Since it has been many years since I studied Adam Smith...going way
back to those Dark Years of my distant youth, I will not comment on
his insights other than to address the two points Bob Hatchey
mentioned.
1. Too much wealth in the hands of too few people is not healthy for a
free market.
*But by its very nature, a Free Market does exactly that, enables the
most clever, or cunning, or creative, or ruthless to force out
competition. It's the Law of the Jungle. Survival of the fittest.
Is this really the best way to build a civilization?
2. Businesses that grow too large hamper the kind of healthy
competition that is necessary for a free market to work as it should.
- Hide quoted text -
*But this is exactly what happens with "Free Enterprise". Remember,
the bottom line is Profit. Profit trumps People. Profit trumps
Progress. Profit trumps pollution and poverty and Public Education
and Public Health and Pizza...well, maybe not deep dish Pizza.
Free Enterprise or Capitalism, given its head, will do exactly what we
see around us today. Small enterprises begin. A creative fellow
figures out how to mass produce the latest invention, a gasoline
driven horseless carriage. He quickly begins forcing his competition
out of business. But before he becomes a monopoly, several other
enterprising fellows ban together and copy his mass production
techniques, and manage to compete. So we call this an example of Free
Enterprise at work. But if you believe that, just head out and try
starting up an automobile factory.
Once upon a time, Boeing was a little airplane company on the shores
of Lake Washington, competing with many other small airplane
companies. Today Boeing is an international corporation, beholden to
no one. One of what I call, Corporate Nations. This is the outcome
of a system that claims Profit as its bottom line.
Why do we need profit in order to have incentive? Is Profit really
all that motivates us?
If so, we have certainly corrupted our basic Human Nature.
Why not change the bottom line from Profit to, Love?
Love of my family motivates me to head off to work each day. Love
causes me to figure out how to do my chores more efficiently in order
to have more free time to spend with my wife and our children. Love
for my fellow workers inspires me to develop safer methods of doing
our work. Love inspires me to become a doctor, a scientist, a
developer of universal health, and a builder of public education for
all.
If Love is our bottom line, we might see some changes in what we now
call Progress. We might not put as much energy in building War
Machines. We might not have Homeless folks living under bridges. We
might see more public workers keeping our cities and countryside
clean. We might see more affordable housing that replaces the High
Cost dwellings that now dot the countryside. We might see workers
sharing the profits of their businesses, and have a vote in company
policies and future direction. We might see a cleaner planet, a
return to fresh air and clean water.
Oh sure, I know it would be hard to change our bottom line. But do
you think it would be worth it, if it meant that through Love, we
could make life better for all of us, rather than just for the few who
climbed to the top of the Pig Pile built upon a Phony man made value
called, Profit?
Just asking...
Carl Jarvis
Sunday, February 11, 2018
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
discrimination
I think that too often we forget that we
blind people are seen by the general public as Blind People, with
blindness being the only commonality, and then, rather than seeing an
individual, the blind person is seen through the overlay of the
stereotype in use at the time. While this stereotype varies
somewhat over generations and from culture to culture, it does have
some basic negative features. Since we live in a world where sight is
the dominant sense, we blind people are seen as inferior to the
sighted population, simply because we lack that most important sense.
Because we are so few in number, within the total population, and
since most sighted people do not have close relations with someone who
is blind, using the stereotype gives the public a point of reference.
We are seen as basically helpless, dependent upon sighted people for
our most basic needs, somewhat slow, and gentle natured.
We can be taught to play musical instruments, and under sighted
supervision we can be put to simple tasks such as broom winding or
weaving.
Blind people who become visible to the public, those who do hold
competitive jobs, attend colleges, marry and raise children, are seen
by the general public as, "Special" or, "Exceptional". Simple, normal
acts by a blind person draw comments from sighted folks who are not
used to seeing blind people out and about. At a bus stop one day, I
bent to tie a loose shoe string. As I stood up, a woman standing
close by exclaimed, "You do so wonderfully well!"
Why would this woman feel called upon to say such a thing? She would
never have said this to me if I were sighted. And of course she could
see that I was blind because I was using a White Travel Cane. Without
asking this woman, I am certain that she could not imagine tying her
own shoelace if she could not see it. But the funny part, to me, was
that she did not mention that she thought I was amazing because I had
found the bus stop by myself. Maybe she thought some sighted person
dropped me there?
My wife and I entered a restaurant. My wife is fully sighted. We sat
at a table for two, one across from the other. We ordered our dinner
and we both ordered coffee. The waitress brought a pot of coffee and
poured my wife's coffee. She then turned to my cup, filling it and
saying, "Be careful, it's hot!" I said, "Thank you, that's the way I
like it", and rather than letting it go, I looked at my wife, touched
her cup and said, "Be careful, yours is hot, too".
That was not nice of me to do that. The waitress had only her
stereotypical image of blindness to guide her, and she was trying to
be helpful. I might have been better to have said, "Thank you.
That's very helpful. Very hot is the way I like my coffee."
Over the years that I've worked in the field of work with the blind, I
have met blind people who tell me that they never faced
discrimination. But when we spend any time together, I come to
understand that activities I consider to be discriminatory, are seen
by them as activities extended to blind and sighted alike.
A fellow and I entered a coffee shop for a bite of lunch. Two blind
men. The young waitress rushed over and said "Right this way". She
grabbed my cane and pulled me to the first table past the door. I
said, "We'd like to sit further back, please". "Ah," she stammered,
"The other tables are not cleared yet". My friend said, "This will be
fine", and sat with his back to the exit door. Each time a customer
left, the freezing wind blew onto us. And other customers entered
behind us and were taken back to tables that we had been told were
dirty.
We blind people live in a sighted world and become used to little
discrimination's. If we are aware, and if we are clever, we can often
use them to our advantage. But we also need to be aware of much
bigger discrimination. Employment is one place where discrimination
becomes a serious issue. That is a subject for a long discussion by
itself.
Economics is another area. The lower we are on the economic ladder,
the greater is the discrimination. At the top extreme we met several
wealthy individuals. In each of these cases we were informed that
there was really nothing we could do to assist them, unless we could
bring back their sight...and with the three men I have in mind, they
wanted their youth, too. But in each case, they had hired help. One
man had a "Man's Man" to lay out his clothes, assist him in showering,
dressing and grooming, and guiding from room to room when needed. A
cook prepared his meals and served him. A housekeeper came on a
regular schedule and so did the gardener.
At the other end of town, the other side of the tracks as they used to
say, we visited an elderly woman. She had been legally blind her
entire life, and more recently she had lost almost all of her limited
sight. She had worked for many years at the Seattle Light House for
the Blind, but age and health had forced her to retire. She had
earned such low wages that she depended mostly upon SSI and Medicaid
for a very bare existence. Still, this woman learned to use a White
cane well enough to get a couple of blocks to the super market. There
she had to wait until a clerk or stocker had the time to walk around
the store and help her select her groceries. She had never learned to
keep her money straight, so she simply opened her wallet and asked the
clerk to "help yourself".
At home she used a microwave for all of her hot meals. She had burned
up a pot one day and the landlord shut off her cook stove, saying that
it was a wonder she hadn't burned the place down long before. And
maybe he had a point! The build up of grease on the stove was not
conducive to even wanting to touch it. She had been receiving some
in-house assistance, some three hours three days per week, but that
had been cut back to two hours twice a week. I could not tell what
the care worker did, since there was greasy residue on everything,
stuff strewn around, piles of stuff on every flat surface and crumbs
on the furniture.
Former VR Counselors told me that they had "given up" because she just
refused to take better care of herself.
And by the time she was referred to us, it was pretty much true. We
tried teaching her to organize her apartment. She said she was always
too tired, and besides, she was so nervous that she just lost her
temper if she tried. We went through a long list of ADL(adult daily
living) skills. She wanted none of them.
We provided this woman with an audio watch and put touch dots on her
microwave and washer and dryer, and closed her.
The System looks at people such as this woman as not being capable of
being rehabilitated. But here's my question: Is this woman any more
or any less capable than the wealthy man who hires everything done for
him?
In fact, could we make a case that the woman is living more
independently than the wealthy man?
Once we get past the fact that we would rather be in his place, when
we become old and blind, wouldn't you think him to be quite dependent,
if you worked for him?
Yet, the woman comes and goes to the store on her own. She has
adapted to using her microwave, and she is not going hungry. Sure,
she lives in a mess that none of us would want to live in, but it is,
after all, her mess. And she knows her way around it all.
But when the sighted public sees the two of these people, the rich man
with his attendants, and the poor woman with her piles of stuff, which
one do you believe fits the public stereotype best?
My bet is that the public sees the old woman as the helpless, simple
minded, lazy, dependent person.
And there lies the real discrimination. We Americans discriminate
according to wealth. And we do it so naturally that we never even see
it for what it is.
Carl Jarvis
blind people are seen by the general public as Blind People, with
blindness being the only commonality, and then, rather than seeing an
individual, the blind person is seen through the overlay of the
stereotype in use at the time. While this stereotype varies
somewhat over generations and from culture to culture, it does have
some basic negative features. Since we live in a world where sight is
the dominant sense, we blind people are seen as inferior to the
sighted population, simply because we lack that most important sense.
Because we are so few in number, within the total population, and
since most sighted people do not have close relations with someone who
is blind, using the stereotype gives the public a point of reference.
We are seen as basically helpless, dependent upon sighted people for
our most basic needs, somewhat slow, and gentle natured.
We can be taught to play musical instruments, and under sighted
supervision we can be put to simple tasks such as broom winding or
weaving.
Blind people who become visible to the public, those who do hold
competitive jobs, attend colleges, marry and raise children, are seen
by the general public as, "Special" or, "Exceptional". Simple, normal
acts by a blind person draw comments from sighted folks who are not
used to seeing blind people out and about. At a bus stop one day, I
bent to tie a loose shoe string. As I stood up, a woman standing
close by exclaimed, "You do so wonderfully well!"
Why would this woman feel called upon to say such a thing? She would
never have said this to me if I were sighted. And of course she could
see that I was blind because I was using a White Travel Cane. Without
asking this woman, I am certain that she could not imagine tying her
own shoelace if she could not see it. But the funny part, to me, was
that she did not mention that she thought I was amazing because I had
found the bus stop by myself. Maybe she thought some sighted person
dropped me there?
My wife and I entered a restaurant. My wife is fully sighted. We sat
at a table for two, one across from the other. We ordered our dinner
and we both ordered coffee. The waitress brought a pot of coffee and
poured my wife's coffee. She then turned to my cup, filling it and
saying, "Be careful, it's hot!" I said, "Thank you, that's the way I
like it", and rather than letting it go, I looked at my wife, touched
her cup and said, "Be careful, yours is hot, too".
That was not nice of me to do that. The waitress had only her
stereotypical image of blindness to guide her, and she was trying to
be helpful. I might have been better to have said, "Thank you.
That's very helpful. Very hot is the way I like my coffee."
Over the years that I've worked in the field of work with the blind, I
have met blind people who tell me that they never faced
discrimination. But when we spend any time together, I come to
understand that activities I consider to be discriminatory, are seen
by them as activities extended to blind and sighted alike.
A fellow and I entered a coffee shop for a bite of lunch. Two blind
men. The young waitress rushed over and said "Right this way". She
grabbed my cane and pulled me to the first table past the door. I
said, "We'd like to sit further back, please". "Ah," she stammered,
"The other tables are not cleared yet". My friend said, "This will be
fine", and sat with his back to the exit door. Each time a customer
left, the freezing wind blew onto us. And other customers entered
behind us and were taken back to tables that we had been told were
dirty.
We blind people live in a sighted world and become used to little
discrimination's. If we are aware, and if we are clever, we can often
use them to our advantage. But we also need to be aware of much
bigger discrimination. Employment is one place where discrimination
becomes a serious issue. That is a subject for a long discussion by
itself.
Economics is another area. The lower we are on the economic ladder,
the greater is the discrimination. At the top extreme we met several
wealthy individuals. In each of these cases we were informed that
there was really nothing we could do to assist them, unless we could
bring back their sight...and with the three men I have in mind, they
wanted their youth, too. But in each case, they had hired help. One
man had a "Man's Man" to lay out his clothes, assist him in showering,
dressing and grooming, and guiding from room to room when needed. A
cook prepared his meals and served him. A housekeeper came on a
regular schedule and so did the gardener.
At the other end of town, the other side of the tracks as they used to
say, we visited an elderly woman. She had been legally blind her
entire life, and more recently she had lost almost all of her limited
sight. She had worked for many years at the Seattle Light House for
the Blind, but age and health had forced her to retire. She had
earned such low wages that she depended mostly upon SSI and Medicaid
for a very bare existence. Still, this woman learned to use a White
cane well enough to get a couple of blocks to the super market. There
she had to wait until a clerk or stocker had the time to walk around
the store and help her select her groceries. She had never learned to
keep her money straight, so she simply opened her wallet and asked the
clerk to "help yourself".
