When you get into a tight place
and everything goes against you,
till it seems as though you could not hang on a minute longer,
never give up then,
for that is just the place and time
that the tide will turn.
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Liberty Thought of the Day
The MLK "I Have a Dream" Speech: Golden Anniversary Wednesday
Is there any person who is not aware of the historic anniversary? It's all over the news, and Time has a commemorative issue out, with observers sharing their memories (do we really need to know who served entertainer Sammy Davis, Jr. a Coca-Cola at the event?) I will have a brief commentary Wednesday.
But one of the problems you face in researching the historically significant speech online is, other than brief "fair use" excerpts, it's hard to find the speech online. (As of the date of this post, ABC has the full written speech text available here.) Why? Copyrights. I can understand why MLK himself was concerned about others profiting from his speech (he sued an unauthorized distributor within months following the speech); he pledged a large percentage of royalties to support non-profit civil rights organizations. His heirs have pledged to do the same (an authorized DVD is available for $20) until the copyright protection expires in 2038, on the anniversary of his assassination).
I myself consider public speeches to be in the public domain and should be freely available for non-commercial (e.g., scholarship) purposes. Let's face it: this is different than if he had taken the same speech and instead had published in a book of sermons or essays; it would have had a much more limited audience, however stirring his words. He was given a unique platform; the march was more than a one-man show, and hundreds of thousands heard the speech free of charge in person, millions of others on television: why would we want subsequent generations to have to pay to hear the same historical speech later? Note that we also have libraries which do not pay royalties on how often a book is checked out. When I wrote my academic and professional articles, I referenced literally thousands of books and articles, only a fraction of which I owned my own licensed copy.
(How do I feel about my own commentaries/blog posts? Obviously I would be concerned about others reproducing, selling or plagiarizing my work without my knowledge, consent and/or even attribution. My content is already available free of charge via Google, which owns this platform. I have considered repackaging some of the content in book form, but I would still maintain my online content. I see my posts as a way of building my audience and influence; perhaps if people like (or at least respect) what they read online, they'll be interested in buying or reading my other content. For example, Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek often posts his signature letters to the editor (or some other party). Last year he repackaged a "best of" compilation of letters, which I plugged in my blog. No, neither he nor the publisher sent me a complimentary copy.)
To be honest, I think MLK's heirs have blown it full-time; in their place, I would welcome every opportunity to reassert King's relevance decades later, maybe use the opportunity to market official commemorative editions, special compilations of his work, etc.:
“I think Martin Luther King must be spinning in his grave,” Bill Rutherford, who was executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference when King was murdered, told 60 Minutes. “He gave his life for his ideas of justice, peace and love. He attempted his entire life to communicate ideas for free. To communicate, not to sell,” he says.Familiar readers know that I only occasionally reference WSJ content (most of their content, including op-eds, is behind a paywall, and I will not pay for the privilege of promoting their content). I have sent unacknowledged emails to Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek and Mark Perry of Carpe Diem for linking to paywall content, which I find paradoxical for a libertarian. I will say one of these authors subsequently included an alternative "free content" link the next time he referenced a WSJ piece. Did my protest touch a nerve? Others could also have raised the same point.
In fact, MLK's speech itself is replete with references from other sources in the public domain:
King might have noted, as an excellent On the Media report does, that his speech was not just divinely inspired, but a tribute to the communication of ideas – a kind of mash-up of rhetorical phrasings of other preachers and leaders of the time, along with an abundance of references to the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, and Shakespeare (“this sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn…” is a reference to Richard III). Even half of the “Dream” snippet in the Alcatel ad is mostly borrowed: We hold these truths to be self evident… “belongs” to Thomas Jefferson.Ashton Kutcher Gives the Best Award Acceptance Speech
I love the fact he pushed the virtues of hard work (no job being beneath one), making one's opportunities (not a "you didn't build that" moment), and being well-informed or smart as an attractive quality.
