The Virginia Tech shootings last year partially fed into a stereotype society tends to have about killers: they’re odd, strange, violent individuals that we can spot from a mile away. The reality was that Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter who murdered classmates and professors, was mentally ill. His illness manifested itself in rather frightening ways, such as “morbid and grotesque” class assignments.

Although the student body, faculty, and staff of Virginia Tech, along with the rest of us, were shocked, the profile that emerged conformed to images we have of criminals: deviant, threatening strangers. They’re never people that we really know, people that we spend time with, people that we trust.

Now, less than a year later, we have another campus shooting, this time at Northern Illinois University. This time, unlike Cho, the killer is described as “quiet, dependable, and fun-loving.” Steven Kazmierczak’s ex-girlfriend characterized him as someone who “wasn’t erratic. He wasn’t delusional. He was Steve; he was normal.” This assessment feeds into another stereotype: the nice, gentle boy, the kind that neighbors interviewed by reporters always describe as “the last person you’d imagine doing this awful thing.”

So we have the Monster and the Saint. But the reality is far more complex. As this article explains, Kazmierczak had mental problems, had “disturbing tattoos,” and had recently developed an interest in guns. Far from being a black-and-white caricature, the NIU gunman was many shades of grey, just like the majority of us.

In the battle over gun control and access to guns, there’s a lot of black-and-white arguments. But the truth is there’s a large, ambiguous middle– and that middle ground terrifies me. The moderate position is that guns are somehow okay when used by certain people in certain situations. This viewpoint is part of the reason why the reactions to these tragic events have prompted not just a resurrection of the gun control debate, but a reassessment by a lot of people on the issue of whether to have and use guns at all.

Yesterday, CNN carried a piece about college students in Utah, a state where concealed gun permits allow gun owners to carry weapons onto college campuses, among other public locations. Currently, the state legislature is considering modifying this right even further; if a pending bill passes, it will permit current concealed-weapons owners to carry these guns unconcealed in places like college campuses, hospitals, and sports venues.

I’m not so sure that’s wise. In the CNN article about students, the bill’s sponsor, Utah State Representative Curtis Oda stated, “When you see someone with a gun, you are looking at some of the most law-abiding people in the state.”

That might be, but I’m thinking more about a student quoted at the beginning of the article: “Nick” commented on his decision to carry a gun, saying “Last year, after Virginia Tech, I thought ‘I’m not going to be a victim.” From one perspective, that’s an understandable reaction. Who wants to end up dead in the morgue due to a rogue classmate?

But then I think: it’s easy to say that about the “monsters.” Can you say the same about the “saints”? Just how far are we willing to let things go until a mistake turns into a tragedy?

Then I noticed later in the day yesterday a news item that exemplified that for me. Just a mere 45-minute drive from my home,

An ROTC student carrying a nonfunctioning rifle on the campus of Cal State Dominguez Hills in Carson prompted a large police response after students reported that they had seen a man carrying what appeared to be an assault rifle on school grounds, authorities said today.

Fortunately, the authorities quickly assessed the situation and realized no threat was posed. But what might have happened if in the interim, “Nick” or someone like him decided that rather than being a victim, now was the time to act, rather than react? What if someone who was a legally licensed gun owner who carried a gun on campus decided to shoot that ROTC student, in the mistaken belief that it was another Cho or Kazmierczak?

What if a student, who under every other circumstance was a normal, outgoing student, got an “F” or “D” in their class, confronted their professor, and decided to respond in the heat of the moment with the gun they had strapped around their belt?

As Kevin Rechtenbach commented in the CNN article,

“If acts of terrorism continue on campus, then I will have no choice but to carry a concealed weapon”…

“But you see, that is where the problem lies: Everybody will end up carrying concealed weapons, and everyday problems will be solved with guns rather than words or even fists.”

This is one of the concerns I have about easy, free gun access in places like college campuses: students that age are still growing, still maturing, still experimenting. There’s a reason why many male criminals in prison are in their late teens and early twenties; raging testosterone combined with immaturity and incomplete judgment processing skills make for a volatile mix. It’s bad enough when it’s fists; why throw guns into the mix?

I disagree with Rechtenbach: there is always a choice. But that choice is not just his, it’s ours as well. Do we as a society limit access to weapons, or do we permit the increased possibility of a shootout at the student union? Is there a grey area here where a balance can be struck? Or is it a black-and-white issue? Hovering over all this is an unanswered question: how many more tragic school shootings will we allow ourselves to endure before we finally resolve the seemingly never-ending battle over gun control?

