Obama comments about race and the Zimmerman Martin case

"I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws," - POTUS (I said it first :)

Obama said it would be useful ‘‘to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of confrontation’’ that led to Martin’s death. He questioned whether a law that sends the message that someone who is armed ‘‘has the right to use those firearms even if there is a way for them to exit from a situation’’ really promotes peace and security. -boston.com

THERE YOU GO! THAT'S THE OBAMA WE KNOW HE CAN BE! Use the bully pulpit and tell the country what it needs to hear (and what it isn't getting from other leaders and the media). He doesn't have to be tough or shocking, because truth and decency are on his side (unlike the drones-PRISM issues). Now if only he could do this with Congress and the Pentagon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/has-president-obama-done-enough-for-black-americans/274699/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2013/07/19/obama-says-martin-could-have-been-years-ago/8ZsgQWShtvkRA8ZC7NbnTK/singlepage.html

I was about to call out No-Drama Obama for cowardice for being the first minority president who seemed to be avoiding comment on the Zimmerman case (though he is conscientious, and probably wanted to let things simmer down a week after the verdict before commenting). He didn't event spend 24 hrs in Africa during his first term (and that was for the Cairo speech with a predominantly Arab audience), despite a massive outpouring of love (and need) from that continent. For how much Obama discussed his identity in his books, now he tends to duck race, unless he has to diffuse controversy over Rev. Wright or Prof. Gates. And in those situations, he shone - so why not talk about race more (within reason)? I think America wants it and needs it, and he is the right messenger for it. With so much political hostility and economic uncertainty, maybe race is the best medium for Obama to fulfill his promise to bring America together - and part of that involves letting go of bitterness, misinformation, and defensiveness, to start replacing pain with understanding. Only the most douchebag conservatives would cry "race baiting," which is ironic because I think they are some of the biggest bigots in politics and the most opposed to reconciliation.

Obama hasn't really done much that particularly benefits minorities during his time in office, apart from the Dream Act mostly meant for Latinos. Since blacks already vote overwhelmingly Democrat, could they be taken for granted, even by Obama? Martin is the biggest racial crisis of his presidency, so I was glad to hear his presidential and candid comments today. The goal was clear and necessary: provide context and explain to mainstream America why the black community is so upset over the case (they're not just hotheaded rioters, but this is the latest preventable tragedy in a long sad history of highly targeted prejudice). Show them what it's like to be a young black man, feared and under suspicion (and maybe harassed/attacked) even though you're doing nothing wrong. Life is a lot harder and crappier when many signs around you are telling you that you are inferior, scary, and even evil. Though it's sad that we need Obama and the gravitas of his person/office to communicate this to America. This should not be breaking news, unless you have your head in the sand. But that is the first step towards reconciliation and harmony, empathy/acknowledgement for others, even if it's hard to do - freaking obvious but sadly lacking in much of society. We can't keep using our racist past as a crutch/excuse/cop-out, but we can't sweep it under the rug either. So we can't worsen matters, and increase the risk of another ugly incident to set us back, with stupid policies and false beliefs.

On Real Time, Maher mentioned some stats that in the history of SYG in all the states that have it, a white defendant is >300% more likely to be found not guilty for shooting a black person vs. a white person (I know the context of each case could be different). A Tampa study of 200 SYG trials in Florida found that the defense worked 73% of the time when the victim was black. His guest said that 70% of the US prisons and 90% of NYC stop-and-frisk targets are non-white, yet the overall US population is 72% white. So that touches on the profiling and equal justice for all issues.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-battles-gopers-on-obamas-speech-unless-people-see-burning-crosses-they-think-racisms-over/

---

Also, I heard about half of the rebroadcast Commonwealth Club program below with Jon Alter about his book on Obama's first term and the Obama-Romney election, The Center Holds. I'd like to hear the whole thing later, but he brought up a good point for progressives to remember when we are disappointed with Obama. We have every right to be disappointed, but imagine if Romney won (kind of a false choice I know, since we would hope for and deserve better selection). Like with Carter and Reagan, Romney could have taken credit for the economic recovery started under Obama. Regardless of who sat in the White House in 2013, the deficit was going to shrink (by hundreds of billions), the markets were going to rise, and unemployment/housing numbers were going to improve. It is likely that Romney-Ryan would have repealed Obamacare, rolled back a lot of regulations, gave huge tax breaks to the rich, and implemented many parts of the draconian Ryan budget early in their term. In typical fashion, they would have taken credit for the positive economic signals, attributing them to their pro-business, anti-socialist "reforms". Of course in the fact-based world, that narrative is a joke. But those ultra-libertarian, 1% skewed policies could have gained national traction and a foothold in DC. In Alter's words, "Progressive ideas would have been set back for a generation." Not progressive ideas actually, but the commonly-accepted (by the 99% at least) beliefs that it is good for America that we care for the old/needy, have a fair playing field, and keep the US a nation of, by, and for the people - not the plutocrats.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2013-06-18/jonathan-alter-obama-presidency


