X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Approved-By:  Bill McGarry <wtm@SHELDEV.SHEL.ISC-BR.COM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.l-hcap
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:00:54 EDT
Reply-To:     Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
From:         Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
Subject:      Handicap Digest # 2886
X-To:         LHCAP <l-hcap@VM1.NODAK.EDU>

                             THE HANDICAP DIGEST

                                 Issue # 2886

                         Wednesday, August 19, 1992

Today's Topics:


                                ******

                           Blink Talk Digest # 696

                             Re: "Blind Loyalty"
                            Re: B n s and grade 2
                                Acb/Nfb Feud
                               "Blind Loyalty"
                               Re: Nls And nfb
                          Re: nfb bbs censorship??
                             Re: "blind loyalty"
                          Re: nfb bbs censorship??
                                 Re: Spanish
                             Re: "blind loyalty"


                                ******


To subscribe to the Handicap Digest mailing list or have your
thoughts in the next issue, please send electronic mail to
Bill McGarry at any of the following addresses:


UUCP:       uunet!bunker!wtm
INTERNET:   wtm@bunker.shel.isc-br.com
BITNET:     l-hcap@ndsuvm1.bitnet
Fidonet:    The Handicap News BBS (141/420)   1-203-337-1607
	    (300/1200/2400 baud, 24 hours)
Compuserve: 73170,1064

                              Bill McGarry (Moderator)
                              (203) 337-1518



------



Subject: Re: "Blind Loyalty"
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

To: mattioli@took.enet.dec.com (John Mattioli)

 In a message to All <17 Jul 92 18:58> John Mattioli wrote:

 JM> As far as the text of the article
 JM> itself goes, let's just say that
 JM> if everything they say about the NFB
 JM> is true, I'm darn glad I don't
 JM> work there.  I'd have a hard time
 JM> working for a guy who's WIFE even
 JM> calls him Dr.

Hi, John.

First, as I indicated in an earlier message, everything in the article
is certainly not true.  Leaving that asside, however, let's consider the
so-called military atmosphere and manner Ms. Cunningham alleges exists
at the National Center for the Blind and see if there is not an
explanation that makes sense.  (By the way, I have absolutely no idea,
and do not care, what Mrs. Jernigan calls Dr. Jernigan at home or off
the premises of the National Center; it's none of my business anyway.)

It should be noted that Mrs. Jernigan worked at the National
Center long before she married Dr. Jernigan.  Thus, the habits she
acquired would tend to carry over.  This leaves the question begging,
however, as to why formal titles are used at the National Center.

In the days of yore (up to say ten years ago and maybe even after in
some places) it was common in social service agencies (including rehab
agencies) to refer to clients by their first names while requiring
clients to call staff and counselors "Mr.", "miss" or "mrs.".  The use
of these appellations was to indicate respect for those with authority.
One still sees this with teachers.  With use, such titles also became
(consider the teachers again) a means of *indicating* authority.  Thus,
in rehab, blind clients were constantly reminded of their inferior
status viz a viz the counselors, psychologists, O&M instructors, RT's,
etc. etc. etc.

Beginning in Iowa, I believe, Dr. Jernigan sought to break this verbal
barrier of exclusivity.  There are two ways of doing this:  call
everyone by first names or call everyone by sirnames with titles.  Dr.
Jernigan wanted it to be indicated to everyone (including the clients
themselves) that they were respected.  Thus, he chose to have everyone
call everyone else "Mr.", "mrs." or "miss".  We must remember that,
until fairly recently, it was still common in offices to call people by
sirnames with appropriate prefixes.  Dr. Jernigan is 65 now; he is a
product of an earlier generation.  I still remember the vestiges of that
system.  While it makes little sense to we baby-boomers, it made plenty
of sense to those who went before.

Lest you think this is unique to the NFB, my wife was a social worker
working for the State of New Mexico during the 1970's.  Her supervisor
told her that she should call clients by their sirnames with "Mr." etc.
attached because the clients called her by her sirname and it was
desired to give the clients respect.

One final point:  do any of you remember "To Sir with Love"?  The
teacher there told the students that they all (along with him) were
"sir" because they were going to be adults soon and they had better get
used to being treated like adults.

