[blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward the blind

Tue Sep 26 14:47:05 CDT 2006

*giggle* if you wish to discuss compliance, you might want to write me off 
list.  *snicker* I was hoping no wasn't go there, but quite aware that since 
I already had, others would soon follow.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ashley, Kathy J" <Kathy.Ashley at fssa.in.gov>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward the 
blind


> Sorry, I was laughing so hard I meant to ask what she was when she was
> in her chair.
>
> Kathy Ashley, MS, CRC
> Program Director for Blind & VI Services
> Vocational Rehabilitation Services
> 1-800-545-7763
> 317-232-1352
> Fax: 317-232-6478
>
> PLEASE NOTE: Information contained in this email and/or attachment may
> contain protected health, legally privileged, or otherwise confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above.
> If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that you may not further disseminate, distribute,
> disclose, copy or forward this message or any of the content herein. If
> you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and delete the original.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Mark BurningHawk
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward the
> blind
>
>
> AAARGH.  the "compliant," in this last message was CP as in cerebral
> palsy;
> she was quadriplegic when not in her chair.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mark BurningHawk" <stone_troll at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward the
> blind
>
>
>> No contest, Everett.  I freely admit that the statement I have made is
>> loaded with personal opinion and weighted decidedly in favor of my
>> experience.  Someone who is wheelchair-bound, or deaf, for example,
> might
>> give you a totally other perspective and tell you I'm full of sewage.
>> However, the one bit of slightly more objective evidence I have to
> back up
>> my opinion with is the statements and actions of others who are, in my
>> opinion, profoundly more disabled than I am; people in wheelchairs
> have
>> said
>> things to me like, "Well I hope you get better soon, I'd hate to
> be..."
>> awkward silence or, a favorite of mine, "well at least I can still
> ..."
>> trailing off into more awkward silence.  A woman with COMPLIANT that I
>
>> dated
>> briefly caused me to dump he because she "took charge," of every
> situation
>> and, when I called her on it, said, "well because obviously I can see
> what
>> I'm doing, so ..."  The general consensus of people I have
> met,disabled or
>> not, is that "I'd rather lose any other sense or be disabled in any
> other
>> way than being blind."  Again, if you want a paper citing statistics
> or
>> some
>> evidence of popular pseudo-mythological stance, take a Gallop poll.
> *grin*
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Everett Zufelt" <everett at zufelt.ca>
>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:03 AM
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward
> the
>> blind
>>
>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> This may be a bit off topic, but can you please give some type of
>>> evidence
>>> (outside of personal experience) that might convince me that
> blindness
>>> actually gets the most stigma of all disabilities?  I feel that your
>>> statements here are a very good reflection of how you feel and what
> you
>>> have
>>> experienced in your life and the lives of others, but that they may
> be
>>> subject to the heuristic of availability.
>>>
>>> Everett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Mark BurningHawk" <stone_troll at sbcglobal.net>
>>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:01 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward
> the
>>> blind
>>>
>>>
>>>> This ties in with the sad fact that blindness gets the most stigma
> of
>>>> all
>>>> the "disabilities," with the possible exception of cognitive
>>>> disabilities;
>>>> retardation, extreme learning disability/CP, that sort of thing.  I
> play
>>>> a
>>>> game with people that I end up in a teaching role with; Think of
> five
>>>> expressions that use the word "blind."  Now, think of all the
> contexts
>>>> in
>>>> which the word "blind," is used but does not mean "lacking in
> sight."
>>>> "Flying blind," for example, not only means literally flying without
>>>> being
>>>> able to see where you're going, but it carries associations of
>>>> ignorance,
>>>> willful disregard for reality, a sort of immature brattish
> bull-headed
>>>> stupidity which becomes associated with the exp-ression, and more
>>>> importantly the word "blind.  Blind also means hopeless, despairing,
>>>> dead-end, dumb/stupid, etc.  Let's face it; the general consensus is
>>>> "better
>>>> dead than blind."  Well.  I have to go start training with my third
>>>> guide
>>>> dog now, after retiring my second of nine years last night to go
> live
>>>> with
>>>> friends across the country; it's just part of the price I and other
>>>> blind
>>>> people pay just to live "normal," lives like the sighted Jonses we
> keep
>>>> up
>>>> with.  *shrug* who's blind?
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Ashley, Kathy J" <Kathy.Ashley at fssa.in.gov>
>>>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:46 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward
> the
>>>> blind
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not an attorney, I do not play one on TV, nor did I stay all
> night
>>>>> at a Holiday Inn Express, but I feel that this language is very
>>>>> offensive and only under heavy sedation could I even put a positive
>
>>>>> spin
>>>>> on the wording.  Why not say:  I would rather be in a wheel chair
> than
>>>>> see you walk away from me?  Or I would rather go deaf than to see
> you
>>>>> walk away from me.  It is still demeaning and ugly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kathy Ashley, MS, CRC
>>>>> Program Director for Blind & VI Services
>>>>> Vocational Rehabilitation Services
>>>>> 1-800-545-7763
>>>>> 317-232-1352
>>>>> Fax: 317-232-6478
>>>>>
>>>>> PLEASE NOTE: Information contained in this email and/or attachment
> may
>>>>> contain protected health, legally privileged, or otherwise
> confidential
>>>>> information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named
> above.
>>>>> If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient,
> you
>>>>> are hereby notified that you may not further disseminate,
> distribute,
>>>>> disclose, copy or forward this message or any of the content
> herein. If
>>>>> you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
>>>>> immediately and delete the original.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org
> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>>>> On Behalf Of Noel Nightingale
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:11 PM
>>>>> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>> Subject: [blindlaw] CLE agenda language that is negative toward the
>>>>> blind
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blind law listers:
>>>>>
>>>>> I just ran across a family law CLE agenda for my local county bar
>>>>> association that contains t following agenda topic:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2:15     I'd Rather Go Blind Than See You Walk Away From Me:
> Stories
>>>>> from the Relocation Trenches
>>>>>
>>>>> Panel discussion of recent problems in interpretation and
> enforcement
>>>>> of
>>>>> the Relocation Act
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I knee jerk react against this language, I'd like to hear
> what
>>>>> you all think about the agenda item title stating that the
> presenters
>>>>> would rather go blind than have a custodial parent relocate.
> Perhaps
>>>>> it
>>>>> can be construed as a positive statement about being blind.  What
> do
>>>>> you
>>>>> think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Noel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>