Jonathan Alter: The Obama Presidency


Bloomberg View columnist and author Jonathan Alter uses his unmatched access and deep knowledge of politics and history to produce an unparalleled account of America at the crossroads. Peering behind the curtain at the White House and the presidential campaigns with exclusive reporting and rare historical insight, Alter reveals the twists, turns and high-stake political decisions of the Obama presidency. Alter also examines Obama's adversaries, providing fresh details about the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes and the "online haters" who suffer from what Alter calls "Obama Derangement Syndrome." Alter goes inside what he calls the GOP "clown car" primaries as well as Obama's disastrous preparation for the first debate. The program also meets Obama's analytics geeks working out of "The Cave," and the man who secretly videotaped Mitt Romney's infamous comments on the "47 percent." The conversation is moderated by Joe Tuman, professor of legal and political communications at San Francisco State University, and political analyst for CBS 5 Television.

 
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 -- 8:00pm

The Zimmerman jury may have gotten it right, but now what?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57593459-504083/george-zimmerman-verdict-former-neighborhood-watch-leader-not-guilty-in-death-of-fla-teen-trayvon-martin/

Most of us probably believe that it was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin in the way he did, and it was a tragedy that the boy died. But in terms of a conviction, unfortunately there just wasn't enough there to prove the strict definitions of 2nd degree murder and/or manslaughter. It's not like he killed Martin outright... he first put himself in dangerous proximity, and escalated into some sort of verbal and physical altercation. He's misguided and showing poor judgment, but not a murderer. Obviously he is a child killer, and yet a hero to many.

What about the trial's greater implications? Our culture, racial policies, and gun laws were not on trial - but they are still open issues for debate. Obviously after Oscar Grant, Martin, and many other examples, I assume the black community and many other Americans are tired of seeing young, lower income, unarmed people of color getting beaten or killed, while the lighter-skinned, gun-toting perpetrator is acquitted or given little punishment (in their opinion). Anger is high and some may want to lash out violently. On the other side, Zimmerman and his supporters may expect that. These folks probably favor concealed-carry, stand-your-ground, unrestricted 2nd amendment, and other legal provisions that enable firearms to be lawfully used for more self defense and vigilante scenarios. So they may want to carry their weapons more often, and may be even more paranoid when confronted by others whose appearance scares them. That's a volatile combination of circumstances.

We discussed this a bit before, but as you'd expect I find such laws that enabled Zimmerman to legally create the tragic situation in Sanford fairly outrageous. We know almost any adult can purchase a gun in America with next to no "qualifications". And in states like FL, you can easily get a permit (if you even need a permit) to carry your gun loaded in public - as long as you are not intoxicated, brandishing it so others feel threatened, etc. Americans get buy guns easily and have loaded guns almost everywhere in a variety of situations - thereby increasing the likelihood that a Sanford type killing, an outright crime, or an accident occurs.

Adding SYG to that, in incidents where conflict ensures and the shooter feels in danger, he/she can use deadly force as self defense and be legally justified. Premeditated malice and aggression aside, it barely matters how you got into the mess (especially when evidence is sketchy, if it's even relevant/admissible), as long as you can prove you were under attack - you have "a license to kill". Does that mean any moron can start shit with anyone else, and when they get in over their head and things go south, they can "kill their way out of trouble?" What if 2 armed people get into a fight? Whoever shoots first under threat will be the "winner". So will that incentive people in those states to be even more hasty and trigger-happy?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/23-other-states-have-stand-your-ground-laws-too/50226/

