http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=bd3c8fefc9f905f5ccf41c577&id=9fc12b9f0d&e=c97bce6fadView
this email in your browser
American Foundation for the Blind logo: Expanding possibilities

Life After Elections:

Deep Breaths, and a Way to Move Forward

Dear Advocates:

Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was supposed to
vote on whether the total number of hours of described TV should be
significantly increased from their current levels and whether the
rules should be modified to ensure that many more Americans with
vision loss would be able to enjoy described TV. I say this was
supposed to happen today; it will not. Why? Because prominent members
of the U.S. Congress who have oversight responsibilities for the FCC
wrote to the Commission earlier this week to insist that the FCC
refrain from the issuance of virtually any new rules of any kind.

Why would members of Congress do this? Because the current FCC has a
majority of FCC Commissioners that were appointed by a Democratic
Administration, and now that a Republican Administration has been
elected to assume the Presidency, the Republican-controlled Congress
is keen on making sure that the FCC's regulatory authority is
exercised in light of that fact. Is this unprecedented? No, in fact,
in 2008, while President George W. Bush still held office but after
Barack Obama became President-Elect, Democrats, who would be
controlling both houses of Congress at the start of President Obama's
first term, similarly demanded that the FCC cease its rulemaking
proceedings. Indeed, the key congressional Republicans' letters to
the FCC this week explicitly recounted this history as justification
for their position. You should also know, however, that there are
rumors that the FCC would have been willing to ignore the letters
from the Hill and proceed with their plans today but for some
behind-the-scenes maneuvering by one of the Democratically appointed
FCC Commissioners for reasons that probably should not be commented
upon. Ah, politics.

What does this mean for the future of described TV? It means that, at
least for the moment, we cannot expect the FCC to require the
nation's leading broadcast and cable/satellite networks to offer us
more mandated described TV than is required today, approximately four
hours per week of prime time or children's programming by each of the
leading television networks. Could the FCC decide to change direction
yet again and move forward at some point in the near future with the
rulemaking that they were to vote on today? Yes, they could. Once the
new Presidential Administration assumes the helm, could the FCC still
bring this proposal to a vote? Of course. Is it fair to assume though
that the chances of such a proposal passing will be slimmer than they
are now? Naturally.

I am sharing these developments with you today for two reasons.

First, I know that we were all hopeful that the FCC would act to make
the obvious benefits of described TV available to more people and
with more programming choices. But I am also sharing this with you
because, over these last eight days since the November 8 election, I
have been asked over and over again about what I think the future
holds for the issues we all care about. So let me try to offer some
observations.

While it is crystal clear to anyone who has been awake during this
seemingly endless election season that the 2016 Presidential election
has been unprecedented for myriad reasons, we have, nevertheless,
been here before. In fact, we have had a front row seat, fairly
recently, to see what single party control of both the Congress and
the White House means for the progress of a particular public policy
agenda. It means exactly what you'd think it might mean; where
divided government leads to gridlock, single party control allows for
lots of movement. And lots of movement means lots of dangerous
possibilities, and yes friends, lots of potential opportunities. It
is going to be a very busy few years for sure.

Like nearly each of you I'm sure, I have very strong personal
feelings about the in-coming Administration and the composition of
the Congress. Do I believe, however, that last week's election
changes anything regarding what we know is right for those of us who
are blind or visually impaired and what we need to do to achieve it?
With all my heart, I do not. Here's why.

Let's just stick with the relatively limited issue of described TV
for a moment. Is it my personal belief that the federal government
has a role to play in mandating that national TV networks be
compelled to describe their programming? Yes. Are there people who
are blind or visually impaired who disagree with this perspective?
Yes, of course. Does any of that matter? No. What matters is that,
after decades of discussion, and even sometimes hostile debate, our
community is unified in its enthusiastic support for described TV. Is
a federal regulation inherently necessary to ensure that described TV
is provided? Well, if people with vision loss demand described TV,
and the networks provide it voluntarily, then no, a federal mandate
is not per se necessary. However, as we know all too painfully, the
overwhelming call by our community for described TV was ignored and
then opposed by the nation's networks. So did that mean that we went
home and felt sorry for ourselves? We did not. We determined that our
overwhelming demand for described TV would manifest itself in federal
legislation to compel the networks to provide described TV, and we prevailed.