Mike Freeman

P.S.  John, I realize this may be anathema to you; we programmers are,
by and large, an informal bunch.  But believe me, in context, the rule
makes some sense.  In any case, compared to worrying about decreasing
the unemployment rate of the blind or fighting for minimum wages for
sheltered shop workers or fighting to get blind day-care workers
accepted, a matter like what one is to be called on the job pales into
insignificance.

-MF-
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: B n s and grade 2
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to William Wilson <18 Jul 92 13:57> Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:

 > TW>> turns the tranlator on and brailles
 > TW>> in grade two. then when she
 > TW>> prints it she does I think she said
 > TW>> a cord b and a cord t and
 > TW>> the paper product comes out in
 > TW>> grade 2.  so you all figure this
 > TW>> one out.
 > WW>      If you use the translator when
 > WW> you create your file, it
 > WW>  is, of course, in the form of grade
 > WW> 2 braille.  If you then
 > WW>  transmit it to a print printer, or
 > WW> want it stored as straight
 > WW>  ASCII on whatever source you're
 > WW> sending it to, you turn the
 > WW>  translator on in the status menu.
 > WW> In other words, it "reverse
 > WW>  translates" the braille file to an
 > WW> ASCII file. If, however,
 > WW>  you are sending it to a braille
 > WW> printer, and you want it to be
 > WW>  printed as the braille file it was
 > WW> composed as, you turn the
 > WW>  braille translator off in the
 > WW> status menu.  This way, it will
 > WW>  be sent out just as you composed
 > WW> it, no reverse translation
 > WW>  taking place, and assuming you
 > WW> formatted it correctly, it
 > WW>  should at the least be readable
 > WW> grade 2 braille in hard copy.
 CH> Hi, guys.
 CH> You are nearly correct, Willy. The BNS
 CH> translator actually only works on
 CH> stuff coming out of a file, and not on
 CH> stuff going into a file. It only
 CH> back-translates, and does not
 CH> forward-translate. If you write stuff
 CH> using contractions, you have to have
 CH> the translator on in order to hear
 CH> it in English, and in order to upload
 CH> it in ASCII or print it in print.
 CH> If you enter stuff without using
 CH> contractions, then forget about the
 CH> translator for reading, uploading, and
 CH> printing. The only way to get
 CH> grade 2 braille out of the BNS is to
 CH> enter the contractions yourself,
 CH> then upload or output the stuff
 CH> without the back-translator (the only
 CH> translator) turned on. Lots of people
 CH> use Turbo Braille on their
 CH> desktops to create grade 2 for downloading onto their BNS.

 > WW>  If I did, I would
 > WW>  probably still want to send it to a PC and do a good
 > WW>  translation with Turbo-Braille, so
 > WW> I would still probably not
 > WW>  use the translator in my creation of the file.

 CH> If I am right, you are saying that
 CH> Turbo Braille does a better job than
 CH> you do by hand, Willie, not better
 CH> than BNS. Turbo Braille has no
 CH> back-translator at all. I had a guy
 CH> call me once in despair because he
 CH> deleted his source file and only had a
 CH> braille file left, and he was
 CH> pretty upset that TBRL could not
 CH> back-translate it for him. I advised
 CH> him to download it to his BNS, then
 CH> turn his BNS translator on and
 CH> upload it again. He decided not to
 CH> take his own life after all. ...
 CH> Chuck.

Hi, Chuck!

Glad we didn't have to read about that feller in the obits!

As to this BNS business, you've explained it extremely well with one
tiny caveat:  In order to transmit a Grade II file to a Braille printer
from the Braille 'N Speak, one does not have to go into the status menu
and turn the Braille back-translator off.  One only needs to do a
T-chord B.  This transmits the file with the back-translator off but
still honoring the format parameters (line length, page length, top
margin and left margin) you've set from the status menu.  With the June
26, 1992, revision of the BNS640 software, those parameters are
file-specific, BTW.

Happy Brailling!

Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J >
... ** "A cynic is right nine times out of ten." -- H. L. Mencken **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Acb/Nfb Feud
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Isaac Obie <16 Jul 92 23:49> Chris Bazzie wrote:

 CB> A friend of mine was telling me a
 CB> short story of how he was once treated
 CB> for accidently knocking over a large
 CB> textured map.  I can't even begin
 CB> to think of how school workers could
 CB> get away with these sorts of
 CB> things.  Doesn't anyone pay any
 CB> attention to what goes on?  In the
 CB> average public school, such behavior
 CB> by the staff would result in large
 CB> lawsuits, parental censure, and
 CB> investigations by state authorities, but
 CB> it seems (seemed?) to have been
 CB> accepted behavior for staff at schools
 CB> for the Blind and/or Deaf from what I
 CB> have been told.  Unbelievable!

Hi, Chris.

You're dead right; it's nearly unbelievable.  Yet I dare say that if you
were to get a hundred blind adults into a room (blind adults who had
attended a residential school for the blind), ninety-eight of them would
have at least one horror story to tell about their experiences at those
schools.  Until fairly recently (and, in some cases, still) many, if not
most, of the residential schools for the blind had the atmosphere
reminiscent of that of an old-fashioned English public school with all
that that analogy implies in terms of hazings, cruelty to students by
staff and other students and, yes, let us say it, forced sexual contact,
both heterosexual and homosexual, on the part of *some* students by
other students and staff.  At least one principal of a school for the
blind with which I am acquainted had to be let go because of illicit
sexual contact (in this case, homosexual) with students.  IMHO things
are worse at combined schools for the blind and deaf but I cannot prove
this.

What's worse is that, as recently as 1980, there were kids at the
Washington State School for the Blind whose family living conditions
would have resulted in their being protected by the state and the
families' being prosecuted for child abuse and/or neglect, were the kids
not blind.  School personnel almost expected that the school would be
the last haven for these kids.

Yes, you're absolutely correct; society (until recently, at least)
didn't care about the kids because they were blind -- an institution
designated for the purpose would "take care of them" so that the normals
would not have to look upon them.

In fairness, I think things have improved tremendously in the last
fifteen years (though there are still abuses).  I know the Washington
State School, though it has some faults, is now a happy place and most
of the kids there really like it (as much as any children like school).
The kids go home on the weekends so there's a built-in check to
outrageous, cruel or illegal behavior on the part of school personnel or
other students.

Mike Freeman
... ** The blind are no longer willing to be second-class citizens. **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: "Blind Loyalty"
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to David Andrews <18 Jul 92 18:06> Jamal Mazrui wrote:

 JM> Hi David!  Let me say for the record
 JM> that I don't think Jernigan
 JM> could have made a finer selection than
 JM> you as sysop of the NFB
 JM> board.  You are competent, committed, and articulate.

 JM> One statement you made that I think
 JM> deserves discussion is your
 JM> explanation of why you dis-allowed the
 JM> "Blind Loyalty" article
 JM> after it had been uploaded to NFB-NET.
 JM>  You told Tim Cumings
 JM> something to the effect that members'
 JM> hard-earned money would not
 JM> go to supporting a forum of attack
 JM> against the NFB.  The critical
 JM> forum part I think you meant.
 JM> Bringing members' money into it was
 JM> I think insincere.  Given the hardware
 JM> resources of that board, the
 JM> volume of traffic, and the nearly 10
 JM> million NFB annual budget, the
 JM> financial cost of posting that article
 JM> is clearly negligible.  The
 JM> exceptional act of dis-allowing a mainstream article about
 JM> blindness for undoubtedly interested
 JM> users of the board to read is
 JM> more sincerely explained, I think, by
 JM> what I heard Mike Freeman
 JM> essentially state.  NFB-Net exists to
 JM> promote the NFB and its
 JM> philosophy.  Therefore posting
 JM> material that may raise questions
 JM> about this in the minds of readers is
 JM> counterproductive to the
 JM> purpose of that board.

 JM> Perhaps you now defend your action
 JM> with this line of reasoning and
 JM> Your original
 JM> explanation reminded me of the
 JM> rational Jernigan gave last summer
 JM> for not allowing me to publicly defend
 JM> myself on the floor of the
 JM> convention against my expulsion by the
 JM> national board.

Hi, Jamal!