FL and 23 other states have some sort of SYG. They are basically every state below the Mason-Dixon, plus IL, WA, NV, OR. Maybe the best way for blacks and concerned citizens to "have their revenge" against the system and our gun-happy, conflict-happy culture is to boycott. Move out of those states, don't do business with them, don't contribute tax dollars to them. If enough people do it, leaders will start to get the picture and maybe change the laws/norms. Plus, with all the non-pistoleros leaving those communities, the only people left will be the Zimmerman types. It will be more likely that they get into armed altercations with each other, thereby reducing the pro-gun population and creating a lot of negative press for the gun/vigilante/self defense crowd. Because maybe that is the only thing that will really move the debate - when a non-poor, fair-skinned, pro-gun shooter kills a non-poor, fair-skinned, pro-gun victim. Unfortunately it seems that dead black people piled up to the ceiling (forgive my crudeness, but just look at the Chicago and Oakland cases) is not enough to get America and its lawmakers to care.

Or another option is, "if you can't beat em, join em". Zimmerman opponents can start acting like him. Imagine if Martin was an adult and went through the necessary steps to carry in public. Once Zimm. was following him and starting stuff, he could have just killed Zimm. and the trial would have been inverted. It would have been even easier to argue self defense since Zimm. was armed, was the instigator, and his prior 911 call showed prejudice and intent to confront aggressively. With Mark O'Mara, the gun lobby, AND the NAACP defending Martin, no way he would be convicted (unless the FL justice system is truly racist). Maybe that is what is needed, legally armed black people fighting back and killing gun-toting racial profilers who mess with them? Obviously I'm being facetious here, but my point is: look at what these laws and culture could lead to. A nation where almost everybody has the legal authority to be armed in public (with ever more deadly weapons), and use those arms to lawfully kill in an increasing multitude of situations, is not a freer or better society. It's goddam Tombstone. And it won't make your suburb any safer, it won't protect your kids from a deranged school shooter (who likely outguns and outcrazies you), and it won't defeat Al Qaeda or our tyrannical socialist gov't.

So yeah, I would advocate the boycott approach before the Tombstone approach.

-----

Maybe you saw last night's Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-july-15-2013-aaron-sorkin

For the record, they also compared SYG to Tombstone - but I called it first. ;) They also showed footage of Zimm's brother discussing how George would have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life because people may want to take matters into their own hands. It was pathetic that the brother didn't grasp the irony.

Also, CNN aired an interview with one of the anonymous jurors (who already landed a book deal, but it got cancelled after her interview aired since it seemed wrong to profit from what some see as a blatant injustice), a married middle-aged white female gun owner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvrpp4SODBE
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/16/202566703/juror-b-37-speaks-out-about-zimmerman-verdict

When asked if race played a role in Zimm's actions, the juror said that, "[it wouldn't have mattered to Zimm if Trayvon was] Spanish, white, Asian..." Do we want to trust the verdict in a racially-charged trial to a person who can't even articulate the major ethnic groups? Heck, as the defense joked, the main criterion for juror eligibility was a lack of prior knowledge of the incident. This was the case with previous high-profile trials as well, but that's kind of scary that the court has to select the most un-informed and apathetic among the juror pool. The interviewed juror also admitted that she did not follow the judge's orders when coming to a verdict. The judge ruled to disregard the lead investigator's (Chris Serrino, sp?) testimony that he felt Zimm was truthful, yet the juror said that quote made "a big impression" on her decision because of Serrino's experience. Justice definitely served. Lastly, the juror said that of the 6 women, 2 initially believed Zimm to be guilty of manslaughter, but eventually were persuaded to join the acquit crowd (1 of the 6 abstained or still supported manslaughter). You'd think that harassing and brandishing a firearm to an unarmed minor on a public street would break some sort of US law.

Like the Ted Stevens and OJ trials, I'm getting tired of prosecutors wetting the bed. Trying to make a name for themselves or under external pressure, they over-reach with big charges that may not have enough evidence to support them. And then they totally botch the execution too. How can they agree to a jury of all women and all having common ethnicity with the defendant, but not the victim? How can they not prepare their witnesses better (the defense basically turned them over), and not put Zimm on the stand himself? I am fairly ignorant about legal matters, so I'm sure other factors were at play, but I'd like to see an explanation or expert evaluation of their decision/performance. Just not from a juror's book deal.


I think this trial did produce a conviction on US society. We are guilty of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hostility, fearful stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, and "violence solves problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations, misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes).

