[nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled

qubit lauraeaves at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 22 20:10:32 UTC 2010


You answer off list, I notice.
First, I can't stand either Limbaugh or Hannity, and I am not a republican.
Second, I didn't say the government was doing a bad job. Nowhere did I say 
that. Did I not mention that I was grateful for the programs and assistance 
that got me through school and provided a wealth of accessible reading 
material? Well that was in a different message...
However, and this counts as third:  the government did not clean up the 
air -- it simply put in place laws and regulations that industry and 
citizens had to follow to improve the environment.  I don't know what your 
problem is with the private sector. If the government owns a car company, 
then perhaps it is more free to regulate that car company to make clean 
engines, but a better approach is to require improvement, sponsor contests, 
have the private sector compete, and the job will get done.
Also, it took private organizations and individuals, such as Erin Brocovich 
(spelling probably wrong), to force government to get off its can and pass 
the needed legislation to clean up her neighborhood and the country as a 
whole.
Yes, I know you'll say you didn't claim the government wouldn't do 
everything on its own.  But you are making assumptions about my mind sets so 
I can take a few liberties with yours...*smile* Oh, and note that I did not 
infer anything about the health care bill, before you bring that one up.
Now as for the ADA, I was lucky enough to have gotten through school and 
earned my degree and gotten my job before the ADA, thanks partly partly to 
government programs, surely, but also my own hard work and family support. 
I worked a total of 12 years in industry -- the first 6 were before the ADA 
and the last 6 were after. I don't know what happened. I think the ADA was 
part of something bigger happening globally right then, but for me, things 
actually got harder when the ADA passed.  I heard hushed talk to the effect 
that people didn't want to hire me because they were afraid they might not 
be able to fire me, if it came to that.  So actually, in a roundabout way, 
it made job hunting and change all that much harder.  Before that and for a 
while after I always had excellent job performance and had no trouble making 
transitions to things I thought I could perform in.
Anyway, I don't mean the ADA was bad legislation.  I'm just stating my 
experience and the things were harder after it passed.
(Now you don't have to remind me that I did go on disability for whatever 
reason, not blindness. So I'm a bit over cost.)
So that is my soapbox.
Now on to more fruitful concerns.
And please if you don't want me to make blanket claims about what you say, 
don't make blanket statements about me or any other person or group unless 
you are quoting them verbatim.
--le

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
To: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled


You've made several totally unsupported claims in your message:

1. People assume there are enough tax dollars to cover all problems.
2. The government is doing a bad job.
3. The private sector is more efficient.

Conservatives take these totally unsubstantiated opinions as facts. And this
is a huge part of the problem. You are assuming things that are unproven and
quite possibly totally wrong.

You don't even seem to realize how much government has improved our lives.
Lets take one little phase of life... Breathing. Would you like to go back
to the bad old days before government cleaned up the air? Things like the
Social Security Administration, the EPA, OSHA, the SEC have made life very
much better in this country. The fact is that by and large, the government
is doing a good job.

I've already given good logical reason for believing that big government
isn't necessarily bad government... The contries in Europe with big
governments are doing quite well. Those are some of the best places in the
world to live. And in general, countries with fewer social programs are not
very nice places to live. Would you rather live in Switzerland or Zimbabwe?

Its just amazing to me that I have to explain this stuff. Haven't you heard
of the Americans With Disabilities Act? Do you know how much better our
lives are as a result of that law? That's about as intrusive as government
can get. But its been a very, very good thing for disabled people.  If the
ADA has any real flaws as far as blind people are concerned, its that it
doesn't go far enough for us. The good news is that new laws, modifications
to the ADA, and new Justice Department directives will probably address
this.

I'm sorry if you find my attitude patronizing but this is indeed very
frustrating to me. You and your conservative cohorts seem to have little
understanding of history and little interest in actually thinking through
your point of view. You do things like just toss in the assumption that our
government is doing a bad job as if its proven fact. My first or second
message in this debate was about how people should occasionally take a step
back and examine their point of view. Your message is like a poster child
for that suggestion. Where in the world did you get the idea that our
government doesn't work? Where did you get the idea that people assume there
is enough tax dollars to solve every problem? Ideas like that are the
foundation of conservative thinking in America today and they just don't
represent reality.

