[nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
Kirk Harmon
kvh54 at cfl.rr.com
Sat May 10 17:52:28 CDT 2008
You are so correct Mike. I had been thinking of perhaps, having a common
symbol cut into the bill such as a triangle for one bill, a square for one,
and perhaps a round hole into the bill. They all would have an outer finish
like the exterior of the bill itself.All would be placed in the same
location in each bill for the blind to identify what shape each hole would
hold for identification purposes. This could perhaps be done so as not to
disrupt the counterfitting idintifiers that are now in place on our U.S.
currency. Just a thought to stimulate alternative ideas that could be used
for acceptability and without havving to purchase new shaped wallet's that
would still fit our back pockets! inexpensive to produce. Kirk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> Hi, Kirk.
>
> You pose a valid question. The answer, it seems to me, is twofold.
> First, most persons (be they NFB or ACB members) seem to assume that
> either the shape or size of the currency denominations would be
> different or that raised symbols would be placed on the currency.
> Assuming for the sake of argument that shape/size variations are not
> acceptable, this leaves raised symbology on the currency as the viable
> option. (Cheap electronic money identifiers are another solution and, in
> my estimation, the one that is most practical, but various ACB personnel
> and many in our own organization deem this unacceptable.) The jury is
> out as to whether raised symbols on currency really works. I understand
> from Heather Field (a member of our TN affiliate) that this works in
> Australia. But Down Under, the currency is plasticized so probably holds
> the symbols better than paper here does and I seriously doubt due to
> concerns of counterfeiting that anything but the current paper would be
> acceptable to the Treasury as material for currency. Some blind persons
> say that raised symbols work OK; however, I've heard from some Canadian
> blind persons that such symbols are rubbed down quickly and that they
> still must ask the denomination of currency.
>
> Second, there may, indeed, be solutions no one has thought of yet. But
> it seems singularly novel to me to say, in effect: "You gotta do X;
> never mind that no one has figured out how to *do* X yet -- the law says
> you'll go to jail if you don't do X!". Obviously, that won't fly. So
> before we scream bloody murder, let's have our ducks in a row as to what
> we *really* want.
>
> Mike Freeman
> ... "It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly." -- Anatole
> France
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kirk Harmon
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
>
>
> Mike, I have been listening to this currency debate for quite some
> time, as
> well as all of us have. My question is, I am not taking any side one
> way or
> another on this subject, however, but why is it the only way to make
> currency accessible for the blind is to alter the size and shape of
> them? I
> am sure there is several different ways that would be just as
> effective
> without having to change the current size, therefore causing major
> modifying
> problems for all of the cash registers and currency related items.
> that are
> currently being used and have been for years?I am curious as to why
> this in
> some peoples mind is the only solution. If this is a necessary concern
> for
> some blind individuals then I am sure their can be simpler and cheaper
> ways
> to alter them for identification purposes other than altering their
> current
> sizes! Kirk Harmon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
>
>
> > Harmeet:
> >
> > I don't think accessible currency would have an effect on blind
> persons
> > and jobs one way or the other. I just don't think there'd be a grand
> > rush to handle such jobs as cashiering because other equipment (such
> as
> > cash registers) would have to be modified and I just don't see the
> sorts
> > of establishments we're talking about giving a tinker's damn about
> > making their gear accessible.
> >
> > In any event, the real reason I introduced the 2002 currency
> resolution
> > was that I did not think it discriminatory that currency isn't
> > accessible and I feared -- and still fear -- that the lawsuit could
> have
> > serious blow-back consequences if the adverse ruling was broader
> than
> > the original suit.
> >
> > Mike Freeman
> > ... "It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly." --
> Anatole
> > France
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sekhon, Harmeet
> > To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 11:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> >
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > This is, by far, the most thurroghly thought out and meaningful
> > response
> > I've read on this subject since it first came up on lists. It sums
> up
> > very well what many of us have wanted to say and have not, for one
> > reason or another. Accessible currency is more a positive than a
> > negative, in my opinion, when it comes to the blind person seeking
> > employment. That's especially true if that blind person wants a
> job
> > where dealing with paper money is vital to the job duties. Yes, I
> > know
> > blind people deal with paper currency now. I do. I know that
> people
> > work with it in their jobs with the use of technology. But if it
> was
> > accessible, I think it would open far more doors than it would
> close.
> > It would improve perceptions of us--or perhaps not improve
> them--but I
> > don't think there would really be a backlash. I also believe that
> you
> > would see that blind job seekers might become more confident about
> > what
> > they can do, rather than a lot of focus on how to obtain the
> necessary
> > technology to do it and possible worries about the limitations of
> that
> > technology.
