[nfb-talk] Open Letter to Marc Maurer

[T. Joseph Carter]

There is a fair bit of hatred, and it's not all one-directional.  All you
have to do is read acb-l for a couple of weeks and you'll see lots of
hatred for the NFB.  At least a couple people on this list also have shown
similar views of the ACB, and several of us (myself included) maintain a
set of expectations of them which are as low as we believe they have for
the blind in general.  (And those of us who believe that way would mostly
characterize their expectations of the blind to be extremely low.)


Since this thread is mostly about money, and I don't want your arguments
regarding the ACB's call for universal APS's and the like, I want to
preemptively burn the straw man you get from applying some of your
arguments to currency changes.

I don't think any blind person objects to the notion of a well-designed
currency we can identify.  I think even Mike Freeman, one of the most
vocal opponents of the idea in the past week or two, would agree that it's
a good idea if it cost nothing and was not being billed as finally giving
us poor blinks the chance to use money and not get cheated left and right.

The issues seem to be monetary cost, the potential for damage to our cause
by spreading the notion that we could not function without such a major
and expensive adaptation, and that there is potential for striking down
portions of the Rehabilitation Act by pursuing this less-critical goal.

The effect of the monetary cost depends greatly on what timetable you want
to see for implementation of whatever they come up with.  If they do a
phased rollout as they have with the previous two currency revisions, then
the costs are greatly mitigated, and what remains can be more easily
absorbed.

The reason is that the US currency will be revised again, and "soon".
We've had two in the past decade, and we have been promised that this will
continue.  Of course, this means we will see at least two changes in US
government administration before we can even consider our current adaptive
techniques obsolete.  Opponents have not commented as to whether or not
this reduction and diffusion of costs address their fiscal concerns, and
to my knowledge, nobody from the ACB has indicated they're willing to
accept anything but an immediate change.

Next is the potential negative impact on our cause.  That should concern
us.  Part of being a Federationist, I believe, is the core belief that we
are going to find a way to do whatever it is we want to do, no matter who
says we can't or what obstacles are in our way.  That means even if what
the ACB says about our supposed inability to use money were true, we would
damned well find a way.  Why?  Because we're stubborn, and we wouldn't
give up until we found a way.  We're proud of that, and we should be.

We should work to counter that aspect of what the ACB is doing no matter
what else we do.  By suggesting that we are incapable, particularly in
this instance, they are saying we are not able to compete on equal terms
with sighted peers, no matter what we do, without government intervention.
It is beyond the topics at hand, but knowing how this organization got
started can say all anyone needs to hear about government intervention.

I happen to believe that, if we can keep the ACB's message that we're
simply incapable of using money as it is from being embedded in the minds
of the sighted public, and if the next currency redesign includes some
simple and obvious tactile identification system (NOT BRAILLE), we'll see
an overwhelmingly positive reaction from the sighted public as it pertains
to us.

The reason the ACB's justification was taken at face value by the courts
is that sighted people currently actually believe that we can't actually
use money without having to trust the person we're giving it to or getting
it from.  If we have what amounts to a clear and obvious (to a sighted
person) way of handling money independently, they're not going to continue
to believe that we can't do it.  That can only serve to advance our cause.

Finally, there is the potential to blow holes in the Rehabilitation Act
upon successful appeal.  Personally, this argument doesn't make a whole
lot of sense to me.  If attempting to enforce the law results in that law
going away, then the protections of that law do not and did not ever
really exist in the first place.

I picked on Mike earlier and will again because he's one of the people who
talked about the risk here.  Would you rather risk and lose now on
something less important now where there's the chance of recovery via
legislation, or lose in the same way and for the same reasons when it
really matters?  I can't comment further because I don't really understand
how the law means anything if we're afraid to have the courts test it.  I
welcome an explanation.

I reiterate that in order to truly be a benefit, the change that is said
to benefit us must actually do so, and must be made as part of a routine
update to the currency design.  That means something ridiculous like
embossed bills won't work.  It also means that going through and
immediately redesigning all of the bills for our "benefit" will hurt us
rather than help.  In the latter case, people will only see the price tag,
and in the former, they'll recognize that the new feature won't last ten
minutes in their pockets, and then we'll be screwed.

We also must work as hard as ever to combat the low expectations others
set for us blind people, be they the sighted public, the blindness
professionals who "know" our limitations, or the AC--er, I mean, other
blind people.  *grin*


As to the APS issue..  I definitely agree with the NFB's long-established
position on them: We don't need them, and they're more often a hindrance
to our ability to cross streets safely.  That said, however, I've been
convinced for years that fighting them is a losing battle.  The blind
aren't the ones fighting so hard for them--it's mostly the sighted, and
the growing population of seniors who can't see the lights anymore and
don't know how else to get across the streets, who want them so badly.

We can work to address the seniors' issue by providing them with travel
training either informally or through programs like the one offered by our
Colorado Center.  Those efforts are critical, but I feel often times that
we're trying to use an ice pick to prevent the sinking of the Titanic.  I
do not know that we can reach enough of the seniors in time to even begin
to turn this particular boat around.

My gut tells me that we're going to get more and more APS intersections,
and we're not going to be able to influence enough people to prevent them.
If we cannot prevent their installation, we must influence how they work,
because the standard APS is a safety hazard for a blind traveler.


If the ACB wins their appeal, I'll congratulate them on the victory, but
admonish them for trying to play off of negative stereotypes to do it.
They will have won (slightly less important than some) victory for the
blind, but would turn that victory into horrible defeat by selling us all
far short of our own ability.  But that gets back to the difference
between We and They being more than philosophy: I wouldn't have expected
them to fight for and win a clear victory without giving up more ground
than they gained in the process.  If it wasn't for the NFB to set the
record straight, I'm sure they'd screw things up very quickly.  (I still
don't think we need direct statements to that effect in our press
releases, though, which is how this particular thread got started!)


