Association (BDA) drafted a poignant, but flimsy response to the authors of the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The response outlined realistic situations where deaf couples would be put in an unfair position that may or may not be the intention of the Bill. For example, if the legislation is approved, as is, Alison Bryan, an attorney in the United Kingdom, speculates that 14(4)(9) of the Bill could have the following repercussions:

Say e.g. you have a deaf gene in your family, and for whatever reason needed assisted fertilisation in order to get pregnant. If the embryos developed were known be deaf, a female would not be allowed to be made pregnant by a deaf embryo, and a hearing embryo must always be picked. This could also mean that deaf people are prohibited from partaking in assistance with fertilisation (donation of eggs, sperm).

However, the BDA makes the following poor counterargument to the Bill:

Impact of genetic screening and selection against deafness and the negative effect on the remaining population of deaf people. By codifying into law a preference for selecting embryos that are genetically associated with hearing, potential deaf people who would have otherwise been born will not have an opportunity to exist. Over time this is likely to bring about a less diverse society, including the potential for the decline or demise of BSL. Smaller numbers of deaf people overall may result in less communication access and fewer services offered to this population.

In essence, the BDA posits that deaf people be allowed to produce more deaf people for the purpose of maintaining communication access and services provided to the community. No group should be subsidized by any government for the purpose of ensuring its survival. An endangered list for animals is sufficient; governments are not obligated to create a list of endangered cultures and languages around the world and work to save them.

The BDA also responds to common arguments, which are two-fold: ‘right to an open future’ argument, in which a child should be provided the greatest number of opportunities possible and the ‘conditions of exit’ argument, which argues that deaf people are isolated from mainstream society. The latter argument is valid, because signing deaf people interact with hearing society on a daily basis, and do so without disruption. However, the former argument may be an optimistic assessment of the opportunities available to deaf and hard of hearing people.

A number of avenues are closed for the deaf person, mostly at no fault of the deaf person’s. Most of the problems are rooted in attitudes and perceptions. Claiming that deaf people face a number of opportunities that is only slightly less than hearing people is a mistaken assumption. Making such a bold statement could undermine deaf advocates’ efforts to improve the quality of our lives through future legislation that continues to protect our rights. Some deaf people may prefer to, selfishly, improve their opportunities and quality of lives rather than preserve a culture that will likely dwindle to numbers which renders it extremely difficult to support the culture.

The Future of Genetic Screening and Culture
It is possible that unborn children in utero could be subject to genetic screening for deafness in the near future. While fetal genetic screening and rejection/abortion of embryos may not be explicitly banned in the United States (which is a mistake the United Kingdom is seemingly leaning toward), the smart move for any legislator concerned about this issue is to simply require screening for deaf genes in embryos. This will then leave it up to parents to make a decision similar to what is occurring today with Down Syndrome screening. George F. Will of Newsweek, who has a son with Down Syndrome, reacted with anger towards the implementation of Down Syndrome screening, arguing:

But what is antiseptically called “screening” for Down syndrome is, much more often than not, a search-and-destroy mission: At least 85 percent of pregnancies in which Down syndrome is diagnosed are ended by abortions.

While hearing people will likely opt to avoid any perceived hardship by rejecting embryos or even aborting fetuses, the quandary facing a deaf person is much more complex. Part two of this blog will analyze the decision facing deaf parents who contemplate intentionally creating a deaf child or selecting an embryo based on the possibility that the result will be a deaf child.

“Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please.” A quote by Machiavelli–it’s at the end of the movie “Home of the Brave” about Iraq veterans who try to cope with life after a tour of duty.

The war our country has found itself embroiled in a world away has had devastating effects—not only felt on the far confines of that world far away. The ripples of war have also hit home here, in the hearts, minds and souls of our soldiers that come home and try to make sense of a “normal” and “routine” life.

Things like getting up to go to work, getting dressed, talking about your family, friends, work experiences…going to the grocery store, watching a movie, taking a nap—all of these things tie to a semblance of routine, everyday life. This is the life that most of us civilians know.

