Last chance to have your 2000 donation doubled
from the and-now-a-word-from-our-sponsor dept.
Sunday, December 31, is the last day to have your tax-year-2000 donation to Foresight doubled by our $35,000 Challenge Grant. To get your year 2000 U.S. federal tax deduction: donate online, fax, or write your check by tomorrow. (Donations to Foresight are tax-deductible in the U.S. to the full extent allowed by law.) Save more by donating stock. Read more for the various options, from $5K and up, down to $45 or even $0. Become a Foresight Senior Associate at $250 to $5000 annually:
http://www.foresight.org/SrAssoc
Join as a Foresight regular member at $45 and up:
http://www.foresight.org/FI/FEMform.html
Can't give $45? Hey, we understand. Be an electronic member for free:
http://www.foresight.org/FI/RegMemb.html
Details on the Challenge Grant:
http://www.foresight.org/FI/Matching6.html
Donating stock for added tax benefits to the donor (you):
http://www.foresight.org/Updates/Update37/Update37.2.html#GiveFIStock
December 30th, 2000 at 7:11 PM
question
I'm going to pony up at the lowest Senior Associate level, just so no one can call me a deadbeat, but I have a question that's not answered on the SA FAQ page:
Why doesn't (or does) Foresight run on foundation grants like other small membership organizations?
January 3rd, 2001 at 12:19 PM
Re:question
I'm not sure what you mean here. Membership organizations do normally charge dues for membership. Maybe you're wondering, "does Foresight also get income from foundation grants?" The answer is that we get a small fraction of our income from private foundations.
Originally, Foresight was too controversial to appeal to the more conservative public foundations. Now, we might be more palatable to them. We intend to find out, but we don't have grantwriting expertise in-house currently. (Personally, I find the process intimidating.) Individuals are more visionary in their giving than are big organizations, I believe.
January 4th, 2001 at 8:42 AM
In for a penny…
You have created a tiered membership system with relatively high dues for full membership. Other organizations typically ask for higher contributions from those members who feel they can afford them, but I think this usually goes no further than some nominal designation. A few large foundation grants could greatly reduce your need to fundraise from the base. I know it's a lot of work hustling them up, but there are people who are professionals at that.
As you know, I've been around a while. My reaction to the announcement of "Senior Associates" was negative, not because I would miss the amount of money requested, but because it was more than I would normally contribute in membership dues to a public-education/public interest group. This raises a lot of issues:
1) Is Foresight a cult? If I make such a relatively large contribution to this organization, is my own objectivity in doubt?
2) Is status within the organization defined in terms of wealth or degree of financial support?
3) What about the declared commitment to intellectual honesty, to rigorous and open debate? Shouldn't this involve the public as well as an inner circle? Shouldn't ideas have an equal opportunity to be heard and judged on their merits, without regard to financial means or whether the source of the idea is fully on-board with the organization?
It is good that you now have nanodot, which is open to anyone without cost, and that you have also created zero-cost "electronic membership." Foresight originally promised to create what would be exceptionally fair and honest forums for the exchange of divergent views and for work toward consensus, or at least clarity. I think there is a tension between that promise and the use of the organization as a vehicle for "engineering public opinion" by its founders and inner circle. There is a distinct perspective and orthodoxy which is apparent, and I have had to be pushy and at times rude in order to raise dissenting viewpoints. Foresight has proven to be more tolerant and open to such input than many organizations, but I feel that the reality still falls short of the ideals expressed in EoC or in Foresight's many statements of mission.
I am pledging now at the Senior Associates level because I find that I have become involved de facto, so it's a matter of dues-paying. The money itself is not really an issue, even for a graduate student with a new baby. What is an issue, for me, is whether Foresight will live up to its promises of openness and intellectual honesty, which I think implies that ideas and individuals should be able to be heard and to compete, as needed, on an equal basis, with no preference for those with greater ability or willingness to contribute financially, and no bias against viewpoints that diverge from those of the organization's founders and officers.
January 4th, 2001 at 4:54 PM
Re:In for a penny…
>A few large foundation grants could greatly reduce
>your need to fundraise from the base. I know it's a lot
>of work hustling them up, but there are people who are
>professionals at that.
Certainly. And professionals cost money. We don't have it.
>1) Is Foresight a cult?
Your asking this mystifies me, and is also very depressing.
>2) Is status within the organization defined in terms of wealth
>or degree of financial support?
We give the higher levels of Senior Associates nice titles, which
virtually no one ever uses. This is a standard practice in nonprofits.
If you're asking whether we've succeeded in making every member's
level of wealth be completely unknown, or have it not matter to
anyone, then no. That's impossible.
>It is good that you now have nanodot, which is open to anyone without
>cost, and that you have also created zero-cost "electronic membership."
>Foresight originally promised to create what would be exceptionally
>fair and honest forums for the exchange of divergent views and for work
>toward consensus, or at least clarity.
We are doing the best we can. If you can do better, I will join your
organization as a Senior Associate right now.
>…I have had to be pushy and at times rude
>in order to raise dissenting viewpoints.
Not on nanodot. Just post. That's what it's for.
>Foresight has proven to be more tolerant and open to such input than many
>organizations, but I feel that the reality still falls short of the ideals expressed
>in EoC or in Foresight's many statements of mission.
Well, gosh, maybe we should just give up; we have not achieved perfection.
>What is an issue, for me, is whether Foresight will live up to its promises
>of openness and intellectual honesty, which I think implies that ideas and individuals
>should be able to be heard and to compete, as needed, on an equal basis, with no preference
>for those with greater ability or willingness to contribute financially, and no bias against
>viewpoints that diverge from those of the organization's founders and officers.
If you have any specific suggestions on how to help this happen, let me know.
But do it later, because for now, you've succeeded in making me wonder whether all
this is worth the effort.
January 4th, 2001 at 8:34 PM
Re:In for a penny…
Chris,
I am not out to offend you personally. If I did not fundamentally and deeply admire your work, if I did not want to be involved and associated with what Foresight is doing, I wouldn't be writing, or contributing.
My original question was relatively innocent; I have often wondered why you didn't, or if you did, get support in large grants from foundations. I really don't know anything about what reasons you might have for not going that route, how easy it would be, or what burdens and pressures it would put on the organization and its mission. Perhaps you could get specific support for projects such as the social-software development. But you are in a much better position to know the realities of this, and I was only asking.
However, I rather carelessly opened a can of worms. There are difficult issues here.
I think there are cultish aspects observable in almost any organization or social situation. I do not think it is fair to characterize Foresight as a cult, but we know that some people have done so. That definitely makes it something to be wary of.
I don't expect Foresight to erase differences in wealth. I don't like "idea futures" much; if there is voting, I tend to think it ought to be democratic. Voting, however, is less important than openness and responsiveness to intellectual challenge, as opposed to its marginalization. EoC was very eloquent about this.
If this is "your" organization and not "ours," then I should not be be joining. But my understanding is that the organization has idealistic principles and ambitious goals.
I hope you don't really doubt it.