[blindlaw] rift over law suit

[AZNOR99 at aol.com]

Hi Rod and All,
 
I understand your frustration at the situation, but I think you're being a  
little unfair to all the parties involved.  When the split occurred, it is  
certainly true that the majority of us were absent.  However, each group  felt 
that it was in the best interest of the populous to move away from the  other.  
Now, whether we like it or not, each organization holds a different  
philosophy, works toward different goals, and generates different  policies.  
Nonetheless, each organization has a common cause -- promoting  the rights of blind 
people.  There are hundreds of civil rights  organizations in the country.  I can 
think of five that focus on the rights  of incarcerated prisoners off the top 
of my head.  I've worked for three  that emphasize the rights of battered 
women.  Each has different  philosophies, but each was organized around acheving 
freedom, or justice, or  safety, or whatever primary goal, for that particular 
population.  I, for  one, choose the NFB because I believe in its philosophy. 
 I believe that  each blind person should be afforded equality, opportunity, 
and security.   I also believe that we should receive respect and seek our own 
 independence.  In my opinion, asking a court to require the government to  
change the shape of money conveys to the public, and to myself, that I am  
incapable of functioning in the world.  I believe I should utilize tools  that 
adapt my surroundings to make them accessible for me; I vehemently oppose  
anything that requires the world to adapt to me because it reenforces  
misconceptions about blindness.  It is like shooting a fly with a missile  when it would be 
more efficient and functional to just use a fly swatter.   But those are my 
views, and I chose the organization that most closely shares  them.  I don't 
perpetuate a rift between the ACB and the NFB by choosing  one organization over 
another.  I don't necessarily oppose the work of  Amnesty International by 
supporting some of the overlapping work done by the  ACLU, do I?  I bet each of 
us is a member of more than one Bar  Association.  Many of them started out as 
a result of rifts or breaks from  other bar associations.  We choose the ones 
that suit us best, and  sometimes we choose not to join others.  
 
My final thought, as I stand on my soapbox, is that I don't necessarily  
agree with your prison analogy.  Many of us would certainly refuse to leave  
prison early if it meant we were going to be classified as incompetent or  
transferred to an institution serving the criminally insane.  Some of us  would rather 
finish out our stint in prison then agree to labels we believe are  false, 
harmful, and even abhorrent.
 
Regards,
Ronza
 
-------------- next part --------------
Hi Rod and All,
 
I understand your frustration at the situation, but I think you're being a little unfair to all the parties involved.  When the split occurred, it is certainly true that the majority of us were absent.  However, each group felt that it was in the best interest of the populous to move away from the other.  Now, whether we like it or not, each organization holds a different philosophy, works toward different goals, and generates different policies.  Nonetheless, each organization has a common cause -- promoting the rights of blind people.  There are hundreds of civil rights organizations in the country.  I can think of five that focus on the rights of incarcerated prisoners off the top of my head.  I've worked for three that emphasize the rights of battered women.  Each has different philosophies, but each was organized around acheving freedom, or justice, or safety, or whatever primary goal, for that particular population.  I, for one, choose the NFB because I believe in its philosophy.  I believe that each blind person should be afforded equality, opportunity, and security.  I also believe that we should receive respect and seek our own independence.  In my opinion, asking a court to require the government to change the shape of money conveys to the public, and to myself, that I am incapable of functioning in the world.  I believe I should utilize tools that adapt my surroundings to make them accessible for me; I vehemently oppose anything that requires the world to adapt to me because it reenforces misconceptions about blindness.  It is like shooting a fly with a missile when it would be more efficient and functional to just use a fly swatter.  But those are my views, and I chose the organization that most closely shares them.  I don't perpetuate a rift between the ACB and the NFB by choosing one organization over another.  I don't necessarily oppose the work of Amnesty International by supporting some of the overlapping work done by the ACLU, do I?  I bet each of us is a member of more than one Bar Association.  Many of them started out as a result of rifts or breaks from other bar associations.  We choose the ones that suit us best, and sometimes we choose not to join others. 
 
My final thought, as I stand on my soapbox, is that I don't necessarily agree with your prison analogy.  Many of us would certainly refuse to leave prison early if it meant we were going to be classified as incompetent or transferred to an institution serving the criminally insane.  Some of us would rather finish out our stint in prison then agree to labels we believe are false, harmful, and even a
bhorrent
.
 
Regards,
Ronza