The Rabid Grammarian

It's Marriage Equality week at the Supreme Court. The Justices will decide the fate of Marriage equality twice this week. People have been camped out at the Court for 5 days (despite snow) in hopes to to hear the arguments today and tomorrow.

Here's hoping that the Court will do the right thing and decide in favor of equality, especially striking down DOMA, which if anyone had read the Act (and I have) you know it's unconstitutional.

Today, March 26, 2013, the Court will determine the legality of California Prop 8, that limits marriage to opposite sex couples.
Tomorrow, March 27, 2013, the Court will address DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton (aw Bubba, how could you?) that he now says was a mistake to have ever signed. DOMA limits the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples (and yet in something like 20+ states you can marry your 13 year old first cousin.)

Although I'm pretty sure we don't have a chance with Scalia or Thomas, here's hoping the rest of the judges aren't so addled they do the right thing and uphold Marriage Equality on both fronts.

Today, I've been trying to call the White House since the lines opened at 9 AM EST. I'm trying to let President Obama know that I want him to veto  HR 933, the short term spending bill due to the inclusion of a dangerous rider by Congress, The Monsanto Protection Act,that is harmful to our environment, family farmers and citizens.
I have yet to get through, but I'll continue to call until the lines close at 5PM EST.

Because I wanted to get my opinion to the White House, I also filled out a contact the White House form. Contrary to some "news" outlets, the Obama Administration is the most transparent and most available administration ever. I'm grateful that this administration provides multiple methods for Americans to express their opinions.

I'm getting my voice heard. You should as well!

You can use the form above or try calling the White House at 202-456-1111.

Sexy People Reading-Raquel Welch.

Ever since the birth of our child, I've been focused on making improvements. Improvements in myself, our home, our lifestyle. It's totally normal to want to make such improvements to provide a better life for your child.
One of my biggest bugaboos is a healthy eating lifestyle. More than 50% of the US population is considered obese, and I'm pretty sure that despite BMI being an absolute junk measure of overall health, that statistic would still be accurate without using BMI as a measure. This generation of children will be the first who will not live longer than their parents due to health related conditions such as diabetes, coronary artery disease and cancer. Many researchers believe that this is directly related to the Standard American Diet (which ironically abbreviates to "SAD.") I want my kid to have a long, healthy life. I don't want my kid to suffer physically or emotionally (because fat kids are targeted for ridicule and usually have low self esteem) because of a completely preventable condition.  So I decided now, while he's young, before it becomes an issue, to be proactive and change the way my family eats.

Thankfully, my husband is not a meat & potatoes only kind of guy, he'll eat pretty much anything I put in front of him, so making these changes are fairly easy as I'm not met with much resistance. First, we cut out nearly all processed products. We still have a few items, DH seems resistant to give up cereal and tortilla chips, but we buy organic, non-GMO ones that have less than 5 ingredients. I also still purchase canned beans and tomatoes, tofu and such. Technically, anything in the grocery store that isn't fresh produce has been processed, even minimally, but the aim is to eat as close to whole foods as possible.
The next step was to buy all only organic (except when utterly unavailable.) We're lucky we can do this, because our grocery bill did jump quite a bit. We also decided to eat only pasture raised, grass-fed meat (beef/chicken) and only wild-caught fish. This is probably the priciest item, so because of the increase in price, we matched it to a decrease in consumption. Americans eat far too much meat in general. It used to be a treat, or used only for flavor, rather as the main event.  Our consumption of meat averages to about once a week.  So, we're mostly lacto-ovo vegetarian/plant based at this point.

This is great, it's better for our health (I've lost about 20 pounds just from diet change, even without exercise) and better for the environment (commercial meat production is one of the most destructive elements on the environment) and my kid is growing up with healthy views of food as fuel. But, I want to go further. I want to go mostly vegan.

And there's the rub "mostly" vegan. I have issues with veganism in specific. First, I truly believe that to be 100% vegan or vegetarian you really do need a lot of knowledge, practically a degree in nutrition to do it right. I was vegetarian in the past. Except I didn't really eat vegetables. I ate a lot of cheese, pasta, bread, beans, rice and meat substitutes. I wasn't a vegetarian, I just didn't eat meat. I was a carbotarian. I was probably pretty nutrient deficient in some areas. So, even though I'm much more versed in nutrition now, I'm still not confident about going 100% vegan.
Second, I hate the term "vegan." It brings to mind all the raging vegans who would judge me for my food choices and who would spring graphic images of animal cruelty on me while I was eating a cheeseburger. They are the dietary equivalent of pro-lifers who force images of fetuses on people against their will. Hey Vegenazis, people don't like preachy and invasive. It does your cause no service. Subtle revolution will work better for you to earn the hearts and minds of the populace. Cows are bred for food. They are 100% domesticated animals. There is no such thing as a wild cow (to my knowledge) roaming the wild lands. However, we are eating too much meat and in that process, we are falling into inhumane practices to support consumption.
Third, many of the vegan recipes I find are reliant on heavily processed vegan "butter" and "cheese." My family tries to eat a whole food diet and these just don't really fit. Organic butter from pasture raised cows is a better choice in my opinion. It's closer to a whole food and yet consciously obtained.