One can only imagine what a soldier who has grown up in our society sees once they set foot on that dusty desert floor in Iraq. One can only imagine what a soldier sees when their convoy gets hit by a roadside bomb that’s set off by a kid they just saw passing by. One can only imagine the feeling of seeing a lifelong friend lose a life, from bullets fired by insurgents, hell-bent on their individual maxim of freedom. There are so many more scenarios that a civilian mind could not even begin to fathom—and our soldiers have to live through the brutal reality of these unfathomable experiences.

It becomes harder to understand why we send these soldiers to a faraway world, especially when our leaders appear to be the ones nestled safely in their offices, behind bunkers and a plethora of security. They espouse “accurate” reports on intelligence, on strategy, on an end goal. Our politicians speak of missions, a plan, a vision for the betterment of the world we live in. How, then, is it feasible for a reasonable person to submit another individual to such experiences, such horrors in the name of ideals?

These soldiers, more often than not, come back changed people. The upstanding young man next door, the kid that wants to get away from a life of crime enlists, the daughter of a hard-working family feels it is her patriotic duty to serve her country…they come back to their families with a sense of wanting to belong. Does war better prepare them for life outsize the hot zone?

Or, does war unleash the primal animal that nestles deep within our psyches? Does war bring out the real souls within our bodies?

It is a sad day when a civilian tries to make sense of a war that, with an increasing amount of daily news shows that our country was misguided and led into a war that it had no place joining to begin with.

Who takes care of the soldiers, then? Who truly recognizes what they have gone through to protect our daily way of life? Who stops and says “thank you” not to act as if they understand what the soldier went through, but to simply appreciate their monumental sacrifice?

The soldiers of our armed forces volunteered. They enlisted—they left the safe confines of the world they knew, to go to another world and try to pass on ideals of a free country.

Who thanks them? A government that seems to uncover more errors as it tries to make sense of itself? It hardly seems the right way to thank our soldiers.

Take a moment—forget about politics, forget about our government…to think of those soldiers who are fighting to preserve the ideals that this country was founded upon.

They’re paying the ultimate price.

Someone is coming to town. Don’t cry, shout or pout– he doesn’t like those mannerisms very much. Who do you think I am speaking of? That’s right! It’s the very jolly, extremely chubby dude who’s stylin’ in a red crushed velvet suit. His beard is as white as the driven snow, and his spectacles sit on a very red nose– but not as red as Rudolph, his most prized reindeer. He answers to many names such as Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, and St. Nicholas. But the most common alias that we are familiar with is Santa Claus.

At this time of year, you’ll see Santa at the mall with hopeful children lining up for a chance to sit on his lap. Santa’s lap is like a courtroom for kids, where they can argue their cases about what such GOOD children they have been and why they deserve ALL of the presents on their lists. You can also catch him outside your local store soliciting for donations to a charity. He is quick to serenade you with a friendly and hearty “Ho, ho, ho!” while rubbing his very ample belly.

In a world where we seemingly make exceptions for–and take exceptions to–different things, Santa Claus is no exception. People nowadays are either questioning or attacking his character and intentions. Poor guy–he just can’t get a break. Consider the following:

• “Ho” is a derogatory label for a loose and immoral woman. Judging by the number of “ho’s” Santa uses, he’s apparently cheating on Mrs. Claus with at least three different women.
• Santa could very well be a closet pedophile that secretly gets his jollies from having innocent kids sit on his lap. This could explain why so many kids are afraid of Santa and refuse to “visit” with him.
• Take away the cookies. Santa’s rotund appearance is no longer considered healthy in this weight-obsessed society. There’s a rampant rumor going around that several national gym chains are competing to obtain Santa as a client.
• The huffing and puffing coming from Santa isn’t because of shortness of breath due to all that weight. He’s been dragging on those cancer-inducing paraphernalia, otherwise known as pipes. That explains the yellow-stain beard hairs around the mouth area.
• Santa is the master of B&E: Breaking and Entering. I mean, who else can come in and out of a place in less than five minutes with no complaints from the occupants of the house? A burglar’s ultimate dream.
• PETA should stop going after people wearing furs, and go after Santa. After all, he makes those poor reindeers carry easily 20-30 times their weight in presents…PLUS his weight. Talk about backbreaking work.
• Want a prime example of slave labor? Look no further than those elves at the North Pole. Children in third world countries sewing together expensive designer clothes in sweatshops make way more money than these poor vertically challenged guys.