-----------

From all objective legal accounts this couldn't have gone any other way.  The judge instructed them that Z was within his legal rights, per Florida state law, to follow Martin, approach him, etc.  And once a scuffle ensued if he felt threatened it would not be manslaughter to use his weapon.  Florida does not require you to retreat as part of a self defense act.  Given no other witnesses to the activity, relatively poor circumstantial evidence, etc how could someone not have a reasonable doubt that this was a legal act as opposed to manslaughter?  Are we saying there is NO reasonable doubt that Z started the fight?

 

And the ethnicity thing is killing me.  So all the women were half hispanic?  Is there some evidence somewhere that this was motivated by race?  Zim has previously stood up in city council to berate a white officer whose son attacked a black homeless man.  Not a particularly racist thing to do.  Profiling sure, i'll grant that, but those aren't the same thing.  

----------

I agree with you about the verdict - it's pretty much a slam-dunk actually, and the prosecution were morons for trying to pin him with murder 2. By the strict interpretation of the law, he was not guilty. I am not sure how the verdict would have changed in NY or CA. I never said that Z was a racist and I do think his actions were motivated mostly by a "civic duty" to protect his community from crime. But from a jury standpoint, it's hard to believe that race played zero role in their decision making process, even though the lawyers did their best to avoid the issue. Humans have biases, so if we can't remove them, at least we should balance them out and cancel them out. I'm not saying the jury was all racist either, but we tend to relate better to people who are similar to us. Isn't that why it's rare to have a very homogeneous jury? I don't know why it was only 6 instead of 12 people (maybe FL law?), but I think a mixture of backgrounds is often good to avoid tunnel vision and groupthink. Despite the racial makeup of the jury, 2 of them were initially favoring manslaughter for Z anyway, but were persuaded to change.

You'd think that harassing and brandishing a firearm to an unarmed minor on a public street would break some sort of US law (or it should, right?). I guess this trial did produce a conviction of US society. We are guilty of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hysterical hostility, fearful stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, my gun is my freedom, and "violence solves problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations, misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes). 

-----------

Listen to the 911 call and tell me about harassing him.  And no one has any factual reports that he pulled his gun anytime but the last minute as far as i know.  

He would be guilty for sure in ca or ny or any of the more narrowly defined self defense law states.

-----------

I have not been following the case closely, but while Martin was on the phone with his friend, couldn't you hear him say [presumably to Z], "Why are you following me?" That could suggest there was harassment (and who knows what else happened that wasn't caught on tape?). 

Based on Z's initial 911 call and his motivation for being a "watchman", I think we can assume that he prejudged Martin and confronted him with the intent to run him out of the neighborhood (ostensibly to thwart a crime), possibly by intimidation/threat.

I wasn't a witness obviously, but I find it doubtful that Martin would just suddenly attack an adult stranger who approached/followed him on a dark night. So I think it's plausible that Z did something to scare/provoke Martin, and made the teen feel the need to react and "defend himself" first. But that's the problem with fighting... how do you differentiate between attack and defense, because a punch is a punch? Even straddling and pummeling a person could be defensive, if the purpose was to prevent the person on the bottom from drawing a deadly weapon.

There are "good Samaritan" laws to prevent people trying to help in a volatile situation from getting sued later if they accidentally did harm. But I think there are limits to that protection, like gross negligence voids it. I would hope that SYG laws have limits too - if the shooter puts him/herself in a bad situation and escalates it (if that can be proven), then he/she is no longer covered. Otherwise the law incentivizes violent confrontation, regardless of intent. What if I went into Little Havana with a loudspeaker and started to yell pro-Castro slogans? Assuming people took enough offense to approach me with demonstrable intent to physically harm, I can just shoot them legally? I am not an expert in SYG so maybe there are such common sense limits.

And just when you thought things couldn't get any more effed up in FL, this is another case where a jury (racial composition unknown) found a woman defendant ineligible for SYG protection. She is a PhD, mother of 3, with no prior record, and black. She previously took out a restraining order against her husband for abuse. During their latest alleged altercation, she retrieved a gun in her home and fired a warning shot (according to her) into the ceiling to keep him away. But the court decided that she could not prove she was in imminent danger, so instead she was sentenced to 20 YEARS. I am not sure what the charge was, possibly attempted murder of the husband and/or child endangerment (since their kids were present). This is because FL has mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving guns (10 years if you have a gun, 20 if you fire it). Some have alleged that mandatory minimum sentences are immoral and maybe racist. So I guess FL enables "lawful" gun owners to have a lot of leeway, but throws the book at gun "criminals". Based on circumstance, economics, etc., one of those populations is predominantly darker skinned and poorer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143313/Abused-Florida-wife-sentenced-20-YEARS-firing-warning-shot-husband-Stand-Your-Ground-defence-fails.html

Why we shouldn't have a MLK Day

To paraphrase labor singer Joe Hill, I am sure Dr. King's message to us for the day set aside to commemorate him would be, "don't celebrate, organize." That would honor his memory better than anything else we could do.

