MLK Day

[pophead2k]

Here's to our United States celebration of the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. Its great to see how many activities and service days are planned here in the area I now live in. Not just a day off of work, but a chance to do something.

[noiseradio]

This is the one federal holiday I actually spend some time thinking about the person it was intended to honor.

Happy birthday, Dr. King. And thanks for everything.

[bambooneedle]

Martin Luther King at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (August 28, 1963)

"I Have a Dream"

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as
the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow
we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous
decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves
who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a
joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But 100 years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years
later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of
segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the
Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of
material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished
in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own
land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When
the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a
promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a
promise that all men - yes, black men as well as white men - would be
guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note
insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this
sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a
check that has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We
refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of
opportunity of this nation. And so we've come to cash this check, a check
that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice.
We have also come to his hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce
urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to
take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the
promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and
desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the
time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid
rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of
God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment.
This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass
until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen
sixty-three is not an end but a beginning. Those who hoped that the Negro
needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude
awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither
rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship
rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of
our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the
warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of
gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us
not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of
bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high
plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to
degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the
majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous
new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to
a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced
by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied
up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is
inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always
march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the
devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be
satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of
police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy
with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways
and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's
basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be
satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed
of their dignity by signs stating "for whites only." We cannot be satisfied as
long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York
believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no we are not satisfied and
we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and
righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great
trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells.
Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you
battered by storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police
brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to
work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South
Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums
and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can
and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today my
friends - so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I
still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the
true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of
former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down
together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state
sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression,
will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists,
with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition
and nullification - one day right there in Alabama little black boys and
black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as
sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every
hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain,
and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord
shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a
stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling
discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this
faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle
together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing
that we will be free one day.

This will be the day, this will be the day when all of God's children will
be able to sing with new meaning "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of
liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my father's died, land of the Pilgrim's
pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!"

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so
let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let
freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring
from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let
freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi - from
every mountainside.

Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow
freedom ring - when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet,
from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when
all of God's children - black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles,
Protestants and Catholics - will be able to join hands and sing in the words
of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty,
we are free at last!"

[Who Shot Sam?]

Thanks for posting that bamboo. I hadn't read the entirety of that speech in years. What a piece of oratory - certainly one of the greatest ever. Reading it again it makes one realize that, though we've come a long way since 1963, there is still a very very long way to go. I was happy to see that my daughter's kindergarten class discussed the importance of King and his legacy last Friday. From the questions she was asking me, I think that the whole concept of racial differences just now dawned on her.

[selfmademug]

Ditto on the thanks, 'Boo.

I think it's interesting, too, to remember that the speech was made in the context of a demonstration against poverty. Neo-cons would do well to re-read that speech to quell all the bullshit about race, poverty and 'personal responsibility'. King's speech was already 6 steps ahead of that simplistic take on things.

[alexv]

WSS, this weekend my son who is also in kindergarten said he knew why I was not going to work on Monday, and said it was MLK day. I asked him if he knew who he was, and he said that in school they had taught him that he was a man who believed in peace and in white people and black people getting along. Said it so angelically, that it made me want to run down to the school and give them all a hug.

Of course they've also taught him that no one should touch his "private space" without his "consent", which has us worrying over whether the State will continue to allow us to pinch his tush, and me worrying over whether I'd be arrested if I tried to hug the school, without their consent.

SMM, staying with your poverty theme, isn't it odd how the first part of the speech is framed as a "banking transaction" with the Black Americans looking to collect on promissory note which has not been honored. I wonder if the modern "reparation" movement looks to this speech for support.

Gotta disagree with you on one thing, though. As someone with neo-con leanings, I would argue that if MLK were alive today his take on race, poverty and personal responsibility would be closer to the neo-con position than to the current liberal takes. But we'll never know, unfortunately.

