[gui-talk] NFB on accessible money

Thu Nov 30 13:38:34 CST 2006

Having been very involved in the NFB in years past, The NFB leaders taking 
the approach that they know what's best for us blind is what ran me off.  If 
only all other problems were solved and having money that was blind friendly 
was the only remaining issue.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Will Smith" <wilsmith at iglou.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] NFB on accessible money


>
>
> I get the feeling true believers in the NFb would gladly put a big brand
> on their foreheads if the top brass told them to do so.
>
> Will
> wilsmith at iglou.com
> On Thu, 30 Nov
> 2006, Steve Jacobson wrote:
>
>> Well, I'm not sure how serious you are, but to some degree we are getting 
>> information from stoplights indirectly, that is the point.  As they 
>> exist, they do benefit us
>> along with sighted people already.  Where would you draw the line?  If we 
>> have a right to everything we are missing as a result of being blind, we 
>> clearly need a 24-
>> hour attendant to read, describe and drive us.  You probably would not 
>> advocate that, but what are we responsible for doing as blind people and 
>> what is society
>> responsible to do for us?  Why can't these issues be discussed without 
>> the name-calling and emotionalism that seem to result?
>>
>> 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, 
>> rather than simply saying that if sighted people can see it, society owes 
>> us the exact
>> information without our needing to do much of anything.
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:25:35 -0500 (EST), Will Smith wrote:
>>
>>> So how about replacing all those red lights with stop signs?  After all
>>> sighted people can observe stop signs and take their turns at going
>>> through intersections, can't  they?
>>
>>> Will
>>> wilsmith at iglou.coom
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Steve Jacobson wrote:
>>
>>>> Allen,
>>>>
>>>> there are two things that jump out at me in what you write.  Why are we 
>>>> overstepping our perspective to say that this isn't a major problem but 
>>>> the ACT is not
>>>> overstepping their bouds to say that it is?
>>>>
>>>> The second thing I see in your note, although you didn't say it 
>>>> directly, is the premise that society owes us anything that we are 
>>>> missing because of being blind.  I
>> am
>>>> getting this from your statement that "if traffic signals that are 
>>>> observable by people are important for everyone else, then people who 
>>>> can't see the signal should
>>>> have a mechanism too, or why have the signal at all?"   Your argument 
>>>> here is that if people can see it, regardless of the need, we should 
>>>> get the same
>> information.
>>>>
>>>> To me, we are owed an equal chance to succeed.  Beyond that, I believe 
>>>> society benefits by helping us participate in that it reduces our 
>>>> dependence on society
>>>> and allows us to contribute.  However, it seems to me that we owe 
>>>> society some thought as to how what it does for us benefits us and how 
>>>> it benefits society.  I
>>>> think this is where the arguing comes in.  What are our rights and what 
>>>> constitutes a request for assistance because it may benefit society as 
>>>> a whole?  How can
>>>> one expect that society should spend several thousand dollars putting 
>>>> in an accessible traffic signal on a plain old four way intersection 
>>>> when the skills that a
>> blind
>>>> person needs to get to that intersection should be sufficient to derive 
>>>> the required information without such a light.  Does society owe us the 
>>>> specific information
>> that
>>>> the light has turned green as a right even if we don't need it?  This 
>>>> is the kind of thing that keeps surfacing as differences among us, and 
>>>> the division is obviously
>>>> pretty deep.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever really thought about tactil warning strips?  Why should 
>>>> such strips be installed to supposedly protect us, which is an arguable 
>>>> premise, when such
>>>> strips might even endanger some people with particular types of heels. 
>>>> Why should it be thought that blind people should be protected from 
>>>> platform edges, but it
>> is
>>>> just fine if small children or persons who are carrying packages fall 
>>>> onto the tracks.  Why is it that huge amounts of money should be spent 
>>>> on a questionable
>>>> solution when other solutions that would protect all riders could and 
>>>> should be developed?  Why would we not be better off by promoting 
>>>> safety for everybody
>> rather
>>>> than solutions that single us out?
>>>>
>>>> I respect that there are other ways of looking at some of these issues. 
>>>> What I find distressing is that there is generally no discussion of 
>>>> these types of issues at
>> this
>>>> level.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:18:13 -0500, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NFB on accessible money
>>>>> From the previous post:
>>>>> "Blind people traditionally identify paper
>>>>> currency by folding bills of different
>>>>> denominations in different ways.  "In reality,
>>>>> blind people do not routinely find that we have
>>>>> been short-changed," Maurer commented.  Machines
>>>>> are readily available to identify paper money for
>>>>> blind people who run businesses or handle large
>>>>> amounts of cash.  "Essentially, the United States
>>>>> Treasury has been ordered by the courts to come
>>>>> up with a solution for a nonexistent problem," Maurer said."
>>>>> I tend to generally agree with this, however, I for one never 
>>>>> appointed any organization or one "my voice", and while an 
>>>>> organization of the blind certainly has all
>>>> rights to voice opinions, saying that this isn't a problem for blind 
>>>> people is overstepping their perspective.  This is just like the whole 
>>>> tactile tiles for identifying
>> edges,
>>>> audible traffic signals, etc.  Just because some don't "need" or "want" 
>>>> this kind of solution doesn't mean it isn't "needed" or "wanted" by 
>>>> others.  An analysis of
>>>> traffic lights to me seems like if traffic signals that are observable 
>>>> by people are important for everyone else, then people who can't see 
>>>> the signal should have a
>>>> mechanism too, or why have the signal at all?  People who are blind 
>>>> should not be provided less as a general rule, not the other way around 
>>>> in hopes of fostering
>>>> some superman independent image.  I myself am not superman, but can be 
>>>> pretty independent.  I can live without money changes, audible traffic 
>>>> signals, or
>> tactile
>>>> edges, however, I can live without Braille books, audio tapes, or 
>>>> screen readers too but why the heck should I?
>>>>> I get the feeling if ACB had filed for making the sky blue that the 
>>>>> NFB would file to change it.  This kind of bickering just presents an 
>>>>> image of a bunch of people
>>>> who can't ever be satisfied.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gui-talk mailing list
>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gui-talk mailing list
> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
> __________ NOD32 1893 (20061130) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>