On 26 Sep 97 17:30, Hheagy@Delphi.Com wrote:
 Hh>  But I submit that those
 Hh> resources are a lot less than we have
 Hh> spent on this Mr. Magoo
 Hh> foolishness which is making us look incredibly stupid
You are entitled to your opinion; I beg to differ with you but we 
don't need *that* debate all over again.  In any event, the 
organization has spoken through the resolutions process.
 Hh> As a matter of fact, along that line,
 Hh> I heard from a friend of
 Hh> mine who attended a state leadership
 Hh> seminar in which Marc Maurer
 Hh> participated.  He brought with him a
 Hh> letter criticizing the Magoo
 Hh> matter as well as his response and
 Hh> according to the report I
 Hh> heard, his written response to the
 Hh> person was something to the
 Hh> effect that he had to defend the
 Hh> convention's decision whether or
 Hh> not he personally agreed with it since
 Hh> the convention passed the
 Hh> resolution.  I think everyone on this
 Hh> list knows that if this is
 Hh> true, his response is a cop-out.  The
Now waaaaaaaaaaait a cotton-pickin' minute here.  On the one hand, 
NFB is criticized because it is "undemocratic" and "dictatorial" 
and everything that happens, politically-speaking is a foregone 
conclusion.  On the other hand, you now chastize NFB leadership 
for following the will of the convention.  We can't have it both 
ways!  As I said in another post in this echo, it would appear as 
if NFB leadership, by these lights, can *never* do anything right.  
Surely that is not fair and I am sure that is not what you meant.
 Hh> national leadership sets
 Hh> the direction in which the organization goes and in fact
 Hh> instituted this resolution.  If they
I'm sorry, Harvey, but you know better than to make this blanket 
assertion.  While our national leadership certainly plays a 
prominent role in guiding policy, we, the membership, ultimately 
set it.  Many, many resolutions are brought by members which sset 
policy in areas in which NFB has not taken a position prior to the 
adoption of those resolutions.  If this needs to be spelled out 
further, consider the resolution which gave the policy impetus for 
our push for Braille Bills.  While maryland had introduced the 
first Braille Bill during the year prior to the adoption of that 
resolution, there was no set national policy on the issue although 
our position was relatively clear concerning Braille by consesus.  
In fact, the resolution which set us on the road to Braille Bills 
was originally authored by a rank-and-file member from Washington 
State.  Incidentally, it was and is far more radical than what we 
ultimately found politically feasible.
 Hh> didn't like it they could
 Hh> have killed it by speaking against it.  I think maybe our
Perhaps.  But I know of at least one instance wherein a resolution 
was passed because *everyone* thought it would fail so no one 
spoke up and its ambiguities were overlooked.  And this, mind you, 
was done under the old resolutions process.
 Hh> leadership has seen that the general
 Hh> public is not with us on
 Hh> this one and they would like to back
 Hh> out of it but can't find a
 Hh> way to do it other than the obvious
 Hh> one, admitting they made a
 Hh> mistake.
What's this "they" squashrot?  *We* voted for the resolution.  
Therefore, if there was a mistake made (and I do not think it was 
a mistake), *we* collectively made it.  Let's put the 
responsibility where it belongs.
 Hh> Regarding the Levi Straus ad which represents at best a
 Hh> misrepresentation and at worst a clear
 Hh> danger to dog guide users,
 Hh> this is something both organizations
 Hh> could work on together in much
 Hh> the same way we have formed a
 Hh> committee with R.S.V.A. and Sagebrush
 Hh> to help preserve the Randolph-shepherd program.
Oh?  I had not heard of that committee.  It may well make sense.  
But I don't think it warrants that kind of concerted, long-term 
effort, though the add is despicable!  has anyone contacted NADGU 
and Paul Gabias?
MIke Freeman
--- PCRR QWK 1.60
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------