[nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from ChairmanGordon Gund

Mike Freeman k7uij at panix.com
Sun Apr 24 18:35:18 UTC 2011


Joseph:

Your well-reasoned post below is dead on.  I agree with it completely.  It
succinctly points out the methods some who disagree with NFB policies use to
denigrate these policies.

Yet I believe we are doing John a disservice by trashing him here.
Fundamentally, what we are dealing with is a clash between two views of the
world as it affects the blind and what we, the blind, are capable of and
what we can and should expect from the world.  Sometimes these world views
result in espousal of the same solutions to blindness issues.  Most of the
time, however, these clashing views result in radically different proposals
for what society can and should do.  What follows are generalizations.
Generalizations are always dangerous in that they tend to oversimplify.  But
they are good tools for analysis.

One world view -- presumably the one held by John and many others including
many in ACB -- holds that we, the blind, are owed such efforts and devices
as are needed to "Level the playing field" -- the current "in" buz-phrase --
with the sighted and in analogous fashion to what we, the blind, would
experience were we sighted.  For example, if the sighted can see a traffic
signal, this view holds that we, the blind ought to be able to hear it.  In
like manner, if the sighted can see facial expressions and action in movies
and on television, we, the blind, ought to have described video to make us
aware of such expressions and actions.  Again, if the sighted can determine
the denomination of paper currency without aid, we, the blind, also should
be able to do so.  In other words, we, the blind, should be compensated by
society for our lack of sight.

The other world view -- predominantly held by members of NFB -- holds that
society owes us nothing except the chance to compete with the sighted
without impediments except those imposed by the physical nuisance of
blindness.  The assumption underlying this world view, eloquently expressed
by Joseph Carter, is that the world is not going to easily adapt to our
needs but that in most instances, we can adapt to the world and compete on a
basis of equality with the sighted with relatively little difficulty.  It
follows therefore that we should only ask the world to adapt to our needs
when we cannot deal with them without such adaptation.

For example, Joseph is bang on-target when he cites our current push for
technology access as fulfilling this criterion.  Things we once could do
with very little adaptation on the part of society now require adaptation
because of the advent of touch-screens, flat panels and the like.  We'll go
as far as the Supreme Court to secure such adaptations.

Tactilly-identifiable paper currency, on the other hand, does *not* meet
this criterion.  While it would be nice and convenient to have such
currency, it is not a necessity.  We, the blind, have found ways to handle
currency with relatively little difficulty even though it is not
identifiable by touch.  Put another way, we of NFB certainly were not and
are not opposed to tactile currency; as Joseph says, we are cooperating with
the Bureau of Printing and Engraving in testing out which tactile features
would work best.  Our only quarrel was with the assertion that *not* having
such currency was discriminatory against the blind.  We just saw this as one
of those circumstances requiring us to develop alternative techniques.


Similarly, we of NFB are not opposed to audible traffic signals when
listening to traffic flow isn't sufficient to determine when we should cross
intersections or roundabouts.  We fail to see, however, any advantage to
blanket installation of signals as in most instances, we don't really need
them, they are costly and sometimes themselves are safety hazards.

We are also not opposed to described video; we supported the 21st Centuryh
Communications and video Accessibility Act.  Yet we would consider described
video *essential* only in the case of emergency warnings.  That doesn't mean
that many of us don't enjoy described video; we just don't consider it
discriminatory when we don't get it.

I, too, get tired of those who disagree with us setting up strawmen.  But I
think the impulse to do so is best understood as a reaction to the
confrontation between two more-or-less opposing philosophies of blindness
and of how blindness should be dealt with by the world.

Mike Freeman


-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:07 AM
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from
ChairmanGordon Gund

I just get so tired of the same damned unrelenting straw men brought up time
and again, anywhere he can wedge these things in, whether they make sense or
not.  He's not been back two weeks and already we're all illogical,
unethical, and he's back to the straw man about how we all want blind people
to beg for help from sighted people.

If I have learned one thing from politics, it's that certain parties always
want to re-frame the argument so that either you agree with them, or you are
against something that nobody ever would be.  Either I am right, or you
support cruelty to kittens!  What do kittens have to do with anything?

So if you listen to John, if you oppose a particular modification to the US
currency, you want blind people to be helpless and dependent, despite the
fact that very few are helpless or dependent in this matter today, unless it
be by choice.  Money identifiers are now $100, and my cell phone can do it
for the huge investment of TWO BUCKS.  John and I basically agree that
electronic identifiers are not a suitable solution to the problem, and yet I
cannot support his baseless attacks (and incessant) incendiary claims
against the NFB on even this issue.  Despite the NFB's involvement in making
the currency accessible, John's blanket statement is that we oppose doing
this on every level, and in THREE YEARS (or longer, I think) he has yet to
accept a single person's claim to the contrary.

If you oppose chirping signals, you want blind people to die crossing
streets.  An outright lie.  The NFB opposed these things because the data
showed that they drowned out cars resulting in more blind people at risk,
not less.  Moreover, as of eight or nine years ago, the NFB has been
actively developing a safe replacement for these squawking monsters, and the
documented position of the organization is that we support their
installation when they will benefit people.  John's blanket assertion is
that we oppose them universally.  Our own resolutions to the contrary are
not evidence, and nobody can prove otherwise to his satisfaction.

If you oppose blanket mandates for descriptive video without any
consideration of what kind of descriptive video would be useful or in what
context, then you are a monster who wants blind people to be deprived,
uninformed, and miserable.  The fact that descriptive video doesn't actually
exist as any kind of standard like closed captioning does and that it's just
shoehorned haphazardly into SAP channels, that nobody has actually
determined what to describe or how, or that any effort to mandate this now
can only serve to prevent a universal and standardized solution from
emerging is irrelevant.  Again we have the blanket assertion that the NFB
opposes what is good and right, is evil for doing so, and not one single
argument to the contrary is ever afforded even a first thought, let alone a
second.

I could go on, at length, but the fact remains that nobody has ever swayed
John Heim on a single issue, ever, in the history of his presence on this
list.  We are all just illogical, unethical, and he is brutalized and
attacked from all sides, asking Dave Andrews to sanction anyone who bruises
his poor, fragile ego.  He can dish it out, in spades, in the most
incendiary language possible, but he can't take his own medicine.

And more importantly, he won't shut the hell up about any of it.  He just
continues to trash the NFB, and the good people of this list.  
We have not forgotten this, and it should be clear that John is immovable on
pretty much anything, and that includes a fundamental belief that the NFB is
harmful to the blind.  So then, what is he doing here?  And why is he
permitted to remain, spewing this crap day after day?