There was a straight up-and-down vote by the convention as to whether it
would hear your case.  If the vote had been in the affirmative, you'd
have been given ample opportunity to state your case.  Remember also
that you had distributed to what I assume was a wide variety of movers
and shakers in the NFB tapes designed to put your case for retension as
a member of the organization.  Given that many members had read your
materials, I should say that they had at least a modicum of information
upon which to base their vote.

The convention voted not to hear your case -- I know; I was there -- and
thus let the decision of the Board of Directors stand.

You can choose to believe that the convention was led by the nose; I
believe otherwise.  So be it.

Mike Freeman
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: Nls And nfb
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Bill Koppelmann <17 Jul 92 21:20> Carol Ashland wrote:

 CA> As far as
 CA> I am concerned, they do a terrible job.  Mostly just junk
 CA> that they braille and record.

Hi, Carol.

Yeah, NLS produces too many romances and fiction best-sellers and not
enough nonfiction such as history, etc.  But, try as I might, I can't
convince NLS personnel to dump the romances! <grin>

Cheers!

Mike
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: nfb bbs censorship??
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

To: mattioli@took.enet.dec.com (John R. Mattioli)

 Hello, John.

Thank you for a rational and thoughtful post.

In a message to All <17 Jul 92 18:45> John R. Mattioli wrote:

 JR> People are always saying what
 JR> they know to be true and often it
 JR> turns out that it isn't quite
 JR> true.  Anybody who reads any news
 JR> article without understanding
 JR> that fact (whether the article is in
 JR> the Monitor, the Forum or the
 JR> New York TImes) is only fooling
 JR> themselves.  Reporters are supposed
 JR> to be impartial, but I don't buy that and haven't for ages!

Absolutely.  In reading anything, one must always keep in mind the
source(s) from which information was obtained and one must be alert for
the bias(es) of the writer(s).

I think that some reporters try to be objective; some try far harder
than others and one can infer from their writings how hard they tried by
how many "loaded" phrases they use.

 JR> This is all very interesting of
 JR> course, but it doesn't answer Tim's
 JR> question.  The question is, "Did the
 JR> sysop (or sysops) of the NFB
 JR> board censor this article?"  I suspect
 JR> that they did, and I believe
 JR> there may be good reasons for them to
 JR> do so.  Since you, David,
 JR> sent a message to Tim that I view as
 JR> somewhat less then friendly,
 JR> I'm interested in why you feel this
 JR> article should be censored.

The article contained misinformation, incorrect impressions given by
inference and some outright misstatements of fact (read lies).  Why
should we, the NFB, be responsible for distributing far and wide
misinformation about ourselves?  The information is certainly widely
available in any case.  Mr. Mazrui has posted one source for the
electronic version of the article; Mr. Cumings has cited another.
Anyone who wishes to read the article should have little difficulty in
obtaining a copy.

 JR> You mention lies, where are there
 JR> lies?  You mention enuendo, where
 JR> is this enuendo?  ...

Let's take the lies first.  I shall not go thru the whole article here
as all the SysOps are paying for this and it ain't worth the money
<grin>.  I'll just cite a few.

Consider first Ms. Cunningham's statement that, in addition to
opposition from governmental agencies and private companies with whom
Dr. Jernigan (and, by implication, the NFB) have tangled, there exists
enmity of more significant impact from members of the blind community
who are disgruntled about the vast sums NFB spends to sue its affiliates
who get out of line in order to control (with the control of his
hand-picked Board of Directors) the blind agenda of this country.  To
begin with, note the inference that Dr. Jernigan *is* the NFB and the
NFB he.  This simply is not the case.  Come to the NFB conventions and
see for yourselves.  Next, note the assumption that the board is
"hand-picked".  Certainly Dr. Jernigan, Marc Maurer and the other top
leaders of the Federation make their preferences for membership on the
Board of Directors known.  Certainly they have influence.  This is a
long way, however, from saying that the board is hand-picked.  The
nominees must be elected by the convention and, furthermore, nominations
can be (and are) made from the floor for each elective office of the
National Federation of the blind.  Now consider the assertion that NFB
sues its state affiliates to control the "blind agenda" of the country.
Certainly we of the NFB would like a large say in what goes on in the
blindness field.  We already have it.  But we aren't suing our
affiliates to keep control of what's said and done by others **except
when it is done in our name**.  For example, in California, Mr. Acosta
maintained that the NFB Board of Directors had no right to take
disciplinary action wrt him or his followers and that, whatever
happened, he'd not obey any instructions from the NFB Board, anyway.  He
was unwilling to accept the Board's judgment until the convention.
Under the circumstance, if the Board was to maintain its authority, it
had little choice but to take action.  Read the tapes of the meeting (we
of the NFB make them available uncensored -- all umpty-ump hours of it)
and see for yourselves.  Afterword, Acosta continued to raise money in
the name of the NFB and harassed our own fund-raisers.  We had little
choice to sue.

