just what is rational?

Good Wednesday Morning All You Irrational Blind People! 

 

    Jessie wrote in part, "...does blind equal irrational and sight equals rational? ... that's a new way to diagnose or detect it ". 

In fact, it is the oldest way and is a major piece of the misunderstanding that exists between sighted and blind people. 

And, in truth it is how we Humans deal with any people or customs that are not familiar to us. 

Everything from mimicking the strange accents of others, to poking fun at how they dress or walk, or their different customs. 

Perhaps some of it is tied to a need to feel superior to others, to let them know that they are in the presence of Culture.  But some of it is a way of hiding our discomfort and even fear of that which we do not understand. 

But also, we tend to see the world from within our own heads.  "normal" stops at the tip of our nose.  Since my behavior is rational, naturally your different behavior is irrational. 

But not to worry, my dear blind brothers and sisters.  Our irrational behavior can be treated.  Intensive training and a few sessions with a psychiatrist and we will be almost as good as regular sighted folks.  Almost, except for that naggy little problem of not being able to see.  But hey, we can "look" sighted, even if we are sightless.  And with expensive tools we can actually do some sorts of productive work. 

But before we fly into a blind rage or go off groping in the dark, just remember that we blind folk do exactly the same thing to our sighted neighbors as they do to us.  They just happen to outnumber us. 

 

Carl Jarvis

----- Original Message -----

From: J.Rayl

To: Carl Jarvis

Cc: Acb List

Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:37 AM

Subject: Re: [acb-l] Cps and people who are blind

Well, Carl, you're correct and this is certainly a difficult one to be rationale over.  I'm sorry, when people are being irrational, sometimes its just pretty dang difficult to expect others to respond "rationally", but of course we are supposed too?  Seems like I just had that little discussion with "professionals" today in regards to some other issues of my own about their irrationale behavior, yet of course I was the one not being "rational".  Sure. 

So now, I wonder: does blind equal irrational and sight equals rational?  Yeah, that's a new way to diagnose or detect it but one would think so.

 

Jessie Rayl
thedogmom63@frontier.com
www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
www.pathtogrowth.org

----- Original Message -----

From: Carl Jarvis

To: Pia ; Ashley Bramlett

Cc: Acb List

Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 6:50 PM

Subject: Re: [acb-l] Cps and people who are blind

Pia  and All,

Absolutely, walking away dead right!!! 

over the years I've seen too many blind couples harassed by CPA and Social Workers, to clear up any doubt regarding the underlying motivation for their actions.  In one word it is, Prejudice. 

It takes all of my powers as a kindly elder not to go ballistic over the arrogant, snooty, tight assed behavior of some of these little twits.  And that's me talking on a good day. 

I have sat with parents while they cried their hearts out because of threats to seize their babies on the basis that they were unable to properly care for them because they were both blind. 

I have sat in CPA offices and requested the statistical proof that blind people are a greater risk to children's well being than are sighted parents.  No such proof can be found. 

I have invited these Over Educated Idiots into my home back when I was a single parent, challenging them to find where I was endangering my children.  None ever came. 

Our state organization has stood up in support for many blind parents over the years.  And we never lost a single child to the calloused clutches of those unfeeling, uncaring drones. 

 

But I probably should hold this until a time when I feel that I can speak more frankly. 

 

Carl Jarvis

----- Original Message -----

From: Pia

To: Ashley Bramlett

Cc: Acb List

Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 2:31 PM

Subject: Re: [acb-l] Cps and people who are blind

The thing is, its none of their business.  We don't demand that they
explain their parenting techniques to us unless they are abusing their
kids.  They should not make us prove we are competent parents unless there
has been evidence in the same vein as evidence presented against a
sighted, non disabled person, that we are not.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Ashley Bramlett wrote:

