WikiLeaks: The fruits of inadvertent honesty

BY JIM MCCARTHY

I have a nephew named Anfernee

Ever seen Mean Girls?

It's a guilty pleasure of mine. Not simply because it represents Lindsay Lohan at her absolute, all-too-early peak, but also because it's a brilliantly sharp look at how insular social groups often interact. Okay, it's about high-school girls who are mean to each other, but the climax of the movie has been on my mind lately. Lindsay is a formerly-homeschooled transplant from Africa—she's the daughter of a pair of research zoologists—who ends up having to navigate the wilds of the public school system for the first time. Without delving into the plot's Machiavellian complexity, Lindsay gets involved with The Plastics, a clique of the school's most popular girls. A lifelong trio, The Plastics have salted away a treasure trove of barbs aimed at their female classmates, known as the "Burn Book." In it, they cut out yearbook photos of their classmates and write nasty comments about them.

"Grotsky little byotch," proclaims one; "Made out with a hot dog," shouts another. A third accuses a gym teacher of making out with an underage student. Again without going into plot details, the Burn Book is explosively revealed in a single swoop, and all of the high school's girls suddenly know exactly how many of their secrets have been peddled without their knowledge for the advantage of others. The effect is sudden and tragic; all-out rioting breaks out, girl-on-girl violence seeding the halls in one great glorious paroxysm of vengeance and hair-pulling.

Fortunately, world leaders are somewhat more restrained in their exuberance than most high-school girls.

That's why her hair is so big. It's full of secrets

As some of you may know, the Department of State has recently had its version of the Burn Book suddenly published across the world, thanks to WikiLeaks. Suddenly, a huge number of unclassified, classified, and NOFORN documents have been unleashed.

WikiLeaks: We help you safely get the truth out

"NOFORN," incidentally, is a kind of Appalachian code for "NO FOREIGN"—meaning that the marked document should never be seen by a non-American. It's a fairly high-level classification.

But thanks to NOFORN, we now know, for example, that Muammar Qadafi, the Libyan dictator, is a devoted adherent of Botox and will not go anywhere without his "voluptuous" blonde Ukrainian nurse (and who could blame him for that?). We've discovered that Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi, the leader of Italy, have a relationship that seems to be rather ... more than simply friendship. And that Dagestani weddings for family members of ethnic leaders in the Caucasus are alcohol-fueled orgies of eccentric decadence (my favorite part: Benya the Accordion King).

On a more sobering note, we've also discovered that North Korea did indeed sell 19 advanced missiles to Iran, which would enable Tehran to hit Western Europe or Moscow—should things go in that direction, of course. The United States is also concerned that Turkey's leader is falling into a den of Islamists who threaten the Turkish government's cherished secular tradition—and possibly the country's pending EU membership. And that Zimbabwe is slowly drying up in the grip of Robert Mugabe, who has voiced a willingness to take possession of the richest regions and leave the rest to their own devices if the situation grows dire enough.

Worst of all, though, are the equivalents to our statutory gym teacher: American secrets. We've attempted to sell Guantanamo prisoners to countries around the world in exchange for favors. We've threatened Germany with the consequences of prosecuting American government agents who captured and interrogated (and, yes, sodomized) the wrong guy—an innocent German. We've scammed United Nations delegates for their credit card numbers and fingerprints.

But no, Angela Merkel did not make out with that kielbasa.

Maybe it was only okay when Janis said that

In general, the documents that have been exposed are diplomatic communications. They contain little or no real military information and only represent the talk between diplomats and their mothership.

As such, the majority of the documents have a sort of gossipy tone. The Dagestani-wedding one, for instance, is a great example. A couple of State Department employees went to the wedding of a local tribe leader and discussed the political landscape underlying the celebration and how it can help the U.S. better understand how the Caucasus region of Western Russia works. They ended up describing how drunk several prominent government officials got and how solicitous their host was in extracting them from the drunken embraces of same.

I call them "gossipy," but their subjects will probably not take them very lightly. Several cables discussed, for example, several major figures in the German government, including the powerful and popular Foreign Minister, in singularly unflattering terms. The Chancellor herself—the one who has a normal relationship with sausage, I swear—was described as highly "risk-averse" and unable to improve the substantive content of the U.S.-German relationship, which isn't complimentary in some circles.

Others discussed the leadership of the UK, again in unflattering terms. This is the United States' honest, unvarnished opinion of its partners. And most of it is pretty uncomplimentary.

The rest of the documents, however, involve many very alarming developments in our relationship with the Middle East, and the revelation of this information will have unpredictable effects. For instance, Iran figures prominently, both as the subject of fear and distrust on the part of its neighbors and the object of a good deal of troubling actions relating to their ongoing militarization. How will Iran react when they realize that several of their largest allies in the region have been secretly asking—actually, begging, for several years—the United States to destroy them?

Or when they realize exactly how much restraint the United States has actually been showing them?

My shirt is stuck to my sweater, isn't it?

The broader foreign policy implications are best left up to both the experts and the course of future events.

Granted, most of the secrets that have been let out of the bottle are things the United States would really prefer that nobody find out about, like assessments of American allies (if you can, look for the one about Ahmed Wali Karzai, the Afghan Prime Minister's brother—it's a fascinating read!), secret deals and horse trading, and the blurring of the line between diplomacy and espionage, as when Hillary Clinton ordered her diplomats to begin compiling confidential information—such as credit card numbers and fingerprints—on UN delegates.

But the truth is, nearly all of it does not constitute a clear and present danger to national security. It reduces our standing in the world a little further and erodes the trust other countries have in us as the world's sole superpower (so far), but the only truly unsavory deeds in which we are implicated are twofold: the bugging of the UN, which is illegal according to a 1974 convention, and the bombing under false pretenses of local Yemeni tribes unpleasant to the leader of that country's government.

Moreover, these communications were transmitted over a system that, though classified, was accessible to over 2.5 million people in the military and American embassies all over the world. A leak was bound to happen, and the really dangerous confidential stuff remains safe. On top of that, nearly all of it was written with the understanding that this information would be revealed—eventually. Granted, 25 months instead of years is a big difference, but it's certainly not alien-autopsy material.

...These communications were transmitted over a system that, though classified, was accessible to over 2.5 million people in the military and American embassies all over the world. A leak was bound to happen, and the really dangerous confidential stuff remains safe.

What it really does is reveal some of the cards we have in our hand in the ongoing poker game of global influence and diplomacy. In certain respects—such as negotiating with China over restraining North Korea after the recent shelling of a disputed island—our position is weakened considerably. However, the mentality of entities like the State Department and the diplomats of other nations is such that these things will generally be totted up as a loss, and they will move on. The most important of our allies were briefed in depth prior to the release, and those relationships, though slightly more strained now, remain strong. Everyone else ... well, it's a crapshoot.

More seriously, this incident exposes some of the weaknesses in our current system. I mean ... 2.5 million people? Seriously?

The kicker is that all of this stuff was extracted from the system by Pfc. Bradley Manning, a low-level intelligence analyst who pulled it off by using a CD marked with "Lady Gaga." Manning has since disappeared into the loving embrace of the U.S. Government, thanks to these cables and to several other incidents in which classified military videos were released, also through WikiLeaks. Lady Gaga's current whereabouts are unknown.

