[nfb-talk] Cash

[John Heim]

Reply in-line below.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Cash


> John,
>
> If one looks at both of these issues as civil rights issues, you are 
> right, the positions are contradictory.  Any change that we push for, 
> whether it be web access or
> money, does carry with it possible negative effects.  That is precisely 
> why we need to prioritize and not just push for whatever issue seems 
> appropriate this month.

But the NFB is using (I'd say wasting) resourses opposing a change that 
would help blind people

Again, the government may very well fix the problem if the NFB doesn't 
interfere. There is no reason to believe that if the goverment doesn't fix 
the money, they'd do something else beneficial to blind people.  The 
government is not going to say, "Well, we saved $50M on not changing the 
money. Lets buy everybody one of those scanners."

Instead of standing in the way of progress, the NFB should be saying, "Well, 
that change is fine. But it's not enough. Not nearly enough."

That's the way politics really works. Movements gain momentum.  First you 
get curb cuts then you get wheelchair ramps in restaurants then you get 
accessible bathrooms.

>
> The difference is that I believe that it is a questionable position to 
> take that we have a right to a given accommodation as oppose to a need for 
> it that benefits both
> society and blind people.  If we see such issues as needs, then the issue 
> of prioritization is relevant and one is not going to favor all "need" 
> issues with equal
> emphasis.  I'm not sure if you are ignoring this difference or if you are 
> simply too angry for rational discussion.  To

Stop accusing me of being irrational. I have been arguing this in a 
completely rational manner.


indicate in a discussion that one side or the other is
> " . . .  just wrong. That's all there is to it." indicates an 
> unwillingness on your part to discuss this seriously.

Ridiculous! I *have* been discussing this seriously. I think the NFB's 
position is completely indefensible. If you think I'm wrong, prove it!

If you give good enough arguments, I'll change my mind.  I've done it 
before. But I am about as sure as I can be that those arguments don't exist. 
The arguments that have been advanced so far are patently absurd. Even 
you've admitted to the apparent contradiction in the NFB's position on the 
two issues I've brought up.

At the heart of the NFB's position on accessible money is that it would make 
it harder for blind people to find jobs, now, surely, you don't support 
that, do you?