[nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: Apersonalreport fromChairmanGordon Gund
John Heim
john at johnheim.net
Tue Apr 26 14:16:24 UTC 2011
I think you two have gotten confused on who said what in this debate.
Nothing I said is anything like what black people were told 70 years ago.
rom: "Lisa Kidder" <lisakid at peoplepc.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: Apersonalreport
fromChairmanGordon Gund
>I totally agree!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wm. Ritchhart" <william.ritchhart at sbcglobal.net
> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> Date sent: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 20:49:15 -0400
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personalreport
> fromChairmanGordon Gund
>
> John,
>
> Although I believe you are being mal-used by many on this list currently,
> I
> would like to encourage you to study the history of the race problems in
> this country during the past 70 years. The email you posted below suggest
> the blind do the same things that blacks were told to do during their
> fight
> for full-integration.
>
> Telling the blind they should do all those things for themselves requires
> them to partake of separate goods and services. Such goods and services
> are
> never truly equal. Whatever we ask for should be only what we truly need
> to
> reach the same level field as all other citizens.
>
> Please hold firm to your current efforts. You have been well-restrained
> in
> spite of sugnifigent provocation.
>
> Thanks, William
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of John Heim
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 7:40 PM
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> 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/ladyglo
> ria%
> 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%40
> johnhei
> m
> .
> 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/ladyglo
> ria%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%4
> 0panix.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%40
> johnheim.ne
> t
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/william
> ritchhart%
> 40sbcglobal.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/lisakid
> %40peoplepc.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
>
More information about the nFB-Talk
mailing list