I have no issues with an omnivorous diet, provided it's done consciously. Our society does consume too much dairy and meat, which leads to poor human and poor environmental health. We need to reduce consumption, focus on a plant based diet using meat and dairy as a flavoring rather than a main event, and make sure that the meat and dairy we do use are sustainably and pasture raised, fed on a natural diet (which is grass for cows, not grain) and free of antibiotics and other unhealthy additives. Our society is overfed and yet starving (nutritionally) to death.

And don't give me that "but without Big Ag/Big Food we can't feed the world" sh*t. The truth is we aren't feeding the world. People are starving despite all these so called innovations in food production. Cattle & commercially raised chickens get more than 50% of the antibiotics made, and now we have antibiotic resistant super bugs and people are dying of disease that could be cured with those drugs. Feedlot cattle eat something like 5 pounds of grain (corn) to produce one pound of meat (which in the US may turn into one person's meat consumption for one meal). If that grain were given to people instead, it could solve the hunger crisis in this world.

So there it is, the lifestyle change tangent (which will probably be one of many.) For my and my family's health and to reduce environmental impact we're trying to be weekday vegans and omnivore weekenders (though still mostly vegetarian.)

If this lifestyle change is something you have been interested in pursuing, I encourage you to watch the following films: Hungry For Change (also a great book), Forks Over Knives (also a book and cookbook) Food, Inc, and Vegucated. Good books are Fast Food Nation, The Omnivore's Dilemma, and In Defense of Food.

I'll be cobbling together a cookbook & plant-based blogs post soon.

Today is the official first day of Spring. I have a love-hate relationship with Spring. I love that Spring beings with it the promise of warmer weather and life in bloom. I hate that Spring beings with it pollen and differing air pressure. I personally have no issue with pollen. My husband, on the other hand makes all sorts of fun loud sounds at all hours which is not so fun for either of us. In addition, this Spring has brought in a pressure system that has been interfering with my system, resulting in chronic vertigo for quite some time now.
If I thought getting anything done with a small child was difficult before, it is now combined with the feeling like I am always spinning. Add to this that my child is now increasingly mobile and it's a recipe for disaster.
Basically, I have been utterly useless for most things with the exception of getting dinner on the table most nights and watching the entirety of Battlestar Gallactica on Netflix. But I wanted to pop in and make a post, hopefully I'll get back to posting regularly soon.

