[nfb-talk] NFB philosophy

Tue Apr 22 21:54:02 CDT 2008

John:

I think I understand what you are saying -- but I am not sure you are 
hearing me!

You could be right that there would be no backlash from mandating 
accessible currency.  On the other hand, you could be wrong!  We are 
not willing to take that chance.  We already know there are people 
and groups opposed to it, particularly in the business 
community.  Rather they are not opposed to it per se, but opposed to 
any change in currency.  This is one of the facts you so love.

What else is anyone to base his/her actions on but his/her 
beliefs.  Yes, there are other factors, but our beliefs drive all of 
us.  You want us to suspend our beliefs, consider the facts you 
present, which would result in our coming to the conclusions you did.

The world doesn't work that way.
Dave

At 09:18 PM 4/22/2008, you wrote:
>Dave,
>
>I certainly respect your opinions on this issue. I acknowledge that it's
>possible that requiring a change in money will somehow be detrimental but
>why in the world would you believe that without evidence? You have to
>operate based on available facts. And I just don't see any that would tend
>to indicate that there would be a problem if the Treasury Department had to
>change the bills. I'm not sure if I can make my point clear. I am trying to
>make a point not directly about accessible money but rather about decision
>making.  How can the NFB justify taking a position that is based primarily
>on a rather nebulous fear of a backlash?
>
>I'd rather not make this just about accessible money. That happens to be the
>prime example.  But it's not the only one. As I said in another message, the
>DVS issue may be a better example of my point although, I will admit the
>issue itself is less clear.
>
>The decision by the NFB to work against requiring TV networks to provide DVS
>was clearly a case of the NFB pushing it's philosophy upon the vast majority
>of blind people who are not members and who would not approve of the NFB's
>philosophy.  Again, it would be one thing if the NFB could fairly argue that
>they had to oppose the DVS regulation because  it would have hurt blind
>people in the long run. And I know there was some of that but come on, do
>you really think DBS would have made it harder for blind people to find
>jobs? No, the NFB opposed that change on entirely philosophical grounds. And
>I don't believe most blind people share the NFB's philosophy.
>
>I happen to agree that requiring DBS is frivolous. But even blind people
>have a right to demand frivolous things. Then it's up to the courts to
>decide whether their demands have merit. If you don't like that system, you
>should write to your congressman and have the law changed. But the NFB
>shouldn't have  stood in the way. That was unethical. The NFB used it's
>position as the leading advocacy  group for the blind to impose it's
>political opinions on all blind people. And that's just wrong.
>
>s
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:09 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] NFB philosophy
>
>
> > John:
> >
> > We have never said that it wouldn't be a good thing to have
> > identifiable money.  What is being debated is how it might come about
> > and what we would or wouldn't do to bring it about.  In past
> > resolutions we have clearly stated that we support identifiable
> > money, just that it should happen as a redesign of money, not out of
> > an edict on its own.
> >
> > I guess it comes back to my goodwill article.  There are elements of
> > our society that would oppose changing money in any way that would
> > invalidate their money-handling infrastructure, such as money
> > counting machines, cash drawers etc.  Since many of these people
> > are  employers, if we force them to change, just for blind people,
> > then that will hurt us overall.
> >
> > While not ideal, most of us have figured out ways to handle
> > money.  So, while such a change as identifiable money would be good,
> > the price of having it solely blamed on blind persons may be to high
> > a price to pay.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > At 07:08 PM 4/22/2008, you wrote:
> >>I never said that making money accessible would lower the unemployment
> >>rate.
> >>And of course I can prove that people in countries with accessible money
> >>are
> >>better off -- they can tell their bils apart!  The point is that the NFB's
> >>position on this issue is not based on facts. Mine is based on  a fact --
> >>the fact is that if the government made bills so that blind people could
> >>tell them apart, then blind people could tell them apart!
> >>
> >>If the NFB is going to argue that it would be bad for me to be able to
> >>tell
> >>a $1 from a $20, then they are obligated to prove it. I don't know how
> >>this
> >>could be more obvious. If the NFB is going to oppose a change that on the
> >>face of it would benefit blind people, they should have actual facts to
> >>support their point of view.
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "RyanO" <ryano218 at comcast.net>
> >>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:26 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] NFB philosophy
> >>
> >>
> >> > John, I would ask you this question. The U.S. is the only country that
> >> > doesn't have accessible currency. Can you give me the unemployment
> >> > figures
> >> > for blind people in countries that do have it? Can you demonstrate that
> >> > blind people in those countries are better off with accessible money
> >> > than
> >> > without it?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > RyanO
> >> >
> >> > "You can look the other way once and it's no big deal, except it makes
> >> > it
> >> > easier for you to compromise.  Pretty soon, that's all you're doing is
> >> > compromising because that's how you think things are done."
> >> > Jack Bauer - "24"
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > nfb-talk mailing list
> >> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >> > nfb-talk:
> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>nfb-talk mailing list
> >>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> >>for nfb-talk:
> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/dandrews%40visi.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG.
> >>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date:
> >>4/22/2008 3:51 PM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > nfb-talk:
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>for nfb-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/dandrews%40visi.com
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date: 
>4/22/2008 3:51 PM