> Frank,
> I wonder. I suppose a seminar with CPS about the techniques blind people use
> to live and raise children would help and a video too.
> Yes we need to be proactive.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: frank M. Hernandez
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:04 PM
> To: Ken Metz ; Acb List
> Subject: Re: [acb-l] Cps and people who are blind
>
> Ken,
> I really can't talk about my personal experiences with CPS and
> foster care, because we're in the mitst of a sad case right now
> but after reading your post I'm wondering how WE can help to
> educate CPS?
>
> The CPS staff I have had the pleasure of working with have never
> made my total blindness a big issue.  We have fostered several
> children.  A 15-year-old, a 2 year old a one-year-old and a
> 7-day-old.  Two of these children are still placed with us.
>
> I would like to put it out there, how can we, people who are
> blind be a positive force in changing some of the miss
> perseptions in CPS.
> I also raised two biological children, the oldest is 18 and the
> other is 12.
>
> Sometimes I feel that as the blind community we wait till
> something happens to one of us and then we react.  Why can't we
> act prier to a child being removed from his or her blind parents?
>
> Frank M.  Hernandez.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Metz" <kenmetz1946@gmail.com
> To: "'alice  dampman humel'" <alicedh@verizon.net>,"'J.Rayl'"
> <thedogmom63@frontier.com>, "'Yvonne'" <yvonne625@verizon.net
> Date sent: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:43:23 -0700
> Subject: Re: [acb-l] Cps and people who are blind
>
> Hi Yvonne.
>
> My ex and I were both totally blind and had two children without
> problems.
> This was in the 70's.  A few years ago just South of San
> Francisco, CPS tried
> to get a child away from a blind couple before they even left the
> hospital
> with the baby.  Why? Because the Father was nervous when putting
> on a diaper
> at the hospital.  The hospital staff reported the parents to CPS
> who tried to
> take the baby away.  I'm willing to bet that a lot of these folks
> in CPS
> aren't even parents, but have learned from TV and books from
> ancient times
> that persons who are blind are stupid.  Sight automatically makes
> you smart.
> That's why all the child abuse cases you hear of are from sighted
> parents.
> I'm not saying a blind parent couldn't be a bad parent as we are
> all
> supposed to be human beings with either good or bad tendencies,
> but we are
> portrayed in a manner called stupid.
>
> KEN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acb-l-bounces@acb.org [mailto:acb-l-bounces@acb.org] On
> Behalf Of
> alice dampman humel
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:15 PM
> To: J.Rayl; Yvonne
> Cc: Acb List
> Subject: Re: [acb-l] Cps and people who are blind
>
> now this is truly a blindness-related issue, and I think Jessie
> is
> absolutely right.  God, how I loathe meddling busybodies who
> think they know
> everything about what blind people can and should do, how they
> should do it,
> etc.
> Yvonne, I hope you can get people to help you in advocating
> against the
> meddlers who reported you and getting CPS off your back, because,
> as we all
> have seen over and over again, once they sink their teeth into
> something,
> they can and often do turn your whole life into a living hell and
> rip your
> life apart, destroy lives, and meanwhile, the family who should
> be the
> recipients of their attention ends up with a kid in the hospital,
> or, worse,
> dead.  Remember that case not too terribly long ago when the
> authorities
> wanted to remove the child from his blind parents for no other
> reason than
> that the parents were blind, although the child was
> well-cared-for, etc?
> This is a blatant violation of the civil rights of blind people,
> and it is
> the thin edge of the wedge: if they get away with telling you you
> can't
> watch these two kids because you're legally blind, where will it
> end?
> Check out the people Jessie mentioned, I hope others can also
> help you and
> good luck!
> Alice
> alicedh@verizon.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J.Rayl" <thedogmom63@frontier.com
> To: "Yvonne" <yvonne625@verizon.net
> Cc: "Acb List" <acb-l@acb.org
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:13 PM
> Subject: [acb-l] Cps and people who are blind
>
>
> Wait a minute!
> I'm not even engaging this other absurd buisness on list because
> its
> nothing more than a bunch of immature drama.  Sorry.
> Yvonne, this is a very, very serious issue, however.
> Someone called CPS because you were watching two children and
> they,
> actually, told you that you can watch one and not the other?
> This is
> in total violation of their Policy and you need to involve ACB's
> Advocacy commitee ASAP.
> We've had, fought, battled and won many other such incidents and
> this
> confounded BS with the Department needs to end!
> CPS cannot, absolutely cannot, make these kinds of rulings
> unless they
> can prove outright neglect and/or abuse.  They cannot make that
> ruling
> based solely on physical or intellectual disability and they
> darn well
> know this.
> I would absolutely, positively, encourage you to get hold of
> Chris
> Bell immediately and get this moving.
>
> Jessie Rayl
> thedogmom63@frontier.com
> www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
> www.pathtogrowth.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yvonne" <yvonne625@verizon.net
> To: "'Pia'" <pmikeal@comcast.net>; "'Eric Calhoun'"
> <eric@pmpmail.com
> Cc: <acb-l@acb.org
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [acb-l] Eric strikes back, and will not back down!
>
>
> Hi everyone,
> I really have not been following this thread much since I have
> seen
> this email many times and to be honest it is not a blind thing.
> I grew
> up sighted in the times mentioned and it was fun, and I am
> saddened
> when I think that the children of today cannot play and be  as
> free as
> we once were.  My niece and her 2 kids live with me and I can
> only
> watch the 5 year old because she is afraid children and youth
> will get
> called.  The sad thing is that they were called a few months
> ago, we
> guess by a neighbor, because they thought I can't watch a child
> because I am legally blind.
>
> So to get back to the original email, it is just reminiscing how
> free
> our society once was.
> Yvonne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acb-l-bounces@acb.org [mailto:acb-l-bounces@acb.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Pia
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 6:20 PM
> To: Eric Calhoun
> Cc: acb-l@acb.org
> Subject: Re: [acb-l] Eric strikes back, and will not back down!
>
> Just out of curiosity, why did that post offend you so badly?  I
> don't
> get it, because growing up in the 80's I see a lot of light
> hearted
> truth in it.
> As blind people it is even more important to learn the kind of
> independence talked about in that post and so am glad my parents
> let
> me fully experience the 80's as outlined in that post the same
> as my
> siblings did instead of treating me different because I am
> blind.
> What if the way society has changed does negatively effect newer
> generations if their parents are not careful enough to teach
> them that
> kind of independence in the way they raise them?  I know some
> blind
> kids when I was a kid were treated in a coddled way because of
> being
> blind, and so it is kinda scary to think all kids in general are
> too
> coddled now adays by society, because the few kids I knew who
> were
> raised in a coddled way have a really difficult time making it
> now as
> adults.
>
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Eric Calhoun wrote:
>
> Do you know how grumpy I am right now?  Do you know how highly
> upset
> I am right now?  It's because of a poster on this list, who
> insults
> my intelligence in sending this "ignorant" pos t about blind
> people
> over
> 34 oughta be dead!  Shame on us for commenting on this forward.
> Shame on us for having the poster in trouble!
>
> You need to think of people, whom you might offend in cases like
> this.
> When I said the forward left a bad taste in my mouth, why did
> some of
> you add more fuel to the fire!  Bob, thank you for stepping in!
> And
> to the poster who posted this forward, you owe me, Mr.  Hachey,
> Mrs.
> Parsons, and Mr.  Larose an apology!  STOP TRYING TO INSULT MY
> INTELLIGENCE!
>
> Eric
> ..
>
> ..
>
> Eric Calhoun.  Be kind to your dogs and play with them.  Don't
> forget
> to cuddle with them and let your give you lots of hugs and
> kisses!
> Read to your dog.  Play music for your dog.  Never forget: Dogs
> love
> us unconditionally!  Eric Calhoun on Facebook: eric@pmpmail.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acb.org
> http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5147 - Release Date:
> 07/22/12
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acb.org
> http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acb.org
> http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acb.org
> http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acb.org
> http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acb.org
> http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acb.org
> http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
_______________________________________________
acb-l mailing list
acb-l@acb.org
http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l

---

_______________________________________________
acb-l mailing list
acb-l@acb.org
http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l

Just Wondering

Hi to All Thoughtful People,

 

Currently I am on four email lists, all of them set up or moderated by blind people.  Over the past two or three years we've heard from folks who tell us that they are millionaires, and those who find themselves at the bottom of the pit. 

Young, old, full figured or boney, we are a cross section of America.  Except for one common thread.  The great majority of us are seen by society as being blind. 

That determination alone trumps all other features about who we are, or who we believe we are. 

We are, "The Blind". 

And no matter how we would wish it to be different, we are all held up to the same Universal Blind Stereotype. 

Regardless of who we think we are, individually, when we meet a sighted person for the first time, they see us in light of all they think they know about blindness. 

One of my favorite questions when I speak to students is, "What would you do if you woke up tomorrow morning and discovered that you were totally blind?"  These students range from First Graders to College Age.  The answers are dramatic.  "I'd kill myself", "I'd crawl downstairs and find my mother,"  "I'd pray to God to heal me," "I'd pull the covers over my head and wait for someone to help me". 

In going further and asking the students what they would do once they knew for a fact that they would now be blind for life, most of them were at a total loss as to what they could do.  Most of them envisioned a life of helplessness, being waited on by family members, unable to attend school, no friends coming around to play with them.  In short, total helplessness. 

And yet, here on our lists we see blind men and women in all sorts of activities, jobs and endeavors.  The world we live in is mostly ignored by the sighted public.  There is a wall between our world and theirs.  It is the wall of ignorance.  But even if we get their attention, we still have the Universal Blind Stereotype to deal with. 

And then, of course since we are also products of this society, we blind people are also conditioned by the same stereotype.  Often times what I observe are blind people trying desperately to avoid the negative aspects of that stereotype.  We try to distance ourselves from those we feel are examples of this negativity, not realizing that in the eyes of society we are all alike. 