It's not your fault you're so gap-toothed

Setting aside the obviously interesting possibilities for American foreign relations, one thing to consider is the broader implications of the existence of a site like WikiLeaks and its opportunities to capitalize on the numerous holes in the government information infrastructure.

Although the secrets that have been revealed are mostly of the type that are actually the norm in diplomatic circles—and in government circles in general, which is permeated with an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" mentality—it affords the American public a rare glimpse behind the scenes. Whether this glimpse is desirable or not remains to be seen.

In any case, the only really problematic fallout is forecast to hit the Middle East and UN. Our allies are less than perturbed by the content of these cables—they do the same things themselves, after all; one of Clinton's fellow travelers said, "You should see what we say about you"—but Iran and its regional partners suddenly have some hard truths to grapple with. Israel in particular must now cope with the revelation of their military preparations, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt need to address their own nations' tendencies to encourage the West to do their dirty work for them.

But has this sort of thing irretrievably messed us up? No. For instance, take a look at this New Republic article. It perfectly illustrates what I said before; the really dangerous stuff is never made available to 2.5 million people, least of all to the State Department. And generally, outside of the gossipy descriptions permeating these cables, none of this is news to the countries discussed.

It's just a hot dog, guys. Making out with it is embarrassing but it's not the end of the world. Suck away.

One time she punched me in the face. It was awesome

As for WikiLeaks and its masters, including the now-famous Julian Assange, the globetrotting Australian who will probably never set foot on American soil again, the future is murky. He can't be charged for treason against the United States, because he isn't a United States citizen. The site itself can't be shut down, because it is located on servers in countries friendly to troublemakers.

However, WikiLeaks was the subject of a DDoS attack (distributed denial of service, in which servers are flooded with millions of spurious requests and subsequently overwhelmed) the day that the cables were released by The New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais (not much of an English version; Google Translate is your friend), and Le Monde (ditto, but in French). And Assange himself has been the subject of much discussion in governmental circles; it now appears likely that he may somehow be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. He is meanwhile the subject of several investigations in other countries, including his homeland of Australia, and in Sweden, where he has been accused, rather conveniently, of rape.

I doubt WikiLeaks will be taken down, and neither will Assange—at least not for long. Although the United States Government is probably out for vengeance, the initial damage has been done. But we'll see.

It's not over, though. Assange has said there's more. And it's about a major American bank.

Oooh ... burn!


ABOUT JIM MCCARTHY
Jim McCarthy is a deaf graduate of Rochester Institute of Technology and the University of South Florida and is currently a student in the School of Life and Human Folly (SLHF).

Creating systemic change: Part II

BY ERIN ESPOSITO

There are so many important components of systemic change. The first part of this series discussed how to prepare oneself for advocating, educating and lobbying. Now that we’ve laid the groundwork in the strategy domain, we’ll focus on the important qualities one should possess in their endeavors to create systemic change.

Courage

People who desire to become agents of change in this world need to have courage. Eleanor Roosevelt said it best: “You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience by which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself ‘I lived through this.’ I can take the next thing that comes along.”

Systemic change is, more often than not, a long drawn-out process in which many obstacles arise along the way. People who desire to see systemic change transpire must find it in themselves to have the courage to continue to fight the good and fair fight.

Personal attacks are often a part of the process, for there will always be a wide variety of perspectives on the issue at hand. Take nothing personally, because it is not about you, per se, and summon up the courage to keep trekking on. Be careful not to confuse not taking things personally versus becoming impersonal. Two entirely different concepts—both of which require courage.

Taking things personally means one allows whatever is being said or done to affect them in the deepest ways humanely possible. Becoming impersonal means one has created a boundary whereby any opportunity to authentically be connected with another person is rather limited—which can sometimes come off as being aloof or standoffish and ultimately impacts the nature and effectiveness of the connection.

In addition to not taking things personally, one can arm themselves with courage by utilizing the remainder of Don Miguel Ruiz’s The Four Agreements: Do your very best. Don’t assume. Be impeccable with your word.

Communication

One can have all the ideas and visions in the world, but if these notions are not effectively translated in signed, spoken or written language, then it is far more difficult to accomplish systemic change. Others must be able to “see” your vision in order to be highly inspired to embrace it. Well-chosen descriptive words can help paint vivid pictures and call to mind rich images, which will help people to better see your vision.

People connect with certain speeches in American history for a variety of reasons, but mostly because of the inspiration they felt when watching, listening or reading the speech. Take for example, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech that he delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Martin Luther King, Jr. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial

“…I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight...
...From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring,...we will be able to speed up that day when all God's children...will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!"

To choose words excellently, leaders must first gain a solid understanding of the audience they seek to influence, and to draw upon that knowledge in selecting their words, just as Dr. King did. However, and obviously, most of the communication that takes place in the process of systemic change is not so much in the form of speeches as it is in meetings or other means. Regardless of the format of communication, there is still a need for an ability to connect with whomever you are trying to get your message across.

Be a straight shooter. Say things as they are, be truthful and remain transparent. This will solidify your reputation, not only as an effective communicator but as a leader with credibility and integrity.

Connect

George Bernard Shaw said, “The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished.” Too often people think that just because they’ve communicated, that they’ve connected with the person or people they worked with and the goal has been executed. This is not always the case. It is imperative that you learn how to connect on a very human level with others.

The ability to connect with others begins with understanding the value of people. Work to understand the other person’s communication, not only in their words, but also what lies beneath their words. You can do this by finding common ground, demonstrating a sincere interest and by intently listening and asking questions.

That age old adage about “it’s not what we know, but who we know,” has a lot of merit to it. In light of recent leadership principles, a more updated adage would be “it’s not what we’re connected with, but who we’re connected with.” Collaboration is a huge buzzword these days. The most successful collaborations are highly contingent upon the nature of the connections between individuals in each respective entity within the collaborative relationship.

In essence, one needs to have the courage to act, the skill to communicate their convictions, and the ability to successfully connect.

TO BE CONTINUED. Creating systemic change: Part III will be posted on 12/06.


ABOUT ERIN ESPOSITO
Erin Esposito is the Executive Director of Advocacy Services for Abused Deaf Victims (ASADV) in Rochester, NY. She is also the current Chair of the NTID Alumni Association Board of Directors.

Thousands standing around, wondering: What's up with the TSA?

BY JIM MCCARTHY

A knee jerk to the crotch

A group of Middle Easterners hijacked four planes and, in rapid succession on a beautiful late-summer morning, flew one into each tower of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an indeterminate patch of Pennsylvania sod en route to infamy.

This happened on September 11, 2001, as we all know. The TSA was created on November 19, 2001, two months and eight days later. And a great wailing rose up from the earth with much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments as thousands of people got in line. The very welkin was rent and thrown to the ground in a delicate ashfall of boarding passes marked in ultraviolet ink.

