From: Jim Gashel 
Subject: Re: ACB Washington Connection (fwd)
hello harvey:
the reason that I didn't comment on that portion of your message in which
you took issue with president maurer's approach in defending the magoo
resolution is because I really have no comment to make on that.  I was
only responding to the comments you had made on the use of resources.  the
convention voted for the magoo policy, so using resources on that is
definitely called for, whether you agree with the vote or not.  the
convention has never voted that we should use our resources for
redistributing acb washington messages, and I doubt that it would do so.  
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 hheagy@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> 
> My Point in referring to President Maurer's exchange with the
> critic, which I haven't heard personally either,  was that since he
> was one of those instrumental in having the resolution passed, he
> should have told the critic the reasons why he believed it to be
> right as well as explaining why it was a presidential
> responsibility to carry out the wishes of the convention, and maybe
> he did, I don't know.  I disclaimed my info with the fact that it
> was second hand information.  Before this happened, we were one of
> the few minorities that did not expect political correctness.  I
> think this helped us just as in the days when most minorities were
> asking for quotas and such we did not.  We simply wanted blind
> people to be hired on our merits and to succeed or fail on our
> own.  This also helped our cause in that we did not expect
> something for nothing.  I think the real reason the Affirmative
> Action proponents are loosing the gains they made is not because
> of conservative court decisions or republican controlled
> congresses but because it simply does not work to put an
> unqualified person into a position for which they are not
> qualified; it is as simple as that.
> 
> As far as the 30-thousand dollars in earnings is concerned, I
> think we have every right to have it if the senior citizens have
> it.  Why should we have been disconnected from the 65-69 year old
> bracket just because the government felt they should have more
> earnings power?  Frankly, I think we should be in the 70 and
> older bracket which totally eliminates the earnings test.  Even
> if we get good jobs we have technology maintenance to pay for
> and other expenses others do not have.  It does us no good to
> work if all our earnings are consumed by blind related expenses.
> Several years ago, we convinced S.S.A. of the need for the
> elimination of the earnings test but their objection was that if
> they gave it to us they would have to give it to all the
> disabled.  We said that was not necessarily true; that other
> disabled groups would have to make their own cases if they wanted
> it.  I would like  to see us go back to fighting for that
> designation.  But at the very least, we should have what the
> seniors 65-69 have.  Otherwise this sets a dangerous precedent
> in that congress could simply disconnect us any time they wanted
> to give the seniors something they didn't want us to have.
> 
> Harvey
> 
> Net-Tamer V 1.10 Beta  - Registered
> 
> 
> 
---
---------------