[Extreme Honey]

Thanks for posting that bamboo. I hadn't read the entirety of that speech in years. What a piece of oratory - certainly one of the greatest ever. Reading it again it makes one realize that, though we've come a long way since 1963, there is still a very very long way to go. I was happy to see that my daughter's kindergarten class discussed the importance of King and his legacy last Friday. From the questions she was asking me, I think that the whole concept of racial differences just now dawned on her.

Yeah there's still a long way to go because we've done next to nothing. And who's in charge of the US? Some white republican dickhead that almost undermines the great civilization America once was. I don't think that with those idiots racial justice will never be solved. "Color- Blind racism" is what they call it on " The Threat of Neoliberalism"

[noiseradio]

SMM, staying with your poverty theme, isn't it odd how the first part of the speech is framed as a "banking transaction" with the Black Americans looking to collect on promissory note which has not been honored. I wonder if the modern "reparation" movement looks to this speech for support.

Gotta disagree with you on one thing, though. As someone with neo-con leanings, I would argue that if MLK were alive today his take on race, poverty and personal responsibility would be closer to the neo-con position than to the current liberal takes. But we'll never know, unfortunately.

King would be appaled by the last several administrations. He might think Carter was OK. And he's nothing like a neo-con. He was avidly anti-war, for one. And for another, the way the neo-cons have hacked funding for the Great Society programs (which King avidly supported), that's just not a teneble position. Wishful, but not teneble.

The first part of the speech is one of the best, most logical arguments for civil rights ever uttered. He proves, really beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the US had already guaranteed all these rights in its founding documents, even if the authors of those documents did not govern accordingly. The promise of the Declaration and the Constitution (and the Amendments) has never seemed lovlier to me than when viewed through King's eyes. Though I would support some form of reparations, and while it may be possible that those making the modern reparations argument think back to this speech for support, I really think that to narrow the focus of the speech's 1st act to merely a banking transaction both misses its broader point and cheapens the argument. It's a useful analogy, but the bigger picture is of a breach of contract.

On a personal note, I show the speech to every one of my classes every year on the Friday before the holiday. I've done it for all 12 years I've taught. That means I've seen it in its entirety roughly 60 times. The 60th time had just as much power and made just as strong an impression on me as the 1st time did. I cry every time.

[alexv]

Noise, let's get one thing clear: there is nothing in neoconservative ideology (which has been around since the late 60s) which promotes war. The current Bush administration and their apologists have used strands of neocons thought to justify this war, but there is nothign in neoconservatism which makes it bellicose.

In the early 60s, a number of former liberal intellectuals came around to the idea that the liberal policies then in vogue were not the right way to approach, among other things, racial issues. It was because of their groundbreaking work (including the work of Daniel Moynihan who, although a traditional liberal, came to conclusions that fit within the neocon ideology) that slowly but surely the automatic application of liberal solutions to modern racial and social problems started to be questioned.

My point to Mug is that in my view someone like MLK, essentially a centrist, would today also conclude that the liberal prescriotions to the black problems have not worked, and that a different approach needs to be taken. The approach of the neocons was not to cut all funding for social programs or for housing or for welfare. It was and is to combine appropriate use of these programs with other approaches that recognize that the problems of the black community are more complex. The Clinton/Republican Welfare Bill, by the way, would never have been passed had it not been for the neocon insights. And, contrary to hysterical liberal claims, it has been a spectacular success.

I take issue also with your interpretation of my comments about the banking transaction references in the speech. You assume that my pointing it out somehow narrows the focus of the speech to a banking transaction. I meant nothing of the kind. I focussed on it only because the reparation issue came into my head. Of course I think the speech is not just about a banking transaction!! I get and applaud and am moved by the broader argument and do not wish to cheapen its argument. It's a great speech combining great Gospel tinged oratory with an articulate thoughtful plea for equality.

[noiseradio]

Well, I have to strongly disagree that there is nothing in neoconservatism which promotes war. The neocons have been (since the late 60s), hawkish at just about every turn in terms of foreign policy. They strongly supported the Vietnam War, they were fervently anticommunist during the 80s (even when it meant funneling money and guns to the Contras illegally), and they were stridently militaristic in their opposition tot he Soviet Union. Some may reasonably argue that that hawkishness was good for us somehow, that the huge defecit spending on defense (while hacking away at social programs early neocons actually supported to some degree) is what made the Berlin Wall fall down and the Soviet Union collapse. It's perfectly valid to try to make that argument stick. What's ludicrous is to suggest that neocons have been remotely dovish. Now, maybe there's some prime mover of neoconservatism that you're thinking of who was not hawkish. I can't think of who that could possibly be, since every major figure in neoconservatism since Goldwater has been. But supposing there is someone who penned some neocon manifesto that judiciously avoids any promotion of war, it's still no good to talk about the neocon movement in any practical terms without acknowledging that its adherents are overwhelmingly hawkish. To do so would be a bit like saying that Christianity doesn't promote church attendance on Sundays simply because Jesus never happened to mention it. Sunday church attendance is a pretty obvious element of traditional Christianity, whether Jesus said so or not. Hawkishness is part of the neocon philosophy whether a few early neocons taught it or not.

And I disagree with classifying King as one who would support neocon ideology. His writings and teachings sit far to the left of modern conservatism. He was radically opposed to war, and his views on how the government ought to spend its money were diametrically opposed to the views of neocons. For crying out loud, when he was shot in Memphis, he was in that town to support a local garbage collector's union strike over wage negotiations. He was an adamant supporter of higher taxes for the wealthy and large-scale federal aid to those in poverty. I just don't see how you see him as either a centrist or someone who would have supported the realpolitik of Kissinger and Nixon.

Lastly, I wasn't trying to accuse you of reducing the MLK speech to the narrow focus of the banking transaction. I was trying to say (and evidently said it poorly) that there may be reparationists who would use that part of his speech to lend support to their arguments, but that I would find that to be a cheapening of King's message BY THEM. I didn't mean to imply that you would agree with that narrow focus. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.

[wardo68]

On a personal note, I show the speech to every one of my classes every year on the Friday before the holiday. I've done it for all 12 years I've taught. That means I've seen it in its entirety roughly 60 times. The 60th time had just as much power and made just as strong an impression on me as the 1st time did.

In all sincerity, that's one of the best things I've read in a long time. Your students are lucky to have you as their teacher.

[Extreme Honey]

I think the same thing about neo-conservatives. Their foreign policies is what makes America hated so much since world war 2 (I don't know what would be the equivalent before 1960's...conservatives?). And of course I sincerely hope to god that America dosn't elect another conservative party until 2058 with the way things are going. But the US has proven it's more than capable. However I can't understand why you would cry just by seeing MLK's speech. It seems kind of unreal, as though you want to express your american pride and what-not and think that by crying everything will appear heroic. That's foolish. I haven't cried since I was a child and I've been through more shit than Nixon and the Watergate scandal and all of a sudden people cry from hearing a (perhaps "touching") speech?

[noiseradio]

Because it's beautiful. Because I want to live in an America that conforms to that vision. Because when it does, even in small part, I feel hope for myself and my children. And when it doesn't, I still feel inspired by those words to do what I can to help it along. Because even the improbable notion of my grandchildren one day living in a society where race and ethnicity are no longer considered dividing lines gives me a reason to wake up every day. Because King gave his life for the most noble of human endeavors. Because I mourn the loss of his contribution to our republic for the last 40 years. Because when my students see it for the first time, and I see them nod their heads and wipe away their own tears and even when they look down and clench their teeth in disappointment at the unfulfilled portions of King's dream, I become accutely aware of how timeless and pure that message is. Because in the face of something so utterly sacred it is inhuman not to feel emotion.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[wardo68]

I haven't cried since I was a child and I've been through more shit than Nixon and the Watergate scandal and all of a sudden people cry from hearing a (perhaps "touching") speech?

Then maybe you should watch, listen to, or read the speech a few times and see if it sinks in at all.

How old are you again? Were you even born during Watergate?

[noiseradio]

In all sincerity, that's one of the best things I've read in a long time. Your students are lucky to have you as their teacher.

You are much more than kind to say so. I greatly appreciate it.

[pophead2k]

In my teaching career and as a speech coach I have also seen this speech in its entirety over 100 times and I am also moved upon hearing it each and every time. It almost has to be seen in its entirety. Although there are the common soundbites "I have a dream...etc.", there is nothing like hearing the way this brilliant oration builds and builds until what were waves lapping at the beach become a tidal wave of emotion, righteous anger, and plea for togetherness. How one could listen to it and not be moved (as a human being, not as an American) is beyond me. I am similarly moved by King's last speech, given the night before he died, in which he intoned that he has 'seen the promised land' but 'might not get there with you'; that he 'fears no man' but recognizes the usefulness of a long life. Beautiful words, made tragic by the events of April 4.

[Who Shot Sam?]

In my teaching career and as a speech coach I have also seen this speech in its entirety over 100 times and I am also moved upon hearing it each and every time. It almost has to be seen in its entirety. Although there are the common soundbites "I have a dream...etc.", there is nothing like hearing the way this brilliant oration builds and builds until what were waves lapping at the beach become a tidal wave of emotion, righteous anger, and plea for togetherness. How one could listen to it and not be moved (as a human being, not as an American) is beyond me. I am similarly moved by King's last speech, given the night before he died, in which he intoned that he has 'seen the promised land' but 'might not get there with you'; that he 'fears no man' but recognizes the usefulness of a long life. Beautiful words, made tragic by the events of April 4.

Well said pophead. The speech has an even greater impact when you hear him deliver it. I found this great audio link:

http://www.hpol.org/record.php?id=72

Several of King's other speeches are available from the same site.

[pophead2k]

On a lighter note, I've always been bugged by Bono's historical mistake in 'Pride':

Early morning April 4
Shot rings out, Memphis sky....

The trouble is, King was shot in the early evening, not morning. Dublin time, it would have been the early morning of April 5. The nerdy history teacher in me gets caught up in this every time.

[wardo68]

On a lighter note, I've always been bugged by Bono's historical mistake in 'Pride':

Early morning April 4
Shot rings out, Memphis sky....

The trouble is, King was shot in the early evening, not morning. Dublin time, it would have been the early morning of April 5. The nerdy history teacher in me gets caught up in this every time.

Yeah, for all his charm, Bono doesn't always let the facts get in the way of a good story. I read somewhere that in concerts these days he sings a more historically accurate line.

[noiseradio]

(as a human being, not as an American)

Exactly! Thank you for writing that (the whole paragraph).

"Like anybody I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He has allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I have looked over. And I have seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the Promised Land. And I'm happy tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. 'Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.'"

[noiseradio]

Yeah, for all his charm, Bono doesn't always let the facts get in the way of a good story. I read somewhere that in concerts these days he sings a more historically accurate line.

Yeah. Last time I saw them he sang "Early evening, April 4..." It's pretty easy to fix live. But I cringe when I hear it, too. Still, I have to give him credit for the sentiment. And every time I've seen them play that song live, they had footage of King speaking in the background.

[selfmademug]

I disagree with classifying King as one who would support neocon ideology. His writings and teachings sit far to the left of modern conservatism. He was radically opposed to war, and his views on how the government ought to spend its money were diametrically opposed to the views of neocons. For crying out loud, when he was shot in Memphis, he was in that town to support a local garbage collector's union strike over wage negotiations. He was an adamant supporter of higher taxes for the wealthy and large-scale federal aid to those in poverty. I just don't see how you see him as either a centrist or someone who would have supported the realpolitik of Kissinger and Nixon.

To say nothing of Reagan. I agree completely, Noise. King was no centrist; he was a liberal's liberal and would have been outraged at the dismantling of the social safety net and the gutting of those resources to give tax breaks to big business and to the rich.

One of the most dangerous (and infuriating) things about the Neo-cons' tactic of demonizing the term "liberal" is that it compressed the left in order to move the "center" to the right. King was a liberal; Malcolm was a radical (for the part of his career that most people like to identify him with, anyway). It's a very convenient tactic to say "it's all bad" but it's very dangerous, no matter which side of the political scale you're talking about. For instance I would never confuse neo-con thinking with the reactionism of someone like Pat Robertson, if for no other reason than that I fear the former more than the latter!

[wardo68]

One of the most dangerous (and infuriating) things about the Neo-cons' tactic of demonizing the term "liberal" is that it compressed the left in order to move the "center" to the right.

Not to get too far off the thread, but I always found it odd that Bush I spent much of his 1988 Presidential campaign blasting "liberals", only eight years after he himself was tagged as a liberal, when he ran against (then joined the ticket of) Reagan. It worked apparently, since I don't think anyone would tag any Bush as liberal these days.

[noiseradio]

Another point about King and liberalism. His views were so far left that many considered him a closet socialist. He was even labeled a communist sympathizer by Hoover. Not that he was. i just find it fascinating that his views could be characterized as neoconservative.

[alexv]

Noise, I suspect that you and I will disagree on this no matter what we say, and my reply is respectful of that, and in no way dismissive of your views.

But just to finish the dialogue on my point about neo cons and war (which as i note below had nothing to do with my initial neocon/MLK comparison but which has come up here only because you focussed your response to me on the war issue), it is wrong to assume that just because you were hawkish on communism or during the Cold War, or supported the Vietnam War that this means that neocon philosophy is pro war or bellicose. Context is everything and during the Cold War era, support for military action was based on a longstanding conflict between the US and the USSR which was the foundation of American foreign policy during every administration: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan all shared that policy, and not all of them can be called neo cons. To paint neocon philosophy under the broad brush of it being pro-war is plain wrong.

You say that "it is ludicrous to suggest that the neo cons were remotely dovish". I have scoured my posts and see no evidence of me ever having remotely suggested this. As I have repeated before, my initial comparison of MLK neo con thought dealt with Mugs reference to "race, poverty and personal responsibility". It dealt with neo con domestic views on these domestic issues. Nothing was said about foreign policy. You responded incredulously and began by noting that neo cons are pro war. My response was two fold: I disagreed with you on the prowar point and left it at that. My last paragraph then went back to my initial point about MLK and neocon social policies (i.e. domestic).

My neo cons, people like Moynihan, Richard Hofstadter, Aaron Wildawslky, Alexander Bickel, Arthur Bell, Nathan Glazer, concluded that the approach to those issues then in vogue were not working and sought to find alternatives. They were not hostile to the Welfare State, but only hostile to the Great Society version of that state. They approved of social reforms provided minimum bureaucratic intrusion in individual affairs. They were for the welfare state, just not the paternalistic state. My theory, and it is only that, is that MLK, today, seeing the social ills and lack of progress that have overcome African Americans in the last 40 years, all during the time of their greatest freedom, would look to alternatives. "Domestic" neo con philosophy offers one. Needles to say, since I agree with it, and have always been in sympathy with MLK's agenda, I harbor the hope that he would have seen its merit. Or not.

Oh, Noise, I see you have another post: let's see, now you are incredulous that someone who was labelled as a closet communist could be characterized as a neocon. Well, I never labelled him that, and although I am not characterizing him as a neocon, I do believe that he would see the merit of their "domestic views". Nevertheless, I don't see the connection: lots of people in that paranoid era were characterized as subversives, commies and other things. The fact that they were so characterized does not mean that they were. MLK in the 60s probably was leaning on egalitarian and even socialistic policies. Lots of smart people were then (not the neo cons though), and I assume that most of these smart people during the last 40 years have changed that view, namely because unless you live in the Scandinavian countries, that kind of policy has proven disastrous. MlK would have seen that too.

Basta, Noise, I'm tired. Let's talk about EC.