In my pursuit of healthier living I've come across many many ideas. Since I have a pretty well developed bullsh!t detector I have a fairly easy time at negotiating the miasma of theories about health and weight loss. Through all of my research I've come to the conclusion that trying to lose weight generally ends in failure while adapting to a healthier lifestyle is generally successful and often does result in a loss of weight.
Often though, a healthier lifestyle (and I define this as adopting a whole-foods diet filled with plants-based nutrition and little or no processed foods and moderate daily exercise) doesn't result in that much weight loss and people feel that the whole process was unsuccessful. That's where the concept of Health at Every Size (HAES) comes into play.
We are a very image-dependent culture. Our media has generally shaped societies view of what is considered attractive. We've become a society where healthy people are considered overweight and near emaciated people have become an image of health. We've come to rely on image as a measure of health rather than actual health as a measure of health. Even the medical community has been tainted to a degree.
People can be healthy or unhealthy at a range of sizes. We are individuals and health is a very individual process. I have been overweight (or even obese) much of my life. I was generally very healthy considering. I was very active comparably and I had better blood work than people half my size. At one point a doctor I was seeing told me that she had to re-run my blood work because she didn't believe that it was correct. My blood work was comparable to a professional athlete's. I weighed 230ish pounds and was categorized as obese by BMI statistics. She was the first doctor who ever told me the results of my tests said I was healthy and didn't go on to tell me that I needed to lose weight. One doctor had actually said he was "positive" I would have diabetes, based only on my size and wanted to give me a pill before testing me.  After he read my stunningly healthy results (I had better labs than my very trim father) he still wanted me to diet.
I have always been moderately healthy. I say moderately because I didn't feel as healthy as my blood work had shown. Health is a complicated issue. It's not just how you feel, but also how you look (I think we can agree that someone with dull skin or such can look unhealthy) and there is also underlying health or unhealth you may not even know is happening. Health can be physical, emotional or both.
I truly believe in Health at Every Size, but with caveats. It's true you can be healthy at a range of sizes, but that doesn't mean that you will always be healthy and even if you are healthy now, it doesn't mean that you always will be or that you have a free pass to immerse yourself in unhealthy behaviors. I also believe that it really isn't healthy to carry significant weight on your frame, even if you exercise regularly, even if you're currently regarded as "healthy" medically. The human skeletal system is not evolutionarily prepared to carry such weight. Over time even a healthy person of generous size will start to have ill effects on their joints and in their skeletal structure. I'm not saying everyone is supposed to be skinny, I still think that there is a range of healthy size, but there is an upper limit of Health at Every Size. In effect, it's not Health at EVERY Size, it's Health at a damn bit larger range of sizes than the medical community and the media accepts, but there is a danger zone depending on your skeletal frame.
I've known far too many who use the Health at Every Size as an excuse to not change, demanding that everyone should just accept them for who they are. While that's true, it's not HAES, that is "Fat Acceptance," and it's abusing the HAES movement. Most of my experience with the Fat Acceptance movement doesn't focus on health at all. I'm also not suggesting that people of size shouldn't be accepted in society. If you eat a healthy diet and do regular movement/exercise and your medical tests show that you are healthy, fine, you can claim HAES. If you're eating junk food and the only movement you do with excitement is from couch to fridge and you're relying on pills to make you healthy, I don't care what you weigh or what you look like, you're just not allowed to hide behind HAES, in my opinion.
I live in a community where there is a lot of shaming if you want to lose weight, no matter the reason. Many of the people I know are Goddess sized and when I mention that I'm trying to lose some weight and return to my body's happy size/weight, I get "but you're perfect and beautiful the way you are" or "skinny women aren't attractive" or "bone is for the dog, meat is for the man" and other similar jests trying to dissuade me from pursuing what I consider a healthier lifestyle.

So the breakdown I guess is that not all thin people are healthy, not all larger people are unhealthy. There is a wider range of size at which people can be healthy and society and the medical community need to get a clue. While there are larger people who are healthy there are far more who aren't (but that doesn't mean a doctor should automatically think heavier = unhealthy) but even healthy larger people run a risk of musculo-skeletal issues in the future no matter how healthy or active they are because the human body does have a load limit, there is an upper cap that depends on your individual skeletal system and over time the circulatory system may suffer from needing to pump to a larger frame. Everyone should strive to be healthier, and some should strive to be healthier and thinner, though not everyone needs to weigh 115 pounds. Also, I guarantee if you switch to a whole-foods, 70%+ plant-based (and preferably organic) diet, tossing out all those processed products and non-food items (remember, food comes from farms, products come from factories) you will feel, look and be healthier. There's a reason the Standard American Diet abbreviates to "SAD."

Question of The Week: Does the Internet really make us more informed?

I've often found myself asking "in an an age with so much information available, how is it that so many continue to be so ignorant of basic facts?" This is a greater issue than simple access to information. Even with adequate access, people choose to remain ignorant or simply do not know the facts on basic issues.

In this day of information it is far easier to suffer from information overload than to be well-informed. There is still the bias that if it is accessible on the Internet that it is true when in fact most of the easily accessible information isn't accurate or isn't information. It's often opinion, rhetoric, propaganda or advertisement. Unfortunately, because our educational system has suffered such deep cuts in quality, many are unable to discern the difference between the truth and other forms of media.

The inability to think critically and analyze to discern the difference between true information and the rest is crippling us in the information age. The Internet certainly gives us access to information but like any resource it is up to the user to wade through the mire to the verified truth.

The Internet age also makes it all too easy for people to trust one source as truth without confirmation from a separate independent source. Even more challenging is finding sources that don't refer back to each other. The Internet is a very incestuous source of information.
So does the Internet make us more informed? Only in the hands of an intelligent and adept user. In the hands of the uneducated, voluntarily ignorant, or lazy the Internet only serves to perpetuate whatever the user chooses to believe rather than what is actually and demonstrably true.

Once again I find myself on a soapbox calling for more effective education and comprehensive education reform. It is only when we give people the power to access and analyze information that it is truly useful.