In Pennsylvania in, I believe, 1977, the NFB expelled the affiliate at
the convention because, as I understand it, the affiliate violated the
NFB Constitution's provisions for membership.  In fact, the then-NFB
affiliate, I understand, had a waiting-list for membership!  Yuch!  We
of the NFB could not tolerate that sort of funny-business and
exclusivity.

Another like (or at least stretch of the truth) came in the bald
assertion that NAC was always, is now and ever shall be an "independent
agency".  Poppycock!  AFB begat it; AFB funded it, for the most part,
for most of its life; without AFB support, it soon will die.  The simple
adage applies:  whose money I take, his song I sing.

One more example should suffice to illustrate the pattern.  Ms.
Cunningham writes of the fact that many NFBers during the 1970's
imitated many of Dr. Jernigan's habits. and tastes.  This was cited in
support of the charge of a "cult of personality" said to be fostered by
Dr. Jernigan.  No consideration was given to the possibility that the
idoliters didn't ask Dr. Jernigan's permission or that there wasn't much
he could do about it (short of dictatorial pronouncements).  Besides,
imitation is the highest form of flattery.  This is, though, beside the
point.  Ms. Cunningham stated that some of the habits imitated allowed
the blind imitators to lead fuller lives.  The *one* example she cites
is that of blind persons switching from the use of a dog guide to that
of a cane "which Dr. Jernigan favored".  First of all, the Iowa
Commission for the Blind was in the business of teaching O&M using a
cane.  Second, Dr. Jernigan has never said that it is necessary to give
up a dog in order to lead a full (or fuller) life.  And, most damning of
all, the assumption that giving up a dog leads to a fuller life is not
questioned.  Guide dog owners arise!  You have nothing to loose but your
slander!

So much for the lies.  Two instances of inuendo should be enough to
round out the picture.  First, Ms. Cunningham trots out all the old
hysterical material from the Des Moines Register during its attacks on
Dr. Jernigan in the late '70's.  For example, she relates the rumor that
there were plans to set up an antiaircraft gun on the roof of the
Commission.  To be sure, Ms. Cunningham stated that the rumors were
never proven and that no such gun was found but why bring unfounded
rumors up?  This is not a sociological study; it is a report on a leader
of an organization.  As such, such twaddle has no place in an objective
article.  I would go further:  in reporting the plethora of
anti-Jernigan articles in the Des Moines Register, Ms. Cunningham failed
to note that a relative of one of the Register editors was an official
with the Minneapolis Society for the Blind (MSB) with which the
Federation was then in dispute about policies and representation on
MSB's Board of Directors.  Such information puts a whole new slant on
the Des Moines rumor mill cum Register articles.

My second example comes from Ms. Cunningham's description of the work
rules at the National Center for the Blind.  Her phrasing makes it seem
a dictatorial edict that persons should be at work on time and that
someone checks this or that people aren't supposed to take coffee-breaks
until an allotted time.  How is this different from much of industry?
My work schedule is a bit more flexible but there *are* required hours,
lunch break duration requirements, etc.  At the very least, it's hard to
make a unique case out of the NFB's staff work rules when a good
fraction of industry's workers punches time clocks.  So much for lies
and inuendo.

 JR> I ask this question in all sincerity.
 JR> I don't know much about the
 JR> internals of the NFB and I'd like to
 JR> because I'd like to formualte
 JR> my own oppinion of the organization.

