[blindlaw] rift over law suit

[Rod Alcidonis]

Ronza, then if it is really two organizations with two differing view
points, why can't we stop fighting with each other and fight with the world,
instead. In your references to other organizations, I don't believe that any
one of them would go to court and oppose the other's litigation when they
should be fighting for the same thing. 

    My frustration is not that there are two organizations with differing
point of views, as your message seems to indicate, rather, it is at the fact
that we are fighting with ourselves, not with the misconceptions that are
present in society. Here, one organization went to court and obtained a
result, it makes absolutely no sense for another organization that is
fighting for similar causes under a different philosophy to step in with the
intention of negating the other's achievement. This is counter productive. 

If you read Sarah's point in a previous message, you'll see what she wrote
makes sense. We have two choices: if our goal is to fight with one another,
then let's not do it in the public, and certainly not in the courtroom. In
the eyes of the general public we look as a group of "confused" indecisive
community. Our second choice is that, let us invoke our own philosophy and
stay out of each other's business as much as possible, and especially in the
courtroom.

Rod 


-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of AZNOR99 at aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:30 PM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit

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