I wouldn't overstate it. They were fine. They were no different from any
other group of sighted people, no better, nor worse. Blindness is a big
issue for everyone. Blind people who work in agencies for the blind with
sighted people working beside them, probably have a larger percentage of
positive, equal relationships with sighted people than other blind people do
because most of the sighted people who work at these agencies, have been
able to deal with their feelings about blindness more positively than
others. At least, that's been my experience.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 5:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Ethical Humanist Society
What's that old silly saw, I love humanity, it's people I can't stand.or
something like that. So the Ethical Humanist Society you were involved with
was all for helping and loving the downtrodden, but the two blind people
right in their midst, they were not so eager to embrace.not that you and
Fred were downtrodden, but you get my drift. And the liberal religious and
their churches and synagogues are no different.same old thing. It's really
unfortunate and sad if you think about it for more than a nanosecond, so
most of the time I prefer not to think about it.
On Jul 19, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You're correct. That's sort of what I said. What I said was that I
had to
put forth a great deal of effort in order for ust to be accepted
socially by
the members. That means, to be invited to private social gatherings
at
people's homes and to be completely included by the group. And it
worked for
a time. My husband even was elected to a seat on the Board and we
did
socialize with people. But after a few years, things changed as
different
people became active and others, less active, and then, eventually,
Fred
became so sick. Basically, they were like any other group of sighted
people
in terms of how they acted toward us as blind people. Undercurrents
were
always there, even at the best of times. The other thing that I've
said is
that they were very good in terms of liberal views, caring about the
welfare
of the downtrodden, but less good at being mindful of the welfare of
disabled members. We might have received more consideration in a
church. But
then, I suppose it would have been charity, as in faith, hope and
charity.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice
Dampman
Humel
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 4:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: uber fined in cal partially for
violating ada
Miriam,
this is actually in response to a different message that I deleted.
You
mentioned the driver you had who was so flabbergasted that you might
not
believe in God. You mentioned your involvement with the Ethical
Humanist
Society and that for you, it was most important that humans treat
each
other, the planet and animals kindly and well.
Do I remember correctly that in the past, you have said you were not
treated
all that well by the ETS? Was it because of your blindness? I seem
to recall
something like that, and I hope I am not mixing up your story with
someone
else's.
On Jul 19, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You know, now that the NYT has apparently done away with the printer
friendly version of articles, if I come across a link to one in
another
article, when I go to the NYT article, I go to a link called, view
mobile
version, and that is as easy to read as the printer friendly version
was.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice
Dampman
Humel
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 2:54 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: uber fined in cal partially for
violating ada
I don't think I've ever encountered a website that can only be
accessed with
a smart phone.if it's a website, it is accessible with a web browser
on a
computer, unless it is the mobile version of that website, but then,
you
would not see it on your computer, you'd be taken to the full
website.
Can you cite an example of a website that you have not been able to
access
without a smart phone?
On Jul 19, 2015, at 2:35 PM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think that there are some less expensive I phones on Blind
Bargains and
some of the other websites that sell things to blind people. But
then there
are the monthly charges and how high they are, depend on whether
you have
services like email. However, there are still businesses with
websites that
have 800 numbers and customer service people with whom one can deal.
I
prefer doing that for a lot of reasons including that it minimizes
the
potential for errors in one's order.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 1:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: uber fined in cal partially for
violating ada
For that matter, I first got an email address in either 2000 or
2001. I
could only access it by telephone and I don't mean a smart phone
either. The
email by phone system from Yahoo that I was using would only read
the first
of an email unless it was extremely short. I did not get a computer
and
Internet access until 2003. Before I got access to email I was
finding
myself increasingly frustrated every time I tried to do business
with
practically any entity because they always just assumed that
everyone had
access to email. Sometimes they were actually astonished when they
found out
that I didn't use email and then once I did get an email address
they were
astonished that I was accessing it in such a clunky way as the
telephone. It
was clunky too and that was an additional frustration. Now the same
thing is
happening. It is just assumed that everyone has a smart phone.