It’s November already, and Christmas decorations have been up in the stores for about two weeks now. It seems everything is in fast motion these days, and that definitely applies to the world of politics. Come Sunday, it’ll be exactly a year before we head to the polls to elect a new president. Normally, that wouldn’t be big news in itself, except that it’s still very possible that the first primary/caucus/winnowing will be next month, in December 2007.

Despite the compressed calendar, the field is still somewhat fluid. No ballots whatsoever have been cast, yet we’ve had people throw their hats in and drop out completely and mumble about how they might run, or they’re not going to run (but not a word about accepting a draft), or they’re running, but they won’t accept the role of Vice-President (despite the fact that being Veep is a far more powerful job than the macabre role it once was).

So far it looks like the lineup is fairly firm, at least through January. But in the last couple of days, a new candidacy was imminent, and now has seemingly vanished in a blip. I’m speaking of course of Stephen Colbert, the comedian who wanted to run in the South Carolina primary. He initially stated his intention to run on the ballot under the banner of both of the titular big boys, the Democrats and the Republicans. He then changed his mind and said he’d run in South Carolina as a Democrat. A piece about his impending announcement ran online earlier on CNN’s website. There was already opposition from the big boys in the party:

Another council member, Charleston Democratic Party Chairman Waring Howe, was more blunt: “Over my dead body will Colbert’s name be on the ballot.”

Part of the uproar centered around the fact that each successful filing results in the state party paying the state election committee $20,000 per candidate. But what I found intriguing among all the dissension was that Colbert’s supporters noted that

the comedian will bring new, younger voters into the party fold … “I think a lot of people think it’s a joke because it’s a comedy show and what not, but he’s a nice fellow, and if he gets on the ballot, he will come here to South Carolina and campaign across the state,” said Charles Hamby, the second vice chairman of the state Democratic Party.

“We know he won’t be president. He knows that. But it will bring a lot of people into the party,” Hamby said.

However, yesterday the Palmetto State’s Democratic executive council decided to deep-six Colbert’s bid. One central objection was that Colbert would make a “mockery” of the political process. How could his candidacy be more of a mockery than a political system where state election boards act like children, trying to be first in line? How could it be more of a mockery when the media pays far more attention to a $400 haircut than they do to a President that puts “Iran” and “World War III” together in the same sentence? I certainly consider it a mockery when campaign finance reform is a sham and the big boys are the real powers behind the curtain. It’s a political wonderland out there: is Colbert Alice, or the Cheshire Cat? Would his “truthiness” speak volumes more than the “truth” we’re handed by political columnists and well-groomed talking heads?

Most news stories were like the one I just linked to: a short blurb downloaded from the AP, and stuck on the back burner somewhere deep in the middle of the paper. But here in Los Angeles, The Los Angeles Times ran a rather lengthy article about Colbert’s desire to place his name on the Democratic slate. In the piece, “Is There Truthiness to His ‘08 Bid?“, writer James Rainey observes that Colbert’s potential bid opens a Pandora’s Box related to his role on television and the guidelines the media and politicians must follow. Rainey posed a question: Does schtick count as constitutionally protected, and therefore unregulated, speech?

What’s far more interesting than this philosophical-political query is the fact that the state executive council noted that there is generally a two-part criteria for a candidate to be successful in filing papers: 1) the candidate must be viable nationally, and 2) must spend time campaigning in South Carolina.

In the Times article, Rainey notes that

One Republican polling firm showed Colbert (at 2.3%) drawing more support nationally than Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, although the differences could be statistically insignificant, given the poll’s 5-percentage-point margin of error.

To me, reading all these articles, it seems that Colbert is just as viable as Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul. In fact, the online magazine Slate isn’t even including Kucinich or Gravel (or Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes) in its “Election Scorecard” section. Now, Slate isn’t the arbiter of everything political, nor is it the end-all or be-all, but it is interesting to note that there are different notions of who is viable and who isn’t. My thinking is that that choice should be left to the voters to determine “viability.” Certainly most people know that candidates such as Kucinich and Keyes stand no chance in the current system of achieving the presidency, yet the press and the people acknowledge them as “serious” candidates. Why not Colbert?

As for the second prong, Colbert has indicated that if his petition was accepted, he’d campaign in South Carolina at the very least. So as far as I’m concerned (and we all know just how much influence *I* have!), Colbert passes the test. He’s just as viable as anyone else. Despite what polls like to tell you, any one of those people who have filed papers could very well be standing on the Capitol steps come January 20, 2009. As Charles Hamby stated, Colbert certainly would attract attention to the political process, and perhaps pull in new voters from the previously disinterested or disenchanted.