We've all got issues

It's funny to think that one of the most lingering unpleasantries springing from that day in September is a bunch of metal detectors, naked scanners, and UFIAs. Never mind the expensive wars, illegal wiretappings, and the careful parceling up and sale of the thin tissue which clothed the high moral ground on which we claimed to belong.

It makes sense. Of all the demons summoned out of the unholy circle of 19 hijackers, the TSA is one that rubs up against us at a time when we're already pretty stressed out as it is. We've got to wrangle our luggage, keep hotel reservations in order, make sure we have a ride from the airport, get the best seat (if you fly Southwest) or get there first (if you fly anyone else), and keep the children from gnawing on one another, all at once. And then we're shut up in plastic tin cans for a few hours breathing in the contents of total strangers' lungs and have to pretend we can stand the presence of other humans.

The TSA just adds a whipped-cream topping of crap on top of a dumptruck cupcake. But what are our issues with the TSA?

Treading the boards for Tony

We all recognize the importance of public safety; nobody wants to have to be the one who says "Let's roll." We just want to get in, get up, get down, and get out. Metal detectors are no big deal; neither are X-ray machines for coats and carry-ons. Shoes are no big deal; why do you think slip-ons have become so popular of late? Neither are belts; either it's a sweatpants day or you can impress the cutie on the machine with your Batman belt buckle.

The no-fly list was execrably executed from the start; in a given population of a few hundred million, to say nothing of folks coming in from outside, odds are good that two people will have the same name and same birthday, even if that name has twenty-three unpronounceable syllables and that birthday is February 29, 1962.

1962 wasn't a leap year, by the way. Just to save you the math and me the cost of a fact-checker.

It started when some guy called Bruce Schneier coined the term "security theater", and there have been ominous rumblings ever since, as thinking persons wait an hour for a procedure that takes ten minutes, if that, affording them the opportunity to consider the situation.

Making it worse is the sense that workers for the TSA are harvested from, shall we say, economic classes that have historically flocked to repetitive jobs that don't require high-level thinking. This foments a good deal of resentment among those who can actually afford to fly once or twice a year, and a lot more from those who can afford to do so more often than that. So, tension.

And then the TSA rolled out the Naked Machines. Also known as backscatter X-ray machines, they're capable of emitting radiation and detecting that which gets bounced back by human skin, resulting in admirably clear images of people's genitals. People kind of freaked out about that, but not too badly, because the TSA totally swore on their mom's grave that the naked pictures would never make it to Facebook.

... Recently, "enhanced patdowns" entered the picture. What this "enhanced" means, I'm not certain—is it an enhanced experience for the passenger, or the screener?

Then, recently, "enhanced patdowns" entered the picture. What this "enhanced" means, I'm not certain—is it an enhanced experience for the passenger, or the screener? It's tough to answer that question, given that it involves touching parts that only your spouse (or significant other, or person you're really fond of, or that cute football player angling for third base, or that grenade who looked totally gross but now, after sixteen Schlitzes, turns out to actually be totally hot) should be touching.

This also wasn't that huge a deal until the world's best one-liner came along.

"Touch my junk and I'll have you arrested."

"You're touching my junk, dude."

C'mon, just the tip

The biggest concern that may actually have any standing outside of sheer ickiness is the implications of these new policies in terms of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the collection of evidence from a private individual without probable cause. Boarding passes don't qualify as probable cause nearly as much as a totally anonymous tip phoned in to the police hotline (which, incidentally, doesn't at all). In general, privacy is really the big issue here; not just that of a person's appearance in the nude or how far that person's testes have descended, but also the possibility of the forced disclosure of confidential medical information.

This is why "colostomy" is suddenly such a popular word.

A quieter, but no less important, consideration comes from the personal impact of such an invasion of one's body. Sexual assault survivors, especially, are prone to trauma when undergoing this process. In addition to this serious problem with the new policies, a consideration emerged nearly after the fact: children. Kiddy porn is, after all, illegal; although there are fine distinctions—a funny photo of your three-year-old in the bathtub as he figures out that soap isn't tasty, for instance—there's very little tolerance for that behavior in the public sphere. Adding in to that the possibility of performing an enhanced patdown on a six-year-old boy or girl ... well, nobody wants to do that.

Of course, the policy sections relating to minors under 12 weren't clarified to the public until the outcry went up, and it seems that not every TSA screener was aware of it at first.

So folks got all mad about it. In the general hubbub of indignation, some guy had a great idea: Israel, a nation under constant threat of terrorist attacks for the past sixty years, doesn't have any of these issues and they've never had a plane hijacked. We should totally follow the Jews!

All our ducks in a row

Israeli airport security is cut from a pretty different cloth. For starters, they rely quite a bit on behavioral screening; after passing through the first checkpoint on your way in, you'll also pass through several layers of security as you enter the airport and work your way toward the gate. Armed guards spot-check vehicles, loiter outside the entrance, and are everywhere inside, keeping eyes everywhere. Your luggage is screened before it's checked in, and then you're questioned by an officer, which can last anywhere from a minute to an hour, depending on whether or not you're selected for additional screening.

The upshot is that for most (white and/or Jewish) passengers, the process is fairly smooth; one notices the armed guards, but does not feel noticed by them, and the questioning usually takes the form of a fairly casual conversation about one's travel plans and interesting things they've found in your luggage, as though one were discussing the weather. For others, it can be considerably more alienating, and that's where the issues come in for some; in general, the whole process relies on what is known in the U.S. as "profiling."

You know. "Get him—he's black!" "Oh God, that guy's got a turban." "I can't figure the tip! Where's that Asian guy?"

Although, in terms of Israel airport security, it's more along the lines of, "Hmm. We've got a young Muslim guy, no luggage, on a one-way ticket to the U.S., and he's not looking very calm. And why is his ass so bulky?" And Detroit is safe from underwear once again.

The voice of reason arrives

It all sounds great, doesn't it?

Except Israel has about 48 working airports and only two international airports—Ben Gurion, Ovda, and sometimes Eilat (the airport serving Jerusalem was closed several years ago following local ... difficulties), which sometimes takes international flights. Altogether, these three serve something like 11,000 flights per year, averaged out to about 30 flights per day for the entire country.

The United States, on the other hand, has between 14-15,000 working airports (ranging from simple landing strips to Hartsfield) and over 400 of these are "primary" airports serving over 10,000 passengers per year. To put that in perspective, according to the FAA's 2009 data, 85 of those airports saw over a million passengers board a plane; the top 23 served over 10 million each, and the top 6 broke 20 million. Overall, airports with at least radar in their towers served a total of 25 million flights in 2009 (don't believe me? Run the report yourself), which averages out to almost 70,000 flights per day or close to 50 takeoffs and landings per minute. Distributed across 400 airports. Not accounting for peak days, of course.

Although it works fairly well for Israel, size matters, regardless of what you might have heard from your friend's mom.

Now what?

This doesn't leave us with a whole lot of ways to escape the grope of a grunting subhuman who's spent far too long suffering at the hands of his cephalic masters.

It's kind of a ridiculous problem, actually. The TSA has guessed that around 3% of passengers will get the Golden Glove. But when you really think about it, what's the point of instituting these security measures if they really only apply to a small percentage of the population? There are some pretty clear implications.