Clauses are usually provisions– ways to get out of following the terms of an otherwise ironclad contract, if you will. It’s unfortunate these days people are trying find ways to break away from a cherished tradition that’s been around for decades. If Santa was a regular Joe, then most of the behaviors outlined above should be investigated. But because this is Santa we are talking about, does he deserve to get a pass?

Just think– we have suggested extinguishing his smokes, putting out low-cal and low-fat cookies, and sending him to a refresher course on how to speak to women properly. If I only came once a year–bringing joy and delight to children’s eyes– I would be extremely annoyed if whatever few pleasures I could partake in were snatched away from me. So if you ask me, I think we should leave Santa the hell alone and let the kiddies enjoy the magic. The famous letter that was published in The New York Sun summed it up quite nicely:

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Watch out, Tooth Fairy…you may be next on the hit list. Not only are you using a moniker that may imply your sexual preferences, but you also may be single-handedly responsible for the proliferation of the black market– where kids’ teeth go for ridiculous amounts of money far exceeding the value of the enamel.

In almost every blog I read these days about a deaf person standing up for himself, there will usually be at least one comment that looks something like this:

“Oh, grow up! Not everything is about audism! You can’t blame hearing people for not knowing how to react…”

This type of comment rarely varies with the story. The deaf author of the original blog might have assertively resolved a problem with an airline attendant, a pet store employee, or anyone else. Nonetheless this type of comment informs him in every case that he was wrong to do what he did. It also doesn’t matter what type of assertive action the deaf author actually took. Calmly talked to the guy? Oh grow up! Assertively expressed frustration by saying, “When you said that, I felt irritated”? Not everything is about audism!

Don’t you find that kind of response disturbing? I do. For one thing, it’s an expression of frustration in and of itself (indicating that the commenter can tolerate his own frustration but not anybody else’s). I also find it disturbing because I happen to agree with one part of it: indeed, not everything is about audism.

But so what? Plenty of things are about ignorance, and ignorance is bad enough. Many of us know all too well how it feels to put up with hearing people’s ignorance day after day. The hearing flight attendant didn’t know what to do with us; so now we’re a bit weary of flying. The hearing pet shop employee had no idea how to meet our communication needs, so now we’re on guard against the next clerk that might say something insensitive. We can let these things go, but if we don’t do so efficiently, an isolated incident can quickly feel like an unrelenting bombardment of ignorance. And ironically enough, this is when we’re most likely to respond with anger—not assertiveness.

Why should that be so?

Some people unfortunately believe that anger and assertiveness are the same thing, and furthermore, they’ve been trained to believe that anger itself is inherently bad (rather than a natural emotion). Thus they shy away from developing their own assertiveness skills—in much the same way that they shy away from expressing (or even allowing themselves to consciously feel) anger. But in the end that system cannot work, because anger is generated from stress. If a customer service rep hangs up on you during a relay call (thinking you’re a telemarketer), that causes stress. If the flight attendant wants to bump you up to first class because your original (and the only remaining) seat in the coach section is right next to the emergency hatch—how will he be able to open it if he can’t hear the instructions?—that causes stress. It causes stress even when you get a freebie out of the situation (a first class seat for the same amount of money as a coach seat, for example). You might argue: Who wouldn’t want to be bumped up to a first class seat from a coach seat? Good question. But how good will you keep feeling once you realize the airline attendant apparently didn’t think enough of you to hand over the laminated set of illustrated instructions that she was holding right there in her fingers?

Where do you think all of that stress goes? It adds up, and you’ve got to deal with that stuff. If you aren’t dealing with it, rest assured that it will someday deal with you—probably by giving you a heart attack. Stress doesn’t magically dissipate just because you’ve trained yourself to stuff it down and ignore it. Stress doesn’t acknowledge your dysfunctional belief that irritating events will somehow simply bounce off of you. You can’t cheat your way out of getting rid of the stress, either, not even through so-called “healthier” outlets. A hard game of racquetball won’t help you get over the way the ignorant hearing clerk at Blockbuster treated you last week because the racquetball isn’t the problem. The clerk has been clueless since you first met him a year ago, and he’ll still be clueless tomorrow. No matter how many times you smash the ball into the wall; in the back of your mind you’re going to wonder whether or not that clerk might have long since learned from the error of his ways if only you had said something to him!