I love hearing President Obama speak. He's an amazing orator and the State of The Union address is usually one of his shining moments. I have a love-hate relationship watching the address because while my heart is swelled with pride and patriotism I always feel like I've been wined and dined and never get my call for a second date. It's not President Obama's fault. The SoTUA is supposed to talk big ideas and give you hope. Then the realization sinks in of all the little things I want to see changed were left unaddressed and that all the wonderful ideas that were posited will probably never come to light because we have an overwhelmingly obstructionist Congress.
I was very pleased that so much of the address focused on education. It's a good start and I can only hope that these efforts will snowball into greater efforts that bring our educational system out of the morass that it has been in for more than a generation.
As I said, I'm always disappointed about things left unaddressed, so I will list them here. This list will serve as a political bucket list for me. I will use this list to call my Congressmen, the President and chairs of various committees. Every day, yes every day, I plan to call about a new issue. Squeaky wheels get the grease. As I get my research done (whom to call, for each issue) I'll post it here in case anyone wants to join me in my endeavor. I'm listing things that weren't referenced in the SoTUA last night.

Here's a list, in no particular order, and very roughly written out:

1. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall act (I loved you Bubba, but repealing this was a shitty move.)
2. Overturn Citizens United
3. Repeal DOMA & support marriage equality
4. Ask for Federal support for the Edible Schoolyard Project
5. Ask for a Federal bill preventing the advertising to children under the age of 12 (similar to the EU)
6. Reinstate OSHA's power to investigate workplace injuries without prior notification to companies and reinstate the workplace injury form to report musculoskeletal injuries/disorders.
7. Ask for a Federal bill giving the USDA authority to test for dangerous pathogens, to set enforceable limits on those pathogens and to demand (rather than request) the recall of contaminated food. (Thank you to the book Fast Food Nation for this suggestion.)
8. Ask for a federal bill requiring the labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs)
9. Allow the EPA to have the power to sanction, fine and shut down violators of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, etc. Basically, give the EPA some teeth.
10. Ask for the FDA to do their own testing of pharmaceuticals (and natural remedies) to determine the safety of drugs before FDA approval rather than allowing Big Pharma to conduct their own tests and tell the FDA drugs are safe.
11. Overhaul the federal small business loan system to support independent businesses, rather than funding franchisees of the fast food industry that have a high default rate.
12. Ask for a Federal bill for a livable minimum wage for restaurant workers (including fast food) or include/better support restaurant workers in the Federal minimum wage hike proposed last night. Also: add paid leave for all workers.
13. Ask for a Federal bill providing 40 weeks of paid parental leave, bringing us into the realm of other industrialized nations (currently our parental leave policies mimic those of Papua New Guinea and Swaziland rather than those of Britain, France or Sweden. Even Afghanistan gives more maternity leave than the US.)
14. Ask for a Federal bill subsidizing 100% higher education similar to other industrialized nations.  I really wish I could remember where I read about this. In other nations they subsidize college (4 year degree) 100% and possibly a portion of medical degrees. It ends up costing each person about $9000.00 on their taxes over their adult lifetime to do this. Most college graduates in the US graduate with high student debt. I, myself have a debt that currently (not counting my impending graduate school costs) will cost me more than three times what I originally borrowed. I'd much rather pay $9000.00 in taxes than have to pay $72,000 over the rest of my lifetime.

There are so many other things I'd like to change, and these ideas need to be polished up just a bit and researched before I can start making my calls (after all, I want to present coherent and cogent arguments not inane ramblings-that's what blogs are for, right?) I want the Federal Government to regulate big Agribusiness and support independent and organic farmers. I want serious educational funding and reform. I want higher taxes for millionaires and more money spent on infrastructure. I want the government to stop subsidizing big business. I want socialized health care. I want these and a lot more. I'd be a terrible Buddhist.

At the risk of marginalizing my husband and male friends, I ask the Question of The Week: Are Men Becoming Obsolete? I'm not suggesting that males as a gender aren't nice to have around (well, some males) or that they are are becoming completely useless (although I've known a few who were close) I'm suggesting that in modern society males are becoming less needed. Not that they aren't wanted(God knows I prefer a group of guy friends over women most days) but they aren't needed.

Women are capable of doing everything men are capable of doing. We can start and run successful businesses. We can design and build structures and lift heavy objects. We can be doctors and heal the sick. We can govern and set law. We can fight in combat. We can raise a family on our own without a man's support emotionally or financially. We always have been able to do these things, even if we weren't allowed to through social norms or actual law. Women can do everything a man can do and more. We can have children.

In fact, conception is really the only place where a woman needs a man. After that, we are completely capable of doing everything else on our own. I've known a great many women who were abandoned after conception to have and raise a child on their own. This is not about want, it's about raw need. And it's this realization that men are in fact less necessary to the survival of the species that causes the oppressive behavior we see.

When women began to realize that they controlled their reproductive freedom (through the invention of reliable birth control) we gained access to our trump card as a gender. Now, in addition to being physically, intellectually, and emotionally capable of everything men can do, we could now control when and under what conditions we would have children. It's a power not to be taken lightly and a power that we are still fighting to keep.

