[nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian signals

David Andrews dandrews at visi.com
Sun May 30 03:08:37 UTC 2010


John:

We come back to this position of yours once again.  You say we should 
represent everyone, even those who don't believe in our 
philosophy.  I say we shouldn't, and we can't.  While things have 
shifted somewhat, a year and a half ago we had a Democratic 
President, and a Democratic house and senate.  Should they have 
represented Republicans.  Of course anything they do effects the 
whole country, but they represent their members, the majority at the 
time.  They can't, because e the republicans would have them do 
something differently, they can only represent their members and what 
they want as long as it isn't knowingly bad for the country.

If you are right and we are becoming extremists, then we will go away 
and just be a footnote to history.  I in  fact think though that we 
are less extreme then we were 20 or 30 years ago.  This is in part 
because the center and right edge of the blindness field have moved 
left.  People's expectations have shifted closer to many of our 
positions, and some of our positions have moderated somewhat, the APS 
issue for example.

We can't do what you want, but that doesn't make us wrong.

Dave

At 10:34 AM 5/27/2010, you wrote:
>There is absolutely no contradiction in what I said.  Its 
>unfortunate that the NFB chooses to concern itself with the personal 
>values of the people it represents. But if its going to do that, its 
>still obligated to represent those who don't share its values. You 
>say a lot of people have the "personal belief" that its important to 
>aim high.  I already said I agree with that. But that's not the point.
>
>I can tell you for certain that a lot of blind people don't agree 
>with the NFB philosophy and as the self-styled leading organization 
>for the blind in the USA, they are obligated to represent even those 
>who don't agree with the NFB philosophy. Its a simple matter of 
>conflict of interest. The NFB can't advocate a moral principle and 
>at the same time represent those who don't agree with that 
>principle. Its not necessarily even a matter of practicallity. I 
>don't believe that its even possible as a practical matter for the 
>NFB to serve people who don't agree with its philosophy. But even if 
>it can somehow manage that miracle, it would still not be truly 
>representing the people who disagree with its philosophy.
>
>The bottom line is that the NFB simply isn't doing a good job of 
>serving those who don't agree with its philosophy and that probably 
>represents the majority of blind people. People have asked me how I 
>can call myself a friend of the NFB when I criticize it so much. 
>This is why.  What do you think the reaction of the average blind 
>person would be upon hearing that the NFB helps prevent audible walk 
>signals from being installed nationwide, tried to prevent accessible 
>money, and fought regulations that would have required DVS? We've 
>been over and over and over these issues but as a neutral observer, 
>I'm telling you that the NFB's explanations for their stance on 
>those things simply wouldn't fly with most blind people.
>
>The NFB is on the road to becoming a group of extremists. If you 
>aren't already deeply into the NFB philosophy, you aren't NFB 
>material. You have to be a true believer in order to believe. You've 
>seen the anger directed at me even though I've never been anything 
>but calm and rational on this list. This is why I say I'm the best 
>friend the NFB has. Most blind people who disagree with the NFB's 
>positions wouldn't be so nice.

                         David Andrews:  dandrews at visi.com
Follow me on Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/dandrews920





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list