From: Jamal.Mazrui@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org (Jamal Mazrui)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: "blind loyalty"
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:04:32 GMT
Reply-To: Jamal.Mazrui@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:101/460.0 - VI/BUG, Holbrook MA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 24195

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hi Mike!  It is precisely because of my involvement in the NFB that I
explained the affiliate action committee the way I did.  Intellegence
for Jernigan is not its only purpose.  I have said that ofen
individuals play the role of a "friendly neighborhood policeman,"
solving logistical problems, etc.  However, I think their highest
calling is their political role.  It may not arise ofen for any given
individual, but they were selected for their skill and loyalty in
handling such matters.  It is no accident that Homer Page, an
undoubtedly skilled politician with mainstream elected positions to
prove it, serves as the head of this team.  When Jernigan tells people
as part of their assignment to "tell me what I need to know," there is
little doubt that this includes information about individuals or
associations of individuals that may in the short or longer tem
interfere with things "running smoothly" according to his preferences.
Talk of a resolution or candidate for office that might cause
"disruption" or a "lack of unity" on the convention floor are examples
of things not "running smoothly."

As an example of Homer Page's clearly political role, he requested a
meeting with me as soon as I arrived at the New Orleans convention.  He
must have directed his committee to be looking for me because the call
came to my roon not more than ten minutes after I had checked into the
hotel on a Saturday evening.  We met for breakfast the enxt morning,
ostensibly so he could "assume me that I would not be physically
harassed at the convention."  On one level this was a nice assurance
from the NFB leadership that the issue of my case would not result in
possible attacks to my physical integrity.  On another level, however, I
could discern another purpose to his meeting with me early on--to find
out whatever he could about my campaign plans during the convention.  a
45 minute breakfast would not have been necessary simply to deliver a
statement of physical safety.  I told him that I was glad for this
assurance (since I have heard of former expellees being jeered and
almost assaulted at a previous convention), but I was more concerned
about an assurance that my case would in fact be considered by the
convention according to constitutional procedure.  He said that he
couldn't say anything about that either way.

On the subject of the "Blind Loyalty" article, some of the quotes made
by non-NFB people were simply opinions by people with long experience
with Jernigan.  They were not necessarily statements of fact that could
be researched.  For example, I was quoted as describing him as an
inspirinus who felt he was playing a historical role that others
sometimes could not fathom, and therefore had to be weeded out.  This
is clearly an opinion not a statement of fact because of the subjective
words involved, including "inspiring," "genius," etc.  Cuningham did,
however, request documentation from me about my expulsion, which I
provided her at length.  The article also indicates she did
considerable research about what happened in Iowa, as evidenced by the
amount of detail, pats of which were new information to people I know
who have been in the organization for a long time.

By the way, do you think your journalism standards are met by such
articles in the Braille Monitor as the pieces about Grant Mack, Al
Jenkins, and Telesensory?

Jamal

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460.0!Jamal.Mazrui
Internet: Jamal.Mazrui@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org