- James Harrington, Director of the Texas Civil Rights Project

Before you pelt me with rotten tomatoes, let me say that I have no problem with honoring MLK and praising his work/beliefs. But the way his memory has been watered down in American culture, MLK's "dream" may never be fully realized. It's actually quite a feat for MLK to have a national holiday, considering that no one else has a US official holiday dedicated to them, except Jesus or Columbus maybe, and both of them weren't American citizens. Of all the influential, legendary Americans in our young history, so far it's only MLK. All our war heroes get one day, and same for our 43 presidents (the great and the horrible ones alike). Supreme Court justices and US Congressmen don't get holidays, even though some of them made huge contributions to advancing civil rights. I remember when I was discussing the holiday issue with a friend from Arizona (AZ and NH were the last states to recognize MLK day, only after a Congressional order in 1987, and it cost them hosting a Super Bowl among other things). He said he would prefer to call it "Civil Rights Day". After some thought, I strongly agree with that. Though we probably felt that way for different reasons than Jesse Helms (see Wiki link at end). Actually, Reagan previously proposed to have a "National Civil Rights Day" celebrated on August 12 to celebrate MLK's march on Washington.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/081087d.htm

As Americans tend to do, we mess up a good thing. We do want to honor MLK's legacy and commemorate the civil rights struggle (and we sometimes forget that it was a helluva STRUGGLE that is far from finished), but by mythologizing him into a one-dimensional, abstract character (like Washington, or Jesus for that matter!), we actually take away from his message and lessen his impact/realism. It's like putting women on a pedestal in the old days. Men supposedly did it to protect them, but ended up hurting women by holding them back (or was that the goal all along?). The civil rights movement was complex, extensive, and ongoing, so it can't be condensed into one man's name or one famous quote. Let's be honest; MLK was generally an outcast figure and disliked by much of establishment America (especially for his antiwar and pro-labor views), but after his murder he became a sympathetic icon for the greater struggle for equality and justice, whether it be racial, sexual, disability, or socioeconomic.

We celebrate his memory as if he was a victorious general like Washington, but in reality MLK Day should be a day of mourning to reflect on how far we still need to go. We shall overcome some day (hopefully), but we're not there yet. Making MLK and the greater civil rights movement into just another holiday somehow relegates him into the haze of the distant past, yet if he wasn't assassinated, Dr. King would be only 78 years old now – practically a baby boomer! Some of the people who opposed MLK-style integration are still ticking, and a few even held positions of power until very recently! Maybe America is still uncomfortable about MLK's proximity to present day and his relevance to current national issues, so subconsciously we are mythologizing him into historical obscurity (like other ugly chapters of US history such as the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and the Vietnam War). Fuzzy snippets of his speeches, street signs in bad neighborhoods, and even an annual holiday won't really inspire us to follow in MLK's footsteps. Does Mother's Day really make us nicer to our moms after Sunday brunch has concluded? Holidays are a "get out of jail free" card, just an excuse to feel inspired for one day, and after the euphoria subsides, postpone our guilt and obligation to action for another year.

Civil rights was a protracted struggle where people involved lived under constant fear/harassment, and risked their lives and their families to fight for a distant goal that in no way appeared assured at the time. They only accepted such long odds and hardships because life under Jim Crow segregation was even worse, and some refused to tolerate it anymore. It was a nasty, difficult, ugly process, like any revolutions I guess. But MLK is almost an untainted, angelic figure (he was not free of controversy, such as promiscuity and leftist associations, though mostly trumped up by the FBI), who made one speech and then the whole nation suddenly decided to get along. But if it wasn't for the thousands of marchers who listened to his speech and actually lived out his message, Dr. King would be just another dreamer. We sometimes forget all the hard work, courage, and pain that went into marginalized people standing up and demanding fair treatment from their own country that often times treated them with hostility and contempt. Heck, Rosa Parks has become a punch line that even black comedians exploit.