Since I personally believe that several thousands of years prove beyond a doubt that we will not erase the difference that blindness imposes upon us, I would suggest that we stop worrying about what this blind person or that one does to embarrass us. 

Let's go forward, living our own lives without fretting over how we are seen.  Rather, let's put our collective efforts into passing positive legislation that will open doors and offer us the same opportunities that are enjoyed by all Americans. 

We do not need to be liked by the sighted members of our society.  Nor do we need to be understood.  We don't like or understand many of them, but what they have that we need to claim, is the right to a job, a home and a family. 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

Old Swami Jarvis peers into his chrystal ball

To All Members of the 99% Americans. 

Old Swami Jarvis peers into his Chrystal ball and sees trouble for the 99% Americans. 

 

So far the Corporate Empire's mass media has ignored or ridiculed the "Occupy" movement.  As long as protests and marches and speeches do not interfere with the Corporate Empire's agenda...own everything...then there will be only occasional violence.  

But looking deep into the cloudy mists of my globe, I see the unrest increasing as the Corporate Empire refuses to compromise and continues to gobble up all in sight. 

Finally the Corporate Empire finds that the pesky 99% Americans are beginning to cramp their style.  The efforts to ignore and sneer at the "Occupy" movement is not working.  Now the Empire Strikes Back.  And we, the 99% Americans are face to face with the mightiest military force in the history of Man. 

What can we expect to happen?  We have nothing to compromise with, and the Corporate Empire is not in a compromising mood. 

The grim reality is that we humans have created a Frankenstein Monster, in the shape of Corporate Citizenship.  We have allowed this Monster to grow like the mythical Chicken Heart that consumed New York City, and we are now threatened with the extension of all our Rights and Freedoms.  Either we will prevail, or the Corporate Empire will grind us under its heel. 

As much as we pray for nonviolence solutions, as much as we hate violence, we have given away our control of this Corporate Cancer.  If we are to save Mother Earth and the Life She nurtures, we will need to rise up in defense of our Planet.  Earth is our home, and the Monster is at our door. 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: joe harcz Comcast

To: aevincent@ca.rr.com ; Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:20 AM

Subject: Re: Fwd: You Say You Want a Revolution?

It's the conundrum to be sure....

 

One way to do this non-violently is to engage in direct actions of civil disobedience and things like strikes including general strikes....

 

Even then when the goons are sent out as they have been in history people are forced to defend themselves by any means necessary....

 

Again it's a conundrum....

 

I don't have all the answers....

 

But I sure know being downtrodden up close and personal and I know when my fundamental civil, constitutional and human rights are being violated.

 

In fact when it comes to the rights under the ADA and 504 I've documented copiously where the very enforcement agencies themselves and the very courts violate fundamentally procedural and substantive due process rights....

 

Those rights by the way are in the 14th Amendment and do extend to us through the ADA and 504....

 

This was something fundamental fought for with blood that came about as a result of what Rober rightfully calls the second American Revolution, or what some call our civil war....

 

Joe

----- Original Message -----

From: Abby Vincent

To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'

Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:56 PM

Subject: RE: Fwd: You Say You Want a Revolution?

I've thought about this a lot.  I say I am a pacifist.  I don't think war or violent revolution accomplishes much.  I believe all life, at least the higher forms of it, is sacred.  If I really want to solve all conflict, intrusion, rape, and the like non-violently, I'll have to be willing to be killed.  I'm not. 

Abby

 

From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 7:52 AM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: Fwd: You Say You Want a Revolution?

 

Of course, like the crazy man, we keep trying the same thing over and over and over.  Violence will not bring about peace.  Maybe a lull in violence, but violence will only set us up for more of the same. 

Like Joe and others on this list, I believe in defending my loved ones and myself.  But here's the problem with that, where is the entrance into my home, and who are my family? 

First and foremost I am a citizen of Earth.  And my family is All Life Living in my Home. 

So given this, and given my belief that violence only begets violence, how do I begin defending my home and loved ones? 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: joe harcz Comcast

To: Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 5:22 AM

Subject: Re: Fwd: You Say You Want a Revolution?

 

Hi Ted,

Guess it all boils down to interpretation of what a "revolution" is.

I am not now fand nor have I been for decades for "violent revolution".

The term "violent" is very relevent in this concept.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't understand violent tendencies. I do. I have a
lot of anger and rage at the system and in my heart wish I could settle it
with fists or even guns.

But, I cannot.

So my non-violence is not born of anti-revolutionary tendencies or even of
my human urge, but, rather, it is born of pragmatism for the only lasting
revolutions with social justice are born of non-violent revolutionary
activities imo.

Even then like in India they are tenuous and riddled with contradictions.

India born of Gahndi has the "bomb" after all.

Still and at the risk of being a personal hypocrite which I am I guess and
so are others literally, I do beleive in self defense.

If someone was rushing this house to kill me or my loved ones I would shoot
the bastards with the twelve gauge shotgun under the love seat.

I would not care what color they were or gender or anything else.

Now I wouldn't be like Zimmerman and carry the gun out in to the public
looking for a fight, or I wouldn't carry it in to the public to redress my
numerous greivances in the public arena.

---

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

---

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

You Say You Want a Revolution?

 This crap about dying for my country is the kind of stuff shoved down the throats of our lower class youth.  Lower class, meaning anything below the Ruling Class.  They insist that it is a sign of true Patriotism to be willing to die for one's country.  But check out the number of white crosses in their cemeteries.  We die so that they may live.  War is hard on the losers, but there are losers on both sides of the field.  The poor always pay the price, both in bodies as well as in loss of personal possessions and personal freedom. 

 

Carl Jarvis

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Loran Bailey

To: aevincent@ca.rr.com ; Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:33 AM

Subject: Re: Fwd: You Say You Want a Revolution?

Don't forget what Malcolm X said about that. I don't feel like looking up the exact quote right now, but the gist of it went something like this. If you are willing to die for your cause that gives your cause a better chance of being realized, but that will not realize it if that is all your are willing to do. In fact, dying for your cause alone will bring about its defeat and you should avoid it if you can. What you have to be willing to do is to kill for it. In the same vein let me paraphrase George Patton. Our goal is not to die for our country. Our goal is to make the other son of a bitch die for his country.

On 7/21/2012 11:56 PM, Abby Vincent wrote:

I've thought about this a lot.  I say I am a pacifist.  I don't think war or violent revolution accomplishes much.  I believe all life, at least the higher forms of it, is sacred.  If I really want to solve all conflict, intrusion, rape, and the like non-violently, I'll have to be willing to be killed.  I'm not. 

Abby

 

From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 7:52 AM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: Fwd: You Say You Want a Revolution?

 

Of course, like the crazy man, we keep trying the same thing over and over and over.  Violence will not bring about peace.  Maybe a lull in violence, but violence will only set us up for more of the same. 