First, if something funky shows up on your Naked Picture. For the vast majority of people—if not all of them, given that the TSA hasn't actually caught a terrorist in the nine years since its founding— this usually means a medical device or other ambiguity. For instance, if you've got the coachwork of a lady but the undercarriage of a dude.

Second, if you don't want a Naked Picture. So instead of being uncomfortable with someone having a nude image of your body, you now have to cope with someone having his or her hands on it. No getting out of this one!

Third, if you look or behave funny. Nervous Arabs need not fly.

So now, for potential reasons, we've got: 1) Snooping on American citizens; 2) Making damn sure American citizens know exactly what can be done to them; and 3) Something illegal.

Isn't it great? I'm reminded of a scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, in which a local sheriff tries to gin up a posse among the local townsfolk in order to hunt down and string up our eponymous heroes. He spends a good fifteen minutes exhorting them to fight back, and gets nothing but cold stares from the crowd. His cause is briefly supported by a fellow who jumps up on stage and starts barking with enthusiasm—about bicycles, the future of transportation. When our lawman protests, the salesman thanks him for observing his duty so well, but that since he went ahead and drew a crowd, why waste the opportunity?

Deep thought of the day

Although I'm not taking up the TSA's side—far from it; they're dysfunctional and should have been abolished when it became immediately apparent how poorly proactive they were, what with three-ounce rules and all—bear in mind that TSA agents are people too, Epsilon Minuses and all.


ABOUT JIM MCCARTHY
Jim McCarthy is a deaf graduate of Rochester Institute of Technology and the University of South Florida and is currently a student in the School of Life and Human Folly (SLHF).

Tell Netflix: No captions, no money

BY ALLISON POLK

Why leave Netflix?

Because Netflix thinks it can decide how customers receive entertainment and charge some of them more money for less value. Customers like those among the 36 million Americans with hearing loss and other people who depend on captions for varying reasons have just been notified that, at Netflix's discretion, they are stuck with the more expensive DVD plans.

Here's the Nitty-Gritty:

On November 22, Netflix's VP of Marketing announced a rate hike of $1-$8, depending on subscribers' plans. She also introduced the streaming-only option, which is unlimited and cheaper than the cheapest unlimited DVD plan ($8 unlimited online entertainment versus $10 for one DVD at a time).

This move has been framed in the news media as part of Netflix's plan since the 90's to wean customers off the DVD and onto online subscriptions, as the "net" in "Netflix" indicates. More and more customers are watching online content and foregoing DVDs—with one exception: customers who use captioning to access these movies.

For many deaf and hard of hearing customers, for example, this is salt in the wound since Chief Product Office Neil Hunt responded in June 2009 to widespread complaints that Netflix did not provide access to customers who were nonetheless paying the same rate as everyone else thus: It's too hard and the technology isn't available, but we'll work on it. Maybe in another year. At the same time he made these claims about these technological difficulties, Hulu.com was providing captioned online content for TV shows immediately after release.

Well, they did eventually surmount this apparent technological hardship: In April of this year, Hunt announced that some shows and movies were available subtitled online. Translation? Some = "about 100," compared to the actual Netflix streaming library of over 10 thousand movies and over 20 thousand programs. Eight months after that initial announcement, the library has increased to just over 300, according to one informal cataloguer.

Putting aside the gap in accessible content availability, Netflix has yet to make customer access easy: There is no way to search for these captioned streams on the Netflix interface.

What Can You Do?

Leave Netflix. As a company it is Netflix's prerogative to conduct business as they see fit; as customers it is our prerogative to patronize businesses that don't patronize us. Make sure you tell Netflix why—the only way it seems you can give them "lack of captioning" as a reason is to call them (how fitting). Do it anyway.

"As a company it is Netflix's prerogative to conduct business as they see fit; as customers it is our prerogative to patronize businesses that don't patronize us."

Download and share one of the badges (two different messages, two different sizes—choices rock!). See below for the codes/images. Let us know you posted it and where!

Download and print the high-res version. You can post it around campus, at work, or simply hand it out!

Spread the word. We love the entertainment Netflix provides, but not at the expense of our consumer rights. Many of us have friends and family subscribing to Netflix services. Once they understand how Netflix's decisions are affecting you and, get them onboard—and tell them to get their own badge too!

Join the "Must Caption Facebook" group for updates about further action initiatives toward Netflix.

Sign the "petition" to let us know you unsubscribed from Netflix. We need to keep track of hard data. Thanks!

---

Use this code:

<a href="http://bit.ly/hQqkek"><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_NCmxNHN6AQ0/TOvyJUe9Y2I/AAAAAAAAAGs/D4fGAan7pvo/netflix_badge1a.png" border="0" /></a>

To get this:

---

Use this code:

<a href="http://bit.ly/hQqkek"><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_NCmxNHN6AQ0/TOvyKDKrbJI/AAAAAAAAAG4/GIaoazNekSs/netflix_badge2a.png" border="0" /></a>

To get this:

---

Use this code:

<a href="http://bit.ly/hQqkek"><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_NCmxNHN6AQ0/TOvyKEB13iI/AAAAAAAAAG0/GlgQr1DDU_I/netflix_badge1c.png" border="0" /></a>

To get this:

---

Use this code:

<a href="http://bit.ly/hQqkek"><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_NCmxNHN6AQ0/TOvyPAcyGTI/AAAAAAAAAHA/F8XJGW8W3n8/netflix_badge2c.png" border="0" /></a>

To get this:




Graphics by Jessica Thurber.

Captioning: It matters

BY JEANNETTE JOHNSON

As many already know, on October 8, 2010, President Obama signed the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) of 2010 into law. This law was long in the making, requiring several years of negotiations with the legislators, spearheaded by the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT). Now that the law has passed, we haven't heard very much about it, nor seen many changes thus far. So, what's the impact on the deaf community? First, let's look at what the CVAA will do for us.

CVAA's Impact

• Smartphones and other phones that have an internet connection will now be required to be compatible with hearing aids.
• Television shows that are already captioned must have captions when broadcast on the internet.
• Remote controls will now have a closed captioned button on it.

The lesser known features of the CVAA are the following:

• The establishment of the Emergency Access Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to the FCC for rules to ensure there's reliable and interoperable communications with future internet-enabled emergency call centers. We will eventually be able to call 911 through the internet.
• The establishment of the Video Programming Committee, which makes recommendations to the FCC about closed captioning, video description, user interfaces [on remotes, etc], and video programming guides and menus.
• The FCC now will be required to make regular reports to Congress, and the Comptroller General will also do a study on how well the FCC enforces its rules and regulations. This will put more pressure on FCC to follow through with its mandates to enforce the laws, rules and regulations.
• The relay services' regulations have been broadened to allow anyone to use them. From the COAT summary of the law: For example, a TTY user can use relay services to call a person who communicates in American Sign Language using a videophone.

All of these legal requirements will bring tremendous and positive change to our community. However, one major weakness of this law is the fact that web-produced content are not required to be captioned. This is worrisome because in the foreseeable future, eventually all content will be published solely on the internet, and then the deaf community will be left behind again. It is already an issue today. Many educators are showing web videos to their students, and deaf children are being left behind, and we cannot enjoy our favorite television shows' bonus extras on the web, because no captions are provided.