What do you think? Should Colbert have been allowed to run as a Democrat in the South Carolina primary? Why or why not? Would you vote for him?

I’m writing this at the witching hour, and thinking about pixy sticks. You don’t see them much in the stores out here these days (either that, or I’m looking in the wrong places!). I’m also thinking about caramel apples, mulled cider, and popcorn (but not so much popcorn balls…).

Yep, it’s that time of year again. Time to figure out what creative costume to wear, what decorations to put out, and what candy to salivate over prior to Halloween night. I do miss trick-or-treating, but the Halloween parties and events I attend these days make up for that, I think. *grin*

One of my favorite things to do this time of year is watch scary movies. My favorites happen to be ghost stories; I confess to owning the DVD of “The Sixth Sense.” Although the plot twist is old news to me, I never tire of watching the various ghosts in the film, and wondering about them.

A lot of other people seem to have an affinity for ghosts, or at least some experience with them that’s not limited to the silver screen. Over the weekend on CNN, it was announced that a third of people believe in ghosts. According to an AP poll,

…nearly one out of four, 23 percent, say they’ve actually seen a ghost or felt its presence…

The AP itself had the better title, though (in my opinion): That’s the Spirit: Belief in Ghosts High. The AP poll found that

About one out of five people, 19 percent, say they accept the existence of spells or witchcraft. Nearly half, 48 percent, believe in extrasensory perception, or ESP.

Obviously they didn’t poll a lot of Harry Potter fans, or that 19 percent might just be a wee bit higher.

I’m not sure I believe in ghosts, but at the same time, I’m not sure I don’t believe in them. Sometimes there are strange things that happen, and you just never know… the same is true for ESP. I think there’s a lot that science can explain, but there’s also quite a few things in life that there is no answer for.

What do you think? Had any personal experiences? If not, know of any good ghost stories, whether on film or in a book, collection of short stories, or some other artistic or literary form?

In the meantime, stay in high spirits and have some spirited fun this October 31!

Every time I visit DeafDC or DeafRead, there’s a mix of articles. Some are on perennial subjects, such as cochlear implants. Others are on the “hot event” of the day, such as the Gallaudet protests last year. The latest such issue is the Doug Bahl case. Often such topics are inter-related, or lead back to larger questions. For example, the various captioning posts here at DeafDC lead back to the broader question of equal communication access.

Last night, I discussed with a few people the Bahl verdict, and this led to a wider discussion on concerns such as employment, equal treatment, community relations, and other similar areas of interest to the Deaf/deaf community. It got me thinking: suppose we could only focus on one or two key objectives, what would they be?

Rather than write a post about what I think the community should focus on, I’m wondering what you think. Let’s pretend you have just been named to a state commission for the deaf and hard-of-hearing, or you are the head of a social services agency, or regional/national advocacy organization. What are the top one or two goals you would set, and why?

When I was young, my parents (like most parents) assumed the responsibility to teach me the morals and ethics I needed to know. I was taught early (like most children) the difference between “yes” and “no,” black and white, and right and wrong. I learned the difference between the truth and a lie.

Some of these lessons were clear-cut, while others were introduced in stark binary terms of black and white, with elements of gray introduced at some point. For example, “Yes” might later be, “Yes, but…” In between truths and falsehoods came the inevitable lessons about white lies, and what was socially acceptable or not. These examples were often accompanied by consequences, which illustrated the benefits, whether good or bad, of my actions.

When it came to telling the truth and lying, there was often little, if any, gray area. The truth was always recognized as the best path to follow, even if there were negative consequences as a result of doing something forbidden. A lie, whether found out or not, was always penalized, whether through handed-down punishments or self-inflicted guilt. More severe repercussions would definitely follow if I tried to cover up what I had done wrong, whether through lies or other deceitful means. In retrospect, it was also a huge waste of time: the amount of time and energy spent on preventing my parents from learning what I’d been doing could have been used doing something far more beneficial and meaningful in my life.

So I grew up (I suppose, like most other children) learning through trial and error that being truthful was not only morally and ethically right, but that it usually came with positive results (and even if the result didn’t seem positive at the time). In high school civics and in college, I learned that there were legal penalties for lying as well, and that the crime was known as perjury. I also learned that covering up perjury or a bad act had a fancier name as well: it was called obstruction of justice.