Like Joe and others on this list, I believe in defending my loved ones and myself.  But here's the problem with that, where is the entrance into my home, and who are my family? 

First and foremost I am a citizen of Earth.  And my family is All Life Living in my Home. 

So given this, and given my belief that violence only begets violence, how do I begin defending my home and loved ones? 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: joe harcz Comcast

To: Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 5:22 AM

Subject: Re: Fwd: You Say You Want a Revolution?

 

Hi Ted,

Guess it all boils down to interpretation of what a "revolution" is.

I am not now fand nor have I been for decades for "violent revolution".

The term "violent" is very relevent in this concept.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't understand violent tendencies. I do. I have a
lot of anger and rage at the system and in my heart wish I could settle it
with fists or even guns.

But, I cannot.

So my non-violence is not born of anti-revolutionary tendencies or even of
my human urge, but, rather, it is born of pragmatism for the only lasting
revolutions with social justice are born of non-violent revolutionary
activities imo.

Even then like in India they are tenuous and riddled with contradictions.

India born of Gahndi has the "bomb" after all.

Still and at the risk of being a personal hypocrite which I am I guess and
so are others literally, I do beleive in self defense.

If someone was rushing this house to kill me or my loved ones I would shoot
the bastards with the twelve gauge shotgun under the love seat.

I would not care what color they were or gender or anything else.

Now I wouldn't be like Zimmerman and carry the gun out in to the public
looking for a fight, or I wouldn't carry it in to the public to redress my
numerous greivances in the public arena.

_______________________________________________  Blind-Democracy mailing list  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

---

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

Today's shootings mean we need to strengthen our gun laws.

Gun Lovers Everywhere,

The way to tighten up gun control is to get rid of both Republican and Democratic Parties and put in a government that puts People First.  The truth is that despite protests to the contrary, most Americans can't be trusted with guns.  Owning a gun my be a Right, but how many people do more than buy one...or more...and tuck them in a bed stand?  Some folks actually take target practice and know how to take off the safety, aim and squeeze the trigger. 

Most of us will simply pull out our gun, point and fire.  Usually the person we hit, if we actually hit anyone, is a family member or our own foot.  Accidental shootings kill far more innocent people than crooks. 

Even highly trained Peace Officers make errors in judgment and kill innocent people.  They have vastly more training than any average citizen. 

If that theater in Colorado had been filled with gun packing citizens, the death toll would have tripled. 

The evidence tells us that those states with the most liberal gun laws also have highest rate of deaths by guns. 

We need to get over our silly idea that a gun will protect us.  Crooks are usually better prepared for violence than the average citizen, and if we think that little hand gun is going to protect us from some unmanned drone bomb, think again. 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

 

Life for the Blind prior to ADA

Good Saturday Morning Pia. 

To answer some of your questions regarding how blind students managed prior to the passage of ADA. 

Yes.  Reader's were provided, either paid for by the state or through a very excellent volunteer service. 

None of the blind students at the University of Washington used scribes back in the 60's.  Some of us whose Braille skills were pokey, taped lectures and then laboriously went back through then and made notes in the evenings.  But most of the students at the time had good Braille skills and used slate and stylus to take notes. 

Proof reading was certainly a problem since we used typewriters to do our reports and term papers.  For written reports I would first Braille out my report and then carefully type it line by line, hoping that I did not strike a wrong key.  When I first returned to college as a blind man, I entered the community college near me for a couple of quarters, to get myself back in the habit of not sleeping or doing anything but studying.  This college had just opened and they had a wonderful resource room.  There were tape recorders and a row of typewriters.  I took my Braille notes and typed up my term paper and proudly turned it in.  My instructor looked at the paper and asked me to wait until the room had cleared out.  "Carl," he said in a sad voice, "There is nothing on these pages except dents." 

We went into the resource room and discovered the problem.  The entire row of brand new typewriters did not have a single ribbon.  At least he gave me extra time to type my paper over.  Final exams were left to each professor and me to work out.  I made a habit of becoming acquainted with each professor and instructor prior to the start of the quarter, checking out what books and additional materials I would need to have read.  I would farm out much of the reading to a core of dedicated readers in advance, and they would drop off the finished tapes in plenty of time to study prior to exams.  I also had live readers ramming through materials that came in too late to farm out.  Some professors loved to begin a class by saying, "I found a new book that addresses this topic much better than the one I had assigned..." and off I'd trot to the book store to grab a copy and call in the readers. 

But the final exams were always done by a reader.  There was one exception when the professor said, "I'll read the exam to you."  Fear gripped my heart.  Think of it, bumbling me being tested by the fellow who wrote the exam.  But it turned out to be even better than if I'd had a volunteer.  We sat outside on the veranda and he began.  The exam turned out to be a multiple choice.  He would read the question and then, one by one he would read the possible answers.  He was so proud of his clever writing that he would chuckle at the obviously wrong answers and read the correct answer in a very solemn voice.  I received an A. 

But usually I would bring a reader to a private room and we would plow through the exam.  No professor ever set a time limit.  The class had the hour to do the exam, but using a reader could take longer.  Mostly I did finish in the allotted time, but not always.  No one ever graded me down for that. 

 

A few years before I entered the University of Washington, an Angel dropped out of the sky.  She came from Chicago.  A retired professional photographer, she moved to Seattle to care for her mentally ill daughter.  This Angel was one of those people who just had to be of service.  she looked around and found two areas to dive into.  She began arranging drivers for wheel chair folks, and she began lining up readers for the blind. 

Her name was Edith Mardy.  Edith brought all of her business ability and organizational skills to her volunteer work.  She would go to the various women's clubs and do presentations, finding many ladies from well to do families just looking for something to do.  Most of my readers were wives of bankers, professors, lawyers, doctors, and businessmen. 

Edith would keep lists.  I would call her and tell her how many readers I was looking for.  She would give me names.  I would call and make arrangements.  Edith would check back later, both with me and with the readers to see if all was going well.  Woe be unto any student who received a bad report from one of Edith's readers.  You had one chance to mess up, and then you would not be on her list any longer.  As a result this service ran for years like a well oiled machine. 

I could rave on for pages about this amazing woman. 

