Last week Tuesday Topics was supposed to look at two issues. As has often happened in the past with this presentation, we never got to our second issue. Instead we ranged from a discussion of the impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its consequences to even broader questions like "how do you %decide what changes you really want to make in the law and how much detail is needed? The net result was that we have our topic for next week and we will just have to hope it will sustain us for two hours.

The second question we  didn't get to concerns blindness itself. If you had the chance, would you want to have your vision back? Would you want to participate in the electronic vision exercises currently going on that create some semblance of vision at this stage but may enable more in the future? Who would be most likely to answer affirmatively when asked about recovering vision? Would it be people with some vision? Would it be people who have recently lost vision? We think these questions are interesting and may relate to a broader one. Are we devoting too much money to research  that could lead to the recovery of vision? Would we get more bang from our buck by devoting funds to serving people with vision loss rather than working on eye research aimed to restore vision?

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co

I received a couple of chides from faithful listeners who expressed dismay and chagrin that we did not cover the ADA on its anniversary. Had I thought of it, it might have happened. The 26th for me is my son's birthday and since he is not a girl I could not name him "Ada". I don't think it matters that our discussion is a week later than the anniversary. The law and its value, unlike the economy, is not likely to change much in seven days. What is its value? Are those of us who are blind making appropriate use of its provisions? What does the ADA offer to us and how can we maximize what we get through the law? Should we seek to change it in the current political climate?

The second question I propose we spend some time on is one that lots of people have asked. If you had the chance, would you want to have your vision back? Would you want to participate in the electronic vision exercises that create some semblance of vision at this stage but may enable more in the future? Who would be most likely to answer affirmatively when asked about recovering vision? Would it be people with some vision? Would it be people who have recently lost vision? We think these questions are interesting and may relate to a broader one. Are we devoting too much money to research  that could lead to the recovery of vision? Would we get more bang from our buck by devoting funds to serving people with vision loss?

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co

Paul Edwards and Brian Charlson will begin a discussion that we fervently hope our listeners will help us continue. It is on a subject that may make some of you uncomfortable.

ACB is an organization of people who are blind but it is also an organization of just plain people. Some of these folks are conservative and some are liberal. Some come from the South of this country while some are from the North. Is ACB a liberal organization? Do we make enough room for conservatives? Is ACB a conservative organization? Do we make enough room for liberals? Are we somewhere in between? How should ACB handle political difference? Should extreme views be discouraged? Should we seek to limit the expression of political views because they do not directly relate to blindness? What are conservative views of how blindness should be dealt with? What would liberals say? Surely, given their differing views on the role of government, their notions of how the nation ought to treat people who are blind should differ as well. We hope you will join us to explore the political character of ACB and what it might mean for how we interact with each other.

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co

It has been too long since our last Tuesday Topics program appeared for your delectation. However, we are back. My producers Rick Morin and Larry Gassmann are ready to go and my new co-host and i can hardly wait to once more foster good conversation and the exchange of ideas. I am overjoyed to let everyone know that, from now on, Brian Charlson is my co-host for TT. We were partners in the past and I am delighted to be partners again!

Of course, we are going to talk about the convention. I had actually thought that we might not but Brian convinced me that, in spite of the fact that some of you may be conventioned out by the time we get to Tuesday, there would still be value in what we plan to do. We have discussed the convention and we think that our approach will lead us to look at some elephants that may be in the room and some ways of making sure they don't step all over our next convention. Did ACB do enough with regard to Covid? How can we improve the debate process? Is there a better way to handle resolutions? How different is debate in person and only on Zoom? These are just some of the questions we will explore. There will be lots of opportunities for your input.

We do not intend to bash the convention! We want to focus on the pluses and minuses surrounding it! Truly, a hybrid convention is quite an accomplishment!