At no time over the course of my career in public policy have I ever
said that I wanted to advocate for this or that legislative or
regulatory fix just because we felt that having a law on the books at
the federal level was a good idea in itself. No, our advocacy has
always been about achieving real results for people who are blind or
visually impaired. Having the government involved is not the end
goal; progress toward a more accessible and inclusive society is. And
yet, as James Madison wrote more than two centuries ago, "If men were
angels, government would not be necessary." And since none of us are
angels, we can be sure that human beings will not always do what is right.

Now let me come at this from a much broader angle. Neither
Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor
anyone else is going to come to our rescue out of their very nature;
only we can demand their understanding and allegiance. Neither
Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor
anyone else is going to automatically understand and stand up for
what's right for children and youth who are blind, visually impaired,
or deafblind; we are the only champions for their right to a truly
appropriate education. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the
cross-disability community, nor anyone else understands our unique
needs for technology and information accessibility and how to achieve
it better than we do. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the
cross-disability community, nor anyone else has ever made an
appropriate long-term national commitment to meet the needs of older
people who struggle to learn how to live with vision loss in their
later years, but we have. And while Republicans, Democrats, the
cross-disability community, and plenty of others, couldn't figure out
how to rework America's job training and vocational rehabilitation
system after more than sixteen years without leaving workers who are
blind or visually impaired and older people with vision loss for whom
employment may not be an option out in the cold, we have had the
solutions all along, for decades, and continue to stand for what is right.

My basic point is this: the values we share as a community, the
positions we have taken, the posture we have assumed, and the ends we
hope to achieve, are not, and have never been, dependent upon a
specific political ideology or party affiliation. As tough as this
will be for some of us on the political left to hear, we in the
vision loss community have been betrayed now and then by Democrats
and have been championed by staunch right wingers. And as mad as this
might make some of us on the political right, like it or not, we need
people to help us make the case for doing the right thing when free
market forces fail us or clueless state and local bureaucracies will
not bend.More often than not, Democrats, and even a few Republicans,
are willing to play this role for us.

So what are we to do? Well, each of us can and should decide for
ourselves how we want to be involved in the policy process, and I am
making absolutely no comment here about that personal choice.
Emotions are running very, very high right now, and there is lots of
fear about the future of civil rights and liberties, the social
safety net, and even the very character of our nation. Am I
suggesting that we should not care about these things and not do our
part? Not at all. And please remember that those of us who do this
policy work for a living on behalf of people with vision loss have
always been committed to big picture issues, especially when it is
clear that those big picture issues have a direct impact on and are
of significant interest to people who are blind or visually impaired.

I can promise you that we will, as we always have, make common cause
with groups both within and outside the disability community when we
share common concerns.

However, if we merely march in lock step with others on such
macro-level issues, we will be leaving vulnerable many of the issues
that are so critical to all of us. I for one, who have had the
tremendous honor for many years of being able to enjoy a career
working on behalf of people just like me who are blind or visually
impaired, am urging organizations of and for people with vision loss
to keep laser focused on the issues that are both most of interest to
us and that nobody else is going to defend. You can do this work with
us regardless of where you happen to be on the political continuum.

If you believe that government has a robust role to play in our
society, then join us in our ongoing efforts to make use of
government to break down barriers and to compel compliance with
common sense solutions. If you believe that government is far too big
and needs to get out of the business of micromanaging our lives, then
join us in working to toss out those "one size fits all" power grabs
that have been imposed on our community over many years that only
serve to limit opportunity and consumer choice. There is plenty to
work on, and plenty of ways to work on it.

All I am saying here is that our agenda does not change with the
unpredictable, ever changing, and sometimes tumultuous political
winds. If fighting for information accessibility, quality special
education, meaningful services to older people, and a rich variety of
opportunities for people with vision loss to achieve the American
dream were worth fighting for before election day, then they remain
worth fighting for after election day. But someone must fight for
them. Nobody will, if we do not!

So with that, friends, let's each of us be involved in the policy
process as our values and consciences lead us. And, as a community of
women and men who are blind or visually impaired, family members,
friends, professionals and advocates, let us also renew our
commitment to stand up for what we know is right.

Very sincerely yours,

Mark Richert, Esq.
Director, Public Policy, AFB
(202) 469-6833
mailto:Mrichert@AFB.netMrichert@AFB.net

Your balanced commentary is greatly appreciated Mark. I think many of us have been quick to assume the worst. Providing some historical perspective is so important. We can never really rest on our laurels or assume either party will inherently understand our unique issues. Persistent & positive advocacy over a long period of time is the key to progress. In this age of extremes it is nice to read a message from our flagship advocacy agency that is moderate, positive and factual. That said, I think we all need to be a little louder and persistent in our advocacy. :)

Thank you and AFB for your leadership!