Carl Jarvis

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Pia

To: Carl Jarvis

Cc: Bob Hachey ; acb-l@acb.org

Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:35 PM

Subject: Re: [acb-l] Not a cause to celebrate: Hotel boycott

Carl, did you get readers and scribes in college to take notes and read
tests for you or write answers?  How did you proof read your written
papers if they were done on the typewriter?  Did they give help with that?
Just interested in what was provided before ADA.  Now they have to provide
that stuff, but wondered how you took a test in college and if they gave
you any extra time to do so.  If not, how was a test taken and what was it
like?  Interesting stuff.  Thanks.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Carl Jarvis wrote:

> Bob and ADA Fans and Foes Everywhere,
>
> For the disabled community as a whole, ADA has brought significant
> improvements. Anyone can Google ADA and read all about it.
> As far as ADA's impact on the blind...yes, I said "the blind", it's
> debatable. Has the percentage of employed blind gone up over the past 22
> years? That old number of 70% is still nipping at our heels. Has the
> standard of living gone up? Last time I checked the figures it appeared
> that a big bunch of us are at or below the poverty line. What about those
> much needed home care services that are used by elderly blind folks in order
> for them to continue living in their homes? After an initial surge to a
> point where home care was almost at a survival level, the dollars began
> going off to fight for Freedom, and blind elders once again sank into
> lonely, dangerous lives. Dangerous because so many of them were forced to
> cut corners, skipping meals, failing to seek medical attention, and opening
> their doors to strangers who offered help as a way to gain access into homes
> and steal their meager belongings.
> As far as education, assuming there might be a job at the end, I see only
> improvement in the kinds of equipment students now have at their disposal.
> And that is not to be lightly dismissed.
> My entrance into college as a blind man was in 1965.
> Services for the Blind equipped me with a Perkins Braille Writer, a 5 inch
> reel to reel tape recorder, and a portable type writer. All of which I
> carried about with me, along with a white travel cane and, because this was
> Seattle, an umbrella. I'm a big man and it was a struggle. I have no idea
> how some of the slender, inactive blind students did it. Most of my classes
> were cleverly situated so I had to run at neck breaking speed in order to
> get from one to the next.
> But we were given a study room in the library, with some equipment
> available, and we had the services of a VRC who came once or twice a week to
> provide guidance and to run interference if we had problems with some of the
> instructors or professors.
> But mostly he taught us self advocacy, which was a valuable skill to have.
> All schooling, books and direct expenses were paid for by the state of
> Washington.
> We were the envy of other disability groups. This was long before curb cuts
> and ramps and reasonable accommodations were put in place.
> No wonder at the White House Conference on Disabilities, the blind attendees
> were run down by angry chair users.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>       ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bob Hachey
> To: acb-l@acb.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [acb-l] Not a cause to celebrate: Hotel boycott
>
> Hi Michael,
> You make a very powerful point here. I agree with you that without the
> ADA
> we'd not have the level of accessibility we do today. Has it been too
> slow?
> you bet. Do we still have a long way to go? Again, you bet, especially
> when
> it comes to employment.
> Here's an interesting question to ponder. I wonder how we here in
> America
> stack up against the rest of the developed world. That is, Europe,
> Japan,
> Australia and others? For instance, in terms of audio description and
> accessible set top boxes, England is considerably ahead of us.
> One more thought.
>
>
>
>

ADA to be 22 years old

To ADA Fans and Foes Everywhere,

 

For the disabled community as a whole, ADA has brought significant improvements.  Anyone can Google ADA and read all about it. 

As far as ADA's impact on the blind...yes, I said "the blind", it's debatable.  Has the percentage of employed blind gone up over the past 22 years?  That old number of 70% is still nipping at our heels.  Has the standard of living gone up?  Last time I checked the figures it appeared that a big bunch of us are at or below the poverty line.  What about those much needed home care services that are used by elderly blind folks in order for them to continue living in their homes?  After an initial surge to a point where home care was almost at a survival level, the dollars began going off to fight for Freedom, and blind elders once again sank into lonely, dangerous lives.  Dangerous because so many of them were forced to cut corners, skipping meals, failing to seek medical attention, and opening their doors to strangers who offered help as a way to gain access into homes and steal their meager belongings. 

As far as education, assuming there might be a job at the end, I see only improvement in the kinds of equipment students now have at their disposal.  And that is not to be lightly dismissed. 

My entrance into college as a blind man was in 1965. 

Services for the Blind equipped me with a Perkins Braille Writer, a 5 inch reel to reel tape recorder, and a portable type writer.  All of which I carried about with me, along with a white travel cane and, because this was Seattle, an umbrella.  I'm a big man and it was a struggle.  I have no idea how some of the slender, inactive blind students did it.  Most of my classes were cleverly situated so I had to run at neck breaking speed in order to get from one to the next. 

But we were given a study room in the library, with some equipment available, and we had the services of a VRC who came once or twice a week to provide guidance and to run interference if we had problems with some of the instructors or professors. 

But mostly he taught us self advocacy, which was a valuable skill to have.  All schooling, books and direct expenses were paid for by the state of Washington. 

We were the envy of other disability groups.  This was long before curb cuts and ramps and reasonable accommodations were put in place. 

No wonder at the White House Conference on Disabilities, the blind attendees were run down by angry chair users. 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

Will the real God please stand up?

Will the real God please stand up? 

One of the songs we used to sing lustily during Sunday morning church service was, "Jesus is the sweetest name I know". 

Okay, Carl's a pretty sweet name, too.  And so is Jim, Sue, Jack and Jill. 

We sing the songs without thinking.  We sit through sermons and read our scriptures without thinking.  We pray to God that He will deliver us from Evil, and then go about doing Evil.  The church fails it's people.  It does not teach folks how to go inside and work to make the changes.  They allow folks to believe that all they have to do is to "turn their lives over to Jesus" and put a tenth of their money in the collection plate. 

Back during the unrest of the mid to late 60's, I was a born again Christian.  I attended a prayer meeting and listened to a woman cry out how happy she was to have given her life to Jesus.  Why people cried when they told us this is beyond me.  I'd have thought they'd laugh and smile...oh well. 

After praying for a few minutes she suddenly called out to God, "Smite those Evil niggars who are threatening my friends in Los Angeles..."

I nudged my wife and whispered, "Let's get out of here". 

While I didn't break away at once, this woman and many like her helped me understand that God is created in the prevailing beliefs and customs of the day and of the people creating God.  There are a wide variety of Gods, each one the Almighty, Perfect Being.  Each one unwilling to accept anyone who does not conform to His Word.  Each God demands total commitment and the refusal to compromise with any other False God. 

And we wonder why we can't get along, or why congress can't pass any useful legislation. 

Carl Jarvis

 

You Say You Want a Revolution?

Subject: You Say You Want a Revolution?

Of course, like the crazy man, we keep trying the same thing over and over and over.  Violence will not bring about peace.  Maybe a lull in violence, but violence will only set us up for more of the same. 

Like Joe and others on this list, I believe in defending my loved ones and myself.  But here's the problem with that, where is the entrance into my home, and who are my family? 

First and foremost I am a citizen of Earth.  And my family is All Life Living in my Home. 

So given this, and given my belief that violence only begets violence, how do I begin defending my home and loved ones? 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

From LUV News for Friday, July 20, 2012

Subject: From LUV News for Friday, July 20, 2012

 

Now this makes perfectly good sense...