> >
> > Harmeet
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nfb-talk-bounces+harmeet_sekhon=cable.comcast.com at nfbnet.org
> >
> [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces+harmeet_sekhon=cable.comcast.com at nfbnet.org]
> > On
> > Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter
> > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 11:20 AM
> > To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > The wheelchair user analogy you'd likely get from the ACB is the
> wrong
> > one. (I consider John in the ACB camp since I see him on their
> lists
> > and
> > every message he posts to ours is in support of their agenda,
> > regardless
> > of what he says to us)
> >
> > When Katie, my GF and a wheelchair user, applies for a job, nobody
> > really
> > questions whether or not she can get to work every day because she
> > lives
> > in Portland, Oregon. The entire city has curb cuts at every
> > intersection.
> > She doesn't need them usually. Any curb or single step of less
> than
> > four
> > inches is easy enough for her to navigate. She can get around
> > Monmouth
> > just fine, and Monmouth has old, broken, bumpy, rocky sidewalks on
> > many
> > streets, no sidewalks on several, and curb cuts are entirely hit
> and
> > miss.
> >
> > Now, there are times when navigating in this town means she is
> walking
> > (rolling?) in the street because there literally isn't anywhere
> else
> > for
> > her to be, but I do the same thing myself, and we stick to the side
> of
> > the
> > road so that cars can easily go around us. Fortunately, in
> Monmouth,
> > there isn't that much traffic except around 5pm as the University
> > office
> > employees are leaving town.
> >
> > When I apply for a job, people aren't so sure about me. No of
> course
> > I
> > know this going in and I make sure that within five minutes, there
> can
> > be
> > no doubt that I can do just about anything they could imagine. I
> know
> > that if I don't do that, I won't be getting the job. It's that
> > simple.
> >
> > That isn't really an argument FOR chirping signals--I don't use the
> > things, and frankly even the new ones are an irritating
> interference
> > to
> > street crossing. But consider instead the situation with money..
> >
> > Sighted people don't know and can't imagine how we can avoid being
> > ripped
> > off several times a day. I do it, but they can't think of how.
> Now,
> > if
> > they can't imagine how I'm going to identify the money, are they
> > likely
> > to
> > hire me for a position that includes managing money as part of my
> > daily
> > job duties? Again, if I can't convince them that I can do it, they
> > won't
> > hire me.
> >
> > In that way, the ACB's efforts to secure a currency the rest of the
> > world
> > KNOWS we can use is a very good thing. I'd go a little further and
> > suggest that we need a way to verify the money is the real thing,
> > similar
> > to the way sighted people use that pen that temporarily changes
> color
> > when
> > marked on the higher denomination bills. No cashier I've seen will
> > take
> > a
> > $50 or $100 bill without checking it, and we shouldn't either.
> Maybe
> > in
> > addition to making a purple mark on a real $50, it could smell like
> > grape
> > until the mark fades, I don't know. *grin*
> >
> > For me, the currency thing is less about the poor blind person
> being
> > unable to spend money without being ripped off--that happens to
> > sighted
> > people about as often as to us, I suspect, and we have a way to
> know.
> > It's slow, it's inconvenient, and it's a technology-based solution
> > that
> > costs about $$150 too much in my opinion, but it's there. No, for
> me
> > the
> > really big issue is changing that perception that we can't do it.
> >
> > The other factor is that I'm Catholic and believe strongly in my
> > faith--it
> > is a Christian ethic that we do things to help others because it is
> > the
> > right thing to do--not because it's easy or because there's no cost
> > involved with doing it or even because they're hopeless without
> that
> > help.
> > Would a currency that a blind person could (relatively) quickly and
> > safely
> > identify without trusted assistance or some slow $200 gadget be
> > helpful
> > to
> > us? Absolutely it would. If it is done the right way, the
> per-person
> > costs are downright reasonable (even if the numbers get large when
> you
> > look at sum totals), and it gives the general public one less thing
> to
> > think we can't do. For these reasons, it should be done.
> >
> > Now, is this lawsuit by the ACB the right vehicle to do it?
> Probably
> > not.
> > Are some of their claims about the plight of the blind person,
> cheated
> > at
> > every turn a bit ridiculous? From our perspective, very much so.
> But
> > the
> > judge included in his findings of fact that sufficient
> accessibility
> > to
> > the currency isn't there. That finding is no longer up for
> > debate--you
> > don't appeal findings of fact. The findings of law are another
> > matter.