In those same classes, history and government, I learned that the United States was considered as a moral and ethical ideal– as a place where all men were considered equal. As I deepened my studies, I learned that this was truly an ideal– that in reality, inequality existed. But still, the promise was there: the United States was a land where any citizen, whether newly minted or descended from original inhabitants and settlers, could realize the promise of his or her potential. The Republican Party was founded on these principles: the notion that all (free, white) men were equal and that all (free, white) men could realize the promise of America through “free labor.” Honesty and integrity were implicit in the founder’s philosophical principles, and drew upon the Founding Fathers for inspiration. They chose the name “Republican” to reflect the public virtue of the American republic.

231 years to the day after the Continental Congress declared independence (they formally adopted the Declaration two days later, on July 4), and 153 years after the Republican Party was begun, it was publicly declared that “public virtue” was a mockery, and that my parents had done a dismal job of educating me. The President of the United States, in an act that contradicts a recent Supreme Court decision (Rita v. U.S.; see here for a comparison with Libby), decided that the sentence handed down by Bush appointee Judge Reggie Walton, in a case prosecuted by a Republican United States Attorney who was appointed by the Ashcroft-led Department of Justice, and heard by a jury of citizens, was a “harsh sentence” and “excessive.” He then issued a commutation which entirely removed any prison time for Libby. I’d call this a “pre-emption” rather than a “commutation,” because there is nothing to “commute” here. The entire portion of the sentence involving prison time was thrown out. The remaining $250,000 fine will most likely be paid by the defense fund established for Libby, and this week, Judge Walton is holding a hearing to determine what to do about the supervised release (similar to probation), because supervised release usually follows the determined prison time. In this case, there *is* no prison time. Libby has not served one single day in a jail or prison anywhere, federal, state, or local.

The lesson I’m learning here is that the President of the United States believes that lying and covering up wrongdoing is acceptable, and that there should be no consequences for these actions. Since the President has determined that, I am predicting defense attorneys everywhere will cite this “pre-emption” along with Rita v. U.S. to argue that their client should not have to serve a single day in jail for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Our new American values of public virtue: lying and covering up. Welcome to the United States of America, 2007.

Yeah, I know– not the most original title. There’s probably a zillion bloggers/columnists who have used this title already (Howard Kurtz is one, for example). But there’s nothing like being a follower, is there?

I wasn’t originally going to blog about Paris Hilton, anywhere, but recent events changed my mind. Whether Paris Hilton deserved her sentence or not doesn’t bother me. The fact that Paris Hilton was busted to begin with doesn’t concern me. To my mind, a world without a mention of Paris Hilton and her pals like Nicole, and the entire echelon of rich heirs and heiresses who fritter away their lives simply because they were lucky enough to be born into the right family and have way too much money would be a much more pleasant world indeed. I could also do without their pals Britney and Lindsay, who also epitomize the strata of young, highly overpaid performers with no sense of self-decorum. While there are plenty of things about the first half of the 20th century I don’t miss, I certainly do wish we could get back some degree of the days of the studios. Back then, they really kept their stars and up-and-comers under control as much as possible. While I don’t wish for the sort of semi-bondage some of the film stars were under to return, it would certainly be refreshing if we could read and hear and watch news without the constant blather about people like Paris and her pals. The studios and the moguls who headed them were very conscious of PR and the news– today’s stars don’t have that kind of protection anymore, and if they do, some don’t use it all that well.

I don’t have cable, and I’m not tethered to TV, but based on past experiences with similar situations, I’d imagine cable news and network entertainment shows have been wall-to-wall Paris the last few weeks, 24/7. It certainly has been prevalent to a degree on the internet, and has seeped into the newspapers as well (again, Howard Kurtz, for example…).

So, you ask, why even bring up Paris Hilton? Well, I think that regardless of what you think of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, or Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer, or even what you think of Paris Hilton herself, her case exposes the realities of our judicial system. I suspect that one central reason why this case has attracted so much attention (aside from the fact our lazy Corporate Media and aggressive paparazzi can’t get enough lurid news to satisfy their appetite, and seemingly ours) is because we have this notion in our country that “all men are created equal.” We have been brought up with the idea that we are all equal under the law, and this philosophical notion has remained largely unchallenged, even though the reality is quite the opposite.

The sad reality has always been that if you are from the upper class and you have money, the system skews in your favor. Poor and indigent defendants know it, and I think most of us at some level also know it. Whether you have money or not is the difference between a top-notch lawyer and a public defender, between someone who can devote as much time as needed to your individual situation and an overworked, sometimes overwhelmed, barrister who can only do so much, in spite of their personal dedication to their clients.