Carl Jarvis

 

 

The primary responsibility of the mass media in the Land of the Free is to keep citizens as confused as possible, in order to keep democracy from having a snowball's chance in hell of breaking out.  Yesterday's terrorist friends are often today's terrorist enemies-- al Qaeda, for example, created by the CIA in Jimmy Carter's administration under National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, replete with Osama bin Laden and other religious fanatics ("good guys" then in our mass media).

But after 9/11 it was decided that al Qaeda would become the bad guys and we could kill anyone labeled with that moniker, together with the entire Taliban, who, apparently, had been good guys because President Bush sent them millions of dollars in aid just months before 9/11. 

But now we've killed most of the Afghan al Qaeda and they have dispersed back to their homelands where they have become, voila, good guys again.   I say that because the USA supported apparent al Qaeda fighters in Libya who had in recent years been in Iraq fighting Americans, in the new quest to overthrow Gadaffi and get his oil, now mission accomplished.  And more al Qaeda in Syria, apparently good guys because we are sending them weapons financed by the Saudis through Jordan (all this for deniability, as if the world is too stupid to know where they come from).

They then blow up Syrian government officials in acts that would be terrorist acts if they happened in client states of the Empire, but they are not called terrorist acts when committed in Syria you see, in the Orwellian language of our mass media.  The extremely-controlled mass media go delirious with kudos when Syrian officials get blown to bits.

Ward Churchill lost his job because he pointed out that 9/11 may have been a response to sanctions imposed on Iraq largely pushed by the USA, resulting in the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children under age five, which had most Arabs justifiably upset and seething with rage.  This was never called an act of terrorism, in fact Clinton's Secretary of State famously said "We think it was worth it," and I remember thinking at the time, "Her fat ass has never missed a meal, she needs to go hungry for awhile and find out what happens to people from her psychopathic policies."

Some day the National Security State terrorism with its Muslim Holocaust will come back at us in blowback, like the monsters previously released by the Empire (Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein etc.) and corporate media propagandists will stop pushing terrorism long enough to ask again, "why do they hate us?," in their role of spinning reality to keep the masses from understanding almost anything of relevance in their lives  --Jack Balkwill

Amy Dean interviews Barbara Ehrenreich

Subject: Amy Dean interviews Barbara Ehrenreich

Amy Dean writes:

Best-selling author Barbara Ehrenreich - probably best known for her 2001 book "Nickel and Dimed" - has long been on the forefront of promoting stories about working people in an often hostile media environment. Recently, she has been heading the Economic Hardship Reporting Project. An endeavor inspired in part by the Federal Writers Project of the 1930s, the initiative aims "to force this country's crisis of poverty and economic insecurity to the center of the national conversation."

I spoke with Ehrenreich about this crisis of economic insecurity, about the invisibility of working people in the mainstream media, and about the current state of journalism.

That working people are chronically underrepresented in the media - even in times of economic downturn - is a sad reality readily apparent to anyone who has surveyed the American news landscape. Given this, I asked Ehrenreich if she thought this problem has been a constant, or if has it gotten worse in recent years.

"It's always been something of a problem," she said, "for two reasons. The first reason I discovered in my years as a freelance writer in the 1980s and 90s. That is: magazines and newspapers want to please their advertisers. Their advertisers want to think they are reaching wealthy people, people who will buy the products. They don't want really depressing articles about misery and hardship near their ads."

"The other reason is that typically the gatekeepers in these media outlets, the top editors and producers, have been from a social class quite far removed from what we are talking about. They have no clue. I found that this could be very, very dispiriting."

"I remember pitching a story to an editor in the 1980s. It had something to do with working-class men. The editor said, 'Well, can they talk?'"

"It's almost otherworldly," Ehrenreich continued. "The editors would use the word 'articulate,' as in, 'Could you find someone articulate?' Like the rest of the people are just going around grunting. Those are two long-standing structural forces against good coverage in the media."

Next, I asked Ehrenreich about the power of telling individuals' stories and how she approached storytelling in her work. The question produced an unexpected exchange.

"I actually don't focus on storytelling," Ehrenreich answered. "I've heard that said about my work before, but I don't know where that comes from ..."

I contended that "Nickel and Dimed," which told of her time working a number of low-wage jobs in the service sector, clearly had a lot to do with relating the stories of her co-workers.

"It's about me, though," Ehrenreich responded. "It's a story about me; first person. I was not in a position to really tell people's stories. I could just describe the work."

She continued: "My feeling about the coverage of poverty is that we have had a lot of stories. There's the story of a hard-working, good person or family, ground down to nothing. We all quietly read and say, 'Oh yes, gee, this is terrible; these nice decent people.' Well, I don't think that's enough anymore. I don't think that does the trick. I want stories that really make you indignant."

"One of the things that I focus on is how easy it is now to get into serious trouble with the law because you don't have much money - and then to get poorer and poorer because you get in serious trouble with the law. The classic example would be if you have a broken headlight on your car, but you can't fix it because that would cost over $100. So you get stopped by the police, and you get a fine of maybe $100 or $200. If you could have paid that, you could have fixed the damn light! Now you have this debt to the government. If you don't pay that, you begin to be in really big trouble that just builds and builds. More fines and fees are added, and they will all accumulate interest too. At some point, if you haven't paid, you are very likely to have a warrant out for your arrest."

Playing devil's advocate, I suggested that many people would respond to a story like that by saying they're not sympathetic, because the person broke the law.

"That's something that we're coming up against," Ehrenreich said. "Do we always have to be worried that when we present somebody who's economically struggling that there's going to be the same response? I've been around the country talking about people in poverty and there will be somebody in the audience that says, 'Well, do they smoke cigarettes?' People can be very good at finding out how poor people could improve their [own] lives, instead of looking at something like wage theft, where employers are stealing billions of dollars every year."

I asked about what influence unions could have on the coverage of working people, and about the role of labor media - citing examples such as the Newspaper Guild, the St. Paul Union Advocate and the Milwaukee Labor Press.

"I think that the union-created media is not very prominent," Ehrenreich responded. "There is no union media that is reaching out beyond its members, right now - or very little. People in the labor movement always talk about having radio shows and channels and so on, and it doesn't happen. I don't know what's up with that."

"Certainly, it's confusing when you're a writer. There are so many outlets now, but you don't get paid. I've had the experience in the last two months of having something go really viral on those sorts of outlets, including some very mainstream places. If reporters could afford to do the work, there are readers waiting to get to them."

"We're at a point now where that mainstream media is in a state of collapse," she noted. "It's just not there. The Times-Picayune in New Orleans is down to three newspaper reporters. The kind of reporters who might have been doing reporting on economic hardship in 1995 for major newspapers are long gone, eliminated."

Exploring the issue of lack of pay for writers, I asked Ehrenreich to talk about the Economic Hardship Reporting Project she has started.

