From: Steve Zielinski 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Harvey,
	Yes, Harvey, it's the lack of meaningful political involvement 
that really concerns me.  It's sad, because the federation has a winning 
philosophy and a truly life changing concept.  Some day the politics will 
change but it will require the general membership to understand what is 
going on.  Political involvement is not what draws most people to the 
organization, it wasn't so for me, but fair treatment and an overal sense 
of fairness are important.  The politics are what they are because they 
were developed that way from the top with little impetus to change from 
the common members.  Therefore the leadership was free to set up the 
rules as much in their favor as possible.  When the general membership 
begin to try and take back some power, they will meet resistance from the 
leadership, that is the natural nature of power in any group.  If the 
momentum is strong enough the general membership will gain some power 
back, but their will be casuties in the process, expulsions and 
reorganizations and the like.
	I think Jamal feels that the overall objectives of the 
organization are worth his support more than the current political 
situation within the organization.  I don't in any way mean to  speak for 
him and I could be entirely wrong.  He also believes in the philosophy of 
the organization as I and you do.  I give him credit for trying to work 
within a political structure of which he is quite familiar, you can be sure.
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Harvey Heagy wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Steve.  I think you hit it right on the head.  We are not
> opposed to the N.F.B. philosophy or its accomplishments, but to
> some of the internal politics of the organization.  The expulsion
> to Jamal Mazrui to which you referred to is a classic example.
> Our national leadership is always saying that if we have a
> dispute to come to the convention and work it out.  But what they
> really mean is, "Work it out our way."  Jamal never got a fair
> hearing and that is a violation of the spirit if not the letter
> of our own constitution.  Even if he did something terrible which
> warranted expulsion he still deserved a fair hearing.
> 
> But do you remember in 1981 when the John Taylor Silvester Nemers
> thing was the top story?  The national got behind John
> Halverson's non-debatable resolution that any consideration of
> that matter be held off till Friday afternoon which would have
> rendered them ineffective even if they had won.  I don't blame
> them for not accepting that even though I never agreed nor had
> much regard for John Taylor and his crowd.  It still violated the
> very words our leaders claim to espouse of giving everyone a fair
> hearing.  So I think you hit it right on the head.  Sure we want
> someone protecting our rights as blind people, but while we
> recognize that rules and constitutions are not perfect and that
> sometimes exceptions must be made, we want the
> same standards to apply to the national leadership as does for
> the rank and file.  I'm surprised he even wanted to come
> back.
> 
> 
> Harvey
> 
> 
> 
+----------------------------+
|  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
|      stevez@ripco.com      |
+----------------------------+
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------