At home she used a microwave for all of her hot meals. She had burned
up a pot one day and the landlord shut off her cook stove, saying that
it was a wonder she hadn't burned the place down long before. And
maybe he had a point! The build up of grease on the stove was not
conducive to even wanting to touch it. She had been receiving some
in-house assistance, some three hours three days per week, but that
had been cut back to two hours twice a week. I could not tell what
the care worker did, since there was greasy residue on everything,
stuff strewn around, piles of stuff on every flat surface and crumbs
on the furniture.
Former VR Counselors told me that they had "given up" because she just
refused to take better care of herself.
And by the time she was referred to us, it was pretty much true. We
tried teaching her to organize her apartment. She said she was always
too tired, and besides, she was so nervous that she just lost her
temper if she tried. We went through a long list of ADL(adult daily
living) skills. She wanted none of them.
We provided this woman with an audio watch and put touch dots on her
microwave and washer and dryer, and closed her.
The System looks at people such as this woman as not being capable of
being rehabilitated. But here's my question: Is this woman any more
or any less capable than the wealthy man who hires everything done for
him?
In fact, could we make a case that the woman is living more
independently than the wealthy man?
Once we get past the fact that we would rather be in his place, when
we become old and blind, wouldn't you think him to be quite dependent,
if you worked for him?
Yet, the woman comes and goes to the store on her own. She has
adapted to using her microwave, and she is not going hungry. Sure,
she lives in a mess that none of us would want to live in, but it is,
after all, her mess. And she knows her way around it all.
But when the sighted public sees the two of these people, the rich man
with his attendants, and the poor woman with her piles of stuff, which
one do you believe fits the public stereotype best?
My bet is that the public sees the old woman as the helpless, simple
minded, lazy, dependent person.
And there lies the real discrimination. We Americans discriminate
according to wealth. And we do it so naturally that we never even see
it for what it is.
Carl Jarvis
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of US Mayors
Yup. We ended slavery back in 1865. By the end of that year we were
already plotting ways to keep our control over "Our Negroes". There's
good money in Human Trafficking, especially children and women.
But it's all part of our Great American Culture. The Culture of
Worshiping at the feet of the Golden Calf. Imagine what a different
world we would live in if, instead of asking ourselves, "How can I
make a buck out of that?", we asked ourselves, "How can I help...how
can I be a contributor toward improving Life for all of us?"
Oh, I know. I've been told again and again to "Get Real!" Well, just
because I was born into this culture, and just because that culture
worships the likes of Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers, Bill Gates and
the rest of the "Beautiful People", is no reason for me to follow
along like a drooling, dribbling idiot.
Remember reading of a time when Kings and Queens and Emperors ruled
the nations of the world? They mostly claimed that they were God's
appointed rulers. Can you imagine when the first person stood up and
suggested that the world would be a better place if we removed Kings,
Queens and Emperors? What a Fool!
Well, there are those who say, "We would have a far better world if we
got rid of our worship of money, and if we embraced one another and
put the People and Life of Planet Earth at the top of our "To Do"
list.
Think of it. Instead of doubling down and modernizing our entire
military arsenal, as Donald Trump promises to do, instead of building
the military hardware to protect the financial interests of those
Billionaires we love to Worship, instead of that, we took back our
stolen wealth and put it to work for us, the People, building new
neighborhoods, fully funded public education, retraining the
Servicemen and Women in the long neglected jobs that are the backbone
of any truly Great Nation. Farmers, teachers, Thinkers, Creators,
Inventors, Artists; and when we had a good start here at home, we
might begin sending out real, honest Peace Keepers to assist other
nations...the ones we are now blowing to Kingdom Come.
Sure, it's a Pipe Dream. But if I'm going to dream, I'd rather dream
of a beautiful, healthy Planet Earth, rather than dreaming of becoming
a Billionaire Neanderthal. Like the Neanderthals of bygone days,
these modern holdouts will soon be found only in the pages of our
history books.
Can such a dream become Reality? It can if enough of us begin
dreaming...and planning...and believing that there can be a better
world for all.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/1/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> There's a best selling novel on BARD right now which, I gather, describes a
> practice that occurred in the 30's in the South. White children would be
> stolen in various ways from poor parents, held in group homes under horrible
> conditions, and then sold, put out for adoption, to wealthy adoptive
> parents.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 12:24 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of
> US Mayors
>
> It tears my heart, Frank. Where are all those outraged men and women who
> throw rubber fetus' at the pregnant women going to and from the Health
> Clinics, and call for those who perform abortions to be labeled as
> murderers? I see none of them taking in the orphans and the young children
> whose parents have been murdered by our bombs, and the bombs of our
> international friends. Where is the compassion from those women who would
> as soon kill another woman because she chooses to abort a fetus that was put
> there against her will?
> Where is that army of people shouting out that we will take care of the
> unborn once the living have been cared for?
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
> On 1/31/18, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>> Carl, my wife is/was the social worker for a family (10 kids) of
>> refugees from Somalia. After the red rooster's election the kids were
>> crying tht they would be sent back to Somalia. One day she found their
>> apartment abandoned.
>> It doesn't matter if they fled or were sent back to Somalia by ICE. In
>> either case they are probably dead by now.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 7:09 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass
>> Arrests of US Mayors
>>
>> Frank,
>> Also, don't forget the War Heroes. While Donald Trump delivered a
>> well modulated speech, it was brimming with barely veiled violence.
>> But like Eddie Haskell(Leave it to Beaver), Donald Trump came off like
>> the smug, sneaky bad boy he really is. He wrapped himself in the
>> Stars and Stripes, praised the War Heroes, and made declarations of
>> war on anyone who did not bow and kiss his royal red ring. Especially
>> persons seeking asylum from war torn nations devastated by our
>> American Empire's eternal war on Terror.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 1/31/18, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>>> Carl, in Trump's address what went unnoticed by this blind boy and
>>> had to be explained to me by of all folks a right ling message board
>>> was that in his honored guests Trump had a few of what he called
>>> "heros".
>>> Nope they weren't humanitarians, teachers, nurses, fire fighters, etc.
>>> They were a bunch of white cops. All of whom have had multiple
>>> "officer involved" shootings. Not my heros!
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl
>>> Jarvis
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>> Cc: jamesjarvis98 <jamesjarvis98@gmail.com>; Matthew
>>> <mcblack@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass
>>> Arrests of US Mayors
>>>
>>> "Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of US Mayors!"
>>> Even idle chatter such as this is unnerving. If the Trump
>>> administration attempted such action, in an effort to seat Emperor
>>> Donald Trump on the new American Corporate Empire's Throne, either
>>> the American People would rise up in Revolution, or the Empire would
>>> crush any efforts to resist. Either way, the nation would be in
>>> total disarray. It's hard to conceive of anyone being so arrogant as
>>> to give the finger to the Constitution and the Laws of the Land. But
>>> Donald Trump is doing exactly that. And the cheering fools who went
>>> crazy at Donald Trump's state of his union address, wildly cheering
>>> and slapping their hands every time he suggested another violation of
>>> our democratic institution, seem prepared to follow their "Leader"
>>> into the bowels of Hell.
>>>
>>> Carl Jarvis/Dad/Grandpa
>>>
>>> On 1/30/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of US Mayors Tuesday,
>>>> January 30, 2018 By Ron Fein, Truthout | Op-Ed
>>>>
>>>> (Photo: filo / E+ / Getty Images)
>>>>
>>>> It's 4 am in New York. Federal agents in tactical gear confront the
>>>> police department's mayoral security detail outside Manhattan's
>>>> Gracie Mansion.
>>>> After a tense standoff, the NYPD stands down and steps aside as the
>>>> bedraggled mayor is removed in handcuffs. Across the nation,
>>>> carefully coordinated pre-dawn raids sweep up the mayors of Boston,
>>>> Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle, and the governor of California.
>>>> Two hours later, President Trump tweets victory.
>>>>
>>>> Paranoid conspiracy thriller? Feverish dystopian fantasy? Hardly.
>>>> This is a plan that the Trump administration is actively considering.
>>>> On January 16, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen told
>>>> the Senate Judiciary Committee that, at her department's request,
>>>> federal prosecutors are "reviewing what avenues might be available"
>>>> to arrest and prosecute mayors of sanctuary cities for harboring
>>>> unauthorized immigrants.
>>>>
>>>> Nielsen's testimony wasn't even the first time in January that the
>>>> administration floated the idea of arresting mayors and governors.
>>>> Two weeks earlier, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs
>>>> Enforcement Thomas Homan told a Fox News host, "We gotta start
>>>> charging some of these politicians with crimes."
>>>>
>>>> This is dangerous, dangerous talk.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to understand what a sanctuary city (or state) status
>>>> means.
>>>> While local policies vary and there is no universal definition of
>>>> the term, in sanctuary cities, local police stick to enforcing local
>>>> and state law, not federal immigration law. That frustrates federal
>>>> authorities, but it's not obstruction, let alone nullification.
>>>> Federal officers can still enforce federal immigration law. They
>>>> just have to do it on their own.
>>>>
>>>> The question here is not whether sanctuary policies are wise. The
>>>> question here is whether our constitutional democracy can survive
>>>> mass roundups of mayors and governors for refusing to use local
>>>> resources to help enforce federal immigration.
>>>>
>>>> To be sure, elected officials are not immune from the law. Many have
>>>> spent time in the federal penitentiary for corruption. And elected
>>>> officials who deliberately violate court orders can be subject to
>>>> criminal contempt of court. For example, in the 1960s, Mississippi's
>>>> governor was charged with criminal contempt for defying a court
>>>> order to desegregate the University of Mississippi. And former
>>>> Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio was convicted for disobeying a court
>>>> order to stop unconstitutional policing practices.
>>>> (President Trump pardoned him, but that pardon is the subject of
>>>> ongoing and potential future litigation.)
>>>>
>>>> It's possible that administration officials are performing elaborate
>>>> theater for an audience of one -- the president. Trump himself often
>>>> says "We're looking into it" as a way to dodge an awkward question.
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps the Department of Justice chuckled at the request for
>>>> criminal prosecution of mayors, but is considering narrower options
>>>> to punish sanctuary cities. There aren't many, partly because most
>>>> sanctuary policies don't even violate any federal statute. More
>>>> importantly, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in 1997,
>>>> the Constitution prohibits the federal government from "commandeering"
>>>> local law enforcement to enforce federal law. Even Congress's power
>>>> to condition federal funds is limited; as Chief Justice John Roberts
>>>> explained in 2012, Congress cannot use its spending power to "coerce"
>>>> a state "to adopt a federal regulatory system as its own." That's
>>>> partly why a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against
>>>> Trump's earlier attempt to withhold federal funds from sanctuary
>>>> cities.
>>>>
>>>> But let's not lose the forest for the trees: The United States
>>>> government is contemplating a mass arrest of US mayors and governors
>>>> for refusing to help the president's agenda.
>>>>
>>>> We've seen this before in other countries. Mass purges of dissident
>>>> local officials are moves from Putin's Russia (if not Stalin's) or
>>>> Erdoğan's Turkey. But nothing in our own history has prepared us for
>>>> this moment.
>>>>
>>>> Is this a red flag for autocracy? Some take comfort in Trump's
>>>> disorganization and distraction. On this theory, breaking the
>>>> republic is a full-time job, not something you squeeze in between
>>>> golf and live-tweeting morning television. But as longtime Putin
>>>> critic Masha Gessen notes, the first rule for survival in an
>>>> autocracy is to "believe the autocrat. He means what he says." And
>>>> even if Trump himself doesn't know how to achieve his goals, the
>>>> people running the president's immigration enforcement policy
>>>> -- Secretary Nielsen, Acting Director Homan and, of course, Attorney
>>>> General Jeff Sessions -- know what they are doing, and how to
>>>> achieve what they and the president want.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it won't happen. Maybe cooler heads will prevail. But we
>>>> should reflect on the chilling fact that President Trump's
>>>> handpicked appointees to run immigration enforcement openly discuss
>>>> prosecuting the mayors of US cities. We must prepare for the day
>>>> when the administration makes good on its threat.
>>>>
>>>> We may not get a second chance.
>>>> Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron Fein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron Fein is the legal director of Free Speech For People, a national
>>>> nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that engages in legal advocacy
>>>> to confront the misuse of the US Constitution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Related Stories
>>>> States and Local Advocates Lead the Way for Criminal Legal System
>>>> Reform By Jessicah Pierre, Inequality.org | News Analysis What Jeff
>>>> Sessions' Latest Attack Means for the Future of Legal Marijuana By
>>>> Mike Ludwig, Truthout | News Analysis Sessions Vows to Issue
>>>> Subpoenas in Immigrant-Demonizing Inquest Against "Sanctuary Cities"
>>>> By Sam Knight, The District Sentinel | Report
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
already plotting ways to keep our control over "Our Negroes". There's
good money in Human Trafficking, especially children and women.