Call NFBNET and ask any questions you like.  I appreciate someone who is
curious and free-thinking enough to investigate things for himself.
Also fell free to correspond with me on GEnie or via the Internet.  I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have to the best of my
ability.

 JR> You asked Tim why NFB should waste
 JR> it's member's hard earned money
 JR> on this article?  I think there's a
 JR> good reason for NFB members to
 JR> read this article.  I think it's
 JR> highly instructive for members to
 JR> read what's being published about the
 JR> organizations they are
 JR> members of and I think they should
 JR> have the intelegence to figure
 JR> out for themselves what is true and what is not.

Absolutely.  My whole NFB chapter has read and discussed the article.  I
know of a number of other members of the NFB who have read the article.

The question is not whether the article should be read.  Rather, the
question is whether or not the NFB should help to spread the article by
allowing it to be placed on its BBS.  To the former question, I say an
emphatic "yes", although one should read the article critically.  To the
latter question I say "no".  The Democrats do not publish the Republican
platform in their own literature, or vice versa.  No one, I take it,
maintains that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are
undemocratic or evil in and of themselves.  Why should the NFB be held
to play by different rules and be held to a different standard of
conduct than the major political parties in this country?

 JR> I can understand TSI being somewhat
 JR> reluctant to publish the
 JR> Monitor article regarding their
 JR> (TSI's) questionable business
 JR> practices, they never claimed to be
 JR> democratic in any sense of the
 JR> word.  They're in the business of
 JR> making money for their owners the
 JR> way a for proffit business should be.
 JR> NFB, on the other hand, is a
 JR> different type of organization and I
 JR> believe it's members have a
 JR> right to know what's happening outside the organization.

Right you are.  They should be able to investigate for themselves and
other organizations don't need NFB to do their work for them.

-+

------


Mike Freeman <K7UIJ>    |       Internet: freeman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu
301 N.E. 107th Street   |       GEnie: M.FREEMAN11
Vancouver, WA 98685     |       Fidonet: Mike Freeman at 1.105/126
Telephone (206)574-8221 |       Braille forever!
... *The National Federation of the Blind is changing what it means to be
 blind.*
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: "blind loyalty"
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Joseph Miller <23 Jul 92 07:43> Jamal Mazrui wrote:

 JM> I personally admire
 JM> much of what Homer Page has accomplished, but have no
 JM> doubt that as a state president and chair of the
 JM> "Affiliate Action Committee" (whose duty is to monitor and
 JM> report signs of controversey to Jernigan) that he would
 JM> have given strictly loyal party line.

Jamal, I must beg to differ with you here.  You say that the duty of the
Affiliate Action Committee is to monitor and report signs of controversy
to Jernigan.  I'm afraid you're about 170 degrees out on this one.  The
prime duty of the Affiliate Action Committee is to solve convention
problems.  In most cases, these do not even involve Dr. Jernigan; they
are logistical in nature.  I know; I've solved some of those problems.
One involved a lady whose colostomy bag was coming undone; another
involved the procuring of a wheelchair in a hurry for someone; still
another involved taking care of a disoriented old lady (who has since
died).  The Affiliate Action Committee's purpose is to make things go
smoothly at the convention -- and I do not mean politically.  Yes, Dr.
Jernigan admonishes the Committee to tell him of things of which he
should know -- things that the Committee members cannot solve for
themselves.  It is not contemplated, however, that political squabbles
be reported to Dr. Jernigan unless they threaten to disrupt the
convention (which your case would not have done).  You, of all people,
should know this, Jamal, having been in the NFB for over a decade.
Given this, I am forced to wonder why you choose, in my opinion, to not
tell the whole story.  But then this is the problem with the whole sorry
business of this article, IMHO.  It's all of a piece.