Honestly, I think you've been hoodwinked. I don't know if you listen to Rush
Limbaugh and Shawn Hannedy but they simply don't tell the whole truth. I'm
not saying they lie, not unless you count lies of ommission. But they're not
going to tell you about government programs that work. Anybody listening to
their programs regularly would get a very distorted perception of reality.

Did you know that the EPA, OOSHA, EEOC, and SSDI were all created by the
Nixon administration? How about the fact that the Transcontinental Railroad,
the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, and the Interstate Highway System were all
created by Republicans? All those things, without wich our country would be
far worse off, were created by Republicans.

If you want to think about the value of federal vs local governments, I
suggest you start with the Federalist Papers. Have you read those?
Alexander Hamilton goes on at great length on the value of a strong federal
government in one of those articles. Admittedly, a lot of it is BS but a lot
of it turned out being right on too.

From: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
To: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled


> No, you should think more about what people say before patronizing by
> stating the obvious.  Government programs are of course larger, and of
> course not voluntary, and of course funded by tax dollars, but let me put
> on
> my conservative hat for a minute:
> 1) tax is collected from people and corporations involuntarily which means
> there is an assumption, perhaps misguided, that there is enough to cover
> every problem situation in the population, and that the government is
> organized and passionate enough to do a decent job of it. If that were
> true,
> I think people wouldn't mind parting with the money (as much).
> 2) government organizations are of necessity bigger and frought with
> burocracy and overhead that is not anywhere near the efficiency of a
> private
> organization.  In fact, the bigger an organization, the worse the
> burocracy,
> to where you lose more of a percentage as you grow -- I am taking this
> from
> observation working at a very large company, which was management heavy to
> the extreme.
> 3) besides funding the narrow range of social/educational/health agencies
> in
> the government, the government has international and military and various
> research and other interests to conduct.  This is supposedly to be paid
> for
> by the private sector while paying for everything else.  And if the
> government is doing so much, a majority of the country's work force will
> be
> government employed, so they will essentially be in the position of giving
> out money only to take it back in taxes, to be cycled around to another
> employee.
>
> Ok, so what is the up side of  big government?
> If it works right, fewer (I say fewer, not none) fewer people will fall
> through the cracks.
> If we don't have too many enemies, we will survive as a nation.
> Is that all?  I'll see if anyone finishes the thought.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
> To: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get
> labeled
>
>
> Dude... There's a difference between programs run by the government and
> those run by groups considered to be part of the private sector. I don't
> think I should have to explain that. A government program is one created
> by
> a law and paid for with tax dollars. Private sector programs are generally
> voluntary and are paid for with donations. There's a huge difference.
>
> Do I really have to explain this?  I really wish you'd put a little more
> thought into your replies.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
> To: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get
> labeled
>
>
>> John, you say "it's not practical that the private sector can take on the
>> functions of the federal government" -- but really, listen to yourself --
>> it's the private sector that supports the federal government. Or is there
>> some magic well somewhere that I don't know about?
>> I'm not a libertarian.  But I think a little fiscal common sense is
>> needed.
>> You start to apply it, bt then you don't quite make your point, because
>> there is no one point that is right in all situations. Otherwise we
>> wouldn't
>> be arguing these things.
>> --le
>>
>> --le
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
>> To: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>; "NFB Talk Mailing List"
>> <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get
>> labeled
>>
>>
>> Well, trying to stay on topic here, there has been a suggestion that we'd
>> be
>> better off without SSI and presumably SSDI. Is it likely that a private
>> charity could take the place of those programs? Not very. I can more or
>> less
>> prove that...
>>
>> The poverty level is currently around $15,000. But lets say the average
>> SSI
>> or SSDI recipient could get by with $10,000 a year. Now lets figure the
>> average employed blind person makes $50,000 a year. That's probably way
>> high
>> too. Now lets say the average blind person with a job would be willing to