But it's all part of our Great American Culture. The Culture of
Worshiping at the feet of the Golden Calf. Imagine what a different
world we would live in if, instead of asking ourselves, "How can I
make a buck out of that?", we asked ourselves, "How can I help...how
can I be a contributor toward improving Life for all of us?"
Oh, I know. I've been told again and again to "Get Real!" Well, just
because I was born into this culture, and just because that culture
worships the likes of Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers, Bill Gates and
the rest of the "Beautiful People", is no reason for me to follow
along like a drooling, dribbling idiot.
Remember reading of a time when Kings and Queens and Emperors ruled
the nations of the world? They mostly claimed that they were God's
appointed rulers. Can you imagine when the first person stood up and
suggested that the world would be a better place if we removed Kings,
Queens and Emperors? What a Fool!
Well, there are those who say, "We would have a far better world if we
got rid of our worship of money, and if we embraced one another and
put the People and Life of Planet Earth at the top of our "To Do"
list.
Think of it. Instead of doubling down and modernizing our entire
military arsenal, as Donald Trump promises to do, instead of building
the military hardware to protect the financial interests of those
Billionaires we love to Worship, instead of that, we took back our
stolen wealth and put it to work for us, the People, building new
neighborhoods, fully funded public education, retraining the
Servicemen and Women in the long neglected jobs that are the backbone
of any truly Great Nation. Farmers, teachers, Thinkers, Creators,
Inventors, Artists; and when we had a good start here at home, we
might begin sending out real, honest Peace Keepers to assist other
nations...the ones we are now blowing to Kingdom Come.
Sure, it's a Pipe Dream. But if I'm going to dream, I'd rather dream
of a beautiful, healthy Planet Earth, rather than dreaming of becoming
a Billionaire Neanderthal. Like the Neanderthals of bygone days,
these modern holdouts will soon be found only in the pages of our
history books.
Can such a dream become Reality? It can if enough of us begin
dreaming...and planning...and believing that there can be a better
world for all.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/1/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> There's a best selling novel on BARD right now which, I gather, describes a
> practice that occurred in the 30's in the South. White children would be
> stolen in various ways from poor parents, held in group homes under horrible
> conditions, and then sold, put out for adoption, to wealthy adoptive
> parents.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 12:24 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of
> US Mayors
>
> It tears my heart, Frank. Where are all those outraged men and women who
> throw rubber fetus' at the pregnant women going to and from the Health
> Clinics, and call for those who perform abortions to be labeled as
> murderers? I see none of them taking in the orphans and the young children
> whose parents have been murdered by our bombs, and the bombs of our
> international friends. Where is the compassion from those women who would
> as soon kill another woman because she chooses to abort a fetus that was put
> there against her will?
> Where is that army of people shouting out that we will take care of the
> unborn once the living have been cared for?
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
> On 1/31/18, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>> Carl, my wife is/was the social worker for a family (10 kids) of
>> refugees from Somalia. After the red rooster's election the kids were
>> crying tht they would be sent back to Somalia. One day she found their
>> apartment abandoned.
>> It doesn't matter if they fled or were sent back to Somalia by ICE. In
>> either case they are probably dead by now.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 7:09 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass
>> Arrests of US Mayors
>>
>> Frank,
>> Also, don't forget the War Heroes. While Donald Trump delivered a
>> well modulated speech, it was brimming with barely veiled violence.
>> But like Eddie Haskell(Leave it to Beaver), Donald Trump came off like
>> the smug, sneaky bad boy he really is. He wrapped himself in the
>> Stars and Stripes, praised the War Heroes, and made declarations of
>> war on anyone who did not bow and kiss his royal red ring. Especially
>> persons seeking asylum from war torn nations devastated by our
>> American Empire's eternal war on Terror.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 1/31/18, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>>> Carl, in Trump's address what went unnoticed by this blind boy and
>>> had to be explained to me by of all folks a right ling message board
>>> was that in his honored guests Trump had a few of what he called
>>> "heros".
>>> Nope they weren't humanitarians, teachers, nurses, fire fighters, etc.
>>> They were a bunch of white cops. All of whom have had multiple
>>> "officer involved" shootings. Not my heros!
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl
>>> Jarvis
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>> Cc: jamesjarvis98 <jamesjarvis98@gmail.com>; Matthew
>>> <mcblack@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass
>>> Arrests of US Mayors
>>>
>>> "Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of US Mayors!"
>>> Even idle chatter such as this is unnerving. If the Trump
>>> administration attempted such action, in an effort to seat Emperor
>>> Donald Trump on the new American Corporate Empire's Throne, either
>>> the American People would rise up in Revolution, or the Empire would
>>> crush any efforts to resist. Either way, the nation would be in
>>> total disarray. It's hard to conceive of anyone being so arrogant as
>>> to give the finger to the Constitution and the Laws of the Land. But
>>> Donald Trump is doing exactly that. And the cheering fools who went
>>> crazy at Donald Trump's state of his union address, wildly cheering
>>> and slapping their hands every time he suggested another violation of
>>> our democratic institution, seem prepared to follow their "Leader"
>>> into the bowels of Hell.
>>>
>>> Carl Jarvis/Dad/Grandpa
>>>
>>> On 1/30/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of US Mayors Tuesday,
>>>> January 30, 2018 By Ron Fein, Truthout | Op-Ed
>>>>
>>>> (Photo: filo / E+ / Getty Images)
>>>>
>>>> It's 4 am in New York. Federal agents in tactical gear confront the
>>>> police department's mayoral security detail outside Manhattan's
>>>> Gracie Mansion.
>>>> After a tense standoff, the NYPD stands down and steps aside as the
>>>> bedraggled mayor is removed in handcuffs. Across the nation,
>>>> carefully coordinated pre-dawn raids sweep up the mayors of Boston,
>>>> Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle, and the governor of California.
>>>> Two hours later, President Trump tweets victory.
>>>>
>>>> Paranoid conspiracy thriller? Feverish dystopian fantasy? Hardly.
>>>> This is a plan that the Trump administration is actively considering.
>>>> On January 16, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen told
>>>> the Senate Judiciary Committee that, at her department's request,
>>>> federal prosecutors are "reviewing what avenues might be available"
>>>> to arrest and prosecute mayors of sanctuary cities for harboring
>>>> unauthorized immigrants.
>>>>
>>>> Nielsen's testimony wasn't even the first time in January that the
>>>> administration floated the idea of arresting mayors and governors.
>>>> Two weeks earlier, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs
>>>> Enforcement Thomas Homan told a Fox News host, "We gotta start
>>>> charging some of these politicians with crimes."
>>>>
>>>> This is dangerous, dangerous talk.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to understand what a sanctuary city (or state) status
>>>> means.
>>>> While local policies vary and there is no universal definition of
>>>> the term, in sanctuary cities, local police stick to enforcing local
>>>> and state law, not federal immigration law. That frustrates federal
>>>> authorities, but it's not obstruction, let alone nullification.
>>>> Federal officers can still enforce federal immigration law. They
>>>> just have to do it on their own.
>>>>
>>>> The question here is not whether sanctuary policies are wise. The
>>>> question here is whether our constitutional democracy can survive
>>>> mass roundups of mayors and governors for refusing to use local
>>>> resources to help enforce federal immigration.
>>>>
>>>> To be sure, elected officials are not immune from the law. Many have
>>>> spent time in the federal penitentiary for corruption. And elected
>>>> officials who deliberately violate court orders can be subject to
>>>> criminal contempt of court. For example, in the 1960s, Mississippi's
>>>> governor was charged with criminal contempt for defying a court
>>>> order to desegregate the University of Mississippi. And former
>>>> Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio was convicted for disobeying a court
>>>> order to stop unconstitutional policing practices.
>>>> (President Trump pardoned him, but that pardon is the subject of
>>>> ongoing and potential future litigation.)
>>>>
>>>> It's possible that administration officials are performing elaborate
>>>> theater for an audience of one -- the president. Trump himself often
>>>> says "We're looking into it" as a way to dodge an awkward question.
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps the Department of Justice chuckled at the request for
>>>> criminal prosecution of mayors, but is considering narrower options
>>>> to punish sanctuary cities. There aren't many, partly because most
>>>> sanctuary policies don't even violate any federal statute. More
>>>> importantly, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in 1997,
>>>> the Constitution prohibits the federal government from "commandeering"
>>>> local law enforcement to enforce federal law. Even Congress's power
>>>> to condition federal funds is limited; as Chief Justice John Roberts
>>>> explained in 2012, Congress cannot use its spending power to "coerce"
>>>> a state "to adopt a federal regulatory system as its own." That's
>>>> partly why a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against
>>>> Trump's earlier attempt to withhold federal funds from sanctuary
>>>> cities.
>>>>
>>>> But let's not lose the forest for the trees: The United States
>>>> government is contemplating a mass arrest of US mayors and governors
>>>> for refusing to help the president's agenda.
>>>>
>>>> We've seen this before in other countries. Mass purges of dissident
>>>> local officials are moves from Putin's Russia (if not Stalin's) or
>>>> Erdoğan's Turkey. But nothing in our own history has prepared us for
>>>> this moment.
>>>>
>>>> Is this a red flag for autocracy? Some take comfort in Trump's
>>>> disorganization and distraction. On this theory, breaking the
>>>> republic is a full-time job, not something you squeeze in between
>>>> golf and live-tweeting morning television. But as longtime Putin
>>>> critic Masha Gessen notes, the first rule for survival in an
>>>> autocracy is to "believe the autocrat. He means what he says." And
>>>> even if Trump himself doesn't know how to achieve his goals, the
>>>> people running the president's immigration enforcement policy
>>>> -- Secretary Nielsen, Acting Director Homan and, of course, Attorney
>>>> General Jeff Sessions -- know what they are doing, and how to
>>>> achieve what they and the president want.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it won't happen. Maybe cooler heads will prevail. But we
>>>> should reflect on the chilling fact that President Trump's
>>>> handpicked appointees to run immigration enforcement openly discuss
>>>> prosecuting the mayors of US cities. We must prepare for the day
>>>> when the administration makes good on its threat.
>>>>
>>>> We may not get a second chance.
>>>> Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron Fein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron Fein is the legal director of Free Speech For People, a national
>>>> nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that engages in legal advocacy
>>>> to confront the misuse of the US Constitution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Related Stories
>>>> States and Local Advocates Lead the Way for Criminal Legal System
>>>> Reform By Jessicah Pierre, Inequality.org | News Analysis What Jeff
>>>> Sessions' Latest Attack Means for the Future of Legal Marijuana By
>>>> Mike Ludwig, Truthout | News Analysis Sessions Vows to Issue
>>>> Subpoenas in Immigrant-Demonizing Inquest Against "Sanctuary Cities"
>>>> By Sam Knight, The District Sentinel | Report
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Re: [blind-democracy] Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of US Mayors
"Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of US Mayors!"
Even idle chatter such as this is unnerving. If the Trump
administration attempted such action, in an effort to seat Emperor
Donald Trump on the new American Corporate Empire's Throne, either the
American People would rise up in Revolution, or the Empire would crush
any efforts to resist. Either way, the nation would be in total
disarray. It's hard to conceive of anyone being so arrogant as to
give the finger to the Constitution and the Laws of the Land. But
Donald Trump is doing exactly that. And the cheering fools who went
crazy at Donald Trump's state of his union address, wildly cheering
and slapping their hands every time he suggested another violation of
our democratic institution, seem prepared to follow their "Leader"
into the bowels of Hell.
Carl Jarvis/Dad/Grandpa
On 1/30/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of US Mayors
> Tuesday, January 30, 2018
> By Ron Fein, Truthout | Op-Ed
>
> (Photo: filo / E+ / Getty Images)
>
> It's 4 am in New York. Federal agents in tactical gear confront the police
> department's mayoral security detail outside Manhattan's Gracie Mansion.
> After a tense standoff, the NYPD stands down and steps aside as the
> bedraggled mayor is removed in handcuffs. Across the nation, carefully
> coordinated pre-dawn raids sweep up the mayors of Boston, Chicago, San
> Francisco and Seattle, and the governor of California. Two hours later,
> President Trump tweets victory.
>
> Paranoid conspiracy thriller? Feverish dystopian fantasy? Hardly. This is a
> plan that the Trump administration is actively considering. On January 16,
> Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary
> Committee that, at her department's request, federal prosecutors are
> "reviewing what avenues might be available" to arrest and prosecute mayors
> of sanctuary cities for harboring unauthorized immigrants.
