customerservant.com

AT 4 O’CLOCK each morning, Laura J. Sloate begins her daily reading. She calls a phone service that reads newspapers aloud in a synthetic voice, and she
listens to The Wall Street Journal at 300 words a minute, which is nearly twice the average pace of speech. Later, an assistant reads The Financial Times
to her while she uses her computer’s text-to-speech system to play The Economist aloud. She devotes one ear to the paper and the other to the magazine.
The managing director of a Wall Street investment management firm, Sloate has been blind since age 6, and although she reads constantly, poring over the
news and the economic reports for several hours every morning, she does not use Braille. “Knowledge goes from my ears to my brain, not from my finger to
my brain,” she says. As a child she learned how the letters of the alphabet sounded, not how they appeared or felt on the page. She doesn’t think of a
comma in terms of its written form but rather as “a stop on the way before continuing.” This, she says, is the future of reading for the blind. “Literacy
evolves,” she told me. “When Braille was invented, in the 19th century, we had nothing else. We didn’t even have radio. At that time, blindness was a disability.
Now it’s just a minor, minor impairment.”

The above is taken from a New York Times article, documenting the decline of Braille literacy in the blind community. I find the viewpoint expressed to be particularly distressing, especially as a Braille reader. I have been reading Braille to some extent or another almost ever since I can remember, and I find it shocking that someone would willingly go through life without it. I’m not discounting the convenience of screen readers, mp3 players and other, more modern ways of accessing printed information. In fact, I use all of these to some extent or other myself. If it weren’t for these alternative methods of information-grabbing, going to college would be a lot more difficult. I remember the last time I attended college, when there weren’t widely-available mp3 players yet, and a big, bulky four-track tape recorder was considered portable, and upon comparing the two vastly different situations, I will definitely take this second go-round, with all of its new technology, over the first, hands down. But I would never dream of giving up Braille. I use a Braille Siddur (prayerbook) and Tanach (Bible), provided by JBI, and cherish the large, even cumbersome volumes lining the shelves in my office. I like the smell associated with books. It’s comforting in a way. Of course, I have some of these volumes, (by “volume” I’m referring to a complete book, not necessarily a Braille volue), on my Pac Mate. After all, having to carry, in some cases, multiple big, heavy volumes to synagogue is a huge inconvenience. But I don’t think I’ll ever get rid of the books, short of very pressing need. but back to my original train of thought. I don’t understand how anyone could choose to be illiterate, and that’s exactly what non-Braille literacy is for the blind community. Braille is our way of reading, and to not teach blind children how to read Braille is doing them a huge disservice. Being illiterate in Braille creates all kinds of problems in the blind community. The worst of these, in my oppinion, is the horrible spelling that often plagues said community. I’m not suggesting that everyone must perfectly spell every word. I don’t do that myself. But having a rudimentary understanding of grammar and spelling is a must, especially if one plans to work in a professional environment. In my mind, neglecting spelling and grammar is laziness, plain and simple. And for anyone to suggest that this is a good thing to do, or even just OK, is worse than even this. Unfortunately, I don’t see this trend changing for the better. I see Braille, despite the efforts of the National Federation of the National Federation of the Blind, becoming a dead language. But I commend the NFB for their efforts to keep this from happening, and that’s saying something, because most of the time, I disagree with them on everything. So I suppose I can always hope that their current Braille literacy campaign is successful, but I don’t expect it to be.
Hat tip: Darrell Shandrow, who is quoted in the article linked above.

We’re fast approaching the end of 2009, and the end of the first decade of the 21st century as well. To say that a lot’s happened in this departing decade would be an understatement. I won’t waste time making resolutions for 2010, because I think they’re a waste of time and would rather spend my time setting goals for myself. So far, even though 2009 got off to a bad start with the loss of my job, I started school and am progressing towards my goal of becoming Cicso certified as well as gaining various other certifications that I’m hoping will help me re-enter the work force and put some income in my pocket so that I can live, if not in the lap of luxury, at least comfortably. This decade has had a fair mix of good and bad. I’m sure future years and decades will as well, but I can always hope for more good than bad. I’d like to wish everyone lots of prosperity, of whatever kind you need, in this coming civil year, and I hope you all get to spend time concentrating on the things that are important to you and your goals. Happy 2010, everyone.

AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND — The Christmas season in sun-kissed New Zealand is normally a chilled-out, festive time more likely to involve beaches and barbecues
than robust debates on the story of Jesus’s birth.

But this year, many here are caught up in the latter (on the beach and around the barbecue, of course), because of a billboard outside St. Matthew-in-the-City,
a towering neo-gothic Anglican church on a bustling street in downtown Auckland.

The poster features Mary and Joseph in bed and apparently naked under the sheets. Joseph looks dejected, while Mary gazes sadly toward the heavens.

The caption reads: “Poor Joseph, God was a hard act to follow.”

The church insists that the billboard is an attempt to spark a discussion about faith in an increasingly secular nation. Some say it has at least prompted
a laugh or two.

I’m not a Christian, but even I can see where this would be considered offensive and unnecessary. I think the church could have achieved its goal of sparking discussion about the birth of Jesus, or told people they didn’t need to believe in supernatural things, in a different manner. But at least it’s not the non-Christians who will get tarred for this. The church decided to come up with this all by themselves. I suppose they get points for originality though.