Paul H. Olson
NDVS/SB

From: AERNet [mailto:aernet-bounces@lists.aerbvi.org] On Behalf Of Mark Richert
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 8:01 AM
To: aernet@lists.aerbvi.org
Subject: Re: [AERNet] Life After Elections: Described TV, Deep Breaths, and a Way to Move Forward

View this email in your browserhttp://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=bd3c8fefc9f905f5ccf41c577&id=9fc12b9f0d&e=c97bce6fad
[American Foundation for the Blind logo: Expanding possibilities]

Life After Elections:

Deep Breaths, and a Way to Move Forward
Dear Advocates:

Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was supposed to vote on whether the total number of hours of described TV should be significantly increased from their current levels and whether the rules should be modified to ensure that many more Americans with vision loss would be able to enjoy described TV. I say this was supposed to happen today; it will not. Why? Because prominent members of the U.S. Congress who have oversight responsibilities for the FCC wrote to the Commission earlier this week to insist that the FCC refrain from the issuance of virtually any new rules of any kind.

Why would members of Congress do this? Because the current FCC has a majority of FCC Commissioners that were appointed by a Democratic Administration, and now that a Republican Administration has been elected to assume the Presidency, the Republican-controlled Congress is keen on making sure that the FCC's regulatory authority is exercised in light of that fact. Is this unprecedented? No, in fact, in 2008, while President George W. Bush still held office but after Barack Obama became President-Elect, Democrats, who would be controlling both houses of Congress at the start of President Obama's first term, similarly demanded that the FCC cease its rulemaking proceedings. Indeed, the key congressional Republicans' letters to the FCC this week explicitly recounted this history as justification for their position. You should also know, however, that there are rumors that the FCC would have been willing to ignore the letters from the Hill and proceed with their plans today but for some behind-the-scenes maneuvering by one of the Democratically appointed FCC Commissioners for reasons that probably should not be commented upon. Ah, politics.

What does this mean for the future of described TV? It means that, at least for the moment, we cannot expect the FCC to require the nation's leading broadcast and cable/satellite networks to offer us more mandated described TV than is required today, approximately four hours per week of prime time or children's programming by each of the leading television networks. Could the FCC decide to change direction yet again and move forward at some point in the near future with the rulemaking that they were to vote on today? Yes, they could. Once the new Presidential Administration assumes the helm, could the FCC still bring this proposal to a vote? Of course. Is it fair to assume though that the chances of such a proposal passing will be slimmer than they are now? Naturally.

I am sharing these developments with you today for two reasons.

First, I know that we were all hopeful that the FCC would act to make the obvious benefits of described TV available to more people and with more programming choices. But I am also sharing this with you because, over these last eight days since the November 8 election, I have been asked over and over again about what I think the future holds for the issues we all care about. So let me try to offer some observations.

While it is crystal clear to anyone who has been awake during this seemingly endless election season that the 2016 Presidential election has been unprecedented for myriad reasons, we have, nevertheless, been here before. In fact, we have had a front row seat, fairly recently, to see what single party control of both the Congress and the White House means for the progress of a particular public policy agenda. It means exactly what you'd think it might mean; where divided government leads to gridlock, single party control allows for lots of movement. And lots of movement means lots of dangerous possibilities, and yes friends, lots of potential opportunities. It is going to be a very busy few years for sure.

Like nearly each of you I'm sure, I have very strong personal feelings about the in-coming Administration and the composition of the Congress. Do I believe, however, that last week's election changes anything regarding what we know is right for those of us who are blind or visually impaired and what we need to do to achieve it? With all my heart, I do not. Here's why.

Let's just stick with the relatively limited issue of described TV for a moment. Is it my personal belief that the federal government has a role to play in mandating that national TV networks be compelled to describe their programming? Yes. Are there people who are blind or visually impaired who disagree with this perspective? Yes, of course. Does any of that matter? No. What matters is that, after decades of discussion, and even sometimes hostile debate, our community is unified in its enthusiastic support for described TV. Is a federal regulation inherently necessary to ensure that described TV is provided? Well, if people with vision loss demand described TV, and the networks provide it voluntarily, then no, a federal mandate is not per se necessary. However, as we know all too painfully, the overwhelming call by our community for described TV was ignored and then opposed by the nation's networks. So did that mean that we went home and felt sorry for ourselves? We did not. We determined that our overwhelming demand for described TV would manifest itself in federal legislation to compel the networks to provide described TV, and we prevailed.