>
> Nielsen's testimony wasn't even the first time in January that the
> administration floated the idea of arresting mayors and governors. Two
> weeks
> earlier, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Thomas
> Homan
> told a Fox News host, "We gotta start charging some of these politicians
> with crimes."
>
> This is dangerous, dangerous talk.
>
> It's important to understand what a sanctuary city (or state) status means.
> While local policies vary and there is no universal definition of the term,
> in sanctuary cities, local police stick to enforcing local and state law,
> not federal immigration law. That frustrates federal authorities, but it's
> not obstruction, let alone nullification. Federal officers can still
> enforce
> federal immigration law. They just have to do it on their own.
>
> The question here is not whether sanctuary policies are wise. The question
> here is whether our constitutional democracy can survive mass roundups of
> mayors and governors for refusing to use local resources to help enforce
> federal immigration.
>
> To be sure, elected officials are not immune from the law. Many have spent
> time in the federal penitentiary for corruption. And elected officials who
> deliberately violate court orders can be subject to criminal contempt of
> court. For example, in the 1960s, Mississippi's governor was charged with
> criminal contempt for defying a court order to desegregate the University
> of
> Mississippi. And former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio was convicted for
> disobeying a court order to stop unconstitutional policing practices.
> (President Trump pardoned him, but that pardon is the subject of ongoing
> and
> potential future litigation.)
>
> It's possible that administration officials are performing elaborate
> theater
> for an audience of one -- the president. Trump himself often says "We're
> looking into it" as a way to dodge an awkward question.
>
> Or perhaps the Department of Justice chuckled at the request for criminal
> prosecution of mayors, but is considering narrower options to punish
> sanctuary cities. There aren't many, partly because most sanctuary policies
> don't even violate any federal statute. More importantly, as the late
> Justice Antonin Scalia explained in 1997, the Constitution prohibits the
> federal government from "commandeering" local law enforcement to enforce
> federal law. Even Congress's power to condition federal funds is limited;
> as
> Chief Justice John Roberts explained in 2012, Congress cannot use its
> spending power to "coerce" a state "to adopt a federal regulatory system as
> its own." That's partly why a federal judge issued a permanent injunction
> against Trump's earlier attempt to withhold federal funds from sanctuary
> cities.
>
> But let's not lose the forest for the trees: The United States government
> is
> contemplating a mass arrest of US mayors and governors for refusing to help
> the president's agenda.
>
> We've seen this before in other countries. Mass purges of dissident local
> officials are moves from Putin's Russia (if not Stalin's) or Erdoğan's
> Turkey. But nothing in our own history has prepared us for this moment.
>
> Is this a red flag for autocracy? Some take comfort in Trump's
> disorganization and distraction. On this theory, breaking the republic is a
> full-time job, not something you squeeze in between golf and live-tweeting
> morning television. But as longtime Putin critic Masha Gessen notes, the
> first rule for survival in an autocracy is to "believe the autocrat. He
> means what he says." And even if Trump himself doesn't know how to achieve
> his goals, the people running the president's immigration enforcement
> policy
> -- Secretary Nielsen, Acting Director Homan and, of course, Attorney
> General
> Jeff Sessions -- know what they are doing, and how to achieve what they and
> the president want.
>
> Maybe it won't happen. Maybe cooler heads will prevail. But we should
> reflect on the chilling fact that President Trump's handpicked appointees
> to
> run immigration enforcement openly discuss prosecuting the mayors of US
> cities. We must prepare for the day when the administration makes good on
> its threat.
>
> We may not get a second chance.
> Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron Fein
>
>
> Ron Fein is the legal director of Free Speech For People, a national
> nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that engages in legal advocacy to
> confront the misuse of the US Constitution.
>
>
> Related Stories
> States and Local Advocates Lead the Way for Criminal Legal System Reform
> By Jessicah Pierre, Inequality.org | News Analysis
> What Jeff Sessions' Latest Attack Means for the Future of Legal Marijuana
> By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | News Analysis
> Sessions Vows to Issue Subpoenas in Immigrant-Demonizing Inquest Against
> "Sanctuary Cities"
> By Sam Knight, The District Sentinel | Report
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Even idle chatter such as this is unnerving. If the Trump
administration attempted such action, in an effort to seat Emperor
Donald Trump on the new American Corporate Empire's Throne, either the
American People would rise up in Revolution, or the Empire would crush
any efforts to resist. Either way, the nation would be in total
disarray. It's hard to conceive of anyone being so arrogant as to
give the finger to the Constitution and the Laws of the Land. But
Donald Trump is doing exactly that. And the cheering fools who went
crazy at Donald Trump's state of his union address, wildly cheering
and slapping their hands every time he suggested another violation of
our democratic institution, seem prepared to follow their "Leader"
into the bowels of Hell.
Carl Jarvis/Dad/Grandpa
On 1/30/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Trump Officials Are Exploring Mass Arrests of US Mayors
> Tuesday, January 30, 2018
> By Ron Fein, Truthout | Op-Ed
>
> (Photo: filo / E+ / Getty Images)
>
> It's 4 am in New York. Federal agents in tactical gear confront the police
> department's mayoral security detail outside Manhattan's Gracie Mansion.
> After a tense standoff, the NYPD stands down and steps aside as the
> bedraggled mayor is removed in handcuffs. Across the nation, carefully
> coordinated pre-dawn raids sweep up the mayors of Boston, Chicago, San
> Francisco and Seattle, and the governor of California. Two hours later,
> President Trump tweets victory.
>
> Paranoid conspiracy thriller? Feverish dystopian fantasy? Hardly. This is a
> plan that the Trump administration is actively considering. On January 16,
> Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary
> Committee that, at her department's request, federal prosecutors are
> "reviewing what avenues might be available" to arrest and prosecute mayors
> of sanctuary cities for harboring unauthorized immigrants.
>
> Nielsen's testimony wasn't even the first time in January that the
> administration floated the idea of arresting mayors and governors. Two
> weeks
> earlier, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Thomas
> Homan
> told a Fox News host, "We gotta start charging some of these politicians
> with crimes."
>
> This is dangerous, dangerous talk.
>
> It's important to understand what a sanctuary city (or state) status means.
> While local policies vary and there is no universal definition of the term,
> in sanctuary cities, local police stick to enforcing local and state law,
> not federal immigration law. That frustrates federal authorities, but it's
> not obstruction, let alone nullification. Federal officers can still
> enforce
> federal immigration law. They just have to do it on their own.
>
> The question here is not whether sanctuary policies are wise. The question
> here is whether our constitutional democracy can survive mass roundups of
> mayors and governors for refusing to use local resources to help enforce
> federal immigration.
>
> To be sure, elected officials are not immune from the law. Many have spent
> time in the federal penitentiary for corruption. And elected officials who
> deliberately violate court orders can be subject to criminal contempt of
> court. For example, in the 1960s, Mississippi's governor was charged with
> criminal contempt for defying a court order to desegregate the University
> of
> Mississippi. And former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio was convicted for
> disobeying a court order to stop unconstitutional policing practices.
> (President Trump pardoned him, but that pardon is the subject of ongoing
> and
> potential future litigation.)
>
> It's possible that administration officials are performing elaborate
> theater
> for an audience of one -- the president. Trump himself often says "We're
> looking into it" as a way to dodge an awkward question.
>
> Or perhaps the Department of Justice chuckled at the request for criminal
> prosecution of mayors, but is considering narrower options to punish
> sanctuary cities. There aren't many, partly because most sanctuary policies
> don't even violate any federal statute. More importantly, as the late
> Justice Antonin Scalia explained in 1997, the Constitution prohibits the
> federal government from "commandeering" local law enforcement to enforce
> federal law. Even Congress's power to condition federal funds is limited;
> as
> Chief Justice John Roberts explained in 2012, Congress cannot use its
> spending power to "coerce" a state "to adopt a federal regulatory system as
> its own." That's partly why a federal judge issued a permanent injunction
> against Trump's earlier attempt to withhold federal funds from sanctuary
> cities.
>
> But let's not lose the forest for the trees: The United States government
> is
> contemplating a mass arrest of US mayors and governors for refusing to help
> the president's agenda.
>
> We've seen this before in other countries. Mass purges of dissident local
> officials are moves from Putin's Russia (if not Stalin's) or Erdoğan's
> Turkey. But nothing in our own history has prepared us for this moment.
>
> Is this a red flag for autocracy? Some take comfort in Trump's
> disorganization and distraction. On this theory, breaking the republic is a
> full-time job, not something you squeeze in between golf and live-tweeting
> morning television. But as longtime Putin critic Masha Gessen notes, the
> first rule for survival in an autocracy is to "believe the autocrat. He
> means what he says." And even if Trump himself doesn't know how to achieve
> his goals, the people running the president's immigration enforcement
> policy
> -- Secretary Nielsen, Acting Director Homan and, of course, Attorney
> General
> Jeff Sessions -- know what they are doing, and how to achieve what they and
> the president want.
>
> Maybe it won't happen. Maybe cooler heads will prevail. But we should
> reflect on the chilling fact that President Trump's handpicked appointees
> to
> run immigration enforcement openly discuss prosecuting the mayors of US
> cities. We must prepare for the day when the administration makes good on
> its threat.
>
> We may not get a second chance.
> Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron Fein
>
>
> Ron Fein is the legal director of Free Speech For People, a national
> nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that engages in legal advocacy to
> confront the misuse of the US Constitution.
>
>
> Related Stories
> States and Local Advocates Lead the Way for Criminal Legal System Reform
> By Jessicah Pierre, Inequality.org | News Analysis
> What Jeff Sessions' Latest Attack Means for the Future of Legal Marijuana
> By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | News Analysis
> Sessions Vows to Issue Subpoenas in Immigrant-Demonizing Inquest Against
> "Sanctuary Cities"
> By Sam Knight, The District Sentinel | Report
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Re: [acb-chat] Trump Is a Racist
Good Tuesday Morning, Bob and All who wait eagerly to hear Donald
Trump put his spin on how really wonderful he has made this really
great nation in only one short year! Really!
In fact Bob, you and I may agree on more areas than we disagree. You
wrote, "blind people need to, for the most part, adapt to the sighted
world rather than to expect/demand that
the sighted world adapt to the blindness world and to afford them
extensive accommodations."
It's my position that we all comprise the society in which we all
live. Old, young, male, female, tall, short, and any shade of black
to white. Most everyone has flaws in their makeup. Superman and
Wonder Woman only exist in the comic books.
Certainly how each of us succeed is dependent upon our own individual
makeup. But to at least an equal extent, how society(all of us)looks
at group differences will determine how big the road blocks are, in
our efforts to succeed.
And so far as accommodations are concerned, the fewer the better. For
example, while we use dog guides and travel canes today, many of us
blind people went out and about for generations prior to these
accommodations. As I look about my office, the devices I use today
did not exist when I attended the Adult Training Program back in 1965.
But I used the available accommodations back when I attended the
University of Washington armed with a slate and stylus and a five inch
reel to reel tape recorder.
And the "old timers" gave me a hard time because they did not have the
benefit of tape recorders when they attended college.
You stated, "The sighted world has many stereotypical attitudes about blind
people. One must ask: why is this? Perhaps, it is due to the way
that many blind people conduct themselves via mannerism and/or their
attitudes of expecting accommodations..." This is one of those areas
in which we differ. Why not as easily suggest that the blind people
are simply responding to the societal expectations? When I was young,
the Negroes I met, mostly shuffled and looked down at their feet and
smiled with big white teeth and said, "Yasuh", and "Nos uh". Did they
"create" this stereotype? Or did they use society's stereotype to
shield themselves?
When I visited some friends, inside the privacy of their homes, they
were very different people. And in their Black Churches, they began
Movements that led to leaders like Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior.
I believe that it is important to recognize the "blindness
stereotypes". We need to understand them if we are going to challenge
them, and eliminate them. Simply dismissing them by saying that blind
people have brought them down on themselves is not going to change
anything.
We are members of a small, almost invisible group. Telling folks who
discriminate against us that we are really bright, capable and
industrious people, will certainly have some impact, but it will be
generations before the "helpless, pitiful" label is removed.
You also wrote, "...I
contend that if one is qualified and presents themselves effectively,
they will have an opportunity for employment. That is not to say that
one may not have to have superior skills or more effective
presentation skills over his sighted competitor to achieve his
objective. If you want to call that discrimination, that is your
choice. I prefer to call it reality."
Reality or discrimination, examples are overwhelming as to how
disabling social attitudes can be. A friend of mine, a young Black
woman, also has Albinism. With African features, White skin, and
being a Woman, she has had many barriers placed in her road to
success. For 8 years she applied to teach in the Seattle Public
Schools. For 8 years she was turned down, even though she had been
fully employed in a private school, even though she had graduated at
the top of her class, and even though she was hired by the Office of
the Superintendent of Public Instruction(SPI)to teach teachers during
summer schools. She was elected secretary of the American Council of
the Blind, 3 times. As personable and as bright as you could imagine,
it took 8 years before Seattle finally came around to giving her a
chance.