>> contribute 1% of his income to a program to provide jobs for unemployed
>> blind people. That's $500 per year. Would the average blind person be
>> willing to pitch in $500 a year for his fellow blind citizens? I ckind of
>> doubt it but lets say for the sake of argument that he would.  10000/500
>> is
>> 20. So that still means you'd have to have 20 employed blind people for
>> every unemployed blind person.  So the idea of employed blind people
>> pitching in to support unemployed blind people doesn't even begin to work
>> until the employment rate is 95%.  If it was that high we wouldn't need
>> the
>> program in the first place.
>>
>> This is basically the same problem Social Security is facing -- too many
>> recipients and too few contributors. The solution to the SSI problem is
>> fairly clear. We will need to raise the age of eligibility and have a
>> means
>> test. But there is no way a program for employed blind people to fund a
>> jobs
>> program for unemployed blind people can ever work. The numbers just
>> arent'
>> there.
>>
>> Most of what the government does is the same. Its just not practical to
>> think that the private sector can take over the functions of the federal
>> government. that is a fantasy promoted by libertarians like Ron Paul.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get
>> labeled
>>
>>
>>> Hi -- I may be venturing on thin ice here, but there is one thing I
>>> worry
>>> about.  This is not a material problem so much as a mental/spiritual
>>> one.
>>> One drawback to government run programs that is more a subjective,
>>> nonquantifiable one: If you give the government the full responsibility
>>> for
>>> taking care of the needy in the country, it has the effect of sweeping
>>> problems under the rug of "the government is taking care of it" -- kind
>>> of
>>> like the SEP invisibility field in the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy
>>> books--adams fans will know what I'm talking about. SEP stands for
>>> "someone
>>> else's problem" and has such a powerful effect on viewers as to render
>>> an
>>> object invisible.
>>> I think that this change will attempt to take the responsibility of
>>> looking
>>> out for our neighbors and give it to the government so people will be
>>> less
>>> apt to give in times of need.  In particular, if taxes are high, they
>>> will
>>> figure they already gave to that cause, and maybe try to give moral
>>> support,
>>> but if the government office isn't helping, the person is still in need
>>> of
>>> a
>>> friend or someone to identify the problem so as to get him to the right
>>> government office. and there may not be someone there. You can't
>>> predefine
>>> a
>>> government office for every problem.
>>> In the case of health care, there is also the question of privacy, if on
>>> huge monolithic government run health agency pays the docs, then it will
>>> be
>>> easy for people's records to be available for others to view, at least
>>> for
>>> government employees. And in a socialistic society, there are a lot of
>>> government employees...*smile*
>>>
>>> I guess I am playing conservative today.
>>> Obama's health plan, such as it is, does allow for private medical
>>> insurers.
>>> And I think government programs can be a very good thing for those who
>>> need
>>> them.
>>> It's just that the change has me worried.
>>> Take care.
>>> --le
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 4:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get
>>> labeled
>>>
>>>
>>> A lot of money gets wasted no matter who's running a program.  What
>>> makes
>>> you think a private charity is more efficient than the federal
>>> government?
>>> You should check out the salaries made by the leaders of most
>>> non-profits.
>>> It is not at all unusual for the President of a non-profit to make half
>>> a
>>> million dollars a year. Not to mention the fact that most of our social
>>> programs were created in the first place because private charities
>>> weren't
>>> getting it done.
>>>
>>> Its simply a myth that governments can't solve social programs.
>>> Countries
>>> like Switzerland and Sweeden have happy, healthy citizens. The USA, on
>>> the
>>> other hand, ranks low on just about every measure of health and
>>> happiness.
>>> Our infant mortality rate is high, our life expectancy is low, our
>>> unemployment rate and crime rates are high.
>>>
>>> The available evidence would tend to indicate that the United States
>>> doesn't
>>> have enough social programs, not too many. Now, you could argue that a
>>> reduced tax burden and less government interference makes it worthwhile.
>>> But
>>> that would be a value judgement. I mean, you could argue that our
>>> independence is more valuable than living a longer life. But you can't
>>> argue
>>> that government can't solve social programs. There's just no evidence
>>> for
>>> that.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Amelia Dickerson" <ameliadickerson at gmail.com>
>>> To: <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Cc: "Nijat Worley" <nijat1989 at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:25 PM