At no time over the course of my career in public policy have I ever said that I wanted to advocate for this or that legislative or regulatory fix just because we felt that having a law on the books at the federal level was a good idea in itself. No, our advocacy has always been about achieving real results for people who are blind or visually impaired. Having the government involved is not the end goal; progress toward a more accessible and inclusive society is. And yet, as James Madison wrote more than two centuries ago, "If men were angels, government would not be necessary." And since none of us are angels, we can be sure that human beings will not always do what is right.

Now let me come at this from a much broader angle. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor anyone else is going to come to our rescue out of their very nature; only we can demand their understanding and allegiance. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor anyone else is going to automatically understand and stand up for what's right for children and youth who are blind, visually impaired, or deafblind; we are the only champions for their right to a truly appropriate education. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor anyone else understands our unique needs for technology and information accessibility and how to achieve it better than we do. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor anyone else has ever made an appropriate long-term national commitment to meet the needs of older people who struggle to learn how to live with vision loss in their later years, but we have. And while Republicans, Democrats, the cross-disability community, and plenty of others, couldn't figure out how to rework America's job training and vocational rehabilitation system after more than sixteen years without leaving workers who are blind or visually impaired and older people with vision loss for whom employment may not be an option out in the cold, we have had the solutions all along, for decades, and continue to stand for what is right.

My basic point is this: the values we share as a community, the positions we have taken, the posture we have assumed, and the ends we hope to achieve, are not, and have never been, dependent upon a specific political ideology or party affiliation. As tough as this will be for some of us on the political left to hear, we in the vision loss community have been betrayed now and then by Democrats and have been championed by staunch right wingers. And as mad as this might make some of us on the political right, like it or not, we need people to help us make the case for doing the right thing when free market forces fail us or clueless state and local bureaucracies will not bend.More often than not, Democrats, and even a few Republicans, are willing to play this role for us.

So what are we to do? Well, each of us can and should decide for ourselves how we want to be involved in the policy process, and I am making absolutely no comment here about that personal choice.
Emotions are running very, very high right now, and there is lots of fear about the future of civil rights and liberties, the social safety net, and even the very character of our nation. Am I suggesting that we should not care about these things and not do our part? Not at all. And please remember that those of us who do this policy work for a living on behalf of people with vision loss have always been committed to big picture issues, especially when it is clear that those big picture issues have a direct impact on and are of significant interest to people who are blind or visually impaired.

I can promise you that we will, as we always have, make common cause with groups both within and outside the disability community when we share common concerns.

However, if we merely march in lock step with others on such macro-level issues, we will be leaving vulnerable many of the issues that are so critical to all of us. I for one, who have had the tremendous honor for many years of being able to enjoy a career working on behalf of people just like me who are blind or visually impaired, am urging organizations of and for people with vision loss to keep laser focused on the issues that are both most of interest to us and that nobody else is going to defend. You can do this work with us regardless of where you happen to be on the political continuum.

If you believe that government has a robust role to play in our society, then join us in our ongoing efforts to make use of government to break down barriers and to compel compliance with common sense solutions. If you believe that government is far too big and needs to get out of the business of micromanaging our lives, then join us in working to toss out those "one size fits all" power grabs that have been imposed on our community over many years that only serve to limit opportunity and consumer choice. There is plenty to work on, and plenty of ways to work on it.

All I am saying here is that our agenda does not change with the unpredictable, ever changing, and sometimes tumultuous political winds. If fighting for information accessibility, quality special education, meaningful services to older people, and a rich variety of opportunities for people with vision loss to achieve the American dream were worth fighting for before election day, then they remain worth fighting for after election day. But someone must fight for them. Nobody will, if we do not!

So with that, friends, let's each of us be involved in the policy process as our values and consciences lead us. And, as a community of women and men who are blind or visually impaired, family members, friends, professionals and advocates, let us also renew our commitment to stand up for what we know is right.

