[nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me

[Steve Jacobson]

Joe,

I was surprised to see my note yesterday and figured out it must have been hung up in my laptop.  I had decided to let 
the topic rest and had actually taken your previous response to have been directed at both Mike and I.  Therefore, 
yesterday's note was sort of an accident.

Having said that, I do want to make one point a little clearer whether it changes minds or not.  The way I see technology 
is that it makes the question of accessibility less clear and it makes the possible gains somewhat more tenuous.  I also 
don't claim that I know what technology will bring us in terms of solutions.  However, the fact that there is technology, 
and the fact that we have clearly found ways of dealing with money as it is, even if sometimes inconvenient, raises the 
real possibility that a conservative judge will rule that access is good enough.  In that event, what other access is good 
enough?  At this point, we have some control over what we feel are important accessibility issues.  I tend to feel that we 
are better served today by pushing for those things we need as something that benefits us, makes us more employable, 
or makes us less dependent rather than pushing for that same thing as an accessibility issue unless we are pretty certain 
we will win.  I'm carefully not saying that accessible money, as we are characterizing it, doesn't in some way make us 
more independent.  What I am saying is that trying to make it accessible as an information access issue is very risky.  

Your position, as it appears to me, is that getting accessibility is what is important, and that the vehicle is not important, 
and therefore, while you may not embrace the ACB lawsuit, you don't see it as potentially harmful.  On the other hand, I 
see our gains as being minimal in either outcome.  If they win, the great expense will all be associated with us and our 
lives won't change that much.  If they loose, it then does raise the question as to what other things we may see as 
important are not considered accessibility issues under the law.  We'd probably look for other paths to follow in that 
case, but I don't see much of upside in either case.  The approach that we took was, in my mind the right approach, get 
some accessibility built in while other changes were being made.  We didn't succeed and the ACB suit might succeed, 
but with their success will come the responsibility of the costs.  Therefore, I just can't buy the argument that it doesn't 
really matter how accessibility is gained.  I believe if they win, there will be fall-out.

Obviously, you may feel I have incorrectly stated your position, and if so, I am glad to be corrected.  I also think that 
getting some of these issues out there for discussion is good.  Finally, I have been on my soapbox for a decade on 
finding the line between those things we must have to succeed and those things that may be nice but not necessary.  
We can't treat all access issues as being completely equal and succeed in the long run.

Best regards,

Steve

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:28:42 -0500, Joe Orozco wrote:

>Steve,

>Sorry, I responded to you and Mike in the same post to avoid multiple 
>messages and feel the dialogue threads may have been tangled.  Be that as it 
>may, I see your arguments but cannot say I completely agree with their 
>rationale.

>For me it's a debate of short-term benefits versus long-term impact.  The 
>benefits of our getting officially involved at this stage in the lawsuit are 
>minimal at best, and the impact of our current position will only be proven 
>negative if we do not use the momentum to create a viable alternative. 
>Tonight the choices are: nationally equalizing the accessibility to money, 
>or relying on technology that might function accurately, might be affordable 
>and might be popular enough to be used by a large percentage of the 
>blindness community.  I don't have the answers to technology, because 
>technology is so unpredictable.  To be fair, I can't say I have the answers 
>to federally-mandated accessibility either, but when weighed against one 
>another, modifying the source of the problem would appear to be the best 
>solution.  And I should also add that advocating for accessibility does not 
>assume I agree with the ACB's tactic or rhetoric, though this would also beg 
>the question that if you do not engage a lawsuit, what other means do you 
>have of challenging a thirty-seven-year-old law?

>Thanks for the dialogue.  Minds may not have been changed, but I do feel 
>smarter for having heard your positions and those of Mike.

