If Christy Smith, the first disabled competitor on Survivor, thinks she's facing adversity in the Brazilian jungle, wait till she gets back home and faces some of her deaf fans.
As the newest and most visible deaf celebrity on TV, Smith, 24, has become a magnet not only for praise, but also scathing criticism.
On one hand, the deaf community is proud of the Colorado native who is a graduate of Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., the world's only liberal-arts college for the deaf.
But on the other, many deaf people are angry that she is not openly displaying more pride in deaf culture. They want her to use sign language when she speaks, and to teach other members of her all-female tribe how to sign.
They are particularly critical of her choosing to read lips and speak instead of insisting on a sign-language interpreter during the Darwinian game show. Those choices are particularly insulting to strong proponents of deaf culture.
So these deaf nutcases are pissed b/c Ms. Smith is capable of being a fully-functioning and independent member of society? There's no need to ask if these wackos would prefer that she pretend she is incapable of communicating with the non-deaf, because that's exactly what they're saying. How are her choices "particularly insulting to strong proponents of the deaf culture"? She's not bashing deaf people or pretending she's not deaf, she's just accepting that she's deaf and not letting it keep her from doing what she wants. Any decent human being, deaf or otherwise, would be proud of her.
"Then, whoa! She's not signing, she's speaking. I told my husband that I was sure she'd have a sign interpreter at Tribal Council, so I waited and waited and she didn't. It's so not deaf-friendly."
These shrill members of the deaf community defy logic. How is it better for her to "insist" on an interpreter she obviously doesn't need? Is a polio survivor who is fortunate enough to be able to walk "insulting" others by not using a wheelchair they don't need?
11:03 AM
Anyone who maintains that anti-war protestors are not anti-American and nutty, needs only to read the above for conclusive proof that they are anti-American, nutty, and in extremely bad taste.
An excerpt:
"Consider the man who started his car about 8:45 a.m. on Jan. 23 outside his Roslindale home. He went back into the house, made his coffee, grabbed his briefcase, and went back out. By then, his car was gone. Police said the man called 911, and police asked him to come to the station to fill out a stolen car report. So he started his wife's BMW, went back into the house, got his paperwork in order, and grabbed his coffee. But when he went out again, the BMW was gone too. "
Lesson #1: This man is an idiot.
It is one thing to grow careless years after such an incident, blah blah blah, but this dude instantaneously forgot the possible consequences of leaving a car idling unattended.
An excerpt:
"At many specialty-clothing stores, employees are walking mannequins, dressed head to toe in the store's latest styles. Should they have to foot the bill?
A growing number of retail employees are complaining they're losing their shirts meeting dress codes at work. Three lawsuits recently filed in San Francisco state and federal courts -- against Gap Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- argue that the stores illegally force their low-wage store employees to buy extensive wardrobes from the brands they represent.
.......
At Polo Ralph Lauren's higher-end stores, workers say they have to buy clothing that retails for as much as $400 for a sweater and $500 for a pair of pants, claims Toni Young, lead plaintiff in the Polo Ralph Lauren suit. She says the company offers employees a 65% discount off retail prices. Even so, to keep her job at the company's San Francisco store, Ms. Young says she spent more than $30,000 on Polo Ralph Lauren clothing since 1997. Ms. Young also has a racial discrimination suit pending against Polo Ralph Lauren.
"
Lesson #2: If you don't like it, don't work there.
Are these people really being forced to buy anything? In a nutshell, no. Quite simply, these idiots want to have lots and lots of clothes, all for free. They are whiny little assclowns that they also believe that free clothes are some sort of God-given inalienable right.
And what the hell is wrong with Ms. Young? Why would you work somewhere for six years if you can't stand it?
I sincerely hope that these bastardly crusaders are unsuccessful. There are many, many people that would love to be able to work at the stores mentioned, get paid, and get the huge discounts which the merchants now give employees, and these enthusiastic, grateful people are the ones that should have these jobs. Giving in to employees like Ms. Young will decrease the quality of employees at the affected stores, which is bad for sales, bad for the economy, etc., and will eventually result in worthless people like her being sans job anyway after her demands destroy retailers.
