[nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report fromChairmanGordon Gund
John Heim
john at johnheim.net
Mon Apr 25 14:31:53 UTC 2011
No, Joseph, proof would be actual quotations from messages I have posted to
this list. I demand that you either find such quotes or retract your
accusations.
The truth is I never said any of those things and you owe me an apology for
so drastically misrepresenting my point of view. I don't expect to ever see
an apology. Never the less, you do owe me an apology.
--- Original Message -----
From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report
fromChairmanGordon Gund
>I think I have pretty much proven my point regarding each of these issues
>being dragged up again and again without consideration for the fact that
>the blanket statements are provably false.
>
> Joseph
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:28:04PM -0700, Mike Freeman wrote:
>>John:
>>
>>It's simple: a majority of NFB members don't believe audible signals make
>>blind pedestrians safer. You don't buy it. Vive la difference!
>>
>>Mike Freeman
>>sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>On Apr 24, 2011, at 16:39, "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/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/carter.tjoseph%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/john%40johnheim.net
>
More information about the nFB-Talk
mailing list