"The abortion debate" as the media likes to call it is not about abortion or access to affordable birth control. At its core, the debate is about so much more: reproductive freedom, and ultimately, women's freedom. When women finally win the freedom over their bodies and control reproduction, it will become obvious how unequal the sexes really are. Is this why the fight over reproductive freedom continues? Could it be that paternalistic lawmakers consciously realize that if they lose this fight, women will realize how much power we truly hold? Are they afraid that women will realize that they don't need men to survive and they as a gender will become marginalized?

I'm of course speaking in extremes. Women as a whole are not going to decide one day to start Amazonian colonies where they emerge only to conceive children and then retreat. Well, some women might, but in general women tend to enjoy the company of men. Still, it's important to talk about reproductive freedom. Personally, I no longer consider myself "pro-choice," I consider myself a proponent of reproductive freedom.
When we as a society finally allow women to have control over their reproductive freedom our society will transcend from one where there is a continuous tug of war to one of true respect and admiration. I believe in part that this struggle for reproductive freedom permeates so much of our society and relationships. This is the last area where men are still controlling women and it sends a message that women need men in more ways than they actually do. For much of our time on Earth men have controlled women in some way or another. We're no longer barred from education or considered property, but for some reason a rather large part of the population feels that we are still incapable of making decisions about our bodies.

I believe when we as a gender finally achieve our reproductive freedom it will ripple out and change the relationships we have. Not immediately, but over time. I believe that reproductive freedom is the last hurdle we have as a society to prove that we are an evolved species. I'd like to think that this ripple will make women stronger and it will eventually affect our relationships in a positive manner. Women will finally see how capable they are when there are no more laws telling them what they can't do. I've known far too many women who are in bad or abusive relationships because they feel they "need" a man. And is it any wonder? For so long women have "needed" men because we were barred from doing so much.  Could this false sense of need be abolished if we finally gain reproductive freedom? Could the nature of our relationships become more healthy and evolved because we now move past a state of need and into a state of choice?

Note: This is not to suggest that all men seek to prevent women from achieving reproductive freedom or seek to control women. Likewise, it does not suggest that all women feel that they need a male to complete them or to achieve equality. It is simply a discussion, a hypothesis of a societal phenomenon. Also, it is not a commentary on modern feminism, which I believe is important and necessary to fight for the equality of all people, regardless of their biological gender and the society in which they live.

There are times when I do things and then I think "everyone should do this at least once." It's the standard egoism of liking something and wanting to share and get others to do it too.
I decided to make a list of things I've done, or still do, that I think everyone should try at least once. Because I'm a foodie, a lot of the things are related to food or health, but trust me, they are worth it.

1. Watch the sunrise intentionally. Just because it's a beautiful reminder of our place in the world and how lucky we are to be alive.

2. Make your own butter. This is a dreadfully easy thing to do and it's sciency, I first saw it on Bill Nye The Science Guy. For die-hards you just pour a carton of heavy cream (organic & grass-fed is best) and a little bit of sea salt into a large wide-mouth canning jar. Seal the jar and shake. And shake. And shake. It took me about 25-30 minutes to go from heavy cream, to whipped cream to butter. You know it's butter when it happens. All the fat solids adhere to each other and clumps and separates from the liquid. Or you can just beat the cream in a mixer until it becomes butter, but the jar is far more fun and a great workout. And the taste is so wonderful.

3. Plant a vegetable garden. It can be big, it can be small, but plant something and eat it when it grows. You can grow a single tomato plant. They will be the best tomatoes you've ever eaten. For great ideas, one of my favorite books is Edible Landscaping by Rosalind Creasy.

4. Drink your greens. For one week or one month, add a daily green smoothie or green juice to your day. I've had both and it never ceases to amaze me how energizing a green juice can be. I feel more awake and energized after one green juice than I do after multiple cups of coffee. Green Smoothies are a great way to regulate your digestive system.