[Material deleted]

 JM> The article is not a one-sided critism of the NFB.  Rather,
 JM> the difference between this and NFB publications, is that
 JM> it presents both sides.  People can then judge for
 JM> themselves and wigh various factors. Jamal
 JM> s

On the contrary, I assert that the article in fact did present both
sides -- but not fairly.  You yourself admit that Ms. Cunningham spent
more time at the National Center than with other interviewees.  This
tells me that she was not a careful reporter; that she did not
scrutinize with a jaundiced eye the pronouncements of interviewees other
than those you would maintain toe the "Jernigan line".  What kind of
fairness is that?  Fledgling reporters learn very early that often there
is far more to *any* story than appears on the surface.  You intimate
that Ms. Cunningham found this out in working on the NFB story.  Fair
enough.  Then why didn't she cast the same jaundiced eye on the
statments of NFB critics, seeking to determine the motives of those
critics and trying to get NFB's side of the story?  She shows no
evidence of any specific research on any one of the "problem areas" of
the NFB she cites in her story; her language indicates that she
automatically assumes that the statements of NFB critics are, a priori,
correct and should be taken at face value.

One may call this style of journalism many things.  IMHO fairness and
even-handedness are not among them.

Mike Freeman
... ** "A cynic is right nine times out of ten." -- H. L. Mencken **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: nfb bbs censorship??
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Carla Campbell <23 Jul 92 14:05> Christopher Hill wrote:

 CH> An excellent message.  I agree wholeheartedly!
 CH> Until the petty polotics ends, I've got better things to do
 CH> with my time, like make a living.  If the organization
 CH> can't tolerate differing opinions, why should I join?  I'd
 CH> just get booted out anyway :-)

Hi, Chris.

A lot has been written here about tolerance for various opinions (or the
lack thereof), about petty politics and about the fact that
organizations such as the NFB do not represent the views of so-called
nonalligned blind persons.  I think that the continued discussion shows
that some on this echo harbor some misconceptions about organizations of
the blind, and, in particular, about the NFB.  I also think that Carla's
call for rational thinking should be honored.  Let's do some clear
thinking.

I don't like "petty politics" either.  I doubt that very many other
people, in the NFB, ACB or no organization, like petty politics.  But
what do we mean by the term?  If we mean the dickering over political
offices, the perquisites of power, personalities and the like, we must
ultimately conclude that such dickering is unavoidable.  It is as old as
humanity and occurs in every organization.  Become active in a
neighborhood association, condo association, PTA, church political
hierarchy or secular political party and you will get "petty politics"
in spades.  Unfortunately, it's just part of the human condition.  The
only way to stop it -- and this only temporarily -- is to get the
participants to step outside their small world and take on a common
cause (or, if you will, enemy).  Petty politics ceases only when the
participants feel that there are problems so vast that everything else
becomes unimportant.  This happens in the NFB quite often and is the
underpinning of NFB's practices.

It should also be noted that what is one person's "petty politics"
matters very much to someone else.  What one person considers as
meaningless often turns out to be someone else's basic principle.  Thus,
many ACBers (and nonalligned blind, too) seem to despair when NFB and
ACB tangle on any issue, pining for a day when, as Rodney King said, we
can "all get along".  While this is eminently desirable, what this wish
fails to take into account is the differing style and approach of the
two organizations and, in some cases, the differing goals professed by
both.  For instance, as I understand it (and Durward McDaniel made this
clear in the debate leading up to the vote for expulsion of the fifteen
or so affiliates from NFB in 1961 that led up to the forming of ACB),
ACB is essentially a "states' rights" organization.  People who join ACB
make no demands of their fellow ACBers (and make no agreements)
concerning what anyone in the organization will say and when about any
subject, even if it works to the detriment of the goals of the
organization as a whole or any of its affiliates or special-interest
affiliates.  NFB, on the other hand, asks that a person joining it
pledge not to air disagreements in public.  We can fight like cats and
dogs over policy (and often do) but, once a vote has been taken,
everyone closes ranks behind the policy.  This does not mean that
discussion ends; in fact, policies can be reversed.  It simply means
that the discussions are carried on within the organization.  It is a
voluntary compact among the membership.  But, perhaps, I digress.

As I say, what is considered petty politics depends upon who is doing
the defining.  Let's get down to specific cases and stop the
generalizations.  Only in this way can we get a handle on what is fact,
what is opinion and what we, after careful consideration, think about
the points of view here shared.