>Joe Orozco

>"Politics is not predictions and politics is not observations. Politics is 
>what we do, what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope for and 
>what we dare to imagine."--Senator Paul Wellstone
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:02 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me


>> Joe,
>>
>> It seems as though we're just going in circles with some of this and I'm 
>> not sure I know how to make some of what I
>> have said clearer.  I can certainly accept that we may not agree, but some 
>> of your points don't seem to even
>> acknowledge mine.  Let's try this once more, though.
>>
>> There is perhaps an element of weighing the cost of our influence along 
>> with the cost of changing our currency, but I do
>> not see it as only weighing the influence of our organization.  We need to 
>> be at least somewhat concerned with how
>> society perceives us as a group with "group" meaning as blind people.  The 
>> entire notion of "alternative techniques" is
>> that there are sometimes other ways of accomplishing a task without using 
>> vision.  In some cases, these techniques are
>> very similar in effectiveness to what one might do with vision.  In other 
>> cases, alternative techniques get us buy but may
>> not be as effective.  What this has always meant to me is that what we 
>> expect of society should be based upon to what
>> degree techniques we already use can accomplish a given thing.  Even if we 
>> decide we need a service because a
>> technique is not adequate, it is a somewhat different argument than 
>> relying on the argument that we have the right to
>> any information provided to sighted people in an alternative format. 
>> Therefore, the idea of trying to make the currency
>> accessible through a lawsuit that seems based on the notion that this is 
>> an equal invormation issue really goes against
>> how I believe we will be most successful in the long run.  It really 
>> doesn't matter if this were an individual or that it is the
>> ACB involved in that suit.  Therefore, your comment that "Do you realize 
>> how petty that makes us
>> look?  We decided to take all public and legal measures to disrupt the 
>> ACB's
>> case, and frankly, what has that helped us achieve?" completely ignores 
>> the fact that they are making this an issue of
>> information access.  As I understand, you even agree that currency is not 
>> strictly a matter of information access based
>> upon your statement that "I agree completely that the currency item should 
>> not be a straight up
>> accessibility issue."  Since it is my understanding that is the basis of 
>> the ACB lawsuit, I am at a loss as to how you can
>> dismiss that position as being petty.  There is a marked difference in 
>> philosophy here that is fairly basic.  If they win, all
>> expenses creating accessible currency will be costs associated with 
>> accessibility.  As has been discussed, systems to
>> make it accessible are questionable in their effectiveness, and might cost 
>> a good deal of money to implement even
>> outside of the government.  Would such a victory hurt us beyond the costs? 
>> Perhaps not, but I dare say it would not
>> impact us positively that much, either.  For most of us, it is a matter of 
>> convenience.  Add to this the fact that technology
>> is likely going to provide solutions over the next five to ten years that 
>> will increase our ability to identify currency and the
>> victory would be even further diminished.
>>
>> If they loose, this would mean that the boundaries for what is required to 
>> be accessible are beginning to be defined by
>> the courts.  I am not a lawyer so cannot quickly give you examples of how 
>> such cases can affect subsequent cases,
>> but by asking for examples, you are asking us to explain and justify the 
>> entire system of legal precedences.  Surely you
>> can see that the loss of this case could be used to justify not making 
>> other information accessible where the impact is
>> greater.  As I understand it, a legal precedence is not necessarily 
>> limited to a particular law, although it is most likely to
>> be successful if it is.  It can be applied to similar laws and situations 
>> and may prove successful depending upon the
>> situation and probably the judge.  My feeling is that there is more to 
>> loose in this case than there is to win.
>>
>> You said that you did not believe in spending money frivolously, but then 
>> you say "why should we care if the
>> government decides to spend money on the reconfiguration of our currency 
>> if sufficient funds will
>> be spent long-term to modify currency anyway?."  Again, this is at the 
>> center of what I have been trying to say.  If our
>> approach of getting some accessibility built into the currency as part of 
>> the redesign process had succeeded, the entire
>> cost would not have been seen as relating to accessibility and most of the 
>> cost would have been part of what would