Now What?

For us to take action on the major weakness of the CVAA, it is crucial that we understand what happens after the law, or any law, is passed. The FCC now has to develop then promulgate rules and regulations for the law. These rules and regulations are the fine details of what the law will do for us. That process can take at least several months to complete because a committee has to create them, take comments from stakeholders and public, and revise the law based on the feedback. Then finally after that point, FCC can publish the rules and regulations. Mind you, this is a very simplified explanation of the rules and regulations process.

Jamie Berke of Caption Action 2 published a link to this PDF showing the timeline for the finalization process for CVAA. This document may be outdated, as changes and progress are made over time. With that being said, based on this document's timeline, it is anticipated that the rules and regulations promulgation process will take two years, and we will see the results in 2012. This does not mean we cannot take any further action on this matter – far from it.

We can monitor the rules and regulations process via updates from COAT and our various organizations such as the National Association of the Deaf and Association of Late-Deafened Adults. Through dialogue with these organizations, we can have an indirect input on the rules and regulations.

We can also work with our state associations of the deaf and other organizations to coordinate with COAT to push for an amendment to the CVAA, or for a new law if deemed necessary, so internet content are captioned. We can also contact our legislators and thank them for passing CVAA, then add that we would like to see an amendment or a new law to address the issue of captions for web-produced shows. We have the power of the internet, our organizations, and our passion—let's use it to make change happen!

Find your United States Representative.
Find your United States Senator.


ABOUT JEANNETTE JOHNSON
Jeannette Johnson is a Public and Nonprofit Administration major at Grand Valley State University, and blogger of The Deaf Edge.

Dear Netflix, Enough is enough

BY JESSICA THURBER

There is only one method to make a substantial difference when trying to convince a business to change their erroneous ways: stop using their products. Leave. Unsubscribe. And make sure you let them know what you’re doing and why.

Sure, you’re just one teeny tiny person out of the whole pie. But get enough people on your side and soon, someone high up on the ladder is going to notice that a big chunk of the pie is missing.

I did some math:

There are 36 million people with hearing loss in the United States. Let’s use the $17/month subscription. Say only 10% of the 36 million subscribe to Netflix. That’s approximately $735 million a year!

Netflix announced that they’re upping their prices and adding a new option: $7.99 unlimited online streaming! I’d be excited, too, if it wasn’t for the abysmal performance on their part when it comes to making their online content accessible for the deaf.

So, I unsubscribed today.

It was difficult. I’ve been a fan of Netflix from the start. I love my movies and television shows, and I’m too lazy to get into my car and drive to the nearest Blockbuster. But I’ve had enough.

They started rolling out captions for their online content in April of this year. It’s November now. It’s been eight months since they’ve announced their intent. The results? Approximately 300 movies have been captioned for instant viewing (out of over 17,000 movies/television shows available for online streaming). Someone else says there are 10,512 movies, 21,874 programs, and 1,958 series available for streaming.

The kicker? There’s no way to search for the captioned films on Netflix's site.

Abysmal.

So, what can you do? If you’re a Netflix member, you could join the party and unsubscribe, but be sure you tell them why.


ABOUT JESSICA THURBER
Jessica Thurber graduated from Rochester Institute of Technology in 2006 with a BFA in Graphic Design and is the founder of Deaf Politics. Currently, she works at Snap!VRS as a Creative Director.

Magga, the first deaf Member of the Parliament in Iceland

BY JESSICA THURBER

Anybody who knows me knows that I have a slight, ahem, obsession with everything and anything Icelandic. So, you can imagine how excited I was when I found out that there had been a deaf Member of the Parliament (MP), known as Alþing, in Iceland. And being the founder of Deaf Politics, it was hard not to want to interview this woman.

After consulting the powers of Google, I found her contact information and sent her an email. It wasn’t long before I heard back and received the opportunity to interview her.

Who is she? Her name is Sigurlín Margrét Sigurðardóttir but known as “Magga” for short.

Sigurlín Margrét Sigurðardóttir

Magga has been involved with the Icelandic deaf community for years, working in several positions ranging from teaching sign language to being a sign language reporter for the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service. Then she decided to run for the position of MP in her country, and got it.

A Snapshot of Her Story

When did you become deaf and what was it like for you growing up?

I grew up in a small town called Akranes, which is about 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the capital, Reykjavík. I lost my hearing at the age of 8. I adjusted to my deafness quickly and withdrew from playing games with other kids. Instead of playing, I went to my grandparents’ house to read their books, which were mostly biographies of Icelandic heroes. You could say that I found role models in the books.

I went to a public school for two years after becoming deaf and ended up learning nothing. After two years of struggling, the family agreed that I would go to the deaf school for two weeks as a trial period. The two weeks soon became 10 years.

In the first few weeks of school, I met other deaf kids and was introduced to sign language. Sign language was not taught in the classrooms so I learned the language from my peers outside of class. My Icelandic has always been very good, and when my signing became good enough, I started “interpreting” for the other students. The teachers’ knowledge of sign language was very limited during this time and the children's parents were also told not to learn sign. This trend, known around the world as “oralism”, is perceived as a black stain on Icelandic history.

Fortunately, things have changed. Sign language is now being used for teaching deaf children in Iceland. Their parents are also encouraged to learn sign.

How did you get involved with politics?

I’ve always had an interest in national affairs, probably due to the books I read at my grandparents’ when I was younger. Reading the papers daily helped as well because that was my only link to the outside world. In Iceland, television programs were not captioned so I didn’t gain anything from watching the news.

Early on, I got involved with the Association of the Deaf in Iceland and I became a board member when I was 18 years old. I ended up being a board member of the Association for the Deaf for 20 years. With this position, I represented the Association and went to several meetings overseas on the Association’s behalf. This experience has been valuable and gave me insight that would help me in my work for the parliament.

Little by little, I found ways to be heard. I wrote articles and when the Internet opened up, my interest in going into politics grew.

My political career really began in 2002 when I received a letter in the mail. It was an invitation to participate in a program run by the government, with the goal of getting women involved in politics.

In 2003, there was an election for the parliament. I decided to run as a candidate for the Liberal Party and got 2nd place in the country’s largest district. The Liberal Party got a man elected and I became a vice-member of the parliament.

The rest is history.

What was your experience like as a deaf Member of the Parliament?

Being a member of the parliament was a very educational experience, not only for me, but for the government as well. In the parliament, you get to really know how the government works, how to communicate with the people in power, how to write bills and proposals, and you also learn about what you can achieve in the long run. The most valuable lesson of all is that while making an impact, you develop certain relationships and, as a result, expand your social network.

A strong social network is critical for success.

Signing in front of the Parliament

Do you have any advice for young deaf people interested in politics?

Believe in your cause. Be strong on the issues you care about. And most importantly, always keep in mind that those who are patient get rewarded.