• 2-3 stalks of Celery (leaves removed)
• 1 small Cucumber (or 1/2 of a larger one)
• 2 large Kale leaves
• 1 handful of Parsley
• 1 Lemon
• 1 Apple or Pear

Juice all ingredients and drink slowly.
My favorite green smoothie is from FoodBabe:

• 2 cups kale removed from stem

• 2 large stalks of celery chopped
• 1/2 cucumber chopped
• 1/3 grapefruit
• 1 cup frozen pineapple
• 6 ounces of water

1. Wash all vegetables thoroughly and place into a large bowl
2. Add 6 ounces of water into a blender with celery, cucumber, and grapefruit
3. Blend for 30 secs until just incorporated
4. Add all other ingredients and keep blending for another 30 secs – 1min

I've been called names and been threatened for my view on the State of the Union. I don't believe that America is the greatest nation in the world. I'm willing to say that. Out loud. In Public. People who believe America is the greatest nation are either exceedingly wealthy, incredibly stupid/clueless, or immigrants from somewhere much worse off and generally not in the same league as the USA (i.e. "third-world" nations.)
I ask the question "who is more patriotic:" The person waving an American flag made in China who is completely oblivious to the failings of his or her country, or the person who actively seeks American-made products, shops local for as many things as possible and knows that there is room for improvement and wants the US to improve those areas that are lacking?
I want the US to be the greatest nation, but it just isn't the case and unless we, as a nation, remove the wool from our collective eyes and ears and move off the couch and into the street, we will continue to be behind most of the world in, well, every area.
"Corporations are people, my friend." This concept/statement is part of the reason our country is not as great as it could be. Corporations are way too powerful and unregulated in the US. People think back to the "good old days" when banks, airlines, etc were more civil and products were better made. Guess what? They were also heavily regulated. In those good old days corporations actually had responsibility instead of trying to find loopholes to exploit and profits to maximize. If corporations are people, they suffer from antisocial personality disorder.
The US has forgotten the values that made it the greatest nation. Over the years, we've stopped investing in the US. We no longer reinvest our money in infrastructure, US manufacturing, or education. The country is like a child. If you nurture that child, educate her, invest in her health and well-being, she will grow up to be a productive member of society. If you abuse and neglect her, you will create a child who can never function in the world. The US is deteriorating from neglect, but she's not lost yet, but she's spiraling into wild-child territory.
We need to nurture and invest in our country. We need to educate our populace. We need to invest in infrastructure. We need to reign in and regulate corporations who have a stranglehold on our education, our food, our money, and our economy. We need to enforce the separation of church and state and not let religious dogma control our progress. It's no wonder in most of the countries that are doing it right the majority of the population is atheist. I'm not saying religion should be abolished, I'm saying it needs to be a private, not political, issue.
Unfortunately, not many people seem to see where the US could improve and those of us who do are passed off as unpatriotic communists. I long for a day where our country does the right thing, for the good of the people, not for the good of the religious right or for the good of the corporation.
Until then, I'll just rewatch all of The West Wing and eagerly await the return of The Newsroom. Life is much nicer in the Sorkinverse.

Switching up the "Sexy Women Reading" series to include all areas of sexy.


Ryan Gosling

Question of the Week: Is Wikipedia bad for education?

Well, yes and no. Wikipedia can be a good jumping off point for educational endeavors and general knowledge, but it isn't a reliable resource for any kind of scholarly work. Thankfully, most of the teachers I've encountered specifically state in lesson plans that Wikipedia is not an acceptable resource for papers.
There are some who would argue that Wikipedia is fine. I'm not one of them. I don't feel that Wikipedia is reliable, and I certainly don't think it's always correct in its information.
For one, Wikipedia allows anyone to create and update entries. This can lead to some interesting updates, as we saw in 2011, when fans of Sarah Palin changed the Wikipedia entry for Paul Revere to reflect her incredibly erroneous recollection of history. Thankfully, the entry was corrected, but it begs the question about all the entries on Wikipedia that no one is policing. There is, in effect, no quality assurance on Wikipedia.

Also, I have a healthy education bias (shocking, I know) and I prefer to get my information from trusted and reputable sources. Experts in the field, as it were. As James Lowen taught me, always look at the source of the information. I would trust Wikipedia far more if Neil DeGrasse Tyson were updating writing entries rather than Joe Average with a laptop.

Wikipedia can be a good starting point for anyone doing research who doesn't know where to start. In fact, I feel the one of the only useful sections of any Wikipedia article is at the bottom of the entry-the sources. This is where the real information is contained. Reading the original source provides the most accurate (and hopefully objective) information.

Another useful section is the revision history. The revision history coincides with the sources and will help you determine if you're looking at the most up to date information (although, with historical entries like the one about Paul Revere above, most recent isn't necessarily most accurate.)

The main point to take away is that Wikipedia is a resource, but one that requires your critical thinking and deductive skills. Using Wikipedia is akin to being a detective. You cannot take it at face value, you must do your own research. Anything worth knowing is worth researching. And as always: Question Everything!