>> have been done anyway.  If the ACB lawsuit is won, all costs will be 
>> attributed to accessibility and the results are
>> questionable.  Surely you are not advocating that we not care if money is 
>> spent ineffectively.
>>
>> I do not know of us having any strategy in place that would require the 
>> purchase of technology as an alternative to
>> accessible currency.  My comments on this subject were simply as a result 
>> of what I am observing with respect to the
>> development of technology.  For example, it is highly likely that we will 
>> be making more and more use of cellphones as a
>> platform for technology over the next five years.  It is not inconceivable 
>> that a currency identifier might run on a
>> cellphone.  Of course, it may not happen, either.  That is one example, 
>> though, of how I see the landscape changing
>> and why we might want to think twice as to what lengths we expect the 
>> government and society to go to in order that
>> currency be accessible.
>>
>> I believe that discussing our positions is important.  However, this is 
>> also a public list and not one that is closed to our
>> membership, nor should it be.  I therefore find disconcerting your 
>> characterization of honest attempts to answer your
>> questions as insulting your intelligence as was done in earlier notes.  I 
>> find frustrating your characterization of not
>> supporting the ACB's lawsuit as petty and our reservations as "bashing the 
>> lawsuit."  I would respectfully request that we
>> try to discuss these issues without making such value judgments.
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:09:40 -0500, Joe Orozco wrote:
>>
>>>Steve,
>>
>>>Thank you for a thoughtful and well thought-out response.  If I am
>>>understanding your point correctly, the fact that we are weighing the cost
>>>of accessible currency means we are also weighing the cost of our 
>>>influence
>>>as a leading consumer group?  I'm not one to advocate for frivolous
>>>government spending, but why should we care if the government decides to
>>>spend money on the reconfiguration of our currency if sufficient funds 
>>>will
>>>be spent long-term to modify currency anyway?
>>
>>>I agree completely that the currency item should not be a straight up
>>>accessibility issue.  Such an argument risks a spillover affect and is all
>>>too likely to turn into ridiculous claims of the need for accessibility to
>>>impractical aspects of society, but what formula do we follow to 
>>>distinguish
>>>between what is needed and what is merely wanted?  Note that I am not
>>>expecting a definitive answer, but I would be interested in historical
>>>examples in our advocacy that determined the level of our priorities.
>>
>>>Mike,
>>
>>>First, I am not questioning our position.  I am asking for clarification
>>>about an outcome you projected based on several assumptions.  In simple
>>>terms, I think your projection is an unrealistic stretch of reality, and 
>>>if
>>>you would get around to answering my question, I would like to know if you
>>>can give me a relevant example of a case in which the Supreme Court used 
>>>the
>>>sphere of an existing provision to significantly eliminate that 
>>>provision's
>>>scope.  Then, tell me how likely it would be for the Supreme Court to 
>>>expend
>>>its political capital on a case like accessible currency and whether the
>>>cost of your example can compare to the subject at hand.
>>
>>>Second, what if I was questioning our policy?  The summary of this
>>>list-serve clearly allows for a discussion of our policies, activities and
>>>philosophy.  Questioning does not automatically equate opposition, and it 
>>>is
>>>only through a system of questions that we generate sufficient facts to
>>>carry out intelligent resolutions.  Your tone suggests we are only allowed
>>>to debate our positions at national convention, and given the fact that 
>>>our
>>>convention numbers are well below the proclaimed fifty thousand number, I
>>>would submit that if my interpretation of your observation is accurate, 
>>>your
>>>observation is unnecessarily exclusive and only serves to fuel the 
>>>misguided
>>>claim of a dictatorship of which our critics love to unfairly accuse us.
>>
>>>Third, my post has never suggested an oversight of the pity factor induced
>>>by the currency case.  If I was going to touch on that point, however, I
>>>would state that the pity factor is a non-unique argument because the
>>>general public will adhere to stereotypes of the blind regardless of the
>>>lawsuit's outcome.  Do you genuinely feel the public will celebrate the 
>>>NFB
>>>for taking up the position that the blind are noble for wanting to stop
>>>accessible currency?  I am not fully convinced of the ACB's argument that
>>>accessible currency will miraculously increase job opportunities.  Yet, we
>>>have to accept the fact that money identification independent of 
>>>technology
>>>would make us look more "normal" than walking about with technology 
>>>designed