Her Work as a Member of the Parliament

Sigurlín Margrét was a vice member of the Icelandic parliament representing the Liberal Party and then as an independent member in the years 2003-2007. As a member, she spoke for acknowledgment of sign language and subtitling of domestic television programs. She also spoke on matters concerning equality, domestic violence, improving the circumstances of low-income individuals and disabled people, foreign affairs, and the Icelandic participation in the war in Iraq.

Learn more:
Iceland
The Alþing
Another interview with Magga


ABOUT JESSICA THURBER
Jessica Thurber graduated from Rochester Institute of Technology in 2006 with a BFA in Graphic Design and is the founder of Deaf Politics. Currently, she works at Snap!VRS as a Creative Director.

Creating systemic change: Part I

BY ERIN ESPOSITO

After being arrested in 1963, following a protest, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote the famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which one of the things he wrote was:

“In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiations; self-purification; and direct action.”

These words of wisdom have resonated, over the past 47 years, in countless ways and undoubtedly had a ripple impact on the approaches utilized by people attempting to create systemic change.

Preparation Required Prior to Action

In order to make an effective campaign for change, it is imperative that one has all the facts in place. Those who are well informed of all varying perspectives and positions tend to do far better in the negotiation phases of the process.

How does one ensure that they are adequately prepared to commence the lobbying, advocacy or educating? For starters, do your homework. Don’t presume that you can wing a meeting based solely on your personal opinion or experiences because chances are whomever it is you are trying to work with to create the change will know that you’ve come unprepared. Then your credibility becomes questionable and your efforts to effectively persuade diminish in impact.

Captiol Hill

Every time I go to The Hill to meet with Congressional offices, or meet with their staff at the district offices, I do my research on each of the Representatives or Senators’ respective position on the issue which I am meeting with them to discuss. Some resources I utilize include, but are not limited to:

World Wide Web

• The Library of Congress’ Thomas. This is a comprehensive site to get information on legislation.
• The United States House of Representatives. This is an opportunity to research the voting record of each Representative.
• The United States Senate. This is an opportunity to research the voting record of each Senator.
  
• FactCheck.org. This is a website from the Annenberg Public Policy Center and they track certain issues to determine how much of the information that is being conveyed is factual.
  

iPhone Applications

• Congress Pro
• GovTracker
• Real Time Congress

It is important to see which members of Congress are sponsoring the legislation that you desire to have some effect on and to be able to respond when asked which Representatives or Senators are sponsoring the legislation. This is one way the staffer will know how much you know and goes to show you’ve done your preparation for the meeting.

Equally as important is to be prepared for all questions possible. When I was lobbying for H.R. 2515—the Domestic Violence Leave Act (which would amend the Family Medical Leave Act to include Domestic Violence as a provision)—I met with members of the House Education & Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protection. I found it quite fascinating how, for the most part, when I met with Democratic Congressional offices their questions and discussion were more focused on wondering whether their office had sponsored the bill or not and had expressed deep concern for the safety and welfare of the American people as individuals. Whereas, when I met with the Republican Congressional offices, their questions and discussion were more focused on how the passage of this legislation would impact the businesses, and exactly how much would it cost the business to support such legislation by granting FMLA leave to attend to Domestic Violence situations.

My point here is: Prepare, Prepare, Prepare.

The Significance of Credibility

Edward Murrow, an American broadcast journalist, once said that “to be persuasive, we must be believable; to be believable, we must be credible; to be credible, we must be truthful.” I cannot stress enough how imperative it is we live our lives with integrity and honor—to always be honest about what we say and do—because it will define us in many regards.

Whenever we are agents of change in action, through lobbying or other means, we must always remain truthful—even if it is difficult. Because once a person is not truthful, their credibility is shot. Then it is practically moot to try to sell your case. People might be willing to meet with you, but they’ll only do it out of courtesy (if even!), but they definitely won’t listen to a word of what you’re saying because it has absolutely no weight. The simple solution to avoid such predicaments is to be honest.

The 30 Laws of Lobbying

1. Trust is everything. What kills trust is a lack of truthfulness, exaggerations, excessive spin beyond simply framing things positively, and omitting key facts or factors. Always be completely honest, even when it’s hard. Your word is your bond. Trust is the lifeblood of politics. It’s okay to say you don’t know if you don’t know. Professionally, all you have in the long-term is your reputation and your integrity.
2. All politics is local. Where they stand depends on where they sit. Every member of Congress is motivated by the same thing: getting re-elected. Nothing trumps the power of the constituency. Local issues and perspectives can drive public policy and strongly influence viewpoints.
3. All politics is personal. Never underestimate the power of personal persuasion and the value of personal relationships. Technology will never replace the benefits of face-to-face conversations. Technology will never vote, people always will.
4. Never threaten. This goes for subtle or veiled threats as well. Threats only make people increase their resolve against your views or agenda.
5. Never assume. Always verify each position directly with the policymaker and never take anything or anyone for granted. Positions can change based on time, circumstance, and the specific nature of the issue or situation.
6. No “quid pro quos.” Bribing a public official is a felony. Be familiar with the ethics rules that apply to public officials and never do anything to encourage or cause a policymaker to violate ethics standards or laws.
7. Resist the temptation to gossip. Washington is a much smaller town than it seems. Today’s friend may be tomorrow’s opponent. Words have a mysterious way of getting back to people.
8. Safeguard the confidences of others as carefully as you would your own. Apply the newspaper test: Never put anything in writing, including email, that you don’t want to read on the front cover of the newspaper.
9. What goes around comes around…even though it may take some time. Do not be disheartened when people seem to get away with unethical behavior.
10. Keep a check on the way you view those you represent. Just as an elected representative’s power is derived by the consent of the governed, a lobbyist’s power is derived from those whom they represent and their consent is needed on an ongoing basis. You are in your position to represent, not to expand your power base as a free agent.
11. Be kind to everyone. The Golden Rule works on the Hill. It’s not always apparent who actually wields the most influence and who might in the future. Today’s receptionist is tomorrow’s chief of staff. Today, a congressional staff member answers the phones. Tomorrow, that staff may answer the Senator’s question on an issue important to you.
12. When in doubt, check it out. Address your ambiguities, because policymakers, those whom you represent, the media, or your competition might! Don’t disseminate information that you haven’t verified. More people have been burned by not verifying information than would care to admit it.
13. Stay above reproach. Guard your reputation by avoiding not only the substance but the appearance of wrongdoing. Be strict in complying with the letter and spirit of lobbying and ethics laws, and remember that laws and professional standards are a floor, not a ceiling.
14. Avoid personal attacks. Never ascribe motives or call names. Don’t assume to know someone’s motivation. Name-calling will diminish your credibility, especially with those who have not yet decided on your issue. The goal is to win on the issue, not to make enemies or make people look bad.
15. Always have backup. Anticipate the unexpected. Be prepared to go to Plan-B for your lobbying strategy, your meeting plans, and your technology.
16. Make planning a priority. No one ever plans to fail, but many fail to plan. Use down time to update your goals and action plans. Know your issue well enough for the most difficult questions and know your opposition. Knowledge is power. Become a student of the person you are trying to persuade.
17. Allow for Murphy’s Law. If something can go wrong it will and usually it will at the worst possible moment.
18. Everything is always more complicated than it seems. Simple tasks can take longer and require more resources than originally intended. We lobby in an age of “the increasing complexity of everything” (a phrase dubbed by Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan)
19. Be proactive. Don’t wait until problems pop up to take proper care of priorities. This includes legislative plans, compliance with disclosure reporting and ethics laws, technology, and relationships!
20. Inform policymakers of the opposition’s position as you communicate your own. They’ll hear it anyway, so you might as well frame it for them before you shoot it down.
21. Be respectful. Arrive at meetings on time or early. Briefings should be brief. Poor time management communicates lack of value and respect. Know when to stop. Always say thank you.
22. Use the power of momentum. Success can breed success and one success can lead to another.
23. Develop and motivate those you represent. It’s not just about the numbers. It’s about passion, commitment, and multiplying converts.
24. Train, develop relations, and recruit year-round. Both in season and out of season, what players do on and off the field will reap dividends on the field when the big vote is announced.
25. Timing is everything. Evaluate not just what to do, but when. What is the best time to push the issue or communicate with an individual considering various legislative cycles, work schedules, and circumstances?
26. Break the barrier. When contacting a legislative office, never give a screener (such as a receptionist or an appointment secretary) a chance to say no. Find out which staff person currently has responsibility for your issue area and get to know him or her.
27. Sound policy is sound politics. Even the best strategy can’t compensate for poor policy. Would it work in the real world?
28. Admit your mistakes right away. Accept responsibility and offer to make amends. No one is perfect. In matters large and small, the cover-up can be worse than the crime. Practice humility.
29. Guard against cynicism. Enthusiasm is contagious, but so is cynicism. There is no shortage of cynics. Resolve to be a part of the solution.
30. Keep it all in perspective. Never lose your sense of humor. Don’t forget about the people who will still be in your life ten years from now. The people who didn’t return your calls before you came to Washington probably won’t after you leave.

