[gui-talk] (off-topic) but popular Re: NFB on accessible money

[slery]

Allen,

Thanks for bringing this up.  The NFB usually has other priorities for
fighting for accessibility.  I do agree that the way this issue has come
about does portray blind people as not being able to handle money without
this convenience.  However, I do not think we should necessarily be actively
against it.  If we just keep quiet, it will either come about or go away.

In addition, I was deeply saddened that the end of that press release
attacked the ACB.  I was hoping that we would be above such attacks.  It
would be obvious by our actions that we do not support this particular
attempt at regulating accessibility.  I am still a firm believer in what the
NFB stands for but if we continue to attack people in this way, I will
definitely be taking a hard look at my association with the organization.

Cindy

-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:10 AM
To: gui-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: [gui-talk] (off-topic) but popular Re: NFB on accessible money


Someone wrote:
>Some of the press here have portrayed blind people as being full of
anxiety whenever we >have to deal with money.  The implication is that
if this isn't corrected,
>we're going to become nervous wrecks.  This certainly doesn't apply to
me or to most >>people I know.  We are going to be better served in the
long run if we try to >
figure out what we can do for ourselves and where we need society's
help, rath>er than simply saying that if sighted people can see it,
society owes us the exact >
information without our needing to do much of anything.>

I think there is more than one answer to most questions.  OK, I feel
that but the real trouble comes in when one group says they represent
the only valid position on a subject.  I also think NFB leadership has
followed a poor leadership path in these cases where they disagree with
another advocacy group.  I tend to think that opposing another groups
efforts, for example for audible traffic signals, tactual guides in rail
stations and elsewhere, and now this, is a "negative" no win approach.
this isn't a "battle" to be waged.  Things like employment
discrimination, housing discrimination, access to educational materials,
and education for that matter, and other "high priority" things are
goals to strive for, not against.  There is enough work out there so
leaders don't need to spend time opposing others work.  I don't believe
there is any inherent problem with audible traffic signals, tactual
guidelines, or accessible cash, while there is for the other issues i
raised.  If, for example one group advocated that the blind of America
were to be given jobs in basket weaving factories as a rule, I'd oppose
it, but when someone comes along with a beneficial idea that doesn't
negatively impose upon my life, well leave them alone for crying out
loud!  What a poor negative leadership style.  Maybe NFB needs leaders
who think more before they speak?  I suppose I'm really pushing buttons
here, but come on, do we want a positive effort for cultural change for
the benefit of us all, or in fighting foolishness that gets us no where.
maybe negative advertising is the way to go, but it turns me off.  Focus
your efforts on your own efforts and let others do the same is what I'd
suggest NFB leadership seriously consider.  NFB leaders are not
intended, as far as I know, to be constant monitors on other advocacy
groups activities.  Kind of like the old saying, "If you don't have
anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Alright, I'll stop and not comment on this any more.  Not to avoid
discussion, but this really is not a GUI topic.