Because of the fantasy that we’ve collectively been sold since the early days of the Republic and the underbelly of the disconcerting reality, we have a skewed perception of crime and justice. I think this has affected public perception of this particular case. I think people want Paris Hilton to serve the complete sentence (or even more time, if that was possible) for two main reasons: 1) the belief that we are “all equal under the law,” and 2) because she’s filthy rich. I have no problem with the first reason; I don’t think she should be granted any special favors, or any dispensation of any kind due to her status. I’m a little concerned about the second reason. While I think quite a few rich people, and quite a few famous people, and more than a few rich and famous people are arrogant and could use a few days (or more) of being brought down to earth among us mere mortals, I don’t think excessive vengeance is a good factor to play out in the courts. I think there are quite a few people who want Paris Hilton to be punished simply so she can be brought down a peg. If she was a philanthropist, or had contributed something of value to society, I don’t think people would be as hellbent in their opinions about whether she should serve the full sentence or not, regardless of her wealth.

The far more serious issue here though is the fact that there exists a two-tiered system of justice in this country: a system for those with wealth, power, and connections, and one for the rest of us. Most of the time we all have our blinkers on, and pretend that the system and the people affiliated with it, from the local town deputy all the way to the highest courts, applies the law and its consequences to everyone, regardless of status (I have news for you: the only system that treats everyone equitably is the genetic system. No matter who we are, we’ll all die someday). It’s only when you have the drama that we’ve seen in this case the last few days that the curtain is pulled back, and we see the man behind the mask. Regardless of who pulled strings, someone did, and the result is that Paris Hilton was allowed to leave prison, with the remainder of her sentence to be served at home.

It won’t happen, and even if it did happen, the discussion wouldn’t last as long as the coverage about Paris Hilton will, but I think it would be A Good Idea if society stopped for a minute and examined how our legal system works, how it doesn’t work, and how we can fix it. If Paris Hilton had been successfully allowed to serve just 10% of her sentence, then logically shouldn’t we allow everyone in prison to serve just 10% of their sentence? Should everyone who has medical problems be granted the opportunity for home arrest? How do we determine what mitigating factors can be used, or should be used? Should someone who is driving illegally and is caught even be sent to prison at all (Yes, I know she was initially in trouble due to DUI, which I think definitely deserves a serious penalty; but the initial sentence she received was 36 months of probation, alcohol education, and a fine, which isn’t exactly as serious as the consequence she’s undergoing now)? At a time of overcrowding in the prisons (a central factor that is part of of Sherriff Baca’s reasoning/defense), should everyone who is found guilty be thrown in the slammer?

Aside from the legal questions, there’s also a urgent need (at least in my mind) to re-evaluate the Corporate Media. Why do we allow the media to get away with Paris Hilton all-the-time? Why do we allow ourselves to be distracted from larger issues and far more important concerns? Why is someone like Paris Hilton even in the news, to begin with? Until she had the unfortunate luck of having her sexual romp with an old beau distributed across cyberspace, I doubt most people could have even told you who she is. To me, she’s not anything special: rich, spoiled kids are a dime a dozen, really. Other than quite a few people knowing what she looks like in the nude and starring in a dismal reality show, she’s done nothing that I consider newsworthy.

The sole bright spot in this mess is that regardless of whatever poor judgment she’s shown up to now, even Paris Hilton recognizes an essential truth, and had the intelligence to share her insight with the media (and via the media, the rest of us):

“I must also say that I was shocked to see all of the attention devoted to the amount of time I would spend in jail for what I had done by the media, public and city officials. I would hope going forward that the public and the media will focus on more important things, like the men and women serving our country in Iraq and other places around the world.”

I agree, Paris, I agree. Here’s looking at you, kid.

Yesterday’s guest blog by Bert Shaposka was an interesting read, but it is also the latest in a long line of blogs about Gallaudet. To some extent, this is to be expected, given the events of the past year, and the accreditation woes aired in public earlier this year.

But you know what? Gallaudet isn’t the be-all and end-all of the Deaf universe. I visited with a friend a couple months ago while I was in DC, and we were discussing my blogging endeavors, here and elsewhere. We talked about the Gallaudet-related blogs on DeafDC as well, and he remarked, “I’m a bit tired of seeing Gallaudet slammed all the time. What about NTID? CSUN?” [Full disclosure: we’re both Gallaudet alumni]

I found myself agreeing with him. As much as I love Gallaudet, and I’m willing to converse about Gallaudet and debate both the good and the bad, it isn’t the only school that serves deaf people, or has a sizeable deaf population. We’re always hearing about Gallaudet here, and not always in the best light. Rarely do I see blogs talk about NTID, or CSUN, or even SWCID. This doesn’t even include schools with sizeable programs, like Arizona State University, Utah State University, or graduate programs that offer deaf education, such as Lamar University, McDaniel College (formerly Western Maryland College), and other schools.