(Source: Lobbying and Advocacy by Donna R. Gelak)

TO BE CONTINUED. Creating systemic change: Part II will be posted on 11/29.


ABOUT ERIN ESPOSITO
Erin Esposito is the Executive Director of Advocacy Services for Abused Deaf Victims (ASADV) in Rochester, NY. She is also the current Chair of the NTID Alumni Association Board of Directors.

How to help build the backbone for our deaf schools

BY JULIE MASON

Here’s what you can do:

1. Write to state legislators in states with at-risk deaf schools to stress the importance of having accessible education for deaf children.
2. Write to large non-profit organizations (as well as your local deaf community) to help fund deaf schools and education programs for deaf children.
3. Host your own fundraisers.
   
4. Contact your local media outlet to draw attention to the plight of deaf schools in your area.
5. Get creative!

Contact not just your local deaf community, but your media sources such as newspapers and magazines, as well as the Internet, to get your entire state community involved.

The Oregon School of the Deaf was able to save their main fundraising asset, the Nightmare Factory, simply by reaching out to a large organization as well as their surrounding community, and much of their local community responded positively by pitching in and helping with renovations. This community support made all the difference for OSD, as the Nightmare Factory is one of the only things keeping their school afloat without being consolidated with the Oregon School for the Blind. With the right networks, plenty of attention, and a lot of patience and dedication—you make the difference.

Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. —MARGARET MEAD

This is a follow-up to Julie Mason's previous article.

Building the backbone of our deaf children’s future

BY JULIE MASON

A World With No Money

Imagine a world in which our students are struggling to learn, their quality of education rising and falling greatly with every state dollar earned or spent. In this world, money is scarce, and the government considers special education programs a luxury. All services for differently abled people are in constant danger, thanks to the nation’s massive debt and inability to support adequate state budgets. This is starting to sound familiar, no?

That’s because it is a reality. All over the nation, state governments are strapping their belts and pointing to their empty pockets. School budgets are often the first to go—sometimes they are protected by federal funding specifically for public schools. What happens then, to deaf institutions, many of which are considered “state agencies” and are not protected by federal funding allocated for schools?

An empty classroom

Many who have gone under the knife of budget cuts have fallen and closed their doors. Other deaf institutions, such as the Washington School of the Deaf, the Texas School for the Deaf, the Rhode Island School for the Deaf, as well as other schools in South Dakota, Alabama, Florida, and California are struggling to come up with solutions to keep their schools afloat. Rhode Island School for the Deaf has been forced to cut $900,000. The Texas School for the Deaf is in danger of losing $3.5 million. The Kansas School of the Deaf has already lost $215,000 and is facing the loss of another $500,000.

The Washington School of the Deaf has been forced to lay off valuable staff and programs, consolidate their classes, enforce two additional weeks of furlough, and close a campus building in response to a proposed 6.3% budget cut of all state agencies by the state of Washington, with potentially another 10% cut next year. Yet if Washington legislators enforce the budget cut and add even more budget cuts within the year, WSD may not have an elementary school program next year.

Send Them Home – But Where is Home?

Where will these students go? Many of them, ages 2 through 11 (preschool through 5th grade) are from all over the state—it is unlikely that all of them would continue education at the same school with the same level of access services. Do we really want our deaf and hard-of-hearing students to lose such a strong environment and foundation of learning? What happens if these students are not able to learn through their preferred means in a mainstreamed environment? Do we want to risk allowing our deaf schools to close and shunning our children in need of an ASL learning environment?

It is a direct correlation between how much time and attention is devoted to each student’s educational needs and how much the government can afford to pay those who care and are qualified to meet deaf students’ needs. Deaf institutions, labeled as “state agencies” instead of “educational institutions”, are in danger of being largely subject to state budget cuts without large private benefactors to help absorb financial hardships not provided for by school funding from both state and federal governments. For example, the Washington State School of the Blind is also considered a “state agency,” but with the local branch of the Lions Club and Rotary to help fund them, they are not currently in danger of needing to cut an entire elementary school from their program.

Historically Poor, Poorly-Funded Education

Why do so few deaf schools have the support of a local wealthy organization such as the Lions Club? That’s a good question. It is not enough to try and rally the entire national population of deaf and hard-of-hearing people behind each and every deaf institution; it is not enough to encourage people to write letters to the governor; nor is it enough to merely hold fundraisers—“state agencies” technically are not allowed to fundraise for themselves, which creates a huge dilemma for deaf schools with the “state agency” label. What must be done, is ALL of the above and, in the best interest of preserving our deaf schools, recruit large wealthy organizations to support this special environment and ASL-accessible education for our deaf and hard-of-hearing children.

Local deaf organizations do attempt to support educational causes, but many are simply too small in order to raise the necessary funds needed to save a deaf institution from collapse. The proposed 6.3% state agency budget cut this year alone would cost the Washington School of the Deaf $552,000, with another $333,000 lost should the 10% budget cut also be enforced next year. With a grand total of $885,000 to eliminate from the school budget, it is no wonder that WSD is struggling to stay afloat.