I think our sanitized portrayal of the civil rights struggle gives kids the wrong impression that good people just magically prevail and things always turn out right in the end (even though bigotry is far from dead, as we've seen in Jena, Katrina, and US prisons/public schools). Change is VERY HARD to accomplish, and it takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears from more than just one inspired leader. MLK couldn't have done it without thousands of other dedicated patriots, including many concerned white people. Maybe some kids don't even know that Dr. King was assassinated, and prior to that had multiple attacks/death threats on him and his family, yet he kept going because he believed in the cause. If we want to remember and honor MLK, at least we can do it in a more meaningful way. Kids are lucky today that they don't live in an overtly segregated society anymore, but obviously there are still barriers when over 90% of inner city NYC schoolchildren are black/Latino and over 90% of wealthy suburban schoolkids are white. Maybe the best way to comprehend and combat injustice is to experience it first hand, in a controlled medium of course. Pacific Coast schools often conduct Japanese internment demonstrations (where some students play US military jailors and others play interned Japanese-Americans), and similar Holocaust/Nazi concentration camp experience simulations exist from Texas to New York. Why can't we have hands-on activities for children to understand slavery, Jim Crow, and the civil rights movement? I know such methods may be controversial for parents to accept, but MLK was the epitome of controversy yet we claim to honor him each January.

But ask any US kid under 16 what MLK means to them, and I think you'd get some pretty disappointing answers. That isn't necessarily their fault, but also due to inadequate education and social indifference. And Dr. King held many other beliefs as well, some that go against the grain of mainstream society. Many Americans may still harbor private prejudices, but we generally agree that institutionalized discrimination and racism are wrong, so MLK's integrationist message is easily palatable. But we are still a very pro-war and anti-labor society, and maybe getting more so. As a Christian minister and admirer or Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King and his followers ardently abided by a code of nonviolence, which is amazing considering how brutally they were assailed with hateful words, tear gas, batons, fire hoses, attack dogs, and sometimes guns/nooses. MLK was one of the most vocal critics of the Vietnam War and militarism in general, so we know what he would say about Bush and the current War on Terror. He also rallied against poverty and promoted worker's rights, which created a lot of enemies for him (the leftist tendencies of other positive historical figures like César Chavez and Hellen Keller have also been downplayed over the years). But for such a principled man, his struggle for justice was not just limited to racial bigotry, but also economic and military oppression.

We have to do a better job of making MLK and the civil rights struggle come to life and mean something tangible to Americans, especially young people. Not that Hollywood should be our cultural barometer, but there have been two major movies on Truman Capote, at least six on Elvis Presley (mostly made-for-TV), yet zero on MLK. Isn't his life interesting and meaningful enough? If we allow Dr. King to become just another old face on a stamp, or a few pages in a boring, whitewashed schoolbook, then I fear his sacrifice was in vain. I worry that MLK day has become just another ethereal holiday like Thanksgiving (do any of us really care that the Pilgrims and Indians shared a meal together, even though such a scenario is historically dubious?), just an excuse for another day off to repaint the garage or hit the mall. And like Christmas, it does no good to venerate and commemorate a great figure if we don't live out his message for the other 364 days of the year. Dr. King would probably prefer that we not honor him with superficial ceremonial tributes, but instead take to the streets and actually help the victims of injustice and prejudice, who are not in short supply both here and abroad. Every day we have opportunities to make our society more tolerant and egalitarian, and unlike many other global challenges like poverty and climate change, one person can make a big difference just by treating others with respect and compassion. But how many times have we participated in or witnessed injustice, and just kept on walking?

I do commend MLK on his enduring, pure message of nonviolent protest and racial harmony, not just "black power" like other reactionaries of his day. He does deserve major recognition in the history books, but we can't afford to compress the entire civil rights movement into a trite holiday for one man's story. And I think MLK would agree. But as our society and our young people assess a new batch of daunting challenges, I would hope MLK reminds us not that "we shall overcome" by default, but that some struggles are so important that it's worth giving your life for. If most Americans understood that and lived rightly, then we would have no need for a MLK Day, and bigotry truly would be a thing of the past.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/21/0121harrington_edit.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=45

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/444.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Day