This is hard core discrimination. This woman had her life put on hold
for 8 years because Society could not see beyond its collective
stereotype.
And added to our collective attitudes is our tendency to blame the
victims. "If only you were not so thin skinned. If you just tried
harder. If you didn't go about expecting others to take care of you".
Over and over we blame the victims for behaving exactly the way we
expect them to behave. How do you expect them to change, when all of
their lives they have understood that this is how blind people behave?
Do you think that everybody is as skilled as you? The fact that you
and I have a measure of independence applies only to our lives and
successes. Of course we might offer our successes in educating other
blind people, and in our efforts to put a dent in the general blind
stereotype.
And so, for this exciting day when we will get told how truly great
Donald Trump is, I remain, with my glass brim full of hope,
Carl Jarvis
On 1/23/18, Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning Carl:
>
> In response to your most recent correspondence, I have the following
> observations/comments/opinions:
> *. Although I was 14 years old when my parents died and I was
> left primarily alone to fend for myself, they, fortunately for me,
> instilled in me that my blindness was an inconvenience for me to be
> overcome rather than a handicap. This has been my philosophy for my
> entire life. Therefore, I reject your premise that blind people need
> an island of protection. In my opinion, blind people need to for the
> most part adapt to the sighted world rather than to expect/demand that
> the sighted world adapt to the blindness world and to afford them
> extensive accommodations.
> *. The sighted world has many stereotypical attitudes about blind
> people. One must ask: why is this? Perhaps, it is due to the way
> that many blind people conduct themselves via mannerism and/or their
> attitudes of expecting accommodations. If you are always asking for
> assistance or accommodations, the public quickly perceives that blind
> people are unable to care for themselves or be productive citizens.
> *. Honestly, I don't remember ever stating that I had not
> encountered discrimination. Prior to my starting my own consulting
> company, I had positions ranging from a programmer to a vice president
> of product development for several different private sector companies.
> Yes, I have encountered what you would call discrimination along the
> way. However, I choose to call it a lack of education by the
> discriminator and accept it as my responsibility to inform them
> concerning their stereotypical attitudes. However, There is a thin
> line between discrimination, not being qualified/a good match for the
> position, or having someone more qualified for the position. If one
> is a hyper sensitive blind person and always expecting accommodation
> or preferential treatment, it is easy to claim discrimination. I
> contend that if one is qualified and presents themselves effectively,
> they will have an opportunity for employment. That is not to say that
> one may not have to have superior skills or more effective
> presentation skills over his sighted competitor to achieve his
> objective. If you want to call that discrimination, that is your
> choice. I prefer to call it reality.
> *. Again, I don't agree with you that discrimination against
> blind people is as prevalent as it has always been. It amazes me that
> you seem to always take the "glass half empty" perspective in many of
> our exchanges. Embrace the progress that has been made and build on
> that progress rather than focusing on the negative. No matter what
> the issue, things can always be better/improved.
> *. To clarify, When using the term special in our discussion, I
> am referring to expecting preferential treatment because you are
> blind. I view your description of yourself as your uniqueness. Like
> a snowflake, everyone is unique.
> *. You are correct: in my humble opinion, I did not put Brian or
> for that matter, you down. Apparently, Brian did not take issue with
> my comments as he never responded. Perhaps, you are just
> over-sensitive. To set the record straight, my comments are always
> directed at your ideas or attitudes. If you take things personally,
> that is your burden, not mine. If philosophies did not differ, there
> would be no purpose for this list.
> *. You have commented several times relative to our supposed
> economic difference. That's irrelevant. What is important is that we
> both have achieved a measure of success.
> *. You state the ongoing oppression of blind people. In my
> opinion, blind people oppress themselves via their mannerism,
> behavior, attitudes, educational choices, and accepting comments by
> you and others that they are oppressed. Mindset is a wonderful thing.
> *. Correct me if I am wrong, it appears that you take these
> exchanges off the list and interact with me directly. If so, why?
> In conclusion, perhaps it is our philosophical approach that creates
> such dissention in our exchanges. Whereas I support decentralized
> government, freedom of choice, equal opportunity for all, success
> based upon your ability to produce/perform, etc, it seems to me (not
> wanting to label you) that you support a nanny state and equal
> rights/benefits for all no matter what their motivation level or
> capability set may be.
> Have a great day.
>
> Bob Clark
>
> On 1/22/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob,
>> Although the ACB chat list is for a wide range of topics, it is still
>> populated mostly by blind people. Because of the list makeup, any
>> topic discussed can be looked at in how it impacts attitudes about
>> blindness.
>> I constantly try to express the need for people on this list to think
>> about how we can alter prevailing attitudes that are impacting
>> opportunities for blind people. I said, "...I am very sensitive to
>> the need for connection and
>> understanding and eventual agreement, if we are going to create a
>> small Island of Protection for those blind people in the future."
>> Since you indicate that you have never faced discrimination, and
>> since I accept that you believe that, I am not addressing you. But
>> over many years of work for and with the blind, I can say with both
>> assurance and with proof that discrimination through negative
>> attitudes, is as prevalent today as it ever was.
>> You ask if I'm more or less special because I'm blind, and you say
>> that your blindness is irrelevant to your perspective of political
>> issues.
>> So first, I am blind, and that is one part of who I am. As much a
>> part as my being male, white, 82, 6 feet 3 inches, 250 pounds, left
>> handed, married, a father, a grand father, a great grandfather, an
>> American, a Free Thinker unencumbered by political labels, a resident
>> of the Great Olympic Peninsula, and on and on and on. In all of that,
>> I am special. I look around me and find no one else exactly like me.
>> They say we all have a double somewhere, but I've not bumped into me
>> yet. But in being special, I accept that each person I meet is also
>> special. And each special person, as I view you, should be given my
>> respect. I respectfully say that I felt you put Brian down in your
>> recent post. You probably do not feel that way. But you have done
>> the same to me in past posts.
>> Anyway, we special people, despite our individuality, do need to
>> discuss how blindness impacts our lives, and what we can do
>> collectively, to improve opportunities for those blind people coming
>> behind us.
>> While I am not as economically successful as are you, nonetheless, you
>> and I have managed to find success in a system that is very oppressive
>> for the majority of blind people. In my world, I believe that it is
>> our responsibility to share with others how we "worked" the system and
>> came out on top.
>> I am a strong promoter of Group Dynamics. While some individuals
>> succeed, they leave little behind them. Many minds create change.
>> So...that's more than too much for one day.
>> Enjoy your success, and I certainly will enjoy mine.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/18, Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Carl:
>>>
>>> First of all, what does blindness have to do with this discussion?
>>> Are you more special or less special because you are blind? Another
>>> opinion: your blindness is irrelevant unless you wish to make it
>>> relevant in these discussions. To me, my blindness is irrelevant and
>>> has nothing to do with my perspective of political issues.
>>> Secondly, what is the difference between you stating your opinions
>>> and I statinbg my opinions? Carl, some of your opinions are just as
>>> objectionable to me as mine are to you.
>>> Have a great day.
>>>
>>> Bob Clark
>>>
>>> On 1/21/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Bob Clark wrote to Brian: "Trump is not a racist. It is obvious that
>>>> you parrot the
>>>> progressive/leftist press and other leftist groups."
>>>> At least I guess Bob was addressing you, Brian. So consider yourself
>>>> chastised and put in your little box.
>>>> What we are looking at, in Bob's remarks is the same approach being
>>>> taken by one nauseating politician after another. "Put down" politics
>>>> may make the 5:00 PM. news, but it says more about the speaker than it
>>>> says about the person being put down.
>>>> So Brian, I say this just to make it clear that whether we agree or
>>>> not, I respect your opinions, and I believe them to be yours.
>>>> Suggesting that a person is simply parroting a line of propaganda is a
>>>> show of contempt. While I disagree with Bob Clark, I have great
>>>> respect for his opinions...wrong as they may be...and believe them to
>>>> be thoughtful conclusions derived through observation and personal
>>>> experience. I feel the same toward you, so Brian, keep your opinions
>>>> coming. When enough of us do this, we will begin to find areas of
>>>> agreement from which to build. As a blind man, and an older blind man
>>>> at that, I am very sensitive to the need for connection and
>>>> understanding and eventual agreement, if we are going to create a
>>>> small Island of Protection for those blind people in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/21/18, Bob via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hello:
>>>>>
>>>>> Although Trump is certainly not a politically correct individual,
>>>>> Trump is not a racist. It is obvious that you parrot the
>>>>> progressive/leftist press and other leftist groups.
>>>>> I guess that you categorize him as racist because he will not deal
>>>>> with the Dacha issue until a continuing resolution is passed.
>>>>> Democrats have shut-down the government over illegal immigrantrs in
>>>>> contrast to supporting the military and the chip program. How many
>>>>> children on the chip program are minorities? I would guess a
>>>>> significant number. Bottom line, Democrats are obstructionist.
>>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/21/18, Brian K. Lingard via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Ottawa Canada
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Bob & List:
>>>>>> Trump is not the worst person since the Jim Crow era.
>>>>>> He is the worst since the Simon Legree era!
>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:51 AM
>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>>>>> range
>>>>>> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever
>>>>>> comes
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> IF you asked me this question one year ago, I would have said that
>>>>>> while
>>>>>> Trump said some horrible things regarding those who are not white, I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> ready to label him a racist. Well, after one year of his presidency I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> ready to label him as such. Just take a quick look at the mounting
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>> The racist in the White House by Renée Graham. By Renée Graham Globe
>>>>>> Columnist. In his first speech as a presidential candidate in 2015,
>>>>>> Donald
>>>>>> Trump declared that Mexican immigrants entering the United States are
>>>>>> "bringing crime. They are rapists. In addition, some, I assume, are
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> people. This was not a dog whistle. This was a bullhorn. There was
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> reason to believe that such inflammatory rhetoric was just a campaign
>>>>>> tactic
>>>>>> to attract a certain rabid demographic. Alternatively, that Trump,
>>>>>> once
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> entered the White House, would temper the racism he has openly
>>>>>> displayed
>>>>>> throughout his public life. Trump's presidency has emboldened white
>>>>>> supremacists. When a neo-Nazi sympathizer at a racist rally in
>>>>>> Charlottesville, Va., allegedly rammed his car into a crowd of
>>>>>> counter
>>>>>> protesters, killing a woman, Trump claimed "many sides" were to
>>>>>> blame.
>>>>>> That
>>>>>> earned him wide condemnation - but also praise from former Klan Grand
>>>>>> Wizard
>>>>>> David Duke. At a press conference later, Trump was still propping up
>>>>>> racists, saying that at the rally there were "very fine people" on
>>>>>> both
>>>>>> sides. Again, white supremacists applauded their man in the White
>>>>>> House.
>>>>>> Trump profanely suggested firing NFL players - the majority of them
>>>>>> black
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> for kneeling during the national anthem as a protest against racial
>>>>>> injustice; he pushed for a black ESPN anchor to be let go for calling
>>>>>> him
>>>>>> "a
>>>>>> white supremacist"; he publicly argued with a black congresswoman
>>>>>> representing the family of a young African-American soldier killed in
>>>>>> Niger
>>>>>> over his brusque comments during a condolence call to the soldier's
>>>>>> widow.
>>>>>> Then, asked to consider restoring protections for immigrants from
>>>>>> Haiti,
>>>>>> El
>>>>>> Salvador, and African nations, he referred to them as "shithole
>>>>>> countries.
>>>>>> Make America Great Again was always a thinly veiled way of saying
>>>>>> "Make
>>>>>> America White Again. From his Muslim travel ban to his stated wish
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> Norwegian immigrants, Trump has sliced open old racial wounds and
>>>>>> inflicted
>>>>>> new, deeper ones. Trump is the worst thing to happen to American race
>>>>>> relations since the Jim Crow era. Renée Graham can be reached at
>>>>>> renee.graham@globe.com <mailto:renee.graham@globe.com> . Follow her
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> Twitter @reneeygraham.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>
Trump put his spin on how really wonderful he has made this really
great nation in only one short year! Really!
In fact Bob, you and I may agree on more areas than we disagree. You
wrote, "blind people need to, for the most part, adapt to the sighted
world rather than to expect/demand that
the sighted world adapt to the blindness world and to afford them
extensive accommodations."
It's my position that we all comprise the society in which we all
live. Old, young, male, female, tall, short, and any shade of black
to white. Most everyone has flaws in their makeup. Superman and
Wonder Woman only exist in the comic books.
Certainly how each of us succeed is dependent upon our own individual
makeup. But to at least an equal extent, how society(all of us)looks
at group differences will determine how big the road blocks are, in
our efforts to succeed.