As to your getting booted out if you were in the NFB:  you would very
definitely run the risk if you joined, then attacked NFB policy openly
and publicly.  But you could argue within the organization (at chapter
meetings, among NFBers and in correspondence) to your heart's content.
You could bring resolutions to change policy and no one -- be it
President Maurer, Dr. Jernigan, the Board of Directors, the Resolutions
Committee or anyone else, can bottle that resolution up if you wish it
to be considered.  That's not suppression of opinion in my book.

Two last observations:  first, if people do not care to join an
organization and participate in its activities, why should that
organization listen to their (the nonjoiners') opinions?  Second, what
mechanism would you suggest for an organization to get a representative
opinion sample from those who are not members?  Unless people join an
organization and make their opinions felt, that organization has no way
of incorporating the views of those people into its policies.  In other
words, staying uninvolved because no organization represents one's views
perpetuates such lack of representation.  Think about it.

Mike Freeman

P.S.  I work for a living, too!

-MF-
... ** The blind are no longer willing to be second-class citizens. **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: Spanish
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hi, Bill!

You asked about Spanish contracted Braille.  Iused to know it reasonably
well.  You asked whether the whole-word contractions in English were the
same as those in Spanish.  In a word, no.  Each language has its own
whole-word, part-word and sign contractions.  I used to read French
contracted Braille and also German contracted Braille (can still read
the latter fairly well).  Each has its own contractions, though a very
few are common with those of Standard English Braille.

In other words, asside from the alphabet, which is roughly the same, one
must learn Braille for each language as a separate code, as it were.

Cheers!

Mike
... ** "O Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet." -- St. Augustine **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: "blind loyalty"
From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA


[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hi, Jamal!

You take me to task for my use of Ms. Cunningham's description of NAC as
an example of the inaccuracies that, IMHO, typify her article in July's
Baltimore Magazine entitled "Blind Loyalty".  In doing so, you
essentially employee the loyer's device of the "alternative defenses".
That is, you case that, on the one hand, by common standards, Ms.
Cunningham's description of NAC as an "independent" organization would
be considered accurate but if, on the other hand, NAC was (or is) not
truly independent -- and you admit that there were/are good reasons for
questioning that supposed independence -- that NAC was not essential to
Ms. Cunningham's story and, hence, that such an inaccuracy does not
matter.  You challenge me to come up with more persuasive examples to
support my claims that the article exhibits bias and that the statements
of interviewees were not thoroughly investigated.

To my mind, Jamal, the foregoing doesn't wash.  To my mind, a reporter
should, strive to be absolutely accurate.  Ms. Cunningham had two months
to do this story; that should have been ample time to research all
aspects of the story, including NFB's tangle with NAC, what NAC thought
of NFB, why NFB tangled with NAC and the origins of NAC and where NAC
got its funds.  The fact that she mentions NAC at all indicates that she
had some knowledge that NFB considered NAC's existence an issue.  Why
not research just a bit farther and scope out NAC?  After all, she might
have come up with some anti-NFB dirt.  In the process, she would have
discovered NAC's funding sources and this would have given her at least
some caution in making a statement such as she made.

In a sense, however, you are absolutely correct; NAC is only at the
periphery of Ms. Cunningham's story.  However, IMHO, can be considered a
touchstone by which we can evaluate the rest of her work, at least in
this article.  True, I could have cited many other instances (and have,
I believe, in subsequent posts).  However, some on this echo have hinted
broadly that I have waxed over-prolific in my writings so I was
endeavoring not to write a great ptome.  So I confined myself to citing
a few instances of what I consider to be misleading writing, maintaining
that they were and are illustrative of the problems exhibited by this
article.  C'est la vie.

As for subjectivity, I do not doubt that there is a place for personal
opinion and subjective analysis in journalism.  I maintain, however,
that it should be clearly labeled such and should be set apart from
factual reporting.  To be sure, Ms. Cunningham's piece was, to a
certain, extent, supposed to be impressionistic.  Even so, however, I
maintain that this does not give her license to tell only part of the
story or to phrase things in such a way that subjective judgments
masquerade as objective reporting.

Mike Freeman
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org




------






                                ******

                  End of Issue # 2886 of the Handicap Digest

                                ******
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU