[nfb-talk] Currency & World view

[S Baker]

Why does currency have to be identified in braile. That creates a major problem for vending machines as does the metal composition of coins. We can identify coins by size. Treasury will not change the size of bills to accomadate us, but they could put notches across the top of bills. We are capable of discerning a horizontal rectangular notch fron a perpendicular one or a half moon or star or circle. Using that method only the stamping method is affected.
With refererence to the world owing us or us adjusting to the world, the reason technology gives us the ability to perform today, is that, the AFB and others pushed and pushed until iour needs were addressed. I don't recall any company in the past or currently putting our needs as the primary reason to make a product if it had not been required by law or they specialized in disabled products.
The philosophy the AFB used in the past to keep us in the loop of progress, is the same one they are using today. Quiet electric vehicles increase the need for use to know how and when traffic is moving. It seems to me they are staying ahead of the technology curve, instead of playing catch up. That becomes critical when human lives are at stake.
Just a thought.
Steve

SRBaker


 

> From: john at johnheim.net
> To: nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:39:52 -0500
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report fromChairmanGordon Gund
> 
> Mike, you've made my case for me better than I could ever have hoped to make 
> it myself. Why in the world is the NFB deciding something as important as 
> audible walk signals on a philosophy that a lot of blind people don't even 
> believe in? Lives are at stake here. And I don't give a flying fig about 
> leveling the playing field or the NFB philosophy. I think the NFB should be 
> in favor of audible signals because they make blind people safer.
> 
> Now, we can argue about whether audible signals make blind people safer or 
> not but the point here is that the NFB keeps making decisions based on its 
> philosophy rather than on what's best for blind people. That's wrong. Its 
> unethical.
> 
> How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in? I agree with the 
> NFB philosophy. In fact, I doubt there is anyone on this list who believes 
> in it more whole heartedly than I do. But a group like the NFB has no 
> business making policy decisions based on a philosophy. Its decisions should 
> be made on what works.
> 
> Whether to support the NFB philosophy is a personal decision that all blind 
> people should make for themselves. And the NFB simply has no moral right to 
> impose its philosophy on all blind people. If I want to wallow in my 
> blindness and think the world owes me a $5 Ican tell from a $10, that's my 
> business. Now, I don't think the NFB has any obligation to lift a finger to 
> get me tactile money. But the NFB should not have fought tactile money. That 
> just wasn't right.
> 
> But the ethics of the situation aren't my only problem. The truth is that 
> its impossible to make consistent policies based on a philosophy. This was 
> one of the first things I pointed out when I joined this list years ago. The 
> NFB has a capricious, uneven set of policies because they're based on an 
> inconsistent adherence to a philosophy rather than on practicality. If the 
> NFB really believes that we should ask the world to adapt to us only when 
> absolutely necessary, instead of suing Target, why didn't the NFB simply 
> tell its members to shop somewhere else? A few years ago, the NFB 
> organized protests against a skating rink that had set off part of the rink 
> for blind people to skate in. Why didn't the NFB just tell the blind skaters 
> to find another rink? Or why didn't it tell them just to adapt to the 
> conditions put upon them by the rink? When the NFB organized protests of the 
> movie, "Blindness", why didn't they just tell blind people to make their own 
> movies?
> 
> The thruth is that you could be against any policy if you just say its not 
> absolutely necessary. Somehow, the NFB finds it important to organize 
> protests against movies and skating rinks while they're perfectly willing to 
> live without tactile money and audible signals.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 1:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report 
> fromChairmanGordon Gund
> 
> 
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/srbaker12%40hotmail.com