And so far as accommodations are concerned, the fewer the better. For
example, while we use dog guides and travel canes today, many of us
blind people went out and about for generations prior to these
accommodations. As I look about my office, the devices I use today
did not exist when I attended the Adult Training Program back in 1965.
But I used the available accommodations back when I attended the
University of Washington armed with a slate and stylus and a five inch
reel to reel tape recorder.
And the "old timers" gave me a hard time because they did not have the
benefit of tape recorders when they attended college.
You stated, "The sighted world has many stereotypical attitudes about blind
people. One must ask: why is this? Perhaps, it is due to the way
that many blind people conduct themselves via mannerism and/or their
attitudes of expecting accommodations..." This is one of those areas
in which we differ. Why not as easily suggest that the blind people
are simply responding to the societal expectations? When I was young,
the Negroes I met, mostly shuffled and looked down at their feet and
smiled with big white teeth and said, "Yasuh", and "Nos uh". Did they
"create" this stereotype? Or did they use society's stereotype to
shield themselves?
When I visited some friends, inside the privacy of their homes, they
were very different people. And in their Black Churches, they began
Movements that led to leaders like Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior.
I believe that it is important to recognize the "blindness
stereotypes". We need to understand them if we are going to challenge
them, and eliminate them. Simply dismissing them by saying that blind
people have brought them down on themselves is not going to change
anything.
We are members of a small, almost invisible group. Telling folks who
discriminate against us that we are really bright, capable and
industrious people, will certainly have some impact, but it will be
generations before the "helpless, pitiful" label is removed.
You also wrote, "...I
contend that if one is qualified and presents themselves effectively,
they will have an opportunity for employment. That is not to say that
one may not have to have superior skills or more effective
presentation skills over his sighted competitor to achieve his
objective. If you want to call that discrimination, that is your
choice. I prefer to call it reality."
Reality or discrimination, examples are overwhelming as to how
disabling social attitudes can be. A friend of mine, a young Black
woman, also has Albinism. With African features, White skin, and
being a Woman, she has had many barriers placed in her road to
success. For 8 years she applied to teach in the Seattle Public
Schools. For 8 years she was turned down, even though she had been
fully employed in a private school, even though she had graduated at
the top of her class, and even though she was hired by the Office of
the Superintendent of Public Instruction(SPI)to teach teachers during
summer schools. She was elected secretary of the American Council of
the Blind, 3 times. As personable and as bright as you could imagine,
it took 8 years before Seattle finally came around to giving her a
chance.
This is hard core discrimination. This woman had her life put on hold
for 8 years because Society could not see beyond its collective
stereotype.
And added to our collective attitudes is our tendency to blame the
victims. "If only you were not so thin skinned. If you just tried
harder. If you didn't go about expecting others to take care of you".
Over and over we blame the victims for behaving exactly the way we
expect them to behave. How do you expect them to change, when all of
their lives they have understood that this is how blind people behave?
Do you think that everybody is as skilled as you? The fact that you
and I have a measure of independence applies only to our lives and
successes. Of course we might offer our successes in educating other
blind people, and in our efforts to put a dent in the general blind
stereotype.
And so, for this exciting day when we will get told how truly great
Donald Trump is, I remain, with my glass brim full of hope,
Carl Jarvis
On 1/23/18, Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning Carl:
>
> In response to your most recent correspondence, I have the following
> observations/comments/opinions:
> *. Although I was 14 years old when my parents died and I was
> left primarily alone to fend for myself, they, fortunately for me,
> instilled in me that my blindness was an inconvenience for me to be
> overcome rather than a handicap. This has been my philosophy for my
> entire life. Therefore, I reject your premise that blind people need
> an island of protection. In my opinion, blind people need to for the
> most part adapt to the sighted world rather than to expect/demand that
> the sighted world adapt to the blindness world and to afford them
> extensive accommodations.
> *. The sighted world has many stereotypical attitudes about blind
> people. One must ask: why is this? Perhaps, it is due to the way
> that many blind people conduct themselves via mannerism and/or their
> attitudes of expecting accommodations. If you are always asking for
> assistance or accommodations, the public quickly perceives that blind
> people are unable to care for themselves or be productive citizens.
> *. Honestly, I don't remember ever stating that I had not
> encountered discrimination. Prior to my starting my own consulting
> company, I had positions ranging from a programmer to a vice president
> of product development for several different private sector companies.
> Yes, I have encountered what you would call discrimination along the
> way. However, I choose to call it a lack of education by the
> discriminator and accept it as my responsibility to inform them
> concerning their stereotypical attitudes. However, There is a thin
> line between discrimination, not being qualified/a good match for the
> position, or having someone more qualified for the position. If one
> is a hyper sensitive blind person and always expecting accommodation
> or preferential treatment, it is easy to claim discrimination. I
> contend that if one is qualified and presents themselves effectively,
> they will have an opportunity for employment. That is not to say that
> one may not have to have superior skills or more effective
> presentation skills over his sighted competitor to achieve his
> objective. If you want to call that discrimination, that is your
> choice. I prefer to call it reality.
> *. Again, I don't agree with you that discrimination against
> blind people is as prevalent as it has always been. It amazes me that
> you seem to always take the "glass half empty" perspective in many of
> our exchanges. Embrace the progress that has been made and build on
> that progress rather than focusing on the negative. No matter what
> the issue, things can always be better/improved.
> *. To clarify, When using the term special in our discussion, I
> am referring to expecting preferential treatment because you are
> blind. I view your description of yourself as your uniqueness. Like
> a snowflake, everyone is unique.
> *. You are correct: in my humble opinion, I did not put Brian or
> for that matter, you down. Apparently, Brian did not take issue with
> my comments as he never responded. Perhaps, you are just
> over-sensitive. To set the record straight, my comments are always
> directed at your ideas or attitudes. If you take things personally,
> that is your burden, not mine. If philosophies did not differ, there
> would be no purpose for this list.
> *. You have commented several times relative to our supposed
> economic difference. That's irrelevant. What is important is that we
> both have achieved a measure of success.
> *. You state the ongoing oppression of blind people. In my
> opinion, blind people oppress themselves via their mannerism,
> behavior, attitudes, educational choices, and accepting comments by
> you and others that they are oppressed. Mindset is a wonderful thing.
> *. Correct me if I am wrong, it appears that you take these
> exchanges off the list and interact with me directly. If so, why?
> In conclusion, perhaps it is our philosophical approach that creates
> such dissention in our exchanges. Whereas I support decentralized
> government, freedom of choice, equal opportunity for all, success
> based upon your ability to produce/perform, etc, it seems to me (not
> wanting to label you) that you support a nanny state and equal
> rights/benefits for all no matter what their motivation level or
> capability set may be.
> Have a great day.
>
> Bob Clark
>
> On 1/22/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob,
>> Although the ACB chat list is for a wide range of topics, it is still
>> populated mostly by blind people. Because of the list makeup, any
>> topic discussed can be looked at in how it impacts attitudes about
>> blindness.
>> I constantly try to express the need for people on this list to think
>> about how we can alter prevailing attitudes that are impacting
>> opportunities for blind people. I said, "...I am very sensitive to
>> the need for connection and
>> understanding and eventual agreement, if we are going to create a
>> small Island of Protection for those blind people in the future."
>> Since you indicate that you have never faced discrimination, and
>> since I accept that you believe that, I am not addressing you. But
>> over many years of work for and with the blind, I can say with both
>> assurance and with proof that discrimination through negative
>> attitudes, is as prevalent today as it ever was.
>> You ask if I'm more or less special because I'm blind, and you say
>> that your blindness is irrelevant to your perspective of political
>> issues.
>> So first, I am blind, and that is one part of who I am. As much a
>> part as my being male, white, 82, 6 feet 3 inches, 250 pounds, left
>> handed, married, a father, a grand father, a great grandfather, an
>> American, a Free Thinker unencumbered by political labels, a resident
>> of the Great Olympic Peninsula, and on and on and on. In all of that,
>> I am special. I look around me and find no one else exactly like me.
>> They say we all have a double somewhere, but I've not bumped into me
>> yet. But in being special, I accept that each person I meet is also
>> special. And each special person, as I view you, should be given my
>> respect. I respectfully say that I felt you put Brian down in your
>> recent post. You probably do not feel that way. But you have done
>> the same to me in past posts.
>> Anyway, we special people, despite our individuality, do need to
>> discuss how blindness impacts our lives, and what we can do
>> collectively, to improve opportunities for those blind people coming
>> behind us.
>> While I am not as economically successful as are you, nonetheless, you
>> and I have managed to find success in a system that is very oppressive
>> for the majority of blind people. In my world, I believe that it is
>> our responsibility to share with others how we "worked" the system and
>> came out on top.
>> I am a strong promoter of Group Dynamics. While some individuals
>> succeed, they leave little behind them. Many minds create change.
>> So...that's more than too much for one day.
>> Enjoy your success, and I certainly will enjoy mine.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/18, Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Carl:
>>>
>>> First of all, what does blindness have to do with this discussion?
>>> Are you more special or less special because you are blind? Another
>>> opinion: your blindness is irrelevant unless you wish to make it
>>> relevant in these discussions. To me, my blindness is irrelevant and
>>> has nothing to do with my perspective of political issues.
>>> Secondly, what is the difference between you stating your opinions
>>> and I statinbg my opinions? Carl, some of your opinions are just as
>>> objectionable to me as mine are to you.
>>> Have a great day.
>>>
>>> Bob Clark
>>>
>>> On 1/21/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Bob Clark wrote to Brian: "Trump is not a racist. It is obvious that
>>>> you parrot the
>>>> progressive/leftist press and other leftist groups."
>>>> At least I guess Bob was addressing you, Brian. So consider yourself
>>>> chastised and put in your little box.
>>>> What we are looking at, in Bob's remarks is the same approach being
>>>> taken by one nauseating politician after another. "Put down" politics
>>>> may make the 5:00 PM. news, but it says more about the speaker than it
>>>> says about the person being put down.
>>>> So Brian, I say this just to make it clear that whether we agree or
>>>> not, I respect your opinions, and I believe them to be yours.
>>>> Suggesting that a person is simply parroting a line of propaganda is a
>>>> show of contempt. While I disagree with Bob Clark, I have great
>>>> respect for his opinions...wrong as they may be...and believe them to
>>>> be thoughtful conclusions derived through observation and personal
>>>> experience. I feel the same toward you, so Brian, keep your opinions
>>>> coming. When enough of us do this, we will begin to find areas of
>>>> agreement from which to build. As a blind man, and an older blind man
>>>> at that, I am very sensitive to the need for connection and
>>>> understanding and eventual agreement, if we are going to create a
>>>> small Island of Protection for those blind people in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/21/18, Bob via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hello:
>>>>>
>>>>> Although Trump is certainly not a politically correct individual,
>>>>> Trump is not a racist. It is obvious that you parrot the
>>>>> progressive/leftist press and other leftist groups.
>>>>> I guess that you categorize him as racist because he will not deal
>>>>> with the Dacha issue until a continuing resolution is passed.
>>>>> Democrats have shut-down the government over illegal immigrantrs in
>>>>> contrast to supporting the military and the chip program. How many
>>>>> children on the chip program are minorities? I would guess a
>>>>> significant number. Bottom line, Democrats are obstructionist.
>>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/21/18, Brian K. Lingard via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Ottawa Canada
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Bob & List:
>>>>>> Trump is not the worst person since the Jim Crow era.
>>>>>> He is the worst since the Simon Legree era!
>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:51 AM
>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>>>>> range
>>>>>> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever
>>>>>> comes
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> IF you asked me this question one year ago, I would have said that
>>>>>> while
>>>>>> Trump said some horrible things regarding those who are not white, I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> ready to label him a racist. Well, after one year of his presidency I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> ready to label him as such. Just take a quick look at the mounting
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>> The racist in the White House by Renée Graham. By Renée Graham Globe
>>>>>> Columnist. In his first speech as a presidential candidate in 2015,
>>>>>> Donald
>>>>>> Trump declared that Mexican immigrants entering the United States are
>>>>>> "bringing crime. They are rapists. In addition, some, I assume, are
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> people. This was not a dog whistle. This was a bullhorn. There was
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> reason to believe that such inflammatory rhetoric was just a campaign
>>>>>> tactic
>>>>>> to attract a certain rabid demographic. Alternatively, that Trump,
>>>>>> once
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> entered the White House, would temper the racism he has openly
>>>>>> displayed
>>>>>> throughout his public life. Trump's presidency has emboldened white
>>>>>> supremacists. When a neo-Nazi sympathizer at a racist rally in
>>>>>> Charlottesville, Va., allegedly rammed his car into a crowd of
>>>>>> counter
>>>>>> protesters, killing a woman, Trump claimed "many sides" were to
>>>>>> blame.