On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 09:55:46PM -0500, David Evans wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin and Ricky,
> 
> You both still don't get it.
> It is not hate that is keeping ACB and NFB apart.  It is philosophy.
> The ACB wants the World, and all of its trappings, changed to accommodate 
> blind people.   whereas the NFB believes that it is Blind people who, 
> through good skills of blindness, can adapt and live in the world as it is.
> The ACB would have beeping traffic signals at every corner and tactile 
> warning strips everywhere along with"helpful " sighted guides, to try to 
> make up for not having good blind skills.
> 
> These are things that the Blind don't need nor do many of us want.
> A beeping traffic signal only tells a blind person that the light changed. 
> It does not make the cars stop.
> They also advertise to the whole area that a blind person is crossing the 
> street.  It sends a negative signal to the public about blind people and 
> what we can do.
> You have to be careful about the signals you send because many of the people 
> who are receiving them are employers who are going to think blind people 
> need so many things changed for them that it is not worth it to hire them 
> and have to pay for all of these accommodations that they would not have to 
> do if they  just hire sighted people.
> By the way, just as an example of the uselessness of some of these 
> accommodations.
> Last week, the former state president of the ACB was crossing a street with 
> an audible traffic signal and got hit by a car making a right on red.  I 
> think his leg was broken.
> If the darn signal were not making so much noise, he might have heard the 
> car slowing down to make the turn and avoided getting hit, even with his 
> guide dog.
> Our travel skills and our hearing are all that stand between us and getting 
> hit by a careless driver.  Having a noise that competes with my hearing is 
> not something I need.  I can tell by the sound of the traffic surge who is 
> moving and who is stopped.
> I don't need tactile warnings strips at every curb cut to tell me I am at a 
> curb cut and that there is a street nearby.
> Every where I go, I am aware of the message I am sending to the Public.  I 
> want that image to be a positive one because I know I am being watched by 
> uncountable members of the Public.  If I have poor skills and need some 
> sighted assistance every where I go, what kind of negative signal does that 
> send to people and employers.
> We need to really think about the accommodations we ask for and do we really 
> need them to function.
> I already heard some sighted people talking about this issue.  They are 
> asking each other, "What do you think the new Blind Money will look like?" 
> I wonder if I will squash the Braille on it if I put it in my pocket?  Will 
> it be some crazy color that glows in the dark so they can see the numbers on 
> it?
> Notice I said Blind money, not money.
> People are already thinking in the negative about the blind.  That means 
> they are thinking negatively about you too, not just me.
> 
> I sometimes need to carry large sums of cash on me and I deal with it and 
> make change.  I have had people try to take advantage of me and I have 
> caught th;me and made them pay me what they owed me each time.
> I can not even tell if the money is green, but I can tell the money.
> One guy tried to short change me once for a twenty.  I called a manager and 
> asked him to look in the drawer and see if there was a twenty dollar bill 
> folded in a certain way.  He found it and then made the guy give me the 
> right change and then fired the guy.
> He tried to say that I gave him a five.  I showed the manager how each of my 
> bills were folded, including the fives and since none of the fives in the 
> tray were folded and he did find the twenty folded, just the way I said it 
> should be, he knew I was right.
> If the guy had put it in his pocket before the manager got there I would 
> have called a cop and so would have the manager.  Short changing someone is 
> stealing, but cheating the store too would have gotten him arrested.
> 
> The blind in this Country have been dealing with paper money for the best 
> part of two hundred years in this country.  It is not that big a problem 
> that we need to demand the government spend many hundreds of millions of 
> dollars to change the money and for businesses to have to spend billions to 
> change all of the machines that handle money.
> It is not ACB bashing.  If I thought there were such a big problem here with 
> telling money amounts, I would join in and ask that it be changed too.  I 
> just don't think that we, as blind people, should make a problem where there 
> isn't one.
> It is the philosophy that keeps me a member of the NFB.
> I have attended ACB National Conventions in the past.  I did not like the 
> feeling I came away with.  There were more sighted volunteers than there 
> were ACB members, most of whom were out at the theme park or gambling 
> instead of being in the meetings and seminars.  It is not that way at NFB 
> conventions.
> As for speaking for the Blind.  NFB is the largest and oldest organization 
> of and for the Blind in the Country.  Its members are duly elected and 
> represent the largest majority of the organized Blind in this nation.  if 
> they don't have the right to speak up for the Blind as a group, who does?
> When and if the ACB is the largest organization, then they can claim the 
> title.
> I can only ask you to examine the philosophies on your own and listen to the 
> arguments from both sides and think about them.  Think about the message 
> that is being sent.  What does it say about blind people.  if that message 
> hurts them and their image, then there is something not right with the 
> message.  Sometimes, what seems good on the surface, has teeth that can bite 
> you underneath.
> 
> David Evans, NFBF
> Nuclear/Aerospace Materials Engineer
> Builder of the Lunar Rovers and the F-117-A Stealth Fighter
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rick E Morin" <rick.morin at comcast.net>
> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Open Letter to Marc Maurer
> 
> 
> > Robyn.
> > I agree with you.
> > Rick
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> > Behalf Of MARSHA R WALLEN
> > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 11:38 AM
> > To: nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Open Letter to Marc Maurer
> >
> > I would agree except most of the bad blood is with people who no longer
> > are with us or whom have dropped out of either organization.  Most of the
> > remainder of the members are only going on what they have heard through
> > the years.  Bad blood can be infectous.  Isnt it time to let go off all
> > the old stuff and start over.  ACB members are just as guilty of keeping
> > the rift going even though many were not involved at the time and base
> > their opinions on hearsay.
> >
> > Robyn
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk