You know, sometimes people criticize candidates because they actually want and hope those candidates do better, especially in the event that they become their party's nominee.
Radical thought. I know.
An Observation
Daily Dose of Cute
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
It's Not Just You
Disqus has been really glitchy for the last 24 hours or so, and people have reported a number of problems to me (and I've experienced some of these myself): Being logged out, having the login link open comments instead of the login screen, not loading comments at all, loading comments from a different thread, number of comments not displaying on the comment links.
Right now, their status page says "All Systems Operational," so I've tweeted at them but have not yet received a reply.
I'm sorry for the inconvenience, and I hope the issues will be resolved swiftly.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Terrorism; death] Goddammit: "Armed militants stormed a university in volatile northwestern Pakistan on Wednesday, killing at least 20 people and wounding dozens a little more than a year after the massacre of 134 students at a school in the area, officials said. A senior Pakistani Taliban commander claimed responsibility for the assault in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, but an official spokesman later denied involvement, calling the attack 'un-Islamic.' The violence nevertheless shows that militants retain the ability to launch attacks, despite a country-wide anti-terrorism crackdown and a military campaign against their strongholds along the lawless border with Afghanistan. A security official said the death toll could rise to as high as 40 at Bacha Khan University in the city of Charsadda. The army said it had concluded operations to clear the campus six hours after the attack began, and that four gunmen were dead."
[CN: Climate change] In unsurprising news: "2015 smashed the record for the hottest year since reporting began in 1850, according to the first full-year figures from the world's three principal temperature estimates. ...Experts warned that the record-breaking heat shows global warming is driving the world's climate into 'uncharted territory' and that it showed the urgency of implementing the carbon-cutting pledges made by the world's governments in Paris in December."
[CN: Misogyny; carcerality] Rage seethe boil: "Incarcerated California women are denied abortion services, prenatal care, and even menstrual pads, according to a scathing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California report released Tuesday that finds some county jails deny, delay, and ignore prisoners' reproductive health care. ...'Jails are putting people's health at risk by denying, delaying, and ignoring crucial reproductive health care,' Melissa Goodman, one of the report's authors and director of the LGBTQ, Gender & Reproductive Justice Project at the ACLU of Southern California, told RH Reality Check in an interview. A jail has 'a legal obligation to provide medical care to the people it incarcerates, but sadly that often ignores reproductive health,' Goodman continued."
[CN: White privilege] "Activist DeRay McKesson was a guest on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Monday (January 18), and he pulled no punches in his discussion of police violence and white privilege. The co-founder of Campaign Zero, which seeks to eliminate police violence against citizens, discussed the backlash to the Black Lives Matter Movement" and police violence. And "things got really interesting when Colbert asked for tips on identifying and dismantling his privilege," prompting McKesson to educate Colbert "about using his privilege to be an ally to the movement."
[CN: White supremacy] "Oscar-winning actor George Clooney has accused the Academy Awards of 'moving in the wrong direction' amid controversy over lack of diversity. ...Clooney, who has won two Academy Awards, said: 'We need to get better at this. We used to be better at it.'" Oh. Well, Mr. Clooney, you're a producer, so maybe you could start by getting better at producing films with people of color in them.
[CN: Extreme weather] Oh shit! "The latest forecast data are insistent that a severe winter storm will unleash [debilitating] snow and strong winds over much of the D.C. area Friday through Saturday night. The National Weather Service has issued a Blizzard Watch for the entire metro region due to the potential blinding combination of snow and powerful winds. 'Potential life-threatening conditions [are] expected Friday night into Saturday night,' the National Weather Service says. 'Travel is expected to be severely limited if not impossible during the height of the storm Friday night and Saturday.' While there is still time for shifts in the exact storm track, which could alter snow totals some, the consensus of forecast models indicate more than a foot of snow will fall in many areas." Fuck.
[CN: Creepy-crawlies] "According to a new study, our houses can contain more than 500 different kinds of arthropods, a category that includes insects, spiders, mites and centipedes. The most commonly identified critters in the study were flies, spiders, beetles, and ants. How did the researchers determine this great abundance of biodiversity inside human dwellings? By scouring them from top to bottom and collecting over 100,000 specimens." I am not creeped out by bugs (obviously, since I have two tattooed on me) so that sounds like a super fun job to me!
[CN: Video may autoplay at link] Welp! "New evidence suggests our solar system contains a ninth planet—a strange body far more massive than Earth lurking at a mind-boggling distance from the sun, scientists said in a study released Wednesday. Astronomers have been looking for a so-called 'Planet X' for decades and have proposed any number of candidates, only to be shot down. But a ninth planet is now 'much more of a possibility with this new work,' said astronomer Scott Sheppard of the Carnegie Institution of Science in Washington D.C."
Cute Overload takes a bow. Thank YOU for the decade of cute!
And finally! "3 Huskies Become Best Friends with a Cat After Saving It from Dying." Awwwwwww. I bet those dogs never let that cat forget it, either. "You're in my favorite seat EVEN AFTER I SAVED YOUR LIFE?!" Dogs.
Shaker Gourmet
Whatcha been cooking up in your kitchen lately, Shakers?
Share your favorite recipes, solicit good recipes, share recipes you've recently tried, want to try, are trying to perfect, whatever! Whether they're your own creation, or something you found elsewhere, share away.
Also welcome: Recipes you've seen recently that you'd love to try, but haven't yet!
Primarily Speaking
[Content Note: Racism; militarism] As I mentioned yesterday, Sarah Palin endorsed gold toilet aficionado Donald Trump, and the full transcript of her endorsement speech is PRETTY AMAZING! By which I mean incomprehensible argle bargle, as per usual. The two of them together could go on a "THE FUCK?!" speaking tour tomorrow. In fact, they should! They should do that! And never ever get anywhere near politics again.
[CN: Dehumanization] The Republican establishment, still deigning to pretend—OH MY STARS AND GARTERS!—that they have no idea how an extremist like Trump could be leading the GOP field, is really pulling out all the stops (???!!?!?) to try to discredit his campaign: Republican consultant Rick Wilson said of Trump supporters during an interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes: "The fact of the matter is, most of them are childless single men who masturbate to anime. They're not real political players. These are not people who matter in the overall course of humanity." Holy shit.
In Cruz Nooz: Joe McCarthy impersonator Ted Cruz had a bad day yesterday. Not only did his pal Palin endorse Trump, but the Republican Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, said that he would like to see Cruz Looz: "Asked if he'd like the Texas senator to lose, Governor Branstad said, 'Yes. Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we're trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels. He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He's heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive but he could be very damaging to our state. I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him,' Branstad added." Ouch!
Oooh tough talk from thirsty jerk Marco Rubio: When a self-identified atheist asked Rubio how he planned to represent the rights of atheists since he's basically "running as pastor-in-chief and not commander-in-chief," Rubio responded: "You have a right to believe whatever you want. No one is going to force you to believe in God, but no one is going to force me to stop talking about God. I'm not going to force you to pray, I'm not going to force you to go to church. I'm not going to force you to espouse beliefs that you don't have. But no one is going to take away my right and your right to live out the teachings of your faith. No one." Yeah, no one is trying to stop you, Rubio, you mendacious dipshit. Rubio then said no more same-sex marriage or abortions because Jesus.
Shyamalanian surprise less smart brother Jeb Bush, reverse surging oddball Ben Carson, pugilist Chris Christie, corporate power-failure Carly Fiorina, real person Jim Gilmore, professor of Bible bigotry Mike Huckabee, "moderate" John Kasich, proximate apple Rand Paul, and sweater vest supermodel Rick Santorum are all still running for president. Barely.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle...
[CN: Video may autoplay at link] Bernie Sanders, what are you even doing?! "In an interview on MSNBC on Tuesday night, Sanders responded to a question about Clinton's endorsements [from Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign] with a broad criticism of the 'establishment,' explaining, 'What we are doing in this campaign—and it just blows my mind every day, because I see it clearly, we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. And so I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund [sic], in Planned Parenthood. But you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment."
WHUT.
So, Planned Parenthood and the HRC are part of "the establishment" that Bernie Sanders is taking on? He wants to take on an organization that provides healthcare primarily to poor women and an organization that advocates for queer rights?
Listen, there are legitimate criticisms of the privileged leadership of both of these organizations, and legitimate criticisms of how they sometimes take up all the oxygen and funding from smaller organizations that provide services and do targeted advocacy for marginalized populations, but that doesn't make them part of "the establishment" that needs to be dismantled. Jesus fucking Jones.
And earlier in the day: "Sanders responded to critics who questioned his foreign policy experience by charging that Clinton lacks the judgment needed in foreign affairs because she voted in 2002 to support the war in Iraq. 'No one can deny that Secretary Clinton has a lot of foreign-policy experience. But experience does not necessarily equate to judgment. Dick Cheney had a hell of a lot of experience,' he said in a reference to the former Republican vice president." Yes, Hillary Clinton—just like war criminal Dick Cheney. For fuck's sake.
If this is what a Sanders campaign looks like when he's "not going negative," I'd hate to see what a campaign where he was going negative looks like.
East Coast Gavin Newsom Martin O'Malley is still running for president.
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
The Leading Dems on Reparations
[Content Note: White supremacy; class warfare.]
Last week in comments, I said:
[T]he one thing that we know with certainty will make an immediate and meaningful difference is, simply, giving people money. Not tax breaks, not better loans, not more responsible federal spending, not better access to insurance, but money in their hands right now.One of the means by which this could be accomplished is reparations. The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates made the case for reparations, if you want some background, and noted succinctly yesterday: "Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy. It is the indispensable tool against white supremacy."
Call it a stimulus package, call it a hand-out, call it wealth redistribution, call it whatever the fuck you want, but what we need are detailed policies the explicit objective of which is helping people through a direct influx of cash.
It is not without precedent, but it is not even on the table in this election. Anywhere.
Last week, the Democratic candidates were asked where they stand on reparations at the Iowa Brown & Black Forum. First up, Hillary Clinton:
Fusion Moderator: Final rapid-fire. Um, do you think, uh, 2016 is the year, kind of on the federal level, we should start studying reparations?Okay, that is not a good answer! A good answer would have been: "Yes! I do think we should start studying reparations and how to implement them!" What she did do right was refer to the expertise of the Congressional Black Caucus. Aside from that, the only other points she gets are for not directly saying "no." Which isn't saying much.
Hillary Clinton: I think we should, we should start studying what investments we need to make in communities to help individuals and families and communities, ah, move forward. And I am absolutely committed to that. There are some good ideas out there. Ah, there's an idea in the Congressional Black Caucus about really targeting federal dollars to communities that have had either disinvestment or no investment, and have had, uh, years of being below the poverty level. That's the kind of thing I'd like us to focus on and really help lift people up.
And note her slick pivot here, from reparations to community investment. These are not two separate options. Reparations restore wealth to black individuals—wealth which white people and institutions stole from them over generations, facilitated by white supremacy. Community investment is exactly as described: Investment in the communities, from improvements in infrastructure to job creation, in which those black people live.
To focus exclusively on community investment is to suggest that the solution is to provide tools to people whose generational wealth has been plundered to play catch-up. Reparations are meant to catch them up, by restoring what is rightfully theirs.
Both are needed. Not one or the other.
Next up, Bernie Sanders:
Nando Vila, Fusion Correspondent: A lot of African Americans are starting to call for reparations for the many years of stolen labor, um, through slavery. Is that something that you would support as president?Okay, that is also not a good answer! A good answer would have been: "Yes! Reparations are definitely something I would support as president!"
Bernie Sanders: No, I don't think so. Uh, I mean, I think it would be— First of all, its likelihood of getting through a Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be, you know, very divisive. I think the real issue is: When we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, uh, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, the incarceration rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do. So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities and creating millions of decent paying jobs and making public colleges and universities tuition free and working on child care. Basically, targeting our federal resources to the areas that it is needed the most. And where it is needed the most are in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino.
Essentially, Sanders offers the same solution (such as it is) as Clinton: Funneling targeted federal dollars into predominantly black poor communities. Which, as noted above, is incomplete garbage.
But Sanders goes a step further. He says pointedly that he would not support reparations, and justifies that on the basis that it has virtually no chance of passing Congress. But wait! Since when does Sanders refuse to support policies that have little chance of passing Congress? In the very same response, he once again proposes "making public colleges and universities tuition free," which is also unlikely to pass Congress. So why won't he even give lip service to reparations?
Well, perhaps it's because he also feels it would be "divisive." Unlike white supremacy, which has been a real kumbaya moment for centuries.
Or maybe it's because reparations aren't "the real issue." Except for how they are. They really, really are. Just not according to Sanders, who has decided that "the real issue" is, in fact, community investment.
Neither of these answers are good. They are bad answers on an important subject. And I will reiterate once again my disappointment that directly giving money to people who need it is not on the table in this election, in any form, despite the fact it is the one thing certain to make an immediate difference.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker slythwolf: "What do you wish everyone knew about your job?"
What it looks like from my perspective.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: War on agency.]
"I'm not just excited because a candidate said the word abortion or because it was a woman candidate or because this is a promise she could keep without creating new legislation—although that is historic on its own. I'm excited because Hyde is literally the worst kind of 'social issue' policy. With the words of its creator long forgotten outside reproductive justice circles, Hyde pretends to be about keeping people from seeing their tax dollars designated for a thing they find offensive, but it's really about punishing people rich white guys have, for centuries, given far less than a fuck about."—My friend Katie Klabusich, on Hillary Clinton's "Crucial Stand Against the Anti-Choice Hyde Amendment."
I can't overstate how important Clinton's stance on Hyde really is. Go read Katie's whole piece, because it's terrific—and does a great job explaining why this is so important.
[Note: This post does not say that Hillary Clinton is a perfect candidate. It does not say that Hillary Clinton is beyond criticism. It does not say that I agree with all of Hillary Clinton's positions. It does not say that you are not allowed to support Bernie Sanders. It is not evidence that I am being paid by the Clinton campaign; I am not. If you are considering claiming any of these things in comments, don't.]
LOL Sure
Much to Ted Cruz's chagrin, former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has endorsed Donald Trump:
"Coveted." "Influential." "Sought after.""She's classier than a gold toilet!" is something Donald Trump also said probably.
Those are just a few of the superlatives that the Trump campaign has used to describe Sarah Palin's endorsement of the real estate tycoon's presidential bid in a just-dropped press release announcing her decision.
"Palin praised Trump's leadership and unparalleled ability to speak the truth and produce real results," the release states. "A trusted conservative, Palin has a proven record of being fiscally modest, staunchly pro-life and believes in small government that allows businesses to grow and freedom to prosper. Gov. Palin joined Mr. Trump in Ames on Tuesday, just two weeks before the Iowa Caucuses, to announce her endorsement of the GOP frontrunner."
"I am greatly honored to receive Sarah's endorsement," Trump states in the release. "She is a friend, and a high quality person whom I have great respect for. I am proud to have her support."
Sanders Campaign: 'Splaining, Erasure, and Outright Lies
[Content note: erasure of trans and bi people.]
Welp, looks like the Bernie Sanders Campaign has decided to join its stans in some epic obnoxious behavior. The Human Rights Campaign announced today that it was endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, and the geniuses running Sanders' campaign decided that attacking the HRC as corrupt and uninformed would be a wonderful way to win support:
“It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record,” said Sanders campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs....“So who knows what prompted the Human Rights Campaign to do what it does — I have trouble myself figuring why they do some of the things they do over the years — but I think the gay men and lesbians all over the country will know who has been their champion for a long, long time and will consider that as they make up their mind on support for his campaign,” Briggs said.
Asked whether he meant to include bisexual and transgender people in his description of gay men and lesbians, Briggs said that was correct and he meant “LGBTQ people all over the country.”
Yes, there is definitely nothing like completely erasing people to make them confident you are an ardent supporter of their rights! I always feel confident that when people forget about my existence entirely, they are truly my "champion!"
(Disclosure: I actually do not feel they are my champions, in any way.)
Look, there's a lot to criticize about the Human Rights Campaign. It's too often been focused on the interests of well off, healthy, white gay men, and neglected the needs of many queer folk, such as those with HIV, minority and working class lesbians, and trans people in general. (And that's not a comprehensive list.) That said, they have also been a very visible advocacy group for marriage equality in particular. There's value to that. It's a mixed record.
But, hey, you know who else has a mixed record on issues of importance to LGBTQUIA folks? Bernie Sanders. Yes, he authorized gay pride observations and parades as Mayor of Burlington. He also signed nondiscrimination legislation, but did not originate it, explaining that gay rights were not a priority for him. Yes, he voted against DOMA and DADT, and those were courageous stances for which he deserves much credit. He also very cautiously and conspicuously refused in 2000 to give an opinion about Vermont's civil unions legislation until after the matter was settled. (By contrast, the governor, Vermont's Senators, and both Democrats running against Vermont's Republican Senators all gave support one way or another--the two Democratic Senatorial candidates, Ed Flanagan and Jan Backus, came out explicitly in favor of marriage rather than civil union.)
So, frankly, this is a fucking lie:
Recalling Sanders support for civil unions in Vermont when it became the first state to enact them in 2000, Briggs said Sanders was “a pioneer on this early version of gay marriage, and has by far the most exemplary record on gay rights of any candidate ever in American history.”
Tell it to somebody who hasn't been paying attention, Mr. Briggs. Here's Peter Freyne writing about Bernie for Seven Days in Vermont in January 2000:
Obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros. Last month, shortly after the decision of the Amestoy Court was issued, Mr. Sanders publicly tried walking the tightrope — applauding the court’s decision and the cause of equal rights without supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples.
This week we were no more successful getting a straight answer. All we did get was a carefully crafted non-statement statement via e-mail from Washington D.C. And Bernie’s statement wins him the Vermont congressional delegation’s Wishy-Washy Award hands down.
Once more he “applauds” the court decision but won’t go anywhere near choosing between same-sex “marriage” and domestic partnership. “By all accounts the legislature is approaching this issue in a considered and appropriate manner and I support the current process.”
Supports the current process, does he? What a courageous radical!
That’s as far as Ol’ Bernardo would go. It’s an election year, yet despite the lack of a serious challenger, The Bern’s gut-level paranoia is acting up. He’s afraid to say something that might alienate his conservative, rebel-loving rural following out in the hills. Something that could be interpreted as “Bernie Loves Queers!”
Whoops! And lest it be thought this was just Freyne being a jerk, here's Kevin J. Kelly on Bernie, also writing for Seven Days in Vermont, in March 2000:
Sanders didn’t win four terms as Burlington mayor and another five as a U.S. Congressman by alienating his core supporters...Sanders is no crusader for same-sex marriage rights, either, or other causes that some Progs take up even though a large section of the party’s grassroots feels quite differently about them.
In April, after the legislature had passed a civil union law, this was Sanders' statement to Freyne:
"I think the legislature handled this issue with a lot of dignity," said Sanders. "I know there are a lot of very different points of view on this issue. People feel very strongly. But I think the legislators handled themselves with a great deal of dignity, and I agree with what came out of the legislature."
Wow. Strong tea, if you define "tea" as "hot water with a teabag waved over it." Sorry, but that's not a "pioneer."
Don't get me wrong. You know who else has a mixed record when it comes to queer issues? Hillary Clinton, who joined Sanders in publicly supporting civil unions, but not marriage, in 2000.
In October of 2000, Clinton made clear in response to a question from a gay voter that she did back civil unions -- implemented in Vermont that fall. "I don't support gay marriages, but I do support extending benefits to couples, domestic partner benefits," she said, "and the kind of civil union that Vermont adopted seems to be the way to create that opportunity for people."
Clinton's tea was as weak as Sanders' in 2000. He evolved on the issue faster than she did. He publicly supported marriage equality in 2009, beating Clinton by several years. (Not being a member of the Obama administration, of course, gave him a certain freedom to express views that Clinton could not even if she had shared them.) But Clinton, like Sanders, has good stuff to go alongside the bad. As a candidate in 2008, she made a commitment to gay rights at home, voicing concern for queer youth and ending inequities in tax code and immigration law that hurt same-sex couples. She also committed at that time to making global gay rights a priority in her foreign policy. As Secretary of State, she continued the fight for queer people's human rights around the world. In the state department, she enacted important changes that made a concrete different to queer people, including extending marriage benefits to diplomats in same-sex relationships, and making it possible for trans folk to have their true gender on their passports.
So, to sum: the HRC, a flawed organization, took a look at two leading candidates who are both friendly towards queer rights, but who both also have flawed records in this regard. The directors of the organization decided they preferred Clinton, based on the specific criteria of answers to a questionnaire sent to all presidential candidates.
In response, the Sanders campaign made some supremely bullying statements that can be summed up as: 'splaining, erasure, and outright lies, all of which is supposed to convince queer people that Sanders really really really has our backs.
Welp! Speaking from this bisexual's perspective, the response actually proves something quite different: that the HRC was probably smart to give Sanders a pass.
Daily Dose of Cute
Dudley is chilly. And adorable.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
RIP Glenn Frey. Fuck. I know nothing about the man personally, but, like most people of a certain age, I know all the lyrics to all his many hits, without ever having tried to learn them. 2016 is not being kind.
The Supreme Court has "agreed to hear President Barack Obama's bid to resurrect his plan to shield more than 4 million illegal immigrants from deportation, a unilateral executive action he took in 2014 to bypass the Republican-led Congress. Obama's action was blocked by lower courts after Texas and 25 other Republican-governed states sued to stop it, contending he exceeded his presidential powers under the U.S. Constitution. The case will be argued before the high court in the coming months, with a ruling due by the end of June." Fingers crossed.
[Content Note: Violence; misogyny; racism; police misconduct] "A recent spate of cases involving Native American women from northern Minnesota being murdered or going missing has raised questions about how seriously such disappearances are taken by the police and other authorities. As Duluth, Minnesota, marks trafficking awareness month, local activists say some of the disappearances and deaths are linked to this issue, and argue that the invisibility of the Native American population contributes to neglect by police, media and social services and point to the need for better data collection in order to track the number of missing and murdered women." The US could take a lesson from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau here, about how to address this issue seriously.
[CN: War; terrorism; violence; displacement] Fucking hell: "The UN says violence suffered by civilians in Iraq 'remains staggering,' with at least 18,800 killed between 1 January 2014 and 31 October 2015. Some 3.2 million people have also been displaced internally over the same period, according to a new report. The UN accuses so-called Islamic State of systematic and widespread violence, including holding some 3,500 mainly women and children as slaves. ...UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad Al Hussein said the report 'starkly illustrates what Iraqi refugees are attempting to escape when they flee to Europe and other regions. This is the horror they face in their homelands.'" This is the "freedom" spread in our names by former President George W. Bush and his collection of neocon miscreants.
[CN: Class warfare; access to water] Good grief: "Florida Senator and presidential contender Marco Rubio told reporters Monday night that he has not been 'focusing on' the lead contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan, which has left tens of thousands of residents without drinkable water and with possibly irreversible damage to their health. While admitting to not know much about the situation, Rubio did say he believes the federal government should stay out it."
In related news: "The mayor of Flint, Mich., is in Washington, D.C., trying to get a meeting with President Obama, but she took time out on Tuesday to endorse her pick for the next occupant of the Oval Office. 'I want Hillary,' Mayor Karen Weaver said in a conference call with reporters. 'She has actually been the only, the only candidate, whether we're talking Democratic or Republican, to reach out and talk with us about, 'What can I do? What kind of help do you need?'' Clinton mentioned the water crisis in Flint during her closing statement at the Democratic debate Sunday, saying 'every single American should be outraged' that a predominantly African American, low-income community in the United States has been drinking and bathing in lead-contaminated water while their complaints went unanswered for months. 'I'll tell you what, if the kids in a rich suburb of Detroit had been drinking contaminated water and being bathed in it, there would've been action,' Clinton said."
In other endorsement news: If Sarah Palin endorses Donald Trump, Ted Cruz spokesperson Rick Tyler says he'd "be deeply disappointed." LOL okay.
[CN: White supremacy] "Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the group that hands out the Oscars, released a public statement late yesterday expressing regret over the lack of diversity in this year's Oscar nominees. ...'I am both heartbroken and frustrated about the lack of inclusion. This is a difficult but important conversation, and it's time for big changes. ...As many of you know, we have implemented changes to diversify our membership in the last four years. But the change is not coming as fast as we would like. We need to do more, and better and more quickly."
[CN: Images of creepy-crawly at link] This is a really cool piece about the 12 centimeter long (!) stick insect that inhabits Lord Howe Island, and how researchers worked to recover its dwindling population, even as it still faces an uncertain future.
And finally! This cat really wants a sandwich. LOL. For the record, Olivia's food fixation is so much worse it makes this cat look polite!
The 4th Democratic Debate Wrap-Up
[Content Note: Racism.]
The fourth Democratic debate was this weekend (complete transcript), and on an enthusiasm scale of one to ten, I was at a negative kerplillion for spending two hours listening to Bernie Sanders shouting at me, so I didn't watch it.
I did, however, tune in long enough to see this mess (which Imani Gandy also discusses on TWiB episode 781):
Moderator Lester Holt: Senator Sanders, just over a week ago the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed Secretary Clinton, not you. He said that choosing her over you was not a hard decision. In fact, our polling shows she's beating you more than two to one among minority voters. How can you be the nominee if you don't have that support?Wow. WOW.
Senator Bernie Sanders: Well, let me talk about polling. [laughter] As Secretary Clinton well knows, when this campaign began she was 50 points ahead of me. We were all of three percentage points. Guess what? In Iowa, New Hampshire, the race is very, very close. Maybe we're ahead New Hampshire. [cheering] In terms of polling, guess what? We are running ahead of Secretary Clinton. In terms of taking on my taking on my good friend, Donald Trump, beating him by 19 points in New Hampshire, 13 points in the last national poll that we saw.
To answer your question. When the African American community becomes familiar with my Congressional record and with our agenda, and with our views on the economy, and criminal justice—just as the general population has become more supportive, so will the African American community, so will the Latino community. We have the momentum, we're on a path to a victory.
So, just to be clear, Bernie Sanders was asked by a black moderator how he will increase his appeal to voters of color, and he responded by saying that black people aren't familiar with his Congressional record and agenda, thus implying not only that black people are ignorant fools who don't know how to use Google, but that they're only supporting Clinton in larger numbers because they don't know what's best for themselves.
Further, he set "the African American community" and "the Latino community" outside of the "general population," thus implicitly defining the general population as white people.
Bernie Sanders has been in Congress since 1991. That's 24 years to build a record worth noticing by constituencies for whom he's been a champion. If people of color aren't familiar with Sanders' record already, well, maybe that's because Sanders hasn't distinguished himself as a reliable and vocal ally to people of color over those decades.
Maybe that's why his supporters reach back to his marching with MLK in the '60s when his credentials on race are questioned.
This patronizing shit isn't how a progressive coalition gets built.
I Write Letters
[Content Note: Harassment.]
Dear Sanders Stans:
Hi. I think we all know to whom I'm speaking, but, just to be abundantly clear: I'm addressing you—the Bernie Sanders supporters who go below and beyond the typical enthusiasm shown by supporters of any candidate running for president, even the most obnoxiously fervent ones.
The Sanders supporters who pepper comments threads with patronizing lectures and condescending pronouncements about Sanders being the best candidate for any progressive. Who accuse anyone who criticizes Sanders in even the most gentle way, even if that critic explicitly states they make criticisms because they want Sanders to be a better candidate, of being a paid Clinton shill. Who tell anyone who flatly dislikes Sanders that they aren't "real" progressives.
The Sanders supporters who disrespect boundaries drawn by people who want to discuss politics without a flamewar. Who harass Planned Parenthood and the US Black Chamber of Commerce and the Human Rights Commission for endorsing Hillary Clinton. Who dox and harass individual people who don't support Sanders. Who tell people of color, especially women of color, that they are stupid and ignorant if they don't support Sanders, if they don't reflexively agree that he is the best candidate for them. Who harass marginalized people, in particular, on social media for criticizing Sanders' lack of intersectional analysis.
The Sanders supporters who send shitty, rude, and sometimes outright threatening emails and tweets to people, especially people who are not straight white men, who have the unmitigated temerity to criticize Sanders. As if this is some kind of democracy or something.
The Sanders supporters who use harassment and intimidation to try to silence critics of their preferred candidate, then accuse Hillary Clinton of feeling entitled to win without a democratic process.
The Sanders supporters who tell women who support Clinton that the only reason we could have to support her is because we're women and she's a woman. Who create misogynist memes about Clinton and use misogynistic rhetoric against her and her female supporters.
The Sanders supporters who, on the one hand, brag about how Sanders has "pushed Clinton to the left" simply by being in the race, and, on the other hand, accuse Clinton of being opportunistic and ingenuine if she espouses a view left of a previous held view.
The Sanders supporters who yell at black people on Twitter that Bernie Sanders marched with MLK.
The Sanders supporters who are fucking bullies.
Yes, I know: #NotAllSandersSupporters. If you're a Sanders supporter who doesn't do any of these things—congratulations to you for not being a terrible human being. No cookies for that in this space, I'm afraid.
If I'm not talking about you, then I'm not talking about you. And you don't need to pop in to tell me what we both already know.
And if you feel it's more important to insist that you're not like those other Sanders supporters than you are to engage with the rest of what I'm about to say, then maybe you're actually more like them than you think.
Anyway.
So, here's the thing, Sanders Stans: You're not doing your candidate any favors.
To the contrary, you're turning off a number of people who were open to Sanders, even if they didn't find him a perfect candidate, with your aggressive—and oppressive—attacks on anyone who fails to fall in line behind him.
Now, typically, we shouldn't judge candidates by their supporters. But, in Sanders' case, there are legitimate questions about how an independent Socialist running on the Democratic ticket, if elected to the presidency, is going to work with a potentially Republican-controlled Congress, or even a less than super progressive Democratic-controlled Congress, in order to enact the progressive agenda on which he's running.
And the answer I get every time I ask that question—the answer anyone gets any time they ask that question—is that Sanders will bring with him a movement of millions engaged supporters.
And this comes straight from the candidate's own mouth: "I don't have any illusion that I'm going to walk in—and I certainly hope it is not the case, but if there is a Republican House and a Republican Senate—that I'm going to walk in there and say, 'Hey guys, listen. I'd like you to work with me on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.' It ain't gonna happen, I have no illusion about that. The only way that I believe that change takes place…is that tens of millions of people are going to have to stand up and be involved in the political process the day after the election."
Sanders' supporters are key to his plan for executive success.
His stated reliance on the his supporters' continued engagement in the political process warrants an assessment of his supporters, and their tactics, in a way that most candidacies never would.
So, yes, those of us disposed to vote for a Democratic candidate are looking at Sanders and his supporters. And I, for one, don't like what I see.
Even if I were fully on board with this vague concept that relies on an increasingly outdated notion about how much influence average people (without endless amounts of cash and access) have over Congressional legislators, and I'm not, I would be cringing at the very thought of a conglomeration of didactic bullies whose electoral strategy has been anything but progressive being tasked with the responsibility of enacting a progressive agenda.
I, and others, have valid questions about how Bernie Sanders is going to overcome the entrenched divisiveness in Washington and deliver on his radical promises. When the answer, offered even by Sanders himself, is that he will rely on the enthusiastic engagement of his supporters, many of whom are themselves using divisive, illiberal tactics against fellow progressives, I not only don't hold out a lot of hope for his success, but actively don't want to lend my support to that dynamic.
Much of the criticism some progressives have of Sanders is that he doesn't do enough listening. That he continues to retain a laser-like focus on economic inequality without enough in-depth intersectional analysis—that is, speaking directly to how economic issues interact with issues arising from identity. It matters that raising the minimum wage to $15 and breaking up the banks doesn't actually solve the problem of a poor woman not having access to abortion, and/or other means of controlling her reproduction, when reproductive choice is one of the most important financial concerns for women. And it matters that Sanders doesn't talk about giving women access to abortion and contraception nearly as much as he does the minimum wage or breaking up the banks, despite the fact that we're more than half the population and our financial security is deeply tied to our reproductive options.
Sanders doesn't listen to critics who make points like this one. And neither do you, the Sanders Stans. And if you're not listening now, what reason do I have to believe that you'll listen if Sanders is elected?
If I wanted to vote for a group of people who didn't have the slightest interest in meaningfully engaging with me or listening to anything I have to say, I could vote Republican.
(I will never vote Republican.)
If you're appalled at being compared to Republicans, well, I can assure you that I am appalled by being obliged to make the comparison.
At this point, the Sanders Stans have two options: You can react to these concerns with your usual bullshit strategy, or you can listen to what I'm saying and reflect on how you're hurting your own cause by refusing to abide criticism or to listen to the people for whom you are so certain that Sanders is the best candidate.
I invite you to try not to prove my point.
Sincerely,
Liss
The 62
[Content Note: Class warfare.]
Last Friday, I mentioned a recent survey that found over half of USians reported having have less than $1,000 in their checking and savings accounts combined and nearly a quarter reported having less than $100.
On Sunday, Oxfam released an analysis detailing that just 62 individuals, most of whom are men, "have as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity."
The wealth of the richest 62 has increased an astonishing 44 percent since 2010, to $1.76 trillion. Meanwhile, the wealth of the bottom half of the world dropped by 41 percent.This extraordinary level of global wealth concentration is utterly obscene.
"This is terrible," Gawain Kripke, Oxfam's Policy Director, told The Huffington Post. "No one credible will say this is good for the world or good for the economy."
While the wealthy might argue that their rising wealth is just a fabulous sign of economic prosperity (the "you're just jealous" rationale), the disproportionate growth at the top is keeping those on the bottom from climbing out of poverty, Oxfam notes in its report.
"It is unjust that people living in poverty are not getting the boost to their incomes that they desperately need, while already privileged capital owners receive a greater share of income and wealth," the report says.
...Oxfam's report also points a finger at tax dodging and urges governments worldwide to get a handle on tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and corporations.
"It's a significant loss to governments," Kripke said. The rich use exotic strategies to park money so that it's invisible and inaccessible to governments, who could redistribute those dollars to their citizens, he said. "We need reform on this."
I've made it abundantly clear how I feel about bootstraps arguments made by privileged dirtbags who refuse to acknowledge their privilege—who insist on claiming that they earned and deserve everything they got through hard work, as though the people who work in service jobs to facilitate their lives of luxury don't work hard themselves.
But surely, surely, even the people who make this reprehensible argument cannot choke out the incredible claim that 62 people work harder than half of the entire world. Or even that their work is more important, more inherently valuable, than the work of the population of half of the entire world.
No one can possibly believe this. Especially when the accumulated wealth of those 62 people was largely earned not by their own labor, but by exploiting other people's labor.
Labor, by the way, that is devalued, both financially and philosophically, especially to the people who do it, when they're not laboring for their own security and self-sufficiency, but to make already grotesquely wealthy people even more wealthy.
This gross upwards redistribution of wealth to 62 people steals from workers not only their earnings and their safety, but their dignity.
It's economic injustice in the absolute extreme. And the more concentrated wealth gets, the more the holders of that wealth will just suck up even more like a giant vacuum. The only thing that will trickle down to the rest of us is the smell of dust.
Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail
[Content Note: Descriptions of racism.]
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.
Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.
But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.
In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.
I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.
Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?
If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.
I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Martin Luther King, Jr.
16 April 1963