>>>>>> That
>>>>>> earned him wide condemnation - but also praise from former Klan Grand
>>>>>> Wizard
>>>>>> David Duke. At a press conference later, Trump was still propping up
>>>>>> racists, saying that at the rally there were "very fine people" on
>>>>>> both
>>>>>> sides. Again, white supremacists applauded their man in the White
>>>>>> House.
>>>>>> Trump profanely suggested firing NFL players - the majority of them
>>>>>> black
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> for kneeling during the national anthem as a protest against racial
>>>>>> injustice; he pushed for a black ESPN anchor to be let go for calling
>>>>>> him
>>>>>> "a
>>>>>> white supremacist"; he publicly argued with a black congresswoman
>>>>>> representing the family of a young African-American soldier killed in
>>>>>> Niger
>>>>>> over his brusque comments during a condolence call to the soldier's
>>>>>> widow.
>>>>>> Then, asked to consider restoring protections for immigrants from
>>>>>> Haiti,
>>>>>> El
>>>>>> Salvador, and African nations, he referred to them as "shithole
>>>>>> countries.
>>>>>> Make America Great Again was always a thinly veiled way of saying
>>>>>> "Make
>>>>>> America White Again. From his Muslim travel ban to his stated wish
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> Norwegian immigrants, Trump has sliced open old racial wounds and
>>>>>> inflicted
>>>>>> new, deeper ones. Trump is the worst thing to happen to American race
>>>>>> relations since the Jim Crow era. Renée Graham can be reached at
>>>>>> renee.graham@globe.com <mailto:renee.graham@globe.com> . Follow her
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> Twitter @reneeygraham.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>
Re: [acb-chat] Thoughts from a teleconference
On 1/30/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 05:34:14 +0000
> Subject: [acb-chat] Thoughts from a teleconference
> To: "General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
> list." <acb-chat@acblists.org>
> Cc: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
>
> We spent this morning on a teleconference with some folks from
> Mississippi State. The purpose of this gathering was to poke around
> at our Older Blind Program here in Washington State, and determine if
> our services are meeting the needs of our clients--how to improve
> them--determine if we are still on target--find ways of providing much
> needed training for our new RT's--and do all of this while looking for
> ways to cut budget a bit. Naturally our first suggestions were that
> the program must find more dollars if it is to meet any of its goals.
> But that's how these sorts of things go. Anyway, in my casting about
> for some materials that would make our case, I ran across an article I
> wrote a few years back, talking about how it is so easy to develop
> certain methods of training, and then stuff clients into this one
> mold, rather than developing training that is specific to each
> person's needs. I sent the article with the following introduction,
> to the Mississippi State Team.
> Carl Jarvis
> ******
>
> Greetings:
> Over my ears in the field of work with the blind and low vision, I've
> met many well intentioned RT's and O&M's who focused on Form. It was, "My
> way
> or the highway!" This, of course, was my own early approach, too. After
> all I was the Professional RT, and teacher knows best! And I was a
> rescuer, to boot. When you have time, below is an article I wrote
> some years ago that hopefully makes
> my point concerning just what we are teaching our clients. Are our
> techniques opening the door of opportunity, or are we placing
> roadblocks in their paths by demanding that they fit our mold?
>
> It was good to meet all of you, and thanks for your time.
> Carl Jarvis
>
> From the March 2008 Braille Forum
>
> LOST IN SPACE
> by Carl Jarvis
> (Reprinted from the Washington Council of the Blind "Newsline.")
>
> Have you ever wondered how it is that one blind person can be dropped off
> in
> the middle of a strange city and find his way home, while another blind
> person can't find his way out of a broom closet if he has both hands on the
> doorknob? For more than 32 years I have been working with blind people of
> all ages, shapes, sizes and abilities. During those years I have compiled a
> pile of mostly unscientific, useless information. But one most puzzling
> question keeps recurring. Why is it that some blind people get lost in
> their
> own shoes, while others seem to have a built-in sonar system?
>
> It appears to have nothing to do with when they became blind, their age or
> education or whether they are left-brain, right-brain or no-brain. So, for
> many years I concluded that it was a matter of developing the correct
> teaching technique. My early indoctrination was straightforward. The
> average
> blind person, with proper training and attitudes, could do just about
> anything.
>
> So, when I applied my magic to my students and nothing happened, I
> considered that it was my failure, not theirs. I just had not found the
> right combination of teaching tools to successfully complete the training.
> Remember the old saying, "A doctor buries his/her mistakes"? Not so for the
> rehab teacher. Our mistakes/failures keep bumping into us at meetings,
> conventions, and knocking at our doors requesting more training. Since many
> of us rehab teachers are rescuers by nature, we roll up our sleeves and
> try,
> try again, invariably ending up with the same results. People were coming
> to
> us, lost in space and seeking help. And our inability to resolve this
> problem began to impact all phases of their rehabilitation training.
> Instead
> of aiming them toward success, we were pointing them to the door marked,
> "Destination: Failure."
>
> Over the years I was absolutely certain that somewhere, somehow, there
> existed the right approach for teaching spatial awareness to blind people.
> My wife, and fellow rehab teacher, had never shared my belief. Despite
> discussing and debating this issue many times, my mind was made up. I
> simply
> could not accept that there are some skills that cannot be taught. Finally
> the light clicked on when Cathy, trying to illustrate her point, said, "You
> know, Carl, you have no sense of rhythm. And despite all these years of
> trying, you still can't follow the beat. You sing just fine but you're
> totally lost in the song, which is better, and safer, than turning you
> loose
> on the dance floor." This brought to mind my mother. She was tone-deaf. We
> always said that Mother sang the tune the old cow died on. She had about
> three notes, and yet she loved music. And I loved music, too. How was it
> that Mother and I could be serious music lovers but not be able to hum or
> dance to the tune?
>
> Of course the answer is that humming and dancing are not central to music
> appreciation. And then it hit me: I was focused on the wrong goal.
> Regardless of whether it could be taught, spatial awareness is not central
> to leading a successful, independent life. Not only was I busy trying to
> teach people to develop a skill which they did not possess, but worse yet,
> I
> was implying that without this skill they could not be successful,
> independent people. Just because a kangaroo can hop doesn't mean I can
> teach
> him to fly. Nor does he need to fly to reach his goal. And just because a
> blind person can get from point A to point B does not mean that I can teach
> him spatial awareness. Some of our brains are simply not set up to work
> that
> way.
>
> This was a hard concept for me to wrap my mind around. Over the years I
> watched many blind people travel about and arrive at their destination.
> Some
> did it with ease, while others did it by trial and error. I figured that
> the
> trial and error folks just needed to practice harder and pay closer
> attention to what they were doing. It never occurred to me that just
> getting
> there was a major success for the spatially challenged. The truth is I had
> no clue as to what these folks were struggling with. Think of trying to
> teach a blind man to see. We could put him through the same drills that we
> use for all sighted folks. Over and over we could force him to peer and
> strain, finally giving up in frustration. We might feel that we had not
> pushed him hard enough. He would be left with the feeling that he was
> incompetent. In the end, we had programmed him for a life of failure.
>
> But of course we know that a blind man cannot be taught to see. Even if his
> eyes move, and he blinks and sheds tears, he is missing something that
> cannot be taught. This absence must be accommodated if he is to function
> independently in life. This is exactly the same course of action needed for
> the spatially challenged. Trying to teach them techniques that work for the
> spatially aware will only frustrate them. What is needed is a set of
> alternative techniques that will assist them in accommodating their
> different approach to space.
>
> Whether we are blind or sighted, I believe that there are great differences
> in how our brains process spatial information. Sighted people accommodate
> this difference, unaware that it even exists. But without sight, this
> difference becomes a major problem for the spatially challenged. It is
> essential that we develop positive alternative techniques which will enable
> people to function successfully in their environment, allowing them to
> fulfill their goals to live productive, independent lives.
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 05:34:14 +0000
> Subject: [acb-chat] Thoughts from a teleconference
> To: "General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
> list." <acb-chat@acblists.org>
> Cc: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
>
> We spent this morning on a teleconference with some folks from
> Mississippi State. The purpose of this gathering was to poke around
> at our Older Blind Program here in Washington State, and determine if
> our services are meeting the needs of our clients--how to improve
> them--determine if we are still on target--find ways of providing much
> needed training for our new RT's--and do all of this while looking for
> ways to cut budget a bit. Naturally our first suggestions were that
> the program must find more dollars if it is to meet any of its goals.
> But that's how these sorts of things go. Anyway, in my casting about
> for some materials that would make our case, I ran across an article I
> wrote a few years back, talking about how it is so easy to develop
> certain methods of training, and then stuff clients into this one
> mold, rather than developing training that is specific to each
> person's needs. I sent the article with the following introduction,
> to the Mississippi State Team.
> Carl Jarvis
> ******
>
> Greetings:
> Over my ears in the field of work with the blind and low vision, I've
> met many well intentioned RT's and O&M's who focused on Form. It was, "My
> way
> or the highway!" This, of course, was my own early approach, too. After
> all I was the Professional RT, and teacher knows best! And I was a
> rescuer, to boot. When you have time, below is an article I wrote
> some years ago that hopefully makes
> my point concerning just what we are teaching our clients. Are our
> techniques opening the door of opportunity, or are we placing
> roadblocks in their paths by demanding that they fit our mold?
>
> It was good to meet all of you, and thanks for your time.
> Carl Jarvis
>
> From the March 2008 Braille Forum
>
> LOST IN SPACE
> by Carl Jarvis
> (Reprinted from the Washington Council of the Blind "Newsline.")
>
> Have you ever wondered how it is that one blind person can be dropped off
> in
> the middle of a strange city and find his way home, while another blind
> person can't find his way out of a broom closet if he has both hands on the
> doorknob? For more than 32 years I have been working with blind people of
> all ages, shapes, sizes and abilities. During those years I have compiled a
> pile of mostly unscientific, useless information. But one most puzzling
> question keeps recurring. Why is it that some blind people get lost in
> their
> own shoes, while others seem to have a built-in sonar system?
>
> It appears to have nothing to do with when they became blind, their age or
> education or whether they are left-brain, right-brain or no-brain. So, for
> many years I concluded that it was a matter of developing the correct
> teaching technique. My early indoctrination was straightforward. The
> average
> blind person, with proper training and attitudes, could do just about
> anything.
>
> So, when I applied my magic to my students and nothing happened, I
> considered that it was my failure, not theirs. I just had not found the
> right combination of teaching tools to successfully complete the training.
> Remember the old saying, "A doctor buries his/her mistakes"? Not so for the
> rehab teacher. Our mistakes/failures keep bumping into us at meetings,
> conventions, and knocking at our doors requesting more training. Since many
> of us rehab teachers are rescuers by nature, we roll up our sleeves and
> try,
> try again, invariably ending up with the same results. People were coming
> to
> us, lost in space and seeking help. And our inability to resolve this
> problem began to impact all phases of their rehabilitation training.
> Instead
> of aiming them toward success, we were pointing them to the door marked,
> "Destination: Failure."
>
> Over the years I was absolutely certain that somewhere, somehow, there
> existed the right approach for teaching spatial awareness to blind people.
> My wife, and fellow rehab teacher, had never shared my belief. Despite
> discussing and debating this issue many times, my mind was made up. I
> simply
> could not accept that there are some skills that cannot be taught. Finally
> the light clicked on when Cathy, trying to illustrate her point, said, "You
> know, Carl, you have no sense of rhythm. And despite all these years of
> trying, you still can't follow the beat. You sing just fine but you're
> totally lost in the song, which is better, and safer, than turning you
> loose
> on the dance floor." This brought to mind my mother. She was tone-deaf. We
> always said that Mother sang the tune the old cow died on. She had about
> three notes, and yet she loved music. And I loved music, too. How was it
> that Mother and I could be serious music lovers but not be able to hum or
> dance to the tune?
>
> Of course the answer is that humming and dancing are not central to music
> appreciation. And then it hit me: I was focused on the wrong goal.
> Regardless of whether it could be taught, spatial awareness is not central
> to leading a successful, independent life. Not only was I busy trying to
> teach people to develop a skill which they did not possess, but worse yet,
> I
> was implying that without this skill they could not be successful,
> independent people. Just because a kangaroo can hop doesn't mean I can
> teach
> him to fly. Nor does he need to fly to reach his goal. And just because a
> blind person can get from point A to point B does not mean that I can teach
> him spatial awareness. Some of our brains are simply not set up to work
> that
> way.
>
> This was a hard concept for me to wrap my mind around. Over the years I
> watched many blind people travel about and arrive at their destination.