>>>specifically for the blind.
>>
>>>Fourth, what of this technology?  Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but 
>>>has
>>>the NFB officially proposed a technology alternative in this case?  Are we
>>>pushing somewhere for the government to provide all persons a device to
>>>identify their bills?  If we are, how does this strategy significantly
>>>differ from the ACB's claim that the lack of money identification is
>>>significant enough for government action?  If we're not, what viable
>>>alternative would you offer people who want to know the NFB's solution to 
>>>a
>>>problem the ACB has suggested?
>>
>>>Next, yes, I am well aware of the 2002 resolution condemning the ACB
>>>lawsuit, and I agree that the resolution was simply against the lawsuit 
>>>and
>>>not against accessible currency.  Do you realize how petty that makes us
>>>look?  We decided to take all public and legal measures to disrupt the 
>>>ACB's
>>>case, and frankly, what has that helped us achieve?  And, is it your
>>>argument that our strives to make technology accessible the answer to
>>>currency accessibility?  Since, as you say, we are not against currency
>>>accessibility itself, what projects have we implemented to answer an area 
>>>of
>>>need we proclaimed as early as 1994?
>>
>>>Backlash as an answer to how accessible currency would harm me?  I think 
>>>you
>>>need to draw out your points if you want the sober discourse you so crave.
>>
>>>Further, on the issue of the rehab bill, I do agree that legislative
>>>advocacy can sometimes be accomplished without fanfare.  I do not recall
>>>there being much public information on what governmental affairs did with
>>>the reauthorization measure, but I will take your word that it was done 
>>>and
>>>wish you would have pointed this out in your first response.  Again I 
>>>would
>>>remind you that rehab reauthorization was merely an example, but I am glad
>>>to know that in a worse case scenario of a Supreme Court consideration the
>>>NFB would not arrive at the table merely as an opportunity to continue
>>>bashing the lawsuit.
>>
>>>With respect to resolutions I will also accept your explanation.  Seven
>>>years is not long enough to gauge the path from a resolution's 
>>>introduction
>>>to the resolution's fulfillment, and clearly you have more years on me to 
>>>be
>>>in a better position to see the evolution.  I would, however, be 
>>>interested
>>>in learning how to propose internal changes to help expedite a 
>>>resolution's
>>>goal.  For instance, excluding legislative measures that are the duty of 
>>>all
>>>the membership, how could we attach a committee or division as the lead
>>>entity in seeing we maintain the issue alive between national conventions?
>>>I believe we have far too many special interest groups, and we may as well
>>>put them all to work on meeting our objectives.
>>
>>>Finally, I'm too pragmatic to proclaim any sense of righteousness.  I have
>>>inquiries based on what I believe to be common sense, and so far you have
>>>not given me cause to believe my idea of common sense is warped.  Five
>>>people over the past year have rejected my invitation to join the movement
>>>on account of this issue alone.  In the greater scheme of things five 
>>>people
>>>may not amount to an imposing force, but these were also five young people
>>>who could have greatly given and taken from the organization.  Help me
>>>understand our position myself before I attempt to explain it to others.
>>
>>>Joe Orozco
>>
>>>"Politics is not predictions and politics is not observations. Politics is
>>>what we do, what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope for and
>>>what we dare to imagine."--Senator Paul Wellstone
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:08 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me
>>
>>
>>>> Joe:
>>>>
>>>> If you will forgive me, your insolence is misplaced and, frankly, is not
>>>> calculated to elicit the logical responses you so crave. Moreover, in
>>>> publicly questioning our policy, are you not by so doing contradicting
>>>> your pledge to support our stance? Furthermore, while it may be due to a
>>>> lack of understanding, you are distorting our position on accessible
>>>> currency. WE have not changed it. WE always have said that accesible
>>>> currency might well be desirable. In doing so, however, we have *not*
>>>> said that by not having it, we were suffering from discrimination. It is
>>>> this core assumption and the possible adverse consequences therefrom
>>>> against which we fight. Like almost everyone else, you are looking at
>>>> the superficial problem -- accessible currency -- and not the underlying
>>>> philosophical issue and the pitiful notion of blindness promulgated in
>>>> all the so-called pro-accessible-currency publicity which came out
>>>> attendant to the ACB lawsuit. If you go back, the currency resolution
>>>> responding to the suit was written by me in either 2001 or 2002 -- not