"There's a big problem now: you can't get paid if you're a writer. A lot of stories aren't being told; a lot of work isn't being done; because the people who would like to do it can't work for free."

"I started the Economic Hardship Reporting Project back in 2009," she continued. "I was very frustrated by the coverage of the recession in the mainstream press. What coverage there was focused on things like people who had to cut back on their personal trainers. It was hardship for the wealthy. I contacted The New York Times and said, 'I would like to do a series of essays on the effect of the recession on those people who are already struggling.' I got a contract. I did a series of four pieces, which were well displayed in the Sunday newspapers. But I realized in the course of it that I was not really being paid enough even to cover my expenses."

"I was at the same time watching my son, who was also a freelance writer, trying to get paid enough to do the kind of work he wanted to do. He would be doing something for The Nation about tent cities for a couple hundred dollars. And he was saying, 'I can't do this; I just can't do it.' Those were the personal experiences that led to the idea of raising money to pay journalists to do innovative coverage of the issues related to poverty and economic inequality and hardship."

I asked how people could get connected with the project.

"They're going to read this interview and then they're going to come lining up at my door," Ehrenreich joked.

Continuing, she explained, "At first we had to sort of beat the bushes for writers. Now more people are coming to us, including some very good, experienced writers. We're looking for journalists who have ideas, who are interested in subjects we're interested in. And we really nurture them. Some are highly skilled and don't really need that much from us. But we typically help a writer develop a pitch, then we spend a lot of time with them discussing a research plan. When they have a draft we do a first edit before it goes out. With one of our writers, I was afraid we were driving her crazy with our demands for rewrites and new information. I kindly said, 'Look, you're getting a free journalism-school education from us. You're getting the kind of help you will never get again."

"I gave the commencement speech in 2009 at the Berkeley Journalism School. The dean told me, 'Don't be gloomy.' I thought about that challenge and I said to the students, 'I was told not to be gloomy. But I can say, you have great talents which no one is going to want to pay for. You have all this energy and talent, and you're going to get jerked around by employers. You're going to have a really rough time.' Then I said, 'Welcome to the American working class.'

"Basically, in the old times, journalism was a working class occupation. For a little period there, journalists were kind of elite. That's just been taken away from us. No more of those nice lunches in Manhattan with your editor, and things like that."

"I told the students, 'This is not a career. This is a fight.'"

 

which came first, the gun or the killer?

And don't give me that old NRA chant, "Guns don't kill.  People kill." 

None of us are so stupid not to understand that a gun, just lying there is going to jump up and kill someone.  Even if I pick it up and it is unloaded, it is not going to kill anyone. 

The NRA has made a straw man out of guns.  So let's get real.  People kill.  People kill for all sorts of reasons, and crazy people kill for no particular reason at all. 

It's time we took one big step to making it more difficult for people to kill. 

Take away the God Damned Guns! 

This morning we hear about a crazy man who entered a theater and began blasting randomly, killing at least 12 people and wounding at least three dozen more.  What horror!  But imagine if we all were packing.  Shots ring out and suddenly the theater is filled with a hundred guns blazing away. 

You say that this would not happen?  I wouldn't want to be there to see which one of us is right. 

People with guns kill much more easily than people with clubs, knives or bare hands. 

If that crazy man had dashed into the theater armed with a can opener, he might have actually killed someone and cut the Hell out of a few more before he was clubbed to the ground.  But the toll would not have been so horrific. 

The NRA, in order to protect their little toys of destruction, have lied and lied and lied until some of us are convinced that guns really are safe, and guns really do give us protection, and since bad guys will always have guns, we need to have them, too. 

Here's the bitter truth.  No gun can be made so safe that it can't be used to kill.  That's what it's made to do.  Just as a corporation is made to gather wealth at any price, guns are made to kill.  And the truth is that Human Beings are not made with enough good sense to possess guns. 

You disagree?  Hey, turn on the news and just look at what guns, bombs and all those other off spring of guns are doing in the world.  I suppose cluster bombs don't kill, either.  Only if you're so clumsy as to step on one. 

Unmanned drones don't kill...unless some Drone in Colorado pushes a button.  Does that mean that buttons kill? 

 

We're nuts if we think that we should all be allowed to own guns.  We humans are so unstable that we can't even drive on a crowded highway without going into a rage.  If our spouse tunes the TV to another channel during the ball game we turn into a monster.  We slam our children around, get drunk and slam anyone around, get pissed off at our fellow workers and shove them down the elevator shaft.  We spend lots of energy "getting even" with others.  Okay, lots of it is just in our heads.  But for every good deed you can count, I can tell you about a mean little revenge someone pulled off. 

Until we all grow up we don't need guns.  And if anyone sneaks one home, we can grab up our clubs, kick their door in and beat them to death. 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

all problems have solutions...we just might not like them

            Back in 1955 one of my professors said, "There's no such thing as a problem without a solution.  We just aren't going to like most of the solutions." 

This was during a discussion on, of all things, climate changes due to over population and abuse of our natural resources. 

By the way, at the time our planet had approximately 2.8 Billion People. 

That means that in about 56 years we have gained over 4 Billion people.  I wonder if in the year 2062 we will be able to support over 15 Billion more? 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

what is a revolution?

Well put Roger.

Carl Jarvis

 

From Roger Loran Bailey

Revolution is self defense! Let me explain again where revolutionary
violence comes from. In a class society there is a small ruling class
that rules. That is why they are called a ruling class. They force their
will on the majority and exploit that majority. There is no way around
the fact that the exploited masses are going to get to feel resentful of
this situation and take actions that will make the situation more fair.
They do not have to understand class dynamics. They do not have to have
a scientific plan of action. They do not necessarily even have to be
organized even though organizing is a natural outcome of this kind of
situation. They do know, though, that they are being treated unfairly
and they do resent it and so they start to do things that they at least
hope will make things more just. The more just the situation gets the
more the power and privilege of the ruling class erodes, so the ruling
class pushes back. This is called the class struggle. The class struggle
can be a long drawn out process and there are ebbs and flows both ways.
Some times one class gets an advantage and sometimes the other class
gains and concessions advances and retreats happen along the way, but
with every retreat or concession the exploited class makes the more the
unjustness of their position becomes and the more they resent it and the
more they push, so there is a tendency toward a sharpening of the class
struggle. The ruling class is now and then forced into concessions and
retreats too and when they make those concessions they do so because
they think it would be to their greater disadvantage to not do so. The
more of a disadvantage they find themselves in, though, the stronger
they push back. Then what do you suppose happens when they actually see
their power and privilege in real danger of being removed. That is the
ultimate danger for them and they will take the ultimate measures to
prevent it. That is, they will strike out with violence. In self defense
the people who have been struggling for justice have to meet the
violence with violence too. That is revolution. Violence is, of course,
undesirable. It just ends too many innocent lives and even if you do not
consider the waste of lives it kind of destroys a lot of property that
could have been put to good use. The violence may be unavoidable, but if
you have people available who have prepared for it and know what kind of
outcome to strive for then the violence can be shortened and the likely
chaotic outcomes can be avoided. So advocating for violent revolution is
not a really sane thing to do and if you hear someone actually
advocating for it then you should at the very least be suspicious. If
you hear someone saying that it must be prepared for and directed,
though, then pay attention

 

 

is most humor put down?