>>> Subject: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello-
>>>> I'm just going to put my two cents in here. I think that when the
>>>> government does stuff, it ends up swallowing up a lot of money that is
>>>> wasted. I have spent several months applying for jobs in the federal
>>>> government and it has been a bit of a comic sketch. At the same time,
>>>> we have people in our society for whom we need to care, and the fact
>>>> is that any point in time, most people end up in that position.
>>>> Ideally, we would privately take care of this on our own- people
>>>> within a community would rise up and put together their own education
>>>> system for their kids and for all of them, we would help people out
>>>> with food when they needed it, doctors and therapists would take on a
>>>> few patients and clients pro bono at any one time. But until people
>>>> choose to do that over buying that brand new car instead of continuing
>>>> to drive it even though it is no longer the latest and greatest, we
>>>> need to have the government programs on which to fall back. That
>>>> doesn't even address the fact that certain communities have a deficit
>>>> of such resources.
>>>>
>>>> At my own church, I am in charge of organizing local community service
>>>> activities. We have a solid core of people who give generously of
>>>> their time and energy and money, but there are others who are very
>>>> much occupied by the things in their own lives and they just don't
>>>> really contribute to anything. Fortunately, most will give to others
>>>> in some form, but there are a lot of causes and people out there to
>>>> give to. I am personally in my mid 20's and my peers are a notoriously
>>>> self-centered population. I know some people who meet that discription
>>>> and others who do not. Honestly, I don't know what you would need to
>>>> do in order to try and meet the needs of others. However, as a person
>>>> with my masters in counseling and with a lot of personal experience
>>>> working with people who are needy in both an emotional and physical
>>>> sense, itt is absolutely not as easy as giving them money for food
>>>> each month. Talk to me one on one if you want to know what it looks
>>>> like to try and quote unquote "help" someone with schizofrenia or a
>>>> personality disorder.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, I am currently taking a class on universal media design
>>>> at the local state university. The principles of the class have to do
>>>> with  making media and web sites accessible to everyone, whether they
>>>> are using an old computer on a dial up connection, using a smart
>>>> phone, the latest and greatest computer with whatever internet
>>>> browser, they are hard of hearing,  or a use a screen reader. Despite
>>>> its principles though, I have had to do a lot of self advocacy. They
>>>> have us learning about java script from on-line clips that do not
>>>> provide enough information for me to keep track of what is happening
>>>> in the visual part of the training. Someone asked me to give feedback
>>>> on the web site for the business association of downtown Denver in
>>>> preparation for the AHEAD conference here this summer. It is all in
>>>> flash, and I was unable to get any content off of it. The business
>>>> association doesn't feel particularly obliged to change their web site
>>>> at all, even if it also means that people out for the night cannot
>>>> pull up their site on a smart phone. The conservative principle is
>>>> that economic forces will convince them to change it, but they aare
>>>> not yet terribly interested. Along the same lines, the web sites at CU
>>>> are often times poorly designed to the extent of decreasing
>>>> accessibility, but as a whole group of sites are looking at being
>>>> redesigned in the next couple of years, the man in charge of it
>>>> doesn't know the first thing about concepts such as the W3 standards.
>>>> I met with him and showed him a bit about what makes his current site
>>>> that he manages difficult to navigate with a screen reader. Maybe he
>>>> will be motivated to learn more, butthus far people outside of
>>>> disability services at the university have been pretty apathetic with
>>>> regards to making accessibility improvements to sites. All of this is
>>>> just to say that I don't tend to find that the best ideas win out; too
>>>> many people are caught up in the concept of how things have always
>>>> been done and "it works for me, so it's fine."
>>>>
>>>> With all of this having been said, I vote we stick with putting
>>>> concepts out there without needing to label them as being part of one
>>>> group or another. I am all for innovation, change, and progress. No
>>>> political group gets to lay claim to those words and my use of them
>>>> does not put me in any one group.
>>>>
>>>> Amelia
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Amelia Dickerson
>>>>
>>>> What counts can't always be counted, and what can be counted doesn't
>>>> always count.
>>>> Albert Einstein
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list