In a message Ron Smith typed to All  
 RS> They waisted a lot of money on airline issues, and not enough on
 RS> finding ways to making blind more employable.
Obviously our course of action with the airlines wasn't harsh enough because 
our problems with them seem to be resurging.
Also, you say that Bob Acosta justified his taking of money and perks by 
saying that C.E.O.'s get these perks so why shouldn't he have them.  You 
don't just get perks and benefits just because you happen to be president of 
an organization particularly a non-proffit consumer organization that is 
supposed to be bettering the lives of blind people.  If that were the case 
then such a  person would be no better than the managers of lighthouses who 
claim that blind people shouldn't have minimum wage because we don't produce 
enough to justify it but yet we somehow produce enough for them to have 
lavish salaries and fringe benefits which after all they should have because 
they in their own minds are "helping those simpletons who wouldn't have a job 
if it weren't for us kind-hearted benefactors."  
true he may live far out, but who forced him to live where there is no 
transportation in the first place?  Even a con artist has to justify their 
own wrong doing even if it is nowhere but in their own minds.  
Again, I'm not saying that everything the national leadership does is perfect 
and maybe we the consumers should re-claim some of our power which we 
constitutionally still have, but Both organizations certainly had the right 
and the grounds to prosecute Bob Acosta.  
Harvey 
--- msged 2.07
---------------