From: 
Subject: Undeliverable Message
To:            ISMTP@B11WDC-OV08B@Servers[]
Cc:            
Subject:       NFB-TALK Digest
Message not delivered to recipients below.  Press F1 for help with VNM
error codes.               
	VNM3036:  Bennett Prows@OCR@SEATTLE
VNM3036 -- RETRY PERIOD EXPIRED
   If a user sends a message with an undeliverable
   address, Mail keeps trying to deliver the 
   message for a time period specified by the message
   expiration time.  If the message cannot be 
   delivered within that period, the sender receives
   a notice of undeliverable mail with this error code.
   Check the address on the message, and make any
   necessary corrections.  If the address appears to
   be correct, verify that the connections to the 
   recipient's mail service are working properly and 
   that the recipient's group still exists.
----------------------  Original Message Follows  ----------------------
NFB-TALK Digest             16 Apr 98 19:00:01 -0800
Today's Topics:
:
          Re: Why The NFB
          Re: Why The NFB
          Re: Why the NFB
          Re: Why The NFB
          Re: Why The NFB
          Re: Why The NFB
Note: This is the NFBnet NFB Talk mailing list, in digest format.  To
post a message, simply reply to this message or email it to the address
"NFB-Talk@NFBnet.org".  To unsubscribe, send a message to the address
"Listserv@NFBnet.org" with the command "UNSUB NFTALK-D" in the message
body.  Email David.Andrews@NFBnet.org for more details.
-*-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:00:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Steve, I find your comments valuable.  
As a chapter president, and having been an elected officer of our
affiliate, I certainly want and wanted to power to carry out our work.  At
the same time, as one who would call for a pure democracy (in the nation
and in private organizations) if I thought it could work, I put everything
I can to a vote.  Not only does this arise from my view that more
participation is better, but I think it gives me the trust I need from the
people who have elected me when I must act quickly, with no time for a
vote and little time to consult.
I also believe strongly in our philosophy of blindness.  If anything, I
think that sometimes we're not consistent enough with it.  Yet, if I were
really facing a choice between having that philosophy prevail and having a
more participatory democracy, I'd choose the latter with much pain but no
hesitation.  This is because a philosophy that will shape the lives of the
blind must ultimately come from as many as possible of the blind people
whose lives will be shaped.  The best I can do is try to persuade others
to have the equalitarian philosophy we articulate.  
Of course, democracy is not an excuse to violate your organization's
policies.  While I'm in this outfit, I'll live with votes I wish I didn't
have to.  So it should have been with those members you mentioned who were
trotted out by regressive agencies as NFB representatives.  
Well, take care!
Al
 -----------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:41:42 -0600
From: Jim Marks 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
I don't understand the emphasis on democracy.  Democracies can and do go
bad.  Surely reasonable people won't support mob rule, the worst form of
democracy.  Representative forms of government such as we have in the
United States and in the Federation certainly have their faults, but they
do assure that good ideas float to the surface.  Moreover, democracies
don't guarantee full participation and representative governments don't
exclude full participation.  Methinks we are confusing means with ends
here.  The philosophy of blindness perpetrated by our organization is the
point, the ends we hope to achieve.  We don't gather to pat one another on
the back for being democratic or accountable; we work together to do
something about blindness.  The means of accomplishing this are multi-fold.
 No single way is best in our efforts to change what it means to be blind.
We have to maintain our integrity, but we absolutely must keep our eyes on
the prize.
And here's another thing to ponder along the same lines.  I am an
administrator of a student affairs department at a university.  As the
administrator, I can and often do elect to use different forms of
leadership.  Sometimes I act autocratically and independently.  Sometimes I
gather input from my staff and make decisions based on the input.  And
still other times, I put issues to democratic votes.  In other words, I
choose different means to accomplish what I feel are important ends.
Success is measured by the outcomes rather than the processes used.