 

A major part of our so called humor is hurtful.  As a child we told Moron jokes.  Then the same jokes were made over into Polish jokes.  Many of them were repackaged as Blond jokes. 

Oh yes, I forgot the "Mama Mama" jokes. 

But Mama mama I don't want to play third base. 

Shut up and lie there. 

 

But Mama Mama, I don't want to go to England. 

Shut up and keep swimming. 

 

Elephant jokes didn't put down anyone except elephants. 

 

But I've chortled at lawyer jokes, fat jokes, short jokes, old people with failing minds jokes, all of them poking fun at the differences between the butt of the joke and the real cool person telling the joke. 

Fortunately, sitting here trying to think of even one Gay joke, I can't.  And I can't think of any good Jewish jokes, either.  But I've got several about a Rabbi, a Priest and a Baptist minister. 

 

Many of our stand up comics use put down humor to amuse their audiences.  But my favorite three comedians are Jack Benny, Victor Borge and Bill Cosby.  

All three of them used themselves as the butt of their jokes.  And they did it in a way that endeared them to us. 

 

Carl Jarvis

----- Original Message -----

From: Miriam Vieni

To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'

Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 7:25 PM

Subject: RE: Boy Scouts

Seems to me that it should have been obvious to you, and it should be
obvious to every intelligent person that when a joke is made about a
specifically defined group of people, or someone who is a member of that
group, the joke is saying something derogatory about the group. I suppose
that I always knew this having been Jewish. If non Jews tell a jewish joke,
it feels insulting. It's different if Jewish people do it. I imagine this is
true for all minority groups. If one is a member of a minority, one may see
insults or prejudice, even if none exist.

Miriam

Job Opportunities with Rehabilitation Services for theBlind

Subject: Job Opportunities with Rehabilitation Services for theBlind

A recent job opening in St. Louis, for a Rehabilitation Teacher called for the following:

**QUALIFICATIONS: Applicants must have graduated from an  accredited four-year college or university ***with specialization in  orientation and mobility, rehabilitation counseling, education, social work,  behavioral sciences, home economics (with emphasis in home management) or  closely related areas.

 

This caused me to raise the concern regarding duel certification in O&M and Rehabilitation Teaching, a practice which effectively slams the door in the face of a blind person seeking a career in rehabilitation work. 

Here is the rant I posted in responce to other comments:

 

Perhaps the single most disrespectful, cheap underhanded slam at blind people seeking careers in Rehabilitation, is the duel certification calling for O&M/Rehabilitation  Teacher credentials. 

We all know that State agencies serving the blind are under constant pressure to conserve resources and cut budget, even in the best of times. 

Here in Washington State we were confronted by an agency that decided to close our residential apartments in our Orientation and Training Center, while still calling it a "state-wide" service.  Pure hogwash, sort of like our government telling the American People that we are in a "jobless recovery". 

Well, the blind in Washington won that fight, but over the years we lost the separation of O&M Specialists and Rehabilitation Teachers in the field positions. 

In the name of economizing, each time one of the field RT positions opened up, the director reclassified them as O&M/RT positions.  Each time I would go to the director and protest, saying that he was effectively slamming the door in blind people's faces.  Each time he would give me the big sad eyes and say that he had no choice.  If we were to serve blind people, we needed to duel certify the field staff. 

Our state organization protested, but what could we say about the shrinking resources?  I wish that I had developed the argument that consolidating these two critical field services would not only diminish the effectiveness of the agency, by placing the emphasis on sighted O&M Specialists who did not have thorough training as Rehab Teachers, but even more importantly it gave the appearance that the agency itself did not truly believe that

blind people could be rehabilitated to the level necessary to become competitive in Life. 

The Administration of the Agency would cry out that this is not true.  But it is not how loudly they protest as it is in how they use their resources.  Cutting out the field rehab teachers is cutting the heart out of the agency.  As budget pressures increase, the agency will continue down this wrong road, trying to save itself.  But one day the blind people will look upon a program that has none of their members in the agency administration, no blind rehab teachers in the field, few blind line workers, and they will believe that they have been sold out.  The very efforts to save the agency will have turned it into a toothless tiger. 

The question that faces us today is whether we want to continue defending a vacant shell, or do we fight, and risk losing, for fully funded training for blind people?  As we watch our current national administration "compromise" away vital social programs in the name of preserving them, are we going to do the same in our state blind programs? 

Future blind people deserve better than that. 

 

Carl Jarvis

Right is Right!!!

I promise not to go off half cocked and compare the Republican House members to a religious cult...okay, so I lied.  It does remind me of cultism.  Absolutely right!  And when you are absolutely right, you can't compromise or negotiate.  Right is right, and all else is wrong(Evil). 

The House Republicans have made a pack with the...(put in your own word)...and they will not budge because they are right.  They know that they are right because they do not waiver, and the Democrats are constantly compromising and changing their minds, which means that they know they are wrong(Evil). 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

"It isn't easy being green"...

Subject: "It isn't easy being green"...

To all Green Party Supporters, or Future Green Party Supporters. 

 

Tomorrow the Green Party will select their presidential candidate at their Baltimore convention.  It appears that Doctor Jill Stein will be selected. 

More and more I see the Green Party emerging as a viable Third Party.  A People's Party.  A young, energetic party without the baggage of so many of the old traditional left wing parties.  Unlike the one two-headed party of Democrats and Republicans, the Green Party takes no, absolutely no contributions from Corporations.  Unencumbered, unbought.  Free to represent The American People. 

Does the Green Party have a chance of winning the presidency this coming election?  Absolutely not.  The Green Party is snubbed by the Major Party(Republicrats/Demopublicans) 

Will voting for Doctor Jill Stein tip the election one way or the other?  Absolutely not.  The major party will assure its victory regardless of which of its heads comes out on top. 

The Major Party sneers at the Greens, but it is not really a sneer, it is Fear.  The major party will do all it can to keep the Green Party candidates from sharing their campaign platform.  They do not want embarrassing questions raised.  They do not want it pointed out that they are turning their back on the poor, the disabled, the sick, and all the others who are named on the statue of liberty. 

The Green Party is like a small flame of liberty burning in a pile of garbage.  It can be easily snuffed out by the pile of stinking stuff covering it, or it can be fanned and begin to burn brightly and consume the pile of bile. 

So, for the future of my children, grand children and those of other Americans, I am throwing my vote to the Green Party. 

 

Carl Jarvis