>>>> 2007. And you will find that we were disturbed at the publicity and
>>>> legal implications of the suit -- not accessible currency per se.
>>>>
>>>> As for the Rehab Act amendments of 2002, we didn't *need* to have it be
>>>> a target issue at the Washington Seminar. Jim McCarthy and others worked
>>>> behind-the-scenes to see to it that in pushing WIA, key rehab provisions
>>>> weren't damaged. Of course, all this was undone later administratively.
>>>> My point is that we weren't idle. Sometimes, one can get a lot done
>>>> without fanfare and trumpets!
>>>>
>>>> AS for why we have resolutions, I frankly see little reason to engage in
>>>> a prolonged discussion with you because (a) if you were to read thru
>>>> resolutions from past years, you would see that many of our policies and
>>>> successes have come from them (can you say braille bill?) and (b) you
>>>> can cite many resolutions whose ultimate effect hasn't been worked out
>>>> yet. You must remember that it took until 1970 -- thirty years after the
>>>> founding of the Federation -- for SSI (essentially the sort of income
>>>> guarantee Dr. tenBroek favored) to become law. WE in the Federation can
>>>> get a lot done and fairly quickly -- but not instantaneously. Some
>>>> things are a long struggle.
>>>>
>>>> AS for how dealing with accesssible currency might harm your
>>>> independence, can you say backlash?
>>>>
>>>> I could expand this but, frankly, the tone of your message seems to
>>>> indicate to me that you are more interested in proclaiming your
>>>> righteousness than in a sober discourse. That is your right. But I don't
>>>> have to play that game.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------ Original Message ----- 
>>>>  From: Joe Orozco
>>>>  To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>  Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 6:32 PM
>>>>  Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Mike,
>>>>
>>>>  So what work did we do on the 2002 Rehabilitation Reauthorization Act?
>>>> The
>>>>  way I remember it, we tackled earnings limitations, Social Security
>>>> and
>>>>  Medicare coverage and textbook accessibility, and the only mention in
>>>> the
>>>>  Monitor I could find was a blurb about a discussion on the subject
>>>> during
>>>>  that year's Louisville convention.  Yet, I will stand corrected if you
>>>> can
>>>>  offer evidence to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>  I offered ADA restoration as an example of the type of legislative
>>>> work we
>>>>  could be doing to minimize fallback from a Supreme Court ruling and
>>>> not as
>>>>  an organizational policy endorsement.  If the future of the ACB case
>>>> is as
>>>>  potentially bleak as you proclaim, you should offer more analysis to
>>>> support
>>>>  your claims and not publicly wonder why more people are not worried
>>>> about a
>>>>  bleak future scenario you initiated.
>>>>
>>>>  I think you were very straightforward in asking why I did not bother
>>>> to
>>>>  introduce a resolution on the subject of ADA Restoration, and so I
>>>> will give
>>>>  you an equally straightforward response as to why I genuinely believe
>>>> this
>>>>  would have been, and would still be, a waste of time.  Of the numerous
>>>>  resolutions introduced, how many of them are carried out to
>>>> completion, and
>>>>  since we have shifted positions on currency accessibility without a
>>>>  resolution to acknowledge the shift in position, how binding can I
>>>> hope my
>>>>  resolution will become if it is passed?  You will forgive what may at
>>>> first
>>>>  appear to be an insolent tone, but given your seat on the resolutions
>>>>  committee, I think you will provide a direct response.  If resolutions
>>>> are
>>>>  merely to publicize positions with little hope of action on the vast
>>>>  majority, I will appreciate your honesty.
>>>>
>>>>  Finally, if your second post with respect to the accessible currency
>>>>  scenario is true, that every method attempted would only circle back
>>>> to no
>>>>  accessible currency, why then are we bothering to spend resources on
>>>> an
>>>>  issue that will surely be proven ineffective all on its own?  It is
>>>> not our
>>>>  job to police the stupidity of the ACB's methods, and your response
>>>> does not
>>>>  answer my question of how accessible currency would hurt me or my
>>>>  independence.  You only gave examples of how the methods would not
>>>> work, but
>>>>  even if markings and size differences failed after practice, either
>>>> method
>>>>  would have afforded me the freedom to learn more of my dollar bill
>>>> than I am
>>>>  capable of now.
>>>>
>>>>  Mind you, I will support the organization's policy on this as a
>>>> dues-paying
>>>>  member, but in exchange for my dues and other contributions I feel I
>>>> am
>>>>  entitled to a little consistency and logic, and I am genuinely hoping
>>>> you
>>>>  will assist in explaining both.
>>>>
>>>>  Joe Orozco
>>>>
>>>>  "Politics is not predictions and politics is not observations.