While this doesn’t mean I’m inviting everyone to now switch their attention from Gallaudet and start slamming other schools and programs, I do wonder, when everyone seems to agree that there needs to be a re-examination of deaf education across the board, why no one is mentioning these other schools. A good number of my fellow DeafDC bloggers are NTID alumni. I’d be curious to hear their perspective about their alma mater, both the good and the bad. At the moment, I don’t believe we have any CSUNites, although that could change– you never know.

I certainly would love to hear opinions from people who have attended more than one school. I know a number of Gallaudetians who originally started at NTID, and vice-versa. I know a fair number who started here at Kendall Green, then earned their degree in the San Fernando Valley. There are people at these schools who garner their Bachelor’s at one school, then enter a graduate program at another. I remember a number of my wife’s classmates deciding to head west to Arizona State after their high school graduation; a number of them winged their way back to Gallaudet the following year. I would love to know their thoughts on the pros and cons, but even more so, on how best to improve programs and schools across the board.

I think a healthy debate about higher education of the deaf in general, not just Gallaudet, would benefit us all. What say you?

This morning, while cleaning out my inbox and taking care of other mundane matters, I ran across a news blurb, advertising a contest here in Los Angeles tomorrow. My first thought after reading the article was, “Hmm… I wonder if any deaf contestants will be participating?”

The contest? A battle between participants to see who can text message the fastest. I figure since we deaf have rapidly adapted as “thumb warriors” the past few years, there’s gotta be quite a few who are quick on the draw when it comes to conversations (I’m no slouch myself, but I doubt I have the fastest fingers in the West…).

The catch? U can’t use txt shortcuts, lol. Txt shortcuts not allowed, bec it’s 2 ez to abbrev everything u type. Kind of an interesting rule, imho. FWIW, it’s a cool idea.

So– anyone deaf participating in this? If I didn’t already have things to do tomorrow, I’d take a shot at it. Perhaps if it becomes an annual event, someone can do this next year?

CUL!

I attended one of the preview sessions for “Through Deaf Eyes,” which meant that I, along with a number of other people nationwide, saw about half of the entire program before it was broadcast nationally yesterday. Afterwards, I saw someone use the phrase, “Through Hearing Eyes” to describe the film.

Now that I’ve watched the program in its entirety, I’m not sure it should be called “Through Deaf Eyes” or “Through Hearing Eyes;” perhaps “Through Deaf Filmmakers’ Eyes”? “Through Deaf Educators’ Eyes”? “Through Critical Deaf Bloggers/Vloggers’ Eyes”? Given the rapidity of vlogs/blogs/commenters in the blogosphere, this last one is probably true, today and in the next few days.

But I digress.

Overall, I thought it was an enjoyable film, although flawed. I won’t do a blow-by-blow account (although given the notes I took during the show, I probably could give a fairly verbatim outline of the program!); for one thing, most of you who are reading this either have seen it, or will see it, or are in it (extra points to whoever spots ME in there!), or want to be in it, or might be in the sequel (after all, at the very end, just as the credits started, a message flashed on the screen that was comprehended only by those who have taperecorders masquerading as eyes, to the effect that the program didn’t cover the recent protests of 2006. The film was most likely already in post-production by the time any rumblings emerged that all might not be serene at 800 Florida Avenue NE. So look down the road a few years from now for “Through Protester’s Eyes: The Sequel”).

How “Through Deaf Eyes” is interpreted will depend largely on the individual audience; for most of us here at DeafDC, we are deaf, and whether we are culturally deaf or not, the program didn’t really impart anything new overall– most, if not all of us, have lived the experiences presented in the film. For our hearing friends, relatives, or anyone out there tuning in to some or all of the two-hour presentation probably learned something new about the deaf experience, even if it was just a glimpse.

