From: "George Cassell" 
Subject: Re: ACB Postings
Hello Richard, and thank you for your response to my post.
Inasmuch as I am not a member of either the NFB or the ACB, I want to
assure you, before we continue, that I am not about to take sides on any
issue of interest and/or importance to either organization.  I acknowledge 
that there are very genuinely concerned members of both organizations, who
believe that what they are doing is "the right thing," based upon their own
personal backgrounds, experiences and points of view.  
I further believe that both organizations have the best interest of the
blind community-at-large uppermost in their minds and hearts when trying to
decide which course of action, on any issue, is most appropriate.
It is quite understandable that each organization has it's own priorities
and agenda.  If they didn't, there would certainly be no need for two
separate and somewhat distinct national organizations to exist.  That there
are two such organizations is, to my way of thinking, far more desirable
than having just one, or none at all.  
I do not condemn either for their views, but rather embrace those policies
and causes which, I believe, best reflect and typify my own, personal
views, values and opinions.
As you pointed out, to the ACB, Rehab is a sort of "sacred cow."  But to
you, it isn't.  This one point alone demonstrates the unfortunate need for
at least two such organizations to co-exist -- to represent the differing
needs, wants and desires of the community they both represent and attempt,
as best they can, to serve.
To quote you, in part, "Our [NFB] leadership was working quietly making
sure rehab was not in great jeopardy, but rehab is close to being a sacred
cow to ACB.  It is not near as sacred to me as it is to them.  Rehab has
done most of what it can do for me, and I don't see my life changing too
much if there was no more rehab agencies tomorrow."
I think this demonstrates quite nicely the need for ACB and NFB.  Whereas
you, personally, don't see rehab as being nearly the "sacred cow" that many
members of the ACB perceive it as being, does not, in any way, make you
wrong, nor them right, or vice-versa.  But it clearly demonstrates that
there are at least two views on the same matter.  
Granted, NFB did not ignore the issue, and did handle it in their own way. 
But to some, who do consider the issue to be a sacred cow, a more proactive
approach was, indeed, appropriate.  
Sometimes, issues are not about black and white, but rather shades of gray.
 Members of ACB, had they only the NFB to rely on in the Rehab issue, might
have been frustrated and distressed by the lower keyed approach of the NFB.
 That they have an advocacy outlet that more closely represents them and
the extent of their passion on this issue, is admirable.  That Rehab's
existence is not a life changing experience for you personally, does not
diminish the hope it holds in the hearts and minds of others.
As you mentioned, the posting of the "get out the troops" message was, I'm
sure, unwelcome to many.  However, I'm sure there were many others on the
list, also members of the NFB, who found this to be an important issue to
them, in spite of how the organization, as a matter of policy, felt about
this issue.  And I'm sure many of them participated in this movement to
actively do something more about it.
For them to have done so does not make them "traitors" (my word, not
your's) to NFB, nor does it make them, in any way, members in poor standing
within the NFB.  It simply reflects their own personal  needs and wants as
blind or visually-impaired human beings.
NFB presents it's ideas and policies to it's members.  As such, each member
is able to decide for him/herself if such proposals have any relevance and
merit.  Obviously, they must, or the NFB would not have the membership it
enjoys.  
And the same can be said of the ACB.  That the ACB has additional, or even
alternative positions should not be construed as a threat, but rather a 
challenge to the NFB.  If, as I previously mentioned, the NFB's proposals
have merit, they will be respected and promoted, and they will stand on
their own merits.  And 
if the ACB has a better idea, at least for some of the NFB's members, then
they should be free to make such a decision on their own.  If, on the other
hand, the ACB's proposals do not have any merit, they will surely fail.
The point being that the NFB's members can't make an informed decision
unless the information if first provided to them.  Likewise, ACB's
membership should also be exposed to what the NFB has to say, and what they
are doing.  It benefits both organization's members.
You yourself said, "An educated person makes their own opportunities."  And
that, in a nutshell, is what I said in my original post.  But we can't
become educated if information that is vital and  pertinent, is withheld
from us, based upon a "technicality."  
I see this list as a valuable resource, and I thank the NFB for providing
it to all of us.  But I would hate to see it's members adopt an attitude
that "it's mine, and if you don't agree with me and my club, you can't play
with us."  
Instead, let it be the open, unbiased platform from which we can all learn
and benefit from similar, or even opposing points of view, and let each of
us, individually, pick and choose those issues and views with which we can
best identify and relate.  
Does that not sound like a reasonable request?
-- George
---
---------------