>>>> Politics is
>>>>  what we do, what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope for
>>>> and
>>>>  what we dare to imagine."--Senator Paul Wellstone
>>>>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>  From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>>>  To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>  Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 8:14 PM
>>>>  Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  > Joe:
>>>>  >
>>>>  > I consider it a specious argument to state that because you didn't
>>>> see
>>>>  > any work on the 2002 Rehab Act amendments, nothing was done. And the
>>>>  > reason we haven't taken a position on the ADA Restoration Act was
>>>>  > because it is of sufficient importance that it ought to have our
>>>> policy
>>>>  > on it determined by convention resolution. I was a member of the
>>>>  > Resolutions Committee and I do not recall you submitting one on the
>>>>  > subject. I believe the Restoration Act was submitted prior to
>>>>  > convention. If I am wrong (a lot happened this summer), I sit
>>>> corrected.
>>>>  > But I still say we shouldn't take a position until we do so by
>>>>  > resolution. Why? Because the ADA has definitely been a mixed bag at
>>>> best
>>>>  > insofar as the blind are concerned. In some areas, namely,
>>>>  > transportation, ADA has done somewhat of a decent job, at least
>>>> insofar
>>>>  > as other disabilities are concerned. But one wonders if we have
>>>> taken a
>>>>  > step forward or a step backward when we are, more and more, relying
>>>> on
>>>>  > paratransit rather than fixed-route buses to travel when at one
>>>> time,
>>>>  > most of us would have wonderedwhy we needed paratransit. I'm not
>>>>  > knocking paratransit here; I merely point out that we may have
>>>> forfeited
>>>>  > some of our independence for a little convenience and that ADA is
>>>>  > partially responsible.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Insofar as Title I is concerned, ADA has largely been ineffective.
>>>> This
>>>>  > is partly due to court rulings. But even before all the cases such
>>>> as
>>>>  > the United Airlines and Toyota cases came down, ADA did precious
>>>> little
>>>>  > for us. Title III has been perhaps the most effective. But for our
>>>>  > purposes, the various state White Cane Laws already had that one
>>>> licked
>>>>  > at least insofar as the legal realm (as opposed to public
>>>> perception)
>>>>  > was concerned.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Bottom line: write a resolution for Dallas.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Mike
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>  >  From: Joe Orozco
>>>>  >  To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>  >  Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 12:17 PM
>>>>  >  Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  William,
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  Mike Freeman's point was a critical point indeed.  Yet, let us be
>>>>  > honest
>>>>  >  about the fact that the point was critical for its political
>>>> science
>>>>  > lesson
>>>>  >  and not because it is directly applicable to the NFB's position on
>>>>  >  accessible currency.  I do not recall the NFB taking an active role
>>>> in
>>>>  > the
>>>>  >  negotiations of the Rehabilitation Reauthorization Act of 2002, and
>>>>  > while we
>>>>  >  may fear a loss of benefits and equality as a result of a court
>>>>  > ruling, I
>>>>  >  have not seen great interest in contributing our voice to the ADA
>>>>  >  Restoration Act of 2006 or 2007.  It would appear to me that a
>>>> greater
>>>>  >  investment should be spent to solidify existing laws rather than
>>>> use
>>>>  > the
>>>>  >  platform of a rival to predict an outcome that may never come true.
>>>>  > Our
>>>>  >  first official press release never made mention of a potential
>>>>  > precedent as
>>>>  >  a reason to object the accessible currency case, and I do not
>>>>  > appreciate my
>>>>  >  intelligence being offended by being even remotely made to believe
>>>>  > that
>>>>  >  somehow it is a reason now, especially after the issue was not
>>>>  > important
>>>>  >  enough to receive acknowledgement in this year's list of
>>>> resolutions.
>>>>  >  Widespread fear tactics of equality loss are unfounded, because the
>>>>  > NFB and
>>>>  >  ACB are not the only key stakeholders in the disability community.
>>>>  >  Ultimately, if we're going to raise objection to the ACB's case,
>>>> let's
>>>>  > do it
>>>>  >  on principle and not because we worry about a blow to laws we have
>>>> not
>>>>  > cared
>>>>  >  enough to protect or because we really believe accessible money is
>>>>  > going to
>>>>  >  severely injure the success of the blind population.  Anything in
>>>>  > favor of
>>>>  >  either of these two camps is nothing more than  philosophical
>>>>  > regurgitation.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  Respectfully,