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co

This is, of course, not the only time the committee will meet. Open meetings will happen on Tuesdays and Thursdays and those resolutions up for discussion will be described. On this show we will deal with a situation on the Resolutions Committee that I have never seen before. By the way, I am saying "we" because I am a member of the committee. What I have not seen before are two resolutions asking for precisely the opposite outcome. I will not give the resolutions away because they may change but there is a resolution that asks that people do a very simple thing submitted by one affiliate for good reasons. There is another resolution submitted by another affiliate that asks ACB to support exactly the opposite action. The debate should be interesting! I don't think that the Resolutions Committee can send both forward. I suppose the committee could decide to let the members decide and send both on. I hope that doesn't happen but we will see. There may also be a couple of additional resolutions for the committee to look at if the first few go well. Tune in or join the debate as Tuesday Topics and the Resolutions Committee join forces on May 17. Remember to join us tonight for a chance to be involved with the resolutions committee as the tackle three resolutions. They will also describe the process which will be used this year to give our members the opportunity to vote on resolutions.

Tuesday Topics will, as usual, happen between 7 and 9 PM on May 17. ACB is having a hybrid convention and Tuesday Topics is sort of having a hybrid show. We have invited a cast of thousands to join us. That means the Resolutions Committee. We will talk about the resolutions process but will actually invite the Resolutions Committee to do their thing during the show. So we will actually read resolutions, accept them, make sure we are happy with the wording and invite members of the audience to tell us what they think. It's kind of a cool process.

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co

I am honored to have as my guest Michael Faire who has just released the second edition of his huge, free book that begins to be about the iphone but turns out to be about so many other things. We will talk about why he wrote the book in the first place. We will explore what is new about the second edition and, of course, we will talk about accessible games. Michael edited the magazine of accessible gaming for years and probably knows as much about the history of accessible gaming as does anyone around today.

Seldom has one person played such a pivotal role as Michael Faire played in the area of accessible games. He has lots to share.

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co

Tech Tips on Tuesday Topics.

For the last few Tuesday Topics we have dealt with some fairly heavy topics. I thought it might be fun to share new things on this next show. How I spend my days as someone who is retired involves the use of a variety of technologies. I spend a good deal of time with baseball, lots of time with music, some time with podcasts, some time watching TV

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co

For the last six decades there has been debate about whether there is such a thing as "disability culture". There has also, by extension, been a serious question as to whether such a thing as blindness culture exists. Most people would accept that there is "deaf culture". Many would accept that there is such a thing as "black culture", "women's culture" and "lgbtq culture". However, those who have spent time identifying and exploring culture are opposed by those who argue that  the interrelationships that operate are insufficient to be called "culture" when applied to people who are blind or have low vision.

Are there characteristics that we can identify that would justify saying there is a "blindness culture"? Does this culture apply to all people who are blind? How does it impact us if it is real? Is it a good thing? Should we be proud of it? Should we do things to promote it?

It is not my intention to make this discussion a sterile, erudite exploration of carefully articulated notions. Instead, I am interested in exploring with you whether there is an identity that operates for those of us who are blind that is strong enough to be measured and noticed. Finally, there is an elephant lurking in the room. Are there factors that are making blindness culture go away? There are lots of "cultures" that were widespread in our country in the past that are far less influential and pervasive than they used to be. Is "blindness culture" in that category? Does it matter? Help us define and perhaps validate "blindness culture". It could be more important than it might seem.

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co

How ought one to choose a person with whom you wish to have a long-term relationship? We have lots of instances of partnerships between people who are blind and people who are fully sighted. We also have partnerships between two folks who are blind. Is there a difference? Does a relationship between two people who are blind work better? Does a relationship between blind and sighted people work best? Is that the right question? What are the factors which make the two kinds of relationships different from each other? What are the strengths of each? Share what has and has not worked for you.

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co

Tuesday Topics will continue a tradition we began last year. We explored last year just how ACB was going to vote during a totally digital convention. This year we are dealing with a different animal in that our convention in Omaha Nebraska will be a "hybrid convention". In other words, we have to meet the needs of those folks who are at home and do not choose to attend our ACB meetings in person and the requirements of those who have decided they want to be at our conference in person!

How does this change how we will handle votes! How will we handle amendments to our governing documents if there are any? What if we don't finish everything by the time of our last in-person meeting. The Voting Task Force has at least some of the answers to these questions and will also discuss how a one week convention has suddenly grown and why!

I am not sure just who will be a part of the task force group but I think we can expect to hear from Patrick Sheehan, Ray Campbell, John McCann and Koni Sims. We may have some others but I know we will have an exciting discussion that I hope many of you will join in. We plan to allow for lots of questions during our time together.

Find out more at https://acb-tuesday-topics.pinecast.co