As a member of a few local deaf organizations, I was able to observe that fundraising efforts ranged anywhere from $500 to $12,000 at best in a single quarter. If our national deaf community all pulled together, it is possible that, nationally, we could raise almost $900,000 if every single one of us was passionate about our cause. We also might not raise quite so much money, but surely, a nation of passionately dedicated people could help make a huge difference in putting a dent in this number figure. But what about all the other deaf schools at risk of losing a large chunk of their budget? Can we, as a community, tackle each individual school’s financial crisis and still manage to dent their budgets as well?

Pay It Forward

There simply aren’t enough of us with fat wallets. The means of wealth will need to come elsewhere, namely large charities and independent non-profit organizations. I envision this as a “pay it forward” situation, since putting our best efforts toward funding deaf schools will help provide a rich education for many new generations of deaf and hard-of-hearing children, not to mention better pay for school staff, which in turn would attract high quality teachers and support. Children, who are able to learn in an environment which is highly conducive to their learning as deaf individuals, would be better educated than if they had to struggle through school their entire life. Deaf adults with a lifetime of rich education and an easily accessible ASL environment, in turn, would have much higher earnings than those struggling to understand their surroundings. Therefore, the deaf and hard-of-hearing adults with higher salaries would be more capable of contributing toward the education and needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. All we need to do is take action!


ABOUT JULIE MASON
Julie Mason is a RIT graduate currently serving in the Washington Reading Corps through AmeriCorps. She is stationed at the Washington School of the Deaf, and works with children from preschool through 6th grade to improve their reading abilities. She loves working with the students and is currently working on a reading-based videogame to engage kids' imagination and to teach valuable reading skills.

Cognitive deficit

BY JIM MCCARTHY


America cannot be great if we go broke

One rule of thumb that I generally follow states that if there's something that pisses everyone off, it's probably a good thing.

However, something's emerged in recent days that has me reconsidering this rule. That something is the Bowles-Simpson Report, written by the two chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, otherwise known as either the "debt commission" or "deficit commission."

The finer distinction between the two big Ds I'll leave to the economists (okay, maybe not: a deficit is revenue shortfall over a single year; debt is accumulated by successive deficits, because they are remedied in the short term by borrowing). Instead, a quick overview of the stuff in the report that has people foaming at their mouths will do, as is my opinion on why this isn't really that big of a deal—and why it is.

Throughout our history, Americans have always been willing to sacrifice to make our nation stronger over the long haul.

First and foremost, the commission recommends an across-the-board budget cut for the federal government; everything from defense procurement to personnel costs are recommended for reduction. Social Security and health care get cut, the retirement age gets indexed to longevity, cost-of-living benefit adjustments get indexed to inflation, and new controls are put in place to prevent abuses and "encourage greater efficiency." How paying doctors less will incentivize them to perform better, I'm not sure.

That's the government. For the people, the tax code gets simplified into three major personal rates and one corporate rate. All four rates would get slashed—tax cuts for the Republicans!—but loopholes (including exemptions and deductions) would be removed—rate hikes for the Democrats!

The upshot is that, of course, Republican and Democratic lawmakers get a little extra junk in their trunk for the extended mating season of election year, while the average American gets nothing. In fact, the average American is a little worse-off than before; although income tax would be reduced up front, most deductions and exemptions would be removed, making up for the shortfall and then some. That's without going into the actual tax increases mentioned by the report, such as raising the gas tax by 15 cents a gallon (something which has me cheering; c'mon, guys—it's a good thing when the tax code starts resembling reality). This doesn't really matter, though, because if this sort of thing were actually passed, incumbents running for office could say with perfect truth that they cut taxes.

One thing you might have heard is that they want to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction so that folks who are making payments on their new homes also have to pay more to the government for the income that got spent on their mortgage interest. This is only partially true; the chairmen want this only for second homes, home equity loans, and mortgages over $500,000. The thinking is that it'll prevent the people who can afford the extra taxes (people who a) own a beach house; b) can afford to pay more than the minimum monthly note; or c) can afford an expensive house) from getting out of it.

Washington must lead

Of course, I'm leaving out the facts that first, this assumes 2009 tax laws apply in 2015 (nobody even knows if they apply in 2010 at this point!) and that this is sort of the worst-case scenario as far as taxes are concerned; the plan's drafters offer three different scenarios, from the Zero Option—making all recommended cuts and adjustments—to the Tax Reform Trigger—in which it'd get punted down the road to legislators, who would then have to make up their minds about what kind of "haircut" they want to give the tax code.

Do you really think legislators can make up their minds? Or cut hair?

Anyway, another—and possibly more significant—issue with the report is that it seems like the drafters just threw what they could think of into it without regard for the overall plan. For instance, on the same PowerPoint slide (which, by the way, has zero aesthetic appeal—surely our big-spending government can afford a designer or two), they recommend three things:

1. Reduce the federal workforce by 10% through attrition (replacing three people with two).
2. Reduce the number of federal contractors by 250,000.
3. Freeze pay for a period of three years.

So let's work it out in our little pinheads: Fewer workers and contractors mean that the remainder have to do more with less—become more productive, in other words. Unfortunately, this increased productivity brings no reward, because they're not allowed to get raises for their performance. What do you think will happen when the government suddenly becomes a machine of chronically overworked and underpaid cogs?

Go ahead and enjoy that mental image. My treat.

The American People are counting on us to put politics aside

Upon closer examination, this really isn't a fantastic plan (it was, I believe, referred to as "unserious" by a certain economist). Fortunately—and this is something that gets glossed over by politicians and the media—it's only a proposal made for the consideration of other commission members, not for the president. Even the White House was heard to say that this was "only a step in the process toward coming up with a set of recommendations."

Sounds kind of like saying, "Well, I'll certainly begin the process of taking into consideration the possibility that there is a slight chance of potentially persuading me to maybe get started down the road of doing something that could closely resemble that thing which reminds one of the appearance of possibly initiating the beginning of an examination of the probability that I may start thinking about considering it."

This seems to get missed pretty easily, especially by pundits who say the Democrats/Republicans/Jews/Nazis are ruining everything and that this report only aggravates the issue instead of offering a finish line for it.

Everything must be on the table

Truthfully, though, I kind of like it. Why? Partly because of that rule of thumb I mentioned above; the rest because it really does put everything on the table, including the sacred cows of defense, Medicare, and Social Security. The tax reform component is vaguely promising but largely useless; still, the fact that the unthinkable has been thunk sort of suggests that maybe we're not so screwed after all. It sort of broadens the field of attack.

What does this have to do with deaf politics? Not a whole lot other than the apocryphal assertion of widespread reliance on Social Security. Although lazy deaf people are the proverbial drop in the entitlement toilet, it might be time for a fresh assessment of how, exactly, a perfectly able-bodied deaf person is incapable of doing any work and whether that under-the-table job or those free PS3 payments are justifiable.


ABOUT JIM MCCARTHY
Jim McCarthy is a deaf graduate of Rochester Institute of Technology and the University of South Florida and is currently a student in the School of Life and Human Folly (SLHF).

Results of the Mobbies

So, the final tally is in and Deaf Politics landed in... 2nd place under the Politics category! And in 5th for Best Facebook fan page, 3rd for Best Twitter Feed for Business/Non-profit. So close, yet so far but there's always next year. Many thanks to all that voted!