Yes, My Views on Some Things Have Changed
As I write this segment, my favorite Walt Whitman quote comes to mind:
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.I've been writing this blog for 5 years; some of my views have changed. I haven't reread all my old posts; I think if I had to go through the economic tsunami again, I would have been much more critical of TARP and the actions of the Fed and Treasury. I think at the time I was looking at the events through the prism of a Presidential campaign and there was a great deal of fear-mongering; today I am just as skeptical of fear-mongering in fiscal/monetary policy as I now am in foreign policy.
I would not have supported the nomination of John McCain. I knew that Hillary Clinton or Barry Obama would be a disaster in the White House. The Dems had the momentum stemming from the mid-terms where they had captured unexpectedly the Senate as well as the House. Bush became a recluse in the White House, his approval rating seemingly dropping almost daily. Bush had stupidly waited until after the election to announce a change in DoD and Iraq strategy; the delay probably cost him the Senate and gave him a weaker hand to play against the Dems. I thought McCain was a good choice from a tactical point of view: his bitter 2000 battle with Bush for the GOP nod, his votes against the Bush tax cuts, his criticism of Bush's post-invasion Iraq policy, his populist streak, his reputation for being bipartisan (co-sponsored legislation, the Gang of 14) and being a maverick made it more difficult to paint him as Bush's "third term". I wasn't as focused on ideology or lack of administrative experience: McCain was "conservative enough" with a lifetime ACU ratings in the 80's, and the Dems were mostly Senate colleagues.
But as events unfolded, it was clear that McCain was the wrong candidate for the time. He was promoting himself as being experienced, but he selected Sarah Palin as VP. I do think Obama's quixotic selection of Biden over the Dem runner up Hillary Clinton as a running mate provided McCain with a historical tactical opportunity, but I thought he would choose someone like former senior Texas Senator Hutchison; I had briefly considered Palin, but picking a second-year governor with no federal experience, never mind being investigated in Troopergate (where Palin was accused of abusing her gubernatorial authority to go after a former brother-in-law state trooper's job), where a key finding would be released in the middle of the general campaign, seemed to pose unacceptable risks. Because McCain was a senior citizen, it was only natural his VP choice would be held up to higher scrutiny. Initially I admitted that McCain had swerved everybody, and the Democrats overreacted with Obama in particular actually comparing "running" a national campaign was better experience than running a state. Sarah Palin delivered two brilliant introductory speeches and was unusually charismatic, but it was clear as soon as her first national interview that she had not been adequately vetted by the campaign; moreover, she didn't help McCain with undecided voters. In hindsight, it would have been better to balance McCain with someone stronger on domestic policy (say, Romney), "America's Mayor" Giuliani or Gov. Pataki, or maybe his cherished unity ticket with Joe Lieberman.
But it goes beyond that:
- McCain's decision to suspend the campaign over TARP. First, what did McCain put first, being a Senator or running for President? Second, he and Obama were both supporting TARP (instead of following his populist instinct to run against Big Bank bailouts); McCain missed an opportunity to provide a distinguishing difference to undecided voters. Harry Reid was in a box for a policy response, and McCain signaled support in advance. After getting what he wanted/needed, Reid then repaid McCain by undermining McCain's bipartisan credentials by publicly saying McCain's presence in Washington was unnecessary. I think that there was some hubris in terms of what McCain could have done as a single senator, and the Dems weren't about to give him another bipartisan win at Obama's expense. The net effect was McCain's decision making was widely viewed as impulsive and reckless, contradicting his experience argument and even giving Obama a gift opportunity to taunt him over allegedly ducking their first debate given McCain's forte of military and foreign policy.
- McCain's blurred distinctions with Obama on domestic policy. At one point, for instance, (I believe it was McCain's post-tsunami mortgage plan), the Obama campaign initially complained the McCain policy was lifted from their own policy. If you are a Republican arguing your government intervention plan is more equal than the "progressives"', you are done
If I had a chance to go back in time, I would choose Ron Paul, or maybe Gary Johnson if he was running