> >
> > GIVEN that the currency is was found to be not sufficiently
> accessible
> > (which is better than saying inaccessible because the latter isn't
> > true),
> > does the law demand that the government do something about it? The
> > ACB
> > and the judge say yes. The government says no, and they appealed
> the
> > judge's decision. Now under these circumstances, I hope the ACB
> wins
> > the
> > appeal and that either the government decides not to appeal to the
> > supreme
> > court OR that the supreme court decides not to hear the case--I
> would
> > expect the supreme court to rule against the ACB and take a hammer
> and
> > chisel to the Rehab Act in the process. ACB and NFB would both be
> > held
> > responsible in my mind if that happens--the ACB for pursuing this
> > through
> > the courts rather than through the legislators, and the NFB for
> giving
> > them ammunition to do it when we rightly should have stayed out of
> it.
> >
> > Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks it is silly that the
> > government
> > can afford to:
> > - send everyone a kicker check
> > - bail out big banks who made bad loans
> > - possibly bail out homeowners who took loans they can't afford
> > - drop the gas tax for the summer, despite economists' claims
> this
> > would
> > be a bad idea
> > - provide every single household in the country not one but TWO
> > set-top
> > TV boxes just about for free
> > .... but they cannot afford to give vendors a tax break so they can
> > update
> > their machines to accept a new format to the paper currency
> gradually
> > over
> > the next FIFTEEN YEARS it would take to accomplish such a
> changeover?
> >
> > Remember class, politicians' first duty is to their re-election
> > campaign.
> >
> > Joseph
> >
> > On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 10:05:45PM -0600, Jim Marks wrote:
> > > John, I am saying you're shooting at the wrong targets. You seem
> > like
> > a
> > > bright enough guy, so I presume you're aim is deliberate. No one
> > said
> > that
> > > accessible money or audible pedestrian signals are the cause of
> the
> > > prejudice. However, they can be and often are the symptoms of
> the
> > > prejudice. Spare us the analogies about wheelchair users and
> > sighted
> > people
> > > getting something we poor blind people do not get. Blind people
> > know
> > we
> > > have to look to ourselves in the things that count. The way I
> see
> > it,
> > > accessible money doesn't really matter that much, and audible
> > pedestrian
> > > signals can be harmful, especially if they are forced on us by
> > knotheads who
> > > don't really believe in the abilities of the blind. You troll
> here
> > telling
> > > the most powerful organization of the blind that we are somehow
> > cramping
> > > your style. Well, you know what? We're going to do it our way.
> > And
> > our
> > > aim is more than just a matter of bravado and twisting of words.
> If
> > you
> > > would simply examine your beliefs and compare them with the ones
> > most
> > > Federationists hold, you might learn a thing or two. There was a
> > time
> > when
> > > I thought and acted like you are here on NFB-Talk. I woke up to
> the
> > fact
> > > that there are no real curb cuts for the blind and that no one
> was
> > looking
> > > out for the interests of the blind except for those who
> understand
> > the
> > > personal responsibility and positive attitudes bit. You will not
> > fix
> > > blindness with accessibility alone. Plus, the more you believe
> in
> > the
> > > abilities of the blind, the less accessibility you will want.
> > >
> > > John, I have one last something to tell you. If you don't want
> to
> > know,
> > > don't look down. If you were to look down, you would see that
> you
> > are
> > > standing on the shoulders of Federationists. We're going to be
> > there
> > for
> > > you regardless of how you spit, fuss, and shake your tiny fists.
> > Best
> > to
> > > you. I really mean it.
> > >
> > >
> > > -------
> > > Jim Marks
> > > blind.grizzly at gmail.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nfb-talk-bounces+blind.grizzly=gmail.com at nfbnet.org
> > > [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces+blind.grizzly=gmail.com at nfbnet.org] On
> > Behalf
> > Of
> > > John G. Heim
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:32 PM
> > > To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Holy cow! We don't *HAVE* accessible money. To suggest that this
> > guy's
> > > attitude is the result of accessible money or audible walk
> signals
> > is
> > > ridiculous.
> > >
> > > If someone already thinks blind people can't do anything, how in
> the
> > world
> > > are you going to convince him otherwise if you can't even tell
> your
> > own
> > > money apart?
> > >
> > > Man, this is ridiculous. I've never seen such a series of absurd
> > > rationalizations in my life.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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/tjosephcarter%40gmail.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/harmeet_sekhon%40cable.co
> > mcast.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/k7uij%40panix.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/kvh54%40cfl.rr.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/k7uij%40panix.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/kvh54%40cfl.rr.com
>
More information about the nfb-talk
mailing list