Very sincerely yours,

Mark Richert, Esq.
Director, Public Policy, AFB
(202) 469-6833
Mrichert@AFB.net
mailto:Mrichert@AFB.net

Mark,
Thank you for your words of wisdom. Change is always difficult, but if we are informed and engaged in working towards a common understanding, and goal, we know that the journey is worth it. Let's be Thankful for what has been accomplished and greatful that we can continue to move forward.

From: AERNet [mailto:aernet-bounces@lists.aerbvi.org] On Behalf Of Mark Richert
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 8:01 AM
To: aernet@lists.aerbvi.org
Subject: Re: [AERNet] Life After Elections: Described TV, Deep Breaths, and a Way to Move Forward

View this email in your browserhttp://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=bd3c8fefc9f905f5ccf41c577&id=9fc12b9f0d&e=c97bce6fad
[American Foundation for the Blind logo: Expanding possibilities]

Life After Elections:

Deep Breaths, and a Way to Move Forward
Dear Advocates:

Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was supposed to vote on whether the total number of hours of described TV should be significantly increased from their current levels and whether the rules should be modified to ensure that many more Americans with vision loss would be able to enjoy described TV. I say this was supposed to happen today; it will not. Why? Because prominent members of the U.S. Congress who have oversight responsibilities for the FCC wrote to the Commission earlier this week to insist that the FCC refrain from the issuance of virtually any new rules of any kind.

Why would members of Congress do this? Because the current FCC has a majority of FCC Commissioners that were appointed by a Democratic Administration, and now that a Republican Administration has been elected to assume the Presidency, the Republican-controlled Congress is keen on making sure that the FCC's regulatory authority is exercised in light of that fact. Is this unprecedented? No, in fact, in 2008, while President George W. Bush still held office but after Barack Obama became President-Elect, Democrats, who would be controlling both houses of Congress at the start of President Obama's first term, similarly demanded that the FCC cease its rulemaking proceedings. Indeed, the key congressional Republicans' letters to the FCC this week explicitly recounted this history as justification for their position. You should also know, however, that there are rumors that the FCC would have been willing to ignore the letters from the Hill and proceed with their plans today but for some behind-the-scenes maneuvering by one of the Democratically appointed FCC Commissioners for reasons that probably should not be commented upon. Ah, politics.

What does this mean for the future of described TV? It means that, at least for the moment, we cannot expect the FCC to require the nation's leading broadcast and cable/satellite networks to offer us more mandated described TV than is required today, approximately four hours per week of prime time or children's programming by each of the leading television networks. Could the FCC decide to change direction yet again and move forward at some point in the near future with the rulemaking that they were to vote on today? Yes, they could. Once the new Presidential Administration assumes the helm, could the FCC still bring this proposal to a vote? Of course. Is it fair to assume though that the chances of such a proposal passing will be slimmer than they are now? Naturally.

I am sharing these developments with you today for two reasons.

First, I know that we were all hopeful that the FCC would act to make the obvious benefits of described TV available to more people and with more programming choices. But I am also sharing this with you because, over these last eight days since the November 8 election, I have been asked over and over again about what I think the future holds for the issues we all care about. So let me try to offer some observations.

While it is crystal clear to anyone who has been awake during this seemingly endless election season that the 2016 Presidential election has been unprecedented for myriad reasons, we have, nevertheless, been here before. In fact, we have had a front row seat, fairly recently, to see what single party control of both the Congress and the White House means for the progress of a particular public policy agenda. It means exactly what you'd think it might mean; where divided government leads to gridlock, single party control allows for lots of movement. And lots of movement means lots of dangerous possibilities, and yes friends, lots of potential opportunities. It is going to be a very busy few years for sure.

Like nearly each of you I'm sure, I have very strong personal feelings about the in-coming Administration and the composition of the Congress. Do I believe, however, that last week's election changes anything regarding what we know is right for those of us who are blind or visually impaired and what we need to do to achieve it? With all my heart, I do not. Here's why.

Let's just stick with the relatively limited issue of described TV for a moment. Is it my personal belief that the federal government has a role to play in mandating that national TV networks be compelled to describe their programming? Yes. Are there people who are blind or visually impaired who disagree with this perspective? Yes, of course. Does any of that matter? No. What matters is that, after decades of discussion, and even sometimes hostile debate, our community is unified in its enthusiastic support for described TV. Is a federal regulation inherently necessary to ensure that described TV is provided? Well, if people with vision loss demand described TV, and the networks provide it voluntarily, then no, a federal mandate is not per se necessary. However, as we know all too painfully, the overwhelming call by our community for described TV was ignored and then opposed by the nation's networks. So did that mean that we went home and felt sorry for ourselves? We did not. We determined that our overwhelming demand for described TV would manifest itself in federal legislation to compel the networks to provide described TV, and we prevailed.