In the end, that’s all this show was, really: a glimpse. The makers of this show had an unenviable task, to cram more than 200 years of historical, cultural, linguistic, medical, social, and psychological information into a relatively concise, informative, and most of all, entertaining package for consumption. This wasn’t a Ken Burns series, spread over several nights with major funding from the MacArthur Foundation, and shiny, glossy PR pieces in magazines, newspapers and on television programs for months beforehand– this was a show that was largely marketed to and heavily advertised within the deaf community itself. Thus it’s my feeling that most likely a good number of us walked away with a sense of, “Ok, that was great… but…”

It’s that “but” that I think will cause the most buzz so far. I’m already seeing it happen on a couple of blogs, where the reaction ranges from “what a nice show, they did a great job!” to “too much emphasis on non-culturally deaf people! Clarke School, blah blah blah, cochlear implants, blah blah blah…” But you know what? That’s part of the problem here. The program wasn’t long enough to do justice to any one segment of our community; it wasn’t long enough to fully explore the complexities of deaf history; and it certainly isn’t intended to satisfy everyone. I think quite a few people involved with the making of this program (and I sense quite a few people in the audience wanted it this way) tried to encompass every element of deafness and deaf history, and to have the film be everything to everyone. There was no one position staked out, there was no clarity when it came to educational viewpoints or communication methods. In one sense, this was a flaw; within such a limited time, editing, narrative, and continuity are all-important, and I felt the film didn’t live up to this goal. But on the other hand, the film did try to show the broad range of deaf experience, and I think it did, whether it was featuring David James, the deHahns, or the Garretsons. From the oral deaf to the signing deaf to the mainstreamed deaf, the program portrayed the community as a diverse one, which it is. I thought this was good, because it showed that deaf people, whether within the deaf community itself or within society at large, are normal, that they have a range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives.

Now that I’ve had some time to reflect, I’d say the major flaw of the film for me was the fact that the people chosen to speak were a mixture of academics, from Carolyn McCaskill to Ben Bahan to Brian Greenwald; a number of showbiz folks, from Marlee Matlin to CJ Jones to Bernard Bragg; and a representative sprinkling of past and present educators, from James Tucker to Robert Panara to Kevin Nolan. The rare exceptions to this were Robert Weitbrecht (a physicist) and John Taylor (an engineer). To the casual viewer, it would seem the deaf community is populated by academics, educators, and artistic types, from actors to filmmakers. Following this logic, every deaf person I meet from now on is going to be employed in academia, education or the entertainment industry. But of course, that’s not true. The one moment where we glimpse a number of deaf people not in highly educated or trained occupations is when the film takes us to a church for the deaf, and we are introduced to a couple parishioners.

There was also a heavy emphasis on short clips, outtakes, and films made by deaf filmmakers. I wasn’t sure at times if I was watching a program on deaf history and culture, or a film festival composed entirely of submissions from deaf directors and cinematographers. I suppose in the wake of last night’s showing, it’s probably a good time to be an owner of Mosdeux, or a similar film company. I think the producers of “Through Deaf Eyes’ should be commended for recognizing and showcasing deaf film, but I probably would have pared the number of offerings a bit, and showed one or two films, not four, five, or six.

While these and other shortcomings were present, I thought overall “Through Deaf Eyes” accomplished quite a bit. The one objective I thought succeeded for both deaf and hearing audiences alike was the demonstration, whether through the historical/cultural narratives of Douglas Baynton, John VanCleve, and John Schuchman, or the anecdotes of the Gannons and Garretsons, that you cannot separate deaf history from American history. The overarching themes of religion, nativism, civil rights, and education are all parts of the American story. I think too often people see American history and don’t know anything about Deaf history, or they know quite a bit about Deaf history, but fail to see the connections to the bigger picture. Whether it’s AG Bell and his involvement with education, eugenics, and the 19th century backlash against immigration (which probably will come as a big surprise for hearing viewers who only know Bell as the father of the telephone), or Lindbergh taking people on “deaf rides,” or the segregation and linguistic differences between blacks and whites (whether the language is English or ASL), Deaf history is American history, and vice versa.

The other interesting aspect of last night’s show was the fact that in the history of our community, we have always had to work harder to try to achieve parity with the hearing world. This determination for equal access has led, I think, to deafness actually at times drawing parallel to, or ahead of the curve, in the realm of technology. While we had to bear the injustices of the barrier created by telephones, the modification of the old Western Union teletypes and development of the TTY presaged (in my opinion) the cultural shift of the last ten years; once it was only deaf people typing to each other over distances and using abbreviated terms. Now it’s everyone using e-mail, IM, and texting. Closed-captions were developed as a means to provide access for deaf audiences, and where films are concerned, segregated deaf audiences within certain dates and times of the weeks, all for the opportunity to watch the latest blockbuster. But if you walk into the average bar nowadays, chances are at least one TV will have the captions on, and hearing people will use it, to be able to comprehend and follow the programs despite the noisy environment of their local watering hole. Even with videophones, hearing people are now using programs such as Skype; it won’t be long now, I think, before everyone’s using a videophone or its equivalent.
Whether we speak English, ASL, PSE, Spanish, French, Greek, Cantonese, Hmong, Swahili, Bantu, Quechua, or another language, in the end, it’s all about being a human being. Daniel Fava’s parents, as well as Patrick deHahn’s parents, acknowledge as much– regardless of technology, language, and other factors, Fava and deHahn will always be deaf, and that is who they are. To try to change that is to change them as people. What’s far more important is the sum of who they are, and their abilities, not whether they can hear or not. To me, that was the best message from “Through Deaf Eyes.”
As CJ Jones sums it up at the close of the program, it’s knowledge that counts, not whether you can hear or speak. His statement brought to my mind the well-known statement by Victor Hugo to Ferdinand Berthier: “What matters deafness of the ear, when the mind hears. The one true deafness, the incurable deafness, is that of the mind.”