> Some
> did it with ease, while others did it by trial and error. I figured that
> the
> trial and error folks just needed to practice harder and pay closer
> attention to what they were doing. It never occurred to me that just
> getting
> there was a major success for the spatially challenged. The truth is I had
> no clue as to what these folks were struggling with. Think of trying to
> teach a blind man to see. We could put him through the same drills that we
> use for all sighted folks. Over and over we could force him to peer and
> strain, finally giving up in frustration. We might feel that we had not
> pushed him hard enough. He would be left with the feeling that he was
> incompetent. In the end, we had programmed him for a life of failure.
>
> But of course we know that a blind man cannot be taught to see. Even if his
> eyes move, and he blinks and sheds tears, he is missing something that
> cannot be taught. This absence must be accommodated if he is to function
> independently in life. This is exactly the same course of action needed for
> the spatially challenged. Trying to teach them techniques that work for the
> spatially aware will only frustrate them. What is needed is a set of
> alternative techniques that will assist them in accommodating their
> different approach to space.
>
> Whether we are blind or sighted, I believe that there are great differences
> in how our brains process spatial information. Sighted people accommodate
> this difference, unaware that it even exists. But without sight, this
> difference becomes a major problem for the spatially challenged. It is
> essential that we develop positive alternative techniques which will enable
> people to function successfully in their environment, allowing them to
> fulfill their goals to live productive, independent lives.
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>
Fwd: [acb-chat] Thoughts from a teleconference
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 05:34:14 +0000
Subject: [acb-chat] Thoughts from a teleconference
To: "General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
list." <acb-chat@acblists.org>
Cc: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
We spent this morning on a teleconference with some folks from
Mississippi State. The purpose of this gathering was to poke around
at our Older Blind Program here in Washington State, and determine if
our services are meeting the needs of our clients--how to improve
them--determine if we are still on target--find ways of providing much
needed training for our new RT's--and do all of this while looking for
ways to cut budget a bit. Naturally our first suggestions were that
the program must find more dollars if it is to meet any of its goals.
But that's how these sorts of things go. Anyway, in my casting about
for some materials that would make our case, I ran across an article I
wrote a few years back, talking about how it is so easy to develop
certain methods of training, and then stuff clients into this one
mold, rather than developing training that is specific to each
person's needs. I sent the article with the following introduction,
to the Mississippi State Team.
Carl Jarvis
******
Greetings:
Over my ears in the field of work with the blind and low vision, I've
met many well intentioned RT's and O&M's who focused on Form. It was, "My way
or the highway!" This, of course, was my own early approach, too. After
all I was the Professional RT, and teacher knows best! And I was a
rescuer, to boot. When you have time, below is an article I wrote
some years ago that hopefully makes
my point concerning just what we are teaching our clients. Are our
techniques opening the door of opportunity, or are we placing
roadblocks in their paths by demanding that they fit our mold?
It was good to meet all of you, and thanks for your time.
Carl Jarvis
From the March 2008 Braille Forum
LOST IN SPACE
by Carl Jarvis
(Reprinted from the Washington Council of the Blind "Newsline.")
Have you ever wondered how it is that one blind person can be dropped off in
the middle of a strange city and find his way home, while another blind
person can't find his way out of a broom closet if he has both hands on the
doorknob? For more than 32 years I have been working with blind people of
all ages, shapes, sizes and abilities. During those years I have compiled a
pile of mostly unscientific, useless information. But one most puzzling
question keeps recurring. Why is it that some blind people get lost in their
own shoes, while others seem to have a built-in sonar system?
It appears to have nothing to do with when they became blind, their age or
education or whether they are left-brain, right-brain or no-brain. So, for
many years I concluded that it was a matter of developing the correct
teaching technique. My early indoctrination was straightforward. The average
blind person, with proper training and attitudes, could do just about
anything.
So, when I applied my magic to my students and nothing happened, I
considered that it was my failure, not theirs. I just had not found the
right combination of teaching tools to successfully complete the training.
Remember the old saying, "A doctor buries his/her mistakes"? Not so for the
rehab teacher. Our mistakes/failures keep bumping into us at meetings,
conventions, and knocking at our doors requesting more training. Since many
of us rehab teachers are rescuers by nature, we roll up our sleeves and try,
try again, invariably ending up with the same results. People were coming to
us, lost in space and seeking help. And our inability to resolve this
problem began to impact all phases of their rehabilitation training. Instead
of aiming them toward success, we were pointing them to the door marked,
"Destination: Failure."
Over the years I was absolutely certain that somewhere, somehow, there
existed the right approach for teaching spatial awareness to blind people.
My wife, and fellow rehab teacher, had never shared my belief. Despite
discussing and debating this issue many times, my mind was made up. I simply
could not accept that there are some skills that cannot be taught. Finally
the light clicked on when Cathy, trying to illustrate her point, said, "You
know, Carl, you have no sense of rhythm. And despite all these years of
trying, you still can't follow the beat. You sing just fine but you're
totally lost in the song, which is better, and safer, than turning you loose
on the dance floor." This brought to mind my mother. She was tone-deaf. We
always said that Mother sang the tune the old cow died on. She had about
three notes, and yet she loved music. And I loved music, too. How was it
that Mother and I could be serious music lovers but not be able to hum or
dance to the tune?
Of course the answer is that humming and dancing are not central to music
appreciation. And then it hit me: I was focused on the wrong goal.
Regardless of whether it could be taught, spatial awareness is not central
to leading a successful, independent life. Not only was I busy trying to
teach people to develop a skill which they did not possess, but worse yet, I
was implying that without this skill they could not be successful,
independent people. Just because a kangaroo can hop doesn't mean I can teach
him to fly. Nor does he need to fly to reach his goal. And just because a
blind person can get from point A to point B does not mean that I can teach
him spatial awareness. Some of our brains are simply not set up to work that
way.
This was a hard concept for me to wrap my mind around. Over the years I
watched many blind people travel about and arrive at their destination. Some
did it with ease, while others did it by trial and error. I figured that the
trial and error folks just needed to practice harder and pay closer
attention to what they were doing. It never occurred to me that just getting
there was a major success for the spatially challenged. The truth is I had
no clue as to what these folks were struggling with. Think of trying to
teach a blind man to see. We could put him through the same drills that we
use for all sighted folks. Over and over we could force him to peer and
strain, finally giving up in frustration. We might feel that we had not
pushed him hard enough. He would be left with the feeling that he was
incompetent. In the end, we had programmed him for a life of failure.
But of course we know that a blind man cannot be taught to see. Even if his
eyes move, and he blinks and sheds tears, he is missing something that
cannot be taught. This absence must be accommodated if he is to function
independently in life. This is exactly the same course of action needed for
the spatially challenged. Trying to teach them techniques that work for the
spatially aware will only frustrate them. What is needed is a set of
alternative techniques that will assist them in accommodating their
different approach to space.
Whether we are blind or sighted, I believe that there are great differences
in how our brains process spatial information. Sighted people accommodate
this difference, unaware that it even exists. But without sight, this
difference becomes a major problem for the spatially challenged. It is
essential that we develop positive alternative techniques which will enable
people to function successfully in their environment, allowing them to
fulfill their goals to live productive, independent lives.
_______________________________________________
acb-chat mailing list
acb-chat@acblists.org
http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
From: Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 05:34:14 +0000
Subject: [acb-chat] Thoughts from a teleconference
To: "General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
list." <acb-chat@acblists.org>
Cc: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
We spent this morning on a teleconference with some folks from
Mississippi State. The purpose of this gathering was to poke around
at our Older Blind Program here in Washington State, and determine if
our services are meeting the needs of our clients--how to improve
them--determine if we are still on target--find ways of providing much
needed training for our new RT's--and do all of this while looking for
ways to cut budget a bit. Naturally our first suggestions were that
the program must find more dollars if it is to meet any of its goals.
But that's how these sorts of things go. Anyway, in my casting about
for some materials that would make our case, I ran across an article I
wrote a few years back, talking about how it is so easy to develop
certain methods of training, and then stuff clients into this one
mold, rather than developing training that is specific to each
person's needs. I sent the article with the following introduction,
to the Mississippi State Team.
Carl Jarvis
******
Greetings:
Over my ears in the field of work with the blind and low vision, I've
met many well intentioned RT's and O&M's who focused on Form. It was, "My way
or the highway!" This, of course, was my own early approach, too. After
all I was the Professional RT, and teacher knows best! And I was a
rescuer, to boot. When you have time, below is an article I wrote
some years ago that hopefully makes
my point concerning just what we are teaching our clients. Are our
techniques opening the door of opportunity, or are we placing
roadblocks in their paths by demanding that they fit our mold?
It was good to meet all of you, and thanks for your time.
Carl Jarvis
From the March 2008 Braille Forum
LOST IN SPACE
by Carl Jarvis
(Reprinted from the Washington Council of the Blind "Newsline.")
Have you ever wondered how it is that one blind person can be dropped off in
the middle of a strange city and find his way home, while another blind
person can't find his way out of a broom closet if he has both hands on the
doorknob? For more than 32 years I have been working with blind people of
all ages, shapes, sizes and abilities. During those years I have compiled a
pile of mostly unscientific, useless information. But one most puzzling
question keeps recurring. Why is it that some blind people get lost in their
own shoes, while others seem to have a built-in sonar system?
It appears to have nothing to do with when they became blind, their age or
education or whether they are left-brain, right-brain or no-brain. So, for
many years I concluded that it was a matter of developing the correct
teaching technique. My early indoctrination was straightforward. The average
blind person, with proper training and attitudes, could do just about
anything.
So, when I applied my magic to my students and nothing happened, I
considered that it was my failure, not theirs. I just had not found the
right combination of teaching tools to successfully complete the training.
Remember the old saying, "A doctor buries his/her mistakes"? Not so for the
rehab teacher. Our mistakes/failures keep bumping into us at meetings,
conventions, and knocking at our doors requesting more training. Since many
of us rehab teachers are rescuers by nature, we roll up our sleeves and try,
try again, invariably ending up with the same results. People were coming to
us, lost in space and seeking help. And our inability to resolve this
problem began to impact all phases of their rehabilitation training. Instead
of aiming them toward success, we were pointing them to the door marked,
"Destination: Failure."
Over the years I was absolutely certain that somewhere, somehow, there
existed the right approach for teaching spatial awareness to blind people.
My wife, and fellow rehab teacher, had never shared my belief. Despite
discussing and debating this issue many times, my mind was made up. I simply
could not accept that there are some skills that cannot be taught. Finally
the light clicked on when Cathy, trying to illustrate her point, said, "You
know, Carl, you have no sense of rhythm. And despite all these years of
trying, you still can't follow the beat. You sing just fine but you're
totally lost in the song, which is better, and safer, than turning you loose
on the dance floor." This brought to mind my mother. She was tone-deaf. We
always said that Mother sang the tune the old cow died on. She had about
three notes, and yet she loved music. And I loved music, too. How was it
that Mother and I could be serious music lovers but not be able to hum or
dance to the tune?
Of course the answer is that humming and dancing are not central to music
appreciation. And then it hit me: I was focused on the wrong goal.
Regardless of whether it could be taught, spatial awareness is not central
to leading a successful, independent life. Not only was I busy trying to
teach people to develop a skill which they did not possess, but worse yet, I
was implying that without this skill they could not be successful,
independent people. Just because a kangaroo can hop doesn't mean I can teach
him to fly. Nor does he need to fly to reach his goal. And just because a
blind person can get from point A to point B does not mean that I can teach
him spatial awareness. Some of our brains are simply not set up to work that
way.
This was a hard concept for me to wrap my mind around. Over the years I
watched many blind people travel about and arrive at their destination. Some
did it with ease, while others did it by trial and error. I figured that the
trial and error folks just needed to practice harder and pay closer
attention to what they were doing. It never occurred to me that just getting
there was a major success for the spatially challenged. The truth is I had
no clue as to what these folks were struggling with. Think of trying to
teach a blind man to see. We could put him through the same drills that we
use for all sighted folks. Over and over we could force him to peer and
strain, finally giving up in frustration. We might feel that we had not
pushed him hard enough. He would be left with the feeling that he was
incompetent. In the end, we had programmed him for a life of failure.
But of course we know that a blind man cannot be taught to see. Even if his
eyes move, and he blinks and sheds tears, he is missing something that
cannot be taught. This absence must be accommodated if he is to function
independently in life. This is exactly the same course of action needed for
the spatially challenged. Trying to teach them techniques that work for the
spatially aware will only frustrate them. What is needed is a set of
alternative techniques that will assist them in accommodating their
different approach to space.
Whether we are blind or sighted, I believe that there are great differences
in how our brains process spatial information. Sighted people accommodate
this difference, unaware that it even exists. But without sight, this
difference becomes a major problem for the spatially challenged. It is
essential that we develop positive alternative techniques which will enable
people to function successfully in their environment, allowing them to
fulfill their goals to live productive, independent lives.
_______________________________________________
acb-chat mailing list
acb-chat@acblists.org
http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)