At no time over the course of my career in public policy have I ever said that I wanted to advocate for this or that legislative or regulatory fix just because we felt that having a law on the books at the federal level was a good idea in itself. No, our advocacy has always been about achieving real results for people who are blind or visually impaired. Having the government involved is not the end goal; progress toward a more accessible and inclusive society is. And yet, as James Madison wrote more than two centuries ago, "If men were angels, government would not be necessary." And since none of us are angels, we can be sure that human beings will not always do what is right.

Now let me come at this from a much broader angle. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor anyone else is going to come to our rescue out of their very nature; only we can demand their understanding and allegiance. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor anyone else is going to automatically understand and stand up for what's right for children and youth who are blind, visually impaired, or deafblind; we are the only champions for their right to a truly appropriate education. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor anyone else understands our unique needs for technology and information accessibility and how to achieve it better than we do. Neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor the cross-disability community, nor anyone else has ever made an appropriate long-term national commitment to meet the needs of older people who struggle to learn how to live with vision loss in their later years, but we have. And while Republicans, Democrats, the cross-disability community, and plenty of others, couldn't figure out how to rework America's job training and vocational rehabilitation system after more than sixteen years without leaving workers who are blind or visually impaired and older people with vision loss for whom employment may not be an option out in the cold, we have had the solutions all along, for decades, and continue to stand for what is right.

My basic point is this: the values we share as a community, the positions we have taken, the posture we have assumed, and the ends we hope to achieve, are not, and have never been, dependent upon a specific political ideology or party affiliation. As tough as this will be for some of us on the political left to hear, we in the vision loss community have been betrayed now and then by Democrats and have been championed by staunch right wingers. And as mad as this might make some of us on the political right, like it or not, we need people to help us make the case for doing the right thing when free market forces fail us or clueless state and local bureaucracies will not bend.More often than not, Democrats, and even a few Republicans, are willing to play this role for us.

So what are we to do? Well, each of us can and should decide for ourselves how we want to be involved in the policy process, and I am making absolutely no comment here about that personal choice.
Emotions are running very, very high right now, and there is lots of fear about the future of civil rights and liberties, the social safety net, and even the very character of our nation. Am I suggesting that we should not care about these things and not do our part? Not at all. And please remember that those of us who do this policy work for a living on behalf of people with vision loss have always been committed to big picture issues, especially when it is clear that those big picture issues have a direct impact on and are of significant interest to people who are blind or visually impaired.

I can promise you that we will, as we always have, make common cause with groups both within and outside the disability community when we share common concerns.

However, if we merely march in lock step with others on such macro-level issues, we will be leaving vulnerable many of the issues that are so critical to all of us. I for one, who have had the tremendous honor for many years of being able to enjoy a career working on behalf of people just like me who are blind or visually impaired, am urging organizations of and for people with vision loss to keep laser focused on the issues that are both most of interest to us and that nobody else is going to defend. You can do this work with us regardless of where you happen to be on the political continuum.

If you believe that government has a robust role to play in our society, then join us in our ongoing efforts to make use of government to break down barriers and to compel compliance with common sense solutions. If you believe that government is far too big and needs to get out of the business of micromanaging our lives, then join us in working to toss out those "one size fits all" power grabs that have been imposed on our community over many years that only serve to limit opportunity and consumer choice. There is plenty to work on, and plenty of ways to work on it.

All I am saying here is that our agenda does not change with the unpredictable, ever changing, and sometimes tumultuous political winds. If fighting for information accessibility, quality special education, meaningful services to older people, and a rich variety of opportunities for people with vision loss to achieve the American dream were worth fighting for before election day, then they remain worth fighting for after election day. But someone must fight for them. Nobody will, if we do not!

So with that, friends, let's each of us be involved in the policy process as our values and consciences lead us. And, as a community of women and men who are blind or visually impaired, family members, friends, professionals and advocates, let us also renew our commitment to stand up for what we know is right.

Very sincerely yours,

Mark Richert, Esq.
Director, Public Policy, AFB
(202) 469-6833
Mrichert@AFB.net
mailto:Mrichert@AFB.net