What if all of your silence, all of your “good,” non-confrontational behavior in fact helped create a large part of your resentment toward the guy? Maybe that’s why we keep seeing these types of comments. Some people cannot handle their discomfort over watching other deaf people stand up themselves because it reminds them too much of all the responsibility they never took for their own lives. That’s why they need to emphasize so strongly that “not everything is about audism.” The criticism might be true, but nine times out of ten it’s also irrelevant. Thus it distracts others from the process of developing their own healthy boundaries, their own healthy techniques for resolving conflicts. And why should that surprise anyone?

If you don’t know how to assert yourself, distraction is probably the only coping skill you have.

Let’s start the New Year off on the right note — what better way to do it by being on the Front Page? You read that right! DPHH will take place on January 4th at the Front Page, located in the heart of the bustling Dupont Circle. This is a cozy place, perfect for convening, eating, talking and a little dancing if your heart desires! Let’s gather at The Front Page for the first DPHH of 2008 and share our announcements, resolutions or headline news with our buddies! Laughter, happiness, and good spirits required.

The Front Page
1333 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington, DC, DC 20036

Nearest Metro: Dupont Circle (Red Line)

The current Terms and Conditions are inadequate for DeafDC.com and in response, we have developed a new one. To review it, please click on “Terms and Conditions” directly below the comment box (scroll to the bottom of comments to see the box). For a direct link to our new terms and conditions, please click on:
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/wp-content/themes/connections/toc.html

DeafDC.com has decided to make more prominent the relevant part of our Terms and Conditions. We have created space below each comment box that shares the following rules:

The blog is owned by DeafDC.com. We allow you to use DeafDC.com as long as you follow the rules in our Terms and Conditions (click on “terms and conditions above for the complete, official rules). The opinions expressed in the blog are the opinions of the individual bloggers and do not represent DeafDC.com’s opinion and we are not responsible for the content of those posts.

DeafDC.com visitors are prohibited from posting comments which are illegal, morbid or disturbing, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, infringing of intellectual property rights, or otherwise injurious to third parties or objectionable, or which consists of or contains software viruses, political campaigning, or commercial solicitation, chain letters, mass mailings, or any form of “spam.” You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead as to the origin of your comment.

DeafDC.com reserves the right (but has no obligation) to remove comments, but does not regularly review posted comments. You agree that DeafDC.com maintains the sole right to remove comments for these reasons, for any reason and at any time.

If you feel that our terms and conditions are being violated, promptly notify the DeafDC.com manager at info — at — deafdc (dot) com.

Certainly, the new Terms and Conditions will still contain gray areas. While we value the importance of open discussion, we need a reasonable amount of protection for our organization and a Terms and Conditions flexible enough to allow our audience to engage in intelligent dialogue.

Since the inception of this website, we always honored requests for removals of comments. From this point forward we will evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis. This time, the new Terms and Conditions along with a more profound understanding of relevant laws and concepts governing the Internet will guide our decision-making process.

A friend sent me a link to a comic that I thought was hilarious. The comic’s author relates his experience at Tower A/Ellingson Hall at RIT. Absolutely hilarious, and the punch lines he raises are ones that we are all too familiar with. Speaking from the perspective of someone who went to RIT, he is SPOT ON and skewers deaf people nicely. He’d be a great person to write a Deaf Roast on Comedy Central.

Dorm of the Deaf [Dustinland]

Comments, thoughts? Some people on reddit have commented here, if you’re interested in reading some reactions to this comic from random hearing and deaf people.

It snowed a few days ago in DC and the area, and I managed to snap these pictures before the snow melted the next day.

Enjoy.

Sprinkled snow decorates a Do Not Enter sign.

Capitol Hill is quiet as snow blankets the streets.

A dusting of snow coats a tree that only had just lost its leaves.