A good point. Forgive me for letting that slip my mind. Holidays for historical figures and events have become a convenience for a long weekend, and often more than one event "rolled into one." Because I've seen this day as a remembrance honoring Dr. King, it reminds me of how his life was cut short. You're right. It should be for celebrating what he did as he lived. I'll work on that. And you certainly are right about there being nothing connecting Dr. King and Bill Clinton regarding breaking the law. It demeans one, and is unfair to the other. D&D. Ice! Cold can grip more than the weather.
If you find it hilarious, then you don't understand MLK's "lawlessness." Whether you realize it or not, you're making an argument similar to those who worked against King... On his death... (Quotes from https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w070108&s=perlstein011007 via Digby) Surely, you don't think Nixon ran on "Law and Order" just as a symbol against hippies? It was more directed at the white, racist South who were afraid of what had just happened and were breathing a sigh of relief after King died. He (and other racist conservative politicians) were telling their voters that somebody like King would not be allowed to rise on their watch because they would enforce even the egregious laws to preserve order. Your equating citizen King's breaking of laws intentionally created to disenfranchise and discriminate against Americans with Bush's breaking of basic Constitutional principles as the President shows me you don't understand what King did and I seriously doubt you admire it. 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 the law. --Martin Luther King Jr.
FB: MLK had plenty of power... he swayed voters. rimbaud: I have shown no disrespect towards MLK. On the other hand we have seen the usual cascade of insults aimed at our President... chill out.
I equated nothing. I pointed up the inconsistency of FB railing againg GWB in threads last week about illegally opening mail (which is probably not technically illegal) and then patently saluting MLK's law-breaking. I understand the perceived difference between civil disobedience and "administrative" disobedience. Just because he can understand MLK's purpose easier than he can GWB's purpose doesn't make it okay to trash the president. Analgously it aligns him with MLK's opponents-- if you all want to play that game.
Eventually he swayed voters. He did that because he broke the law and took power. He used civil disobedience. To compare his ability to get others to join in his vision of civil rights which in turn swayed voters and presidential power, is our of the realm of common sense. MLK and most other blacks couldn't even vote. It is insane to compare MLK to the President of the U.S. in terms of power. There were laws that kept blacks from voting. MLK didn't have power until he took it. He broke the law, exposed racist brutality to the apathetic world and got them to stop being apathetic on that issue, and got some legislation passed.
Actually opening the mail is technically illegal. It is a federal crime. I wasn't saluting law-breaking for the mere reason that it is law breaking, as I said. I saluted it, because it was civil disobedience used to bring power, to the powerless. That is the opposite of using lawbreaking to increase the power of the powerful. IT is very insulting to compare King's struggle which was legislated segregation, and even denying blacks the right to vote, with Bush. Bush was born wealthy, failed at every business he ran, but through the help of wealthy contacts, remained wealthy. He lost the popular vote, and was put into office via the Supreme Court. Their struggles, and reasons for breaking the law, as well as how they did it were opposites. It is an insult and belittles the struggles of MLK to compare the two.
I don't agree with your premise and admire MLK for his restraint and use of non-violence. However, couldn't one define many crimes as acts to bring power to the powerless? Not in the sense that MLK did, of course, but in a lesser sense? I think what makes MLK's acts OK in the eyes of many is not the bringing power to the powerless aspect of it but rather the goal of simply making the powerless equal. MLK wasn't trying to make one group superior to another, just equal. I'm not sure if my post makes any sense.
MLK broke the law and avocated that others do the same to laws that were not just. Bringing power to the powerless is a way to work towards making groups equal I believe.
You don't need to prop up MLK's accomplishments to me. They amaze me. I'm only knocking your ridicule of President Bush. What will you say if time proves that he has saved our nation from great destruction from terrorist intentions? MLK's efforts brought about great unrest, so have Bush's... but he has a purpose that is other than becoming the first fuhrer of America.
Send me a copy of the arrest warrant when, if, it comes.... Rationality vs. Fantasy I might nominate you Vigilante Sheriff!
He hasn't saved our nation from diddly, and has done damage to our nation. If something he did between now and when he leaves office saves it, then great, but that doesn't excuse his disregard for our constitution. I don't mind you knocking my ridicule of Bush. But don't compare him to MLK to do it. There is no comparison. One was a great American, who had to struggle all his life, and had nothing handed to him, yet fought for justice and had many great victories. The other was born with every possible advantage, and still managed to harm our nation.
Yeah, that was why I said on a "large scale," only because, unlike the Vikings, presumably Columbus' discovery spread to other European countries and allowed for the mass Westward colonization. Kind of like Elvis, in that his creative contributions are questionable, but his superficial impact is undeniable.
I am ignoring the Bush stuff that has nothing to do with this thread...but MLK did not bring unrest, he responded to unrest. He attempted to find a way to lead the nation out of unrest. That was a silly thing for you to say. MLK did not create anger towards segregaton and discrimination.
For one, I never said word one about anger. That is your angle not mine. unrest noun 1. a state of agitation or turbulent change or development; "the political ferment produced new leadership"; "social unrest" [syn: agitation] 2. a feeling of restless agitation I would say that MLK's lifelong commitment and political activity was a launching point for social change. Yeah, sure there was some unrest before mixed up with a lot of complacency. He changed the mix and accelerated change.
Can you post links describing other 9/11 type disasters which have occurred on American soil? We have read about plots foiled. In times of war, all kinds of compromises have been made for an interim period. My comparison was in the way that you viewed them differently with regards to a charge of lawlessness.
