[stylist] question

[LoriStay at aol.com]

I have to admit I've done some thinking on this matter.   Being blind--rather 
than sighted--means managing life a tad differently.   One may take the train 
instead of driving, and read braille instead of print, but one is still 
traveling, still reading.   Reading a thermostat may involve hearing (presuming we 
are not talking about deaf blind), but one still gets the information.   It's 
silly to pretend to be something one isn't.   Part of the problem is that 
society has long held the thought that it is shameful to be blind (or disabled?), 
stemming from the idea that blindness is a punishment for someone's sin.   
Absurd as this is, it still persists.   That's why NFB says, there's no shame in 
being blind.   It's just a physical characteristic.   One might as well be 
ashamed of being tall, or short, or blue eyed.   

Political correctness can be a bit of a problem, though.   NFB prefers the 
word "Blind," because that's the situation.   Sight impaired seems to be the 
latest, or person who is blind, rather than blind person.   I fail to see the 
difference between the last two.   And as David would say, he isn't sight 
impaired.   He has no sight to be impaired.
Lori

In a message dated 3/24/09 5:08:47 AM, johnlee at clarktouch.com writes:


> Talking like a white is certainly a choice, since anyone who speaks can
> choose to talk like that.  It is within easy control.  However, one cannot
> control blindness except the choice to become more blind, if you happen to
> be a blind wannabe.  Being blind but wanting to be sighted and trying to be
> sighted is a failure to cope with what is beyond one's control.  
> 
> 




**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)