[blindlaw] rift over law suit

[Ford, Tim (DHS-OLS)]

In California, the legislation to establish the telephonic reading
program, including Newsline, was actually sponsored by the California
ACB affiliate.  The state NFB chapter essentially stayed out of the
process, on the thought that since NFB was operating the system and
would financially benefit, it would look cleaner for NFB not to be
involved in passing the legislation.  That worked just fine.

Also, the ACB and NFB, as well as the private agencies for the blind in
California, joined together to pass the bill that created the separate
division for blind services within the state vocational rehabilitation
department.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:48 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit


Rod do you remember a while back, less than a year when we were 
seeking funds to support NFB Newsline.  The ACB went to Congress and 
directly opposed us.  Now why would the ACB oppose Newsline which is 
helpful and a  available to all blind persons, except to hurt us?

Dave

At 06:24 PM 12/1/2006, you wrote:
>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


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