People are
surprised when they find out that I am still using a land line. They
are not
quite astonished yet, but the surprise is increasing and it will not
be long
until the astonishment comes along. I keep running into web sites
where log
ins by smart phones are preferred and where I cannot make use of the
full
functionality of the site without a smart phone. I actually would
like to
have a smart phone, but except for carrying it with me I can
accomplish most
of the things they can do with my computer and land line phone, so I
just
have not been able to justify the expense for myself and they are
most
certainly expensive. I can see the writing on the wall though. Give
it about
ten more years - perhaps even less - and it will be very difficult
to
function without a smart phone. And by then I wonder what almost
everyone
else will have and be astonished that I don't have.
On 7/19/2015 2:45 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
Miriam,
I'd add one more level of horrifying to all that you outline.it's
not so much that the Skypeing doctors, the facilitators sitting in
the room
with the hundred kids glued to the computer screens, the so-called
educators
who think this is such a great idea, and so on, expect everyone to
have
access to and be able to use the technology, they are indifferent to
their
patient, indifferent to their students, they really don't care one
way or
the other. If they care about anything, it's their bottom line,
business as
usual.
And, yes, that applies to Uber and the other companies trying
something different. I might hope these new ideas bring about some
change,
but I'm not naive enough to think they care anymore than do other
big
corporations and businesses.
The level of indifference in our society has become so high that
when you do run into someone who really seems to give a rat's ass
about you,
their job, the possibility of helping somebody out, it practically
makes you
cry.
I will, however, add that eventually, all this new technology will
be as commonplace as that pay phone that used to be on every corner.
When
cars, phones, TV, first appeared, hardly anyone had one. Now it
seems that
everyone must have a car, a phone, a TV, a radio, everyone will
eventually
have to have a computer and a smart phone. The kids, the
millennials, they
talk about computers and apps the way we used to talk about our
three-ring
binders and pencils.
And, once again, the poor, the working class, the marginalized, the
forgotten, will be left out in the cold. Look at that discussion
that has
dragged on and on on the BARD list about mailing cartridges to blind
patrons
of the library who can't or don't want to download books. It's
really been
horrifying to read how many people on that list have absolutely no
understanding for people who still want their books sent to them on
the
cartridges. Again, the indifference. They are basically saying, I
have what
I want, and I don't care if you get what you need or not. And worse,
although it doesn't hurt them one little bit, they want to take that
option
away from those who prefer it or need it.
Alice
On Jul 18, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Marsha,
What has happened is that now, in order to participate in
most aspects of
our society, people need computers with internet access and
smart phones.
Although, originally, the technology for all of this came
out of government
research, actually military research, it is now the province
of private
enterprise. As our society sheds various aspects of our
social welfare state
and the belief that it is the government's responsibility to
ensure that
everyone's needs are taken into account, an assumption is
made that everyone
can, or ought to be able to, own and use all of the new
available technical
devices. Pay phones are a thing of the past. If you're away
from home and
have to make a call, you can't just drop a quarter into a
slot and make the
call. You must own a cell phone and pay a monthly fee. In
Manhattan, one can
still stand on a street corner and hail a cab. But perhaps,
some day, that
won't be a possibility. You will only be able to summon a
ride through a
smart phone app. There's a lot of enthusiastic talk these
days of docdtors
using apps to check patients' chronic conditions and skype
consultations and
examinations. This is a whole new level of impersonality and
a way to lower
the expense and time of service providers while placing more
financial
responsibility on the consumer or patient and it assumes a
level of
independence, competence, and health that is not available
to all members of
our society. It is the same new business model which says
that you can put
100 children in front of computer screens and provide
education through
computer programs and a facilitator. It is precisely the
oppisit of the
kind of world that Chris Hedges would like to see and that
the Occupy
movement was working for.
Miriame
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Martian.Lady
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 2:56 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: uber fined in cal partially
for violating ada
HI
The ability to use this service depends on having a smart
phone. This
means many people can't use the service.
Marsha