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  Joe Orozco
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  "Politics is not predictions and politics is not observations.
>>>>  > Politics is
>>>>  >  what we do, what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope
>>>> for
>>>>  > and
>>>>  >  what we dare to imagine."--Senator Paul Wellstone
>>>>  >  ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>  >  From: "Wm. Ritchhart" <william.ritchhart at sbcglobal.net>
>>>>  >  To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>  >  Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 10:42 AM
>>>>  >  Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  > Mikes point is a very critical point.  Whatever the Supreme court
>>>>  > rules
>>>>  >  > can and probably will become president for future rulings of the
>>>>  > courts
>>>>  >  > of this country.  Do you as a blind person really want to open
>>>> that
>>>>  >  > Pandora's box?  Once the Supreme Court begins invalidating one
>>>> part
>>>>  > of a
>>>>  >  > law or begins limiting what is covered by the law, lower courts
>>>>  > across
>>>>  >  > the nation will join in.  It truly concerns me that ACB may not
>>>> have
>>>>  >  > thoroughly considered that consequence before entering into this
>>>>  > battle.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  > That is why NFB or ACB should always be careful which battles
>>>> they
>>>>  > take
>>>>  >  > into the courts.  Even if they win, the result could be vastly
>>>>  > different
>>>>  >  > from what they expected or believed would occur.  And if they
>>>> lose,
>>>>  > the
>>>>  >  > consequences of losing can go far into areas that they never
>>>>  > dreamed.
>>>>  >  > That is why I believe using the courts should always be used
>>>>  > carefully
>>>>  >  > and only as a last resort.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  > William
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  > -----Original Message-----
>>>>  >  > From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>>>  > [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>>>  >  > On Behalf Of Sherri
>>>>  >  > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 3:59 AM
>>>>  >  > To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>  >  > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  > But that's it; it's just a prospect. I too have reservations
>>>> about
>>>>  > us
>>>>  >  > jumping on this issue.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  > Sherri
>>>>  >  > ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>  >  > From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>>>  >  > To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>  >  > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:35 AM
>>>>  >  > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  > Ed:
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  > What if ACB ultimately loses at the Supreme Court level and the
>>>> good
>>>>  >  > justices decide to broaden the scope of the ruling to invalidate
>>>>  > Section
>>>>  >  > 504 by limiting its scope such that its teeth are drawn. Don't
>>>> you
>>>>  > think
>>>>  >  > trying to kill such a prospect might be worth spending a few
>>>> bucks
>>>>  > on?
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  > Mike
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>  >  >  From: Ed Meskys
>>>>  >  >  To: nfb-talk
>>>>  >  >  Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:04 AM
>>>>  >  >  Subject: [nfb-talk] Fw: looks like class treason to me
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  We voted at National Convention not to support accessible
>>>> currency,
>>>>  >  > but had
>>>>  >  >  voted a decade ago that if redesigned currency can be made
>>>>  > accessible
>>>>  >  > it
>>>>  >  >  should be. Fine. But I am provoked at us spending legal funds
>>>> and
>>>>  >  > travel
>>>>  >  >  money to oppose this action. Maybe we voted not to support
>>>>  > accessible
>>>>  >  > money
>>>>  >  >  any more, but why are we spending money to oppose it? As Scott
>>>>  > LaBarre
>>>>  >  > said,
>>>>  >  >  there are more important things to work on. We bitch when the
>>>> ACB
>>>>  >  > opposes
>>>>  >  >  something like Newsline because it is an NFB project, but here
>>>> we
>>>>  > are
>>>>  >  >  spending money opposing this because it is an ACB project.
>>>>  >  >  Best, Ed Meskys
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>  >  >  From: "Joe harcz" <michiganadapt at peoplepc.com>
>>>>  >  >  Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:52 AM
>>>>  >  >  Subject: looks like class treason to me
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  Court Considers Changing Look of Money
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  By MATT APUZZO - 19 hours ago
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court seems troubled that
>>>> blind
>>>>  >  > people