I've come to realize that there is a lot about me that leads to social isolation. I am a dreaded morning person, I don't drink (I find nothing wrong with it, it just isn't for me) and people apparently don't like their grammar being corrected. Having a child is equally isolating. When most of your stories revolve around bodily fluids you don't get invited to many parties.
In fact, almost all major life changes come with a subsequent social isolation, even if only temporary. Beginning or graduating school, getting married, getting divorced, having a baby, moving, starting (or ending) a  job. It's no wonder these events are considered some of the most stressful ones a person can experience. In each case we effectively lose a part of our social support system in addition to the major life change.

I recently received my acceptance letter to graduate school. I am positively over the moon that I'm finally, after nearly a decade, able to pursue my goal of going to graduate school. I'd always planned on going back but life got in the way. What started as two years to recover from educational burnout stretched out so long that it felt that I was dreaming the impossible dream. Maybe I still am, for now I have to negotiate graduate classes and a toddler. And I am scared shitless I won't be able to do it.
In all honesty, it wasn't truly "life" that got in the way. It was fear. In general I've been a "don't rock the boat, especially if you're in it" type person. Security is nice. You know where you stand, it's comfortable. True change never comes from being comfortable. You have to leave your comfort zone. It's scary. It's really easy to make excuses. And then all of a sudden nearly a decade has passed and whatever it was you wanted to do seems to be completely unattainable.

Lives lived in fear are never exceptional. I'm not talking about exceptional in the curing cancer or achieving peace in the Middle East sense. I'm talking about life being worth living. I know if I never got my Master's degree (at least) I would always feel regret and disappointment. I grew up with a mother who was terminally disappointed. Somewhere along the way she gave up. I spent most of my life trying to be perfect to make her happy, never realizing that it wasn't my fault or my responsibility. I don't want to make the same mistake with my children. It may be difficult, it may be scary, but at least my kids won't spend their lives thinking they were the source of my disappointment.

When you grow up that way, you try to fill the void. No one seems to fill the void with happy happy joy joy. You fill it with sex, with food, with money, with drugs, etc. But you're forever incomplete until you fill it with what you really need. For me, that's education. In addition to stopping the cycle of disappointed mothers in my family, making this change will set a huge example to my children. I will be demonstrating that education is a value, that it's never too late to pursue education and it will make it more likely that my children will pursue education themselves. These are the values that keep me on track when the negative self talk (and judgement from others about going back to school when I have a baby) starts up. Sure, it's uncomfortable, but that's the cost of change.

Question of The Week: Why Are Liberals So Preachy?

I'm a liberal. I'm a super "make Dennis Kucinich feel uncomfortable" lefty. More accurately, I am a Democratic Socialist, but for the benefit of our right-wing friends (some of whom have actually told me that voting for Obama was a form of child abuse) that don't understand, I'm a lefty. Something I've noticed since becoming more politically active and aware is that I've become quite preachy about liberalism and politics in general.

This is not to say that there isn't preachiness on the conservative right (Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter-anyone?) but I've noticed that the left has become quite vocal of late.

In truth, we're not preachy, it just sounds and feels that way. There comes a point in every debate where one side feels unheard and misinterpreted and, armed with a plethora of facts, starts getting more vocal. Sometimes in the cacophony of idealogues that voice starts to sound (and feel) pleading and preachy. I don't know how often I've screamed at the telly (or Facebook) at some right winger in the bubble spouting demonstrably untrue diatribes. (Bill O'Reilly makes my baby cry.)

I think part of our (me and my liberal brethren) problem is that we abhor the lies and deceit. I think we are amazed and saddened at how many people are staunch in their hatred for the President that they are willing to believe any swill slung on Fox "News" as canon. For me personally, I know that I feel like sobbing that people choose to believe the lies, no matter how outlandish, without a scintilla of critical thinking or research. The voluntary ignorance in this country is astounding and depressing. Moreover, I am even more saddened, and frightened, when I see people when faced with actual facts, claim conspiracy and cover-up. We used to send those people to hospitals for treatment, now we give them cable news shows.

Every liberal I know seems to have that Uncle Joe (or in my case, half a family of them) that no matter what you say, no matter how many facts you can present still thinks that President Obama is a socialist Muslim born in Kenya who is coming to take his guns and put him on a death panel. And unfortunately for us libs, we can't help but feed the trolls. We know facts (and reality) is on our side. So we keep at it, trying to chip away at the demagoguery and with each failure we get more excited and louder like that kid in class with his hand up "Ooh ooh, Pick me! Pick me! I know the answer!"

Liberals have become that annoying kid everyone hates because they seem to know it all. People hate a know-it-all, and they especially hate a know-it-all who can't shut up about all they know. Not that anyone is really listening. We're either preaching to the converted or trying to sell to those who think we're peddling snake oil. In being preachy, we lose the capital and authority that we wish to gain with all our facts and reality.

