[blindlaw] rift over law suit

[Michael O. Hanson]

I believe we have a thirde option.  We could work together for things on 
which we agree and not oppose each other on those things over which we 
disagree.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rod Alcidonis " <roddj12 at hotmail.com>
To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>