Joseph


On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 08:16:28PM -0700, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>Too bad that troll doesn't fall off the face of the earth!
>
>
>Gloria Whipple
>Corresponding Secretary
>Inland Empire chapter
>nfb of WA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
>On Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter
>Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 17:10
>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from 
>ChairmanGordon Gund
>
>The troll returns to one of his favorite ACB-inspired arguments about 
>how evil the NFB is.  I say again, go away.
>
>Joseph
>
>
>On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 04:24:42PM -0500, John Heim wrote:
>>Yet, the NFB would have us ask for help to identify our money.
>>
>>
>>On Apr 22, 2011, at 9:21 PM, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Joseph,
>>>
>>>Well done! I like what you had to say.
>>>
>>>My prayers go out to you and I hope you get better and I hope you are 
>>>free from cancer soon.
>>>
>>>All my best,
>>>
>>>
>>>Gloria Whipple
>>>Corresponding Secretary
>>>Inland Empire chapter
>>>nfb of WA
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk- 
>>>bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter
>>>Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 19:01
>>>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from 
>>>ChairmanGordon Gund
>>>
>>>Gloria,
>>>
>>>I think what it boils down to is that language is a powerful thing.
>>>The words a person uses are less important than the intent behind 
>>>them, but from a choice of certain words over others we can infer an 
>>>intent.  I have been battling cancer.  This implies something about 
>>>me and my relationship to cancer.  I have been living with it, and I 
>>>don't want to be.  In fact, I am fighting to make it gone, because 
>>>cancer is a horrible thing.
>>>
>>>Am I fighting blindness?  Do I suffer from blindness?  Am I forced to 
>>>use alternative techniques?  Well yes, I do suffer as a result of 
>>>blindness.  Not because of blindness itself per se, but because of 
>>>the reaction of others to it who are not blind (and a few who are, 
>>>sadly).
>>>
>>>The refusal to be pigeon-holed into this "sad existence" of 
>>>"suffering because of blindness" is precisely the kind of supposed 
>>>"unethical" behavior the NFB engages in by spreading our philosophy.
>>>It is akin to those during the 60s arguing against the notion that 
>>>they were afflicted somehow with being black.  Blindness is a bad 
>>>thing only if you make it be so, and we refuse to make it so for 
>>>ourselves.  Moreover, we refuse to allow others to force us into that 
>>>role.
>>>
>>>Those who would disparage our efforts to do so are not our friends, 
>>>just as those who would have you look down upon a man of color 
>>>because his skin was darker than, say, mine is.  Is he somehow worse 
>>>of because of that?  Is he lessened as a man or as a person?  Does he 
>>>deserve something less, or for that matter anything more, than any 
>>>other person simply because of the color of his skin?  Most today 
>>>would say out of hand that he should have the same opportunities 
>>>anyone would have.  No more, but certainly no less!
>>>
>>>The blind deserve the same equality that our more sunburn-resistant 
>>>brothers demanded more than forty years ago.  In just one generation 
>>>we have gone from a person of color being denied the use of a 
>>>drinking fountain to electing him to the United States presidency.
>>>If there remains racial inequality, it cannot be because of the color 
>>>of a person's skin anymore.  Some individuals may yet harbor such 
>>>attitudes (and I recently observed some of those people in a public 
>>>display, sadly), but society rejects such people as undesirable when 
>>>they are exposed.  (And believe me, we are exposing them all over 
>>>YouTube, since the local media won't even report it.)
>>>
>>>But what about the blind?  The same society who refuses to allow a 
>>>black man to be treated as a second class citizen openly condones it 
>>>when a blind man is treated likewise.  Disability is one of only two 
>>>acceptable areas of discrimination that remain in this country.  (The 
>>>other is so far removed from topical for this list that I won't 
>>>discuss it here, much to Dave's relief.)
>>>
>>>We cannot continue to meekly request that we be treated as first 
>>>class citizens.  It didn't work in the 1940s, and it hasn't worked 
>>>yet.  Only by refusing to be anything less will we finally achieve 
>>>that.  Unfortunately, that means getting a bit uppity over language 
>>>that paints us into a corner, as it were.  I'm not here to be pitied 
>>>or someone's inspiration.  I'm here because I've got a job to do, and 
>>>within the National Federation of the Blind, that job is to achieve 
>>>for myself and for all of us the basic rights of first class 
>>>citizenship afforded to anyone else in this country today, regardless 
>>>of their skin color, sexual orientation, and a whole host of other 
>>>things.
>>>
>>>I don't expect any more, but I also won't accept any less.
>>>
>>>Joseph
>>>
>>>On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 09:33:15AM -0700, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>>>James,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for explaining what I wanted to say about this subject.
>>>>
>>>>I am glad someone is on my side!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gloria Whipple
>>>>Corresponding Secretary
>>>>Inland Empire chapter
>>>>nfb of WA
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>nfb-talk:
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%
>>>40web
>ba
>>>nd.com
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>>>nfb-talk:
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim
.
>net
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>nfb-talk:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjose
>>ph%40
>gmail.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>nfb-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%40
>webba
>nd.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfb-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjosep
>h%40gmail.com

_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfb-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list