So what's a liberal to do? First, pick your battles. I personally have the most difficult time with this because when I see stupid, I feel the need to fix it. I'm a helper, and I'm a teacher at heart so at my core I have a need to correct people in general. But I need to realize far sooner than I do when the battle is lost. This is another issue for liberals. Because we have those facts, because we know we are right, we can't let go even when the argument is pointless.  To quote Kenny Rogers "Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, and know when to run." In poker and politics, this rings true; but that doesn't mean you can't play.

Second, spouting facts and figures and saying "you're wrong" etc will get you nowhere but shut down. No one likes being told they are wrong, or stupid, or both. Unfortunately, most liberals I know do this, myself included. Those facts and figures and reality make us feel superior and we abuse them. Rather than bombarding someone with the information, try to get them to think critically about the situation.
For example, I have family that insists President Obama is a Muslim Kenyan who is not eligible for the presidency. I've asked them "So, which do you think it is then-that there is a vast governmental conspiracy in the FBI to cover up President Obama's heritage, that the President Bush-appointed FBI is patently inept in their ability to vet a Presidential candidate's eligibility, or that President Obama is a Christian man (not that his religion has anything to do with the office of President or any other public office) who was born in Hawai'i?"  I haven't actually changed anyone's mind doing this (although many of my family seem to love the conspiracy and inept angles,) but I certainly feel less defeated when I use this approach and the person comes to their same conclusion (especially when you bring in the argument that supposes that President Obama can time-travel and control the weather.) At that point you just walk away knowing you can't sway a true-believer.

Ultimately, if liberals are to be taken seriously and less preachy, we need to start a grass-roots movement to educate the populace. I'm not talking politically, I'm talking about basic education. We are at this impasse politically and socially because our education system is frankly, shit. Our children are not taught how to think critically, they are not taught to question authority and think for themselves. They are taught to learm the facts for the test: swallow what we tell you is the truth, but take no time or energy to digest that information, just move to the next spoon-feeding of facts.
When the populace is uneducated they are easily governed by fear and lies. It's time we start educating our populace, and by extension, our electorate. What we need is comprehensive education funding and reform.

On the world stage, in terms of education, the United States is failing. Our literacy rate is abysmal. Costa Rica has a 99% literacy rate. Shouldn't this be a goal for us?  The U.S. is ranked 17th in the world in overall education. We're not even in the top 10. In 2010, we ranked 25th of 34 in math, and we haven't done much better in the past 2 years. Why? Over the past at least 30 years, we have seen education systematically defunded, to say nothing of the glorious failure that is "No Child Left Behind." Why is it that our country feels the best way to educate its populace is to give education less resources?

So, liberals unite. If you want to be seen as less preachy, if you want people to value facts over opinions, if you want an informed electorate, we need to educate the electorate. All other issues will fall into place once the people are educated and able to think critically.

“Information is the currency of democracy.” 
― Thomas Jefferson

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” 
― Thomas Jefferson

“Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.” 
― Thomas Jefferson

“No matter how big the lie, repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.” 
― John F. Kennedy

“It is always a much easier task to educate uneducated people than to re-educate the mis-educated.” 
― Herbert M. Shelton

Sometimes I think mommyhood is like a land grab. You grab what you need when you can. Mostly it's things like showers (I've been known to do a victory dance when I have the chance to shower), bathroom breaks with the door closed, eating food with both hands, or soup with even one hand (soup eating + baby in arms is not a good idea, trust me.) I also get a wild hair up my ass on occasion and want to be girly and paint my nails. Trying to get this done is basically impossible without tears from someone. But I do get it done sometimes.

Being able to create and birth a child aside, I've noticed just how inefficient my partner is at times. I can get a ton of stuff done while carrying a child around, while my significant other seems to not be able to do anything except play video or computer games.

I have a confession. Having a baby didn't make my life complete. I felt pretty fine beforehand and I don't feel as if things have much changed. Except there are far more bodily fluids in my life and far less showers. Motherhood did make things more complicated.

Maybe I'm a cold hearted bitch because motherhood didn't make me hear angels sing. I don't feel special or blessed.  I'm not suggesting that motherhood isn't hard or that mothers don't deserve respect. I have days where I want to shout Aretha Franklin at my husband, but I don't think that motherhood is equivalent to sainthood. I deserve no more respect than someone who does not have children. But I do deserve the same amount of showers. Speaking of which, I think I see an opening!

Marilyn Monroe, bombshell, avid reader

Below is Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail in its entirety. I'll never forget how moved I was the first time I read it and the words still move me today. If you've never read it, please do. If you've read it before, do so again and reflect.

"Letter from a Birmingham Jail"  Martin Luther King, Jr.

16 April 1963

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.