Whenever I can, I try to include others as well as trying to nurture
understandings.  But sometimes this just doesn't work.  All opinions aren't
equal.  Now I realize volunteer groups such as the Federation are different
from the workplace.  But come on.  We need to spend most of our energies on
blindness and less on how we do things.  It seems that when we debate the
processes used by our organization, it should always fall within the
context of our mission.  The evaluations of the processes as well as of our
leaders can then be relevant and centered.
Take the resolutions process.  Is it more important to have good quality
resolutions or is it more important to give every opinion equal weight?  In
either case, equal opportunity is presumed because I see nothing which
prevents anyone from exercising their opinions.  Instead, the resolutions
process has been weighted to the favor of the leadership within the
organization.  The standards might be higher, but the opportunity remains
constant.  Finally, I must ask.  Has there ever been a resolution denied
which is truly in the best interests of first class citizenship for the
blind?  I doubt it.  And I think the stricter guidelines help us fulfill
our mission better than leaving the doors wide open.
Jim Marks
 -----------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:36:46 -0500
From: David Andrews 
Subject: Re: Why the NFB
There have been assertions here that the NFB doesn't allow debate.  I was
just saying that it isn't true.
David andrews
At 11:55 AM 4/15/98 +0500, you wrote:
>
>
>
>On 1998-04-15 NFB-Talk@NFBnet.org said:
> NF>I see lots of debate here, and this list is sponsored by the
>NFB,
> NF>and paid for largely by the NFB.
> NF>David Andrews
>What does that have to do with anything?  Are you implying that
>we shouldn't have debate because the N.F.B. pays for the list?
>Or are you saying that the N.F.B. leadership has done nothing to
>stop the ongoing debate even though it pays for the list?  They
>know they can't stop this discussion by any other means other
>than shutting down the list or by removing those of us who voice
>differing views which would confirm what we are saying.
>
>Harvey
>
>
>
>
 -----------------------------
Date: Thr, 16 Apr 1998 07:48:09 -0700
From: empower@smart.net
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
 I agree that any organization must strike some balance between
democracy and efficiency.  To get a sense of how much democracy was
sacrificed for the sake of a more efficient resolutions process, I'm
curious how many resolutions have moved forward by obtaining
the requisite number of signatures of resolutions committee
members and/or state affiliate presidents.  It would be interesting to
compare such numbers in an equivalent time period to how many 
reached the floor when an individual had a right to bring a 
resolution to the membership that was prepared at the beginning of 
convention--sometimes after a discussion with fellow Federationists 
there that led to the idea.  Of course, other factors may also be 
involved, so feel free to broaden the analysis.
Regards,
Jamal
Net-Tamer V 1.09.2  - Registered
 -----------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 08:41:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Zielinski 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
This is a a good and objective test of how well the resolutions process 
works for more controversial resolutions.  Good ideas there Jamal.
On 16 xxx -1 empower@smart.net wrote: 
> 
> 
>  I agree that any organization must strike some balance between
> democracy and efficiency.  To get a sense of how much democracy was
> sacrificed for the sake of a more efficient resolutions process, I'm
> curious how many resolutions have moved forward by obtaining
> the requisite number of signatures of resolutions committee
> members and/or state affiliate presidents.  It would be interesting to
> compare such numbers in an equivalent time period to how many 
> reached the floor when an individual had a right to bring a 
> resolution to the membership that was prepared at the beginning of 
> convention--sometimes after a discussion with fellow Federationists 
> there that led to the idea.  Of course, other factors may also be 
> involved, so feel free to broaden the analysis.
> 
> Regards,
> Jamal
> 
> Net-Tamer V 1.09.2  - Registered
> 
> 
+----------------------------+
|  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
|      stevez@ripco.com      |
+----------------------------+
 -----------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:17:46 CDT
From: sojacobson@mmm.com
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Steve,
Isn't the impact of your comments here that one really can't trust the 
membership?  On the one hand, you are advocating for greater democracy, 
while on the other you are saying that the membership should not have the 
right or power to accept the recommendations of the leadership.  Unless I 
am not understanding your point, I think it is the influence of the 
leadership that makes you uncomfortable, not the political structure.  
I'm not trying to be critical of that, only saying that it changes the 
focus of discussion.   