Well, I’m enjoying my “vacation” in DC. While I’m behind with quite a few things and will catch up when I get home (such as the various blogs I read, including the blog aggregator, DeafRead), I’m ahead in other areas, and I’m still not finished! I’ll post my feedback and thoughts on the recent Gallaudet conference featuring bloggers/vloggers elsewhere when I return home to sunny L.A., but for now, I’m here in windy, chilly (but sunny!) D.C., and I’d like to at least say this: It was a fantastic experience, seeing old friends and acquaintances, making new friends, and in some cases, putting names to faces. I was able to finally meet some of my DeafDC.com peers in person.

Since this is a trip where I’m combining business with several other purposes, I thought I’d visit some of my employers, both actual and virtual. Today I’m en route from the hills of Western Maryland to the suburbia that is NoVa– so I figured since I was traveling through WaMarVa (hat tip to the exquisite AlPo), I’d swing by the surburban hamlet of Takoma Park and stroll over to the offices of BayFirst, the corporate sponsor of DeafDC. It’s a very comfy office situated in a low-rise building on the edge of the District, with plenty of natural light. So this column is unique: it’ll probably be the only time I actually blog in DC. *grin*

I work for myself as a freelance writer, among other temp and not-so-temp jobs, in addition to blogging, so this trip, while it’s a business trip, is not so much a vacation or even taking sick leave to enjoy a trip to DC, no matter how cold (see, you can’t say I’m not aware of my surroundings, especially when it feels like the North Pole out there). It’s nice though– it’s sunny, ice-free, and I’m seeing people and getting stuff done. Oh, and did I mention how cold it is?

Being self-employed is great in some ways, not so great in other ways. It’s nice to set your own schedule, to jump from job to job when you feel like it, and to take gigs that interest you. But the down side of course is a lack of benefits and security (health insurance, anyone?). That’s the biggest problem, actually– the state of my personal health care. It’s also a huge problem nationally as well, but that’s a subject for another time.

It does make me wonder though– if I get sick, all I have to do is email whoever I’m working for at the time, and tell them I’m not going to be in today, whether “in” means an actual drive on the Parking Lot or the Santa Monica Freeway or over the hills to the Valley, or “in” meaning around the corner where my computer and uniquely designed file cabinet are (read: piles of paper semi-organized. Remind me to show you my personally crafted indexing system sometime). But for a lot of people, taking leave, whether it’s for a vacation (the Carribean, anyone? Perhaps Hawaii– maybe an ASL dragon can host the next major conference in tropical climes) or because they’re actually ill, and feel socially responsible enough to stay at home and not share the love, isn’t always possible (have I won an award for the longest run-on sentence in DeafDC history yet?).

This morning, I took a peek at the news, and saw that one of my favorite cities passed a law last fall mandating that all workers are entitled to paid sick leave within the city’s borders. Now I know people view San Francisco as either an elitist utopia of sorts, or a very quirky place in the nation, but in some ways I think the laws we pass in Califunny are trendsetting in a way. In an era of go-getting companies squeezing as much as they can out of each and every employee, it’s refreshing to see that there’s still some sense of social responsibility for human concerns. I know here in DC (and yes, it feels funny typing that!), the Feds provide a fairly nice package for its employees. But there are a variety of businesses here and across the nation that aren’t as willing to provide a social contract of sorts for its workers.

Should everyone be entitled to guaranteed sick leave? Is such a law a win-win prospect? Or is there a better way to enact a system that benefits everyone, from the employer down to the newest hire? Is sick leave a basic human right, or a costly aspect of rising business costs? Personally, I think that sick leave is an important part of overall employment guarantees, and most employers have policies in effect. But I recognize that not all employers do this, and some abuse their employees a great deal. Right now I’m taking leave, both in person and from blogging. In the meantime, what do you think?