From: Steve.Richards@f101.n277.z1.fidonet.org (Steve Richards)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Nfb Bbs Censorship??
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:43:32 GMT
Reply-To: Steve.Richards@f101.n277.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:277/101 - House Of Pancakes, Morgantown WV
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 24514

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Quoting Mike Freeman to Steve Richards on Aug 7, 1992:

MF>Thank you very much for a calm, sober-minded, well-reasoned post (the
MF>one I am responding to here).  I truly appreciate reasoned dialogue of
MF>the caliber you evince in this message.  You raise valid questions and I
MF>shall endeavor to comment upon them in the spirit of reason in which you
MF>made them.

Hi Mike, thank you.

MF>Your points are well-taken.  First, I would say that Dr. Jernigan ought
MF>not to be regarded as either a martyr or a person wearing devils' horns.
MF>He is a man who, as President of the Federation for many years and as
MF>the appointed Executive Director of the Federation under President
MF>Maurer, was and is charged with articulating and carrying out NFB
MF>policies as determined at the NFB national convention through
MF>resolutions or by a reasonable extrapolation therefrom.

You have a point.  Without the organization he represents he would not
be, indeed *could not be* what he is.  That is, he wouldn't be a visible
symbol of the blind advocacy movement, to be either admired or singled
out as a target.  For your part, I take it, you see him as a servant of
the people--namely NFB, and not the other way around.  Let me ask you
something:  Now, I'm asking for a subjective opinion, and only if you
care to give such an opinion.  Do you feel that there are some in NFB
who *do* award him adulation, and if so does this in any way hamper the
democratic process in the Federation?  In other words, do you think
there are some who *would* cater to Kenneth Jernigan's wishes merely
because they are his wishes?  My question isn't barbed, I'm just
wondering, and since you seem level-headed I think your answer would be
thought-out and honest.  I'll understand if you'd rather not comment.
Let me say this: I'm aware that there are many intelligent people in
NFB, and I've always thought that their presence in the organization was
paradoxical *if* the image of the NFB as a bunch of obedient zombies was
to be believed.  On the other hand, a few years ago I read a copy of a
letter from Kenneth Jernigan to Tim Hendell of Tampa Florida which
seemed to say that members of the NFB did not have the right to express
dissent, and if Tim didn't like that he could go elsewhere.  That letter
disturbed me; it still does.  I read Tim's letter that prompted the
reply as well, and it wasn't a vitriolic diatribe.  Yet the sentiment
expressed in Kenneth Jernigan's letter seems at odds with what I see on
NFB-NET sometimes, as well as what I said earlier about the intellectual
caliber of not a few NFB members.  It would help solve the paradox if I
could unearth the events leading up to those letters.

MF>I know that
MF>some will not believe it but I am not at all sure he really wants
MF>adulation; anyone who blindly follows one individual can be swayed to
MF>follow another with equal unthinking steadfastness.

That is very true.

MF>Those who have been (either in the Federation or on the outside) in a
MF>political tangle with him will see him in another light, of course.

Yes, I'll grant that.

MF>The question which we face is this:  to what extent should we, the
MF>people, in both government and private organizations, get the government
MF>we wish and/or deserve and to what extent should we be safeguarded by
MF>legal provisions from our own folly.  Although I think the Founding
MF>Fathers were wise to put in checks and balances, I basically think that
MF>the people should be allowed to get the government they choose.  This
MF>is, however, a matter of debate, as you indicate.

I lean a bit toward those needed checks and balances, but I'm aware of
the difficulty in drawing the line at the right place between freedom
and control.  It's a thorny question, one that may forever be debated.
We're in fine company, with the likes of Hamilton and Jefferson going at
it at the very dawn of our government, "Of the people, for the people
and by the people."  I'm actually pretty much in agreement with you, but
I still do favor limiting terms of office.
Steve R.

 * SLMR 2.1a * If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!277!101!Steve.Richards
Internet: Steve.Richards@f101.n277.z1.fidonet.org