> Jim, 
> 
> The criticism in this thread does not have anything to do with the
> empowering nature of the nfb philosophy.  Many, myself included, view that
> philosophy as a valid means of dealing with the social aspects of
> blindness, lack of understanding from people, discrimination, etc.  I have
> absolutely no problem with the general empowering philosophy of blindness
> which the NFB promotes.  I feel it is the only way to fly.  Some may take
> the philosophy a little over board in my opinion, but as long as they
> don't include general rudeness towards others, sighted or blind, then
> that's fine with me.  In fact I've found that most of the competent blind
> people I know have been touched positively by NFB philosophy. 
> 
>       The problem is in the political structure of the NFB itself.  The 
> lack of meaningful input is evident to those who would only observe.  The 
> reason that so many do not see it is in part because they agree with the 
> political structure and therefore don't see the need to challenge it 
> directly.  An example.  
> 
>       After an attempt was made to get the membership to have an
> opportunity to vote on re instating Jamal Mazrui into the organization
> after he was expelled by means of having the general membership have a
> chance to vote on it, the National Board blocked the opportunity for the
> membership to vote.  After that occured, the NFB constitution was changed
> so that it would take four or five state presidents and/or national board
> members to sign off on any members request to take a similar issue to the
> board.  That additional hurdle to have a chance for the common member to
> have a vote is the kind of political games which offend many.  And of
> course, the general membership approved the changes, thereby tightening 
> the national boards power over the membership politically. 
> 
>       I think for many in the NFB, the organization is similar to a 
> religious experience, where they feel they finally belong.  The group 
>  cannot do any wrong, and if it could be considered that it may have made 
>  a mistake, it is viewed as only marginal and isolated.  With this 
> attitude there is no desire or need to analyse and examine what is really 
> happening, that would turn over the boat and open up lines of attact from 
> the "enemies outside".  As long as this kind of "close the circle" belief 
> system exists in the NFB, the basic lack of meaningful political 
> involvement will continue.  There are those in the NFB who basically talk 
> among themselves about internal political structure but don't step up to 
> the plate to try and make a change.  I think part of the reason for lack 
> of attempting to make a change is the knowledge that it is a very hard 
> road to take, fraught with lots of obsticles.  One of the greatest 
> obsticles is the memberships lack of understanding and possibility of 
> turning on them personally.  
> 
>       Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Jim Marks wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Montanans are an independent lot.  We take rugged individualism to
> > extremes, and view national organizations with mulish skepticism.  
> > 
> > As a committed Federationist, I have encountered much resistance to our
> > organization from other Montanans.  Presumably the reluctance to
> > cooperating with national authorities stems from the cowboy 
ibertarianism
> > for which our state is so infamous.  But I don't think we can blame the
> > independence streak for anti-NFB rhetoric.  I believe the opposition to 
the
> > NFB comes as a direct result of people's relationship with blindness.  
ur
> > organization, imperfect as it is, unquestionably challenges everyone's
> > understanding of blindness.  Many are comfortable with attributing
> > blindness as the problem rather than grasping that attitudes are the real
> > oppressor.  Time and time again I have witnessed people react negatively 
to
> > the NFB because the leadership presses hard for positive attitudes,
> > personal accountability, and self-determination.  As a friend of mine who
> > just attended his first convention last year said, the NFB raises the 
ar.
> > It develops our own self-awareness and changes what it means to be blind.
> > Some react well by getting more involved and trying to shape our
> > organization through the involvement.  Others elect to criticize the way
> > things are done without contributing to the movement in meaningful ways.
> > Some even stoop to really silly name calling and baiting.  But as for me, 
I
> > am very glad to be a Federationist.  And if such affirmations make me 
eem
> > like a mindless follower, think again.  I am a Montanan and am skeptical 
as
> > hell of anything that looks too good to be true.  I am involved because 
f
> > the principles and because I get a direct infusion of ever increasing
> > expectations for myself.  No, we're not a bunch of super blind folk; we 
are
> > just doing the best we can.  I, for one, have much to learn.  And I have
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------