[nfb-talk] Cash

[T. Joseph Carter]

John Heim wrote:
> What a load of crap.
> 
> When the NFB takes contradictory positions on 2 different but similar 
> issues, an explanation is in order.

Try this one:

The NFB is a democratic organization and its positions are the results of
the votes of individual people.  The reason you don't see a consistent and
united front is because, as a collection of individuals, we are not always
consistent, and we are not always united.

Based on this list, I'd say there are more than a couple of us who are
rethinking the currency issue.  I opposed it until recently.  Then I sat
on the fence for awhile.  Now I support the idea--but not the reasons the
ACB gives for why it's so critical.  Once we have a clearer idea of how
exactly the currency could be changed, I have no problem pushing for this
issue to be re-evaluated.

With time, new developments, and better developed examples and arguments,
the NFB's position has changed dramatically on more than a few subjects
such as guide dogs, and significantly on others such as accessible
pedestrian signals.  Does that mean the earlier positions were wrong at
the time?  Possibly, but we can be assured that the decisions we made as
an organizations were the best ones we could given the situation at the
time we made those decisions.

Somehow, the situation changed.  Maybe it was something new that came
along.  Maybe it was evidence that the things we predicted would result
from making the opposite decision didn't happen.  Maybe it was that the
people who comprise the NFB shifted over time and the new group just felt
differently about the same issues.  Whatever the change was, the new
policy reflects the best decision we could make at the time we made it,
based on all factors we were aware of as an organization.


I predict that our position on currency changes will be revised in the
future, particularly if the sighted world reacts differently than several
on this list believe is likely.  I believe the sighted world will largely
think it's a great move, provided that their taxes don't go up to pay for
it or anything like that.  I believe it will create jobs for us, rather
than potentially cause employers to think they couldn't afford to hire us.
And I think that when my fellow Federationists discover that I'm right,
they'll naturally forget that I'd been saying so all along *grin* and
decide that the change is a good thing.