>>>>  >  >  are unable to distinguish between a $50 bill and a $1 bill, but
>>>>  > judges
>>>>  >  >  appeared
>>>>  >  >  reluctant Monday to force a redesign of U.S. currency.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  The case erupted last year when a judge said the government
>>>>  >  > discriminated
>>>>  >  >  against the blind by keeping bills the same color, shape and
>>>>  > texture.
>>>>  >  > He
>>>>  >  >  gave
>>>>  >  >  the Treasury Department just days to begin solving the problem,
>>>> but
>>>>  >  > changes
>>>>  >  >  have been put on hold while appeals play out.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
>>>>  >  > Circuit did
>>>>  >  >  not rule immediately, but they seemed wary of the consequences.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  "Where does this stop?" asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Are
>>>>  > postage
>>>>  >  > stamps
>>>>  >  >  illegal? Government Web sites? When mail carriers leave
>>>> handwritten
>>>>  >  > notes on
>>>>  >  >  front doors, are they discriminating against blind people?
>>>>  >  >  "The National Gallery is having a Hopper exhibit," Randolph
>>>> said.
>>>>  >  > "Those
>>>>  >  >  paintings, do they violate the Rehabilitation Act?"
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  Passed in 1973, the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination
>>>>  >  > against the
>>>>  >  >  disabled in government programs. But the law is vague about what
>>>> is
>>>>  >  > covered.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  Jeffrey A. Lovitky, attorney for the American Council of the
>>>> Blind,
>>>>  >  > which
>>>>  >  >  brought the lawsuit, said postage stamps and government Web
>>>> sites
>>>>  >  > might
>>>>  >  >  indeed
>>>>  >  >  be covered by the law.
>>>>  >  >  But currency is not specifically identified in the law and the
>>>>  > judges
>>>>  >  > said
>>>>  >  >  it's unclear if they should step in.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  "Congress has had many opportunities to do exactly what you're
>>>>  > asking
>>>>  >  > us to
>>>>  >  >  do and they said 'No,'" Judge Thomas B. Griffith said. "What's
>>>>  > keeping
>>>>  >  > us
>>>>  >  >  from
>>>>  >  >  seeing this as simply an end run on the political process?"
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  Of the three judges on the panel, Judith W. Rogers seemed the
>>>> most
>>>>  >  > swayed by
>>>>  >  >  the American Council of the Blind's argument. If the entire
>>>>  > currency
>>>>  >  > system
>>>>  >  >  is built upon the idea that people can see the money, doesn't
>>>> that
>>>>  >  > deprive
>>>>  >  >  blind people access to it, she asked.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan F. Cohn said blind
>>>>  > people
>>>>  >  > have
>>>>  >  >  "meaningful access" to money because there's little evidence
>>>> they
>>>>  > are
>>>>  >  >  regularly
>>>>  >  >  defrauded by cashiers and clerks.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  "Because they rely on the kindness of strangers?" Rogers asked,
>>>>  >  > prompting
>>>>  >  >  snickers and laughs from the several blind people in the
>>>> audience.
>>>>  >  >  Griffith agreed, telling Cohn, "You recognize that's a
>>>> significant
>>>>  >  > problem,
>>>>  >  >  right?"
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  But like Griffith, Rogers later questioned whether the court
>>>> should
>>>>  >  > get
>>>>  >  >  involved. She told Lovitky that, if the Treasury Department is
>>>>  >  > reviewing the
>>>>  >  >  issue
>>>>  >  >  and has not come up with a solution, the court might not have
>>>> the
>>>>  >  > authority
>>>>  >  >  to step in and tell a cabinet official that his review is wrong
>>>> or
>>>>  >  > impose a
>>>>  >  >  solution on him.
>>>>  >  >  The issue is divisive even among advocacy groups. Scott C.
>>>> LaBarre,
>>>>  > an
>>>>  >  >  attorney for the National Federation of the Blind, sided in
>>>> court
>>>>  > with
>>>>  >  > the
>>>>  >  >  government
>>>>  >  >  rather than with the American Council of the Blind. LaBarre, who
>>>> is
>>>>  >  > blind,
>>>>  >  >  said there are more important issues facing blind people.
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  "No regulation can make a blind person see," he said. "No law
>>>> can
>>>>  > make
>>>>  >  > me
>>>>  >  >  see the bill, see the postage stamp or see the federal
>>>> building."
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >
>>>> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jeRpdw57AGT-lesQwRkHf3xmkomwD8T0T4600
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  >  _______________________________________________
>>>>  >  >  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
>>>>  >  >
>>>>  >  > _______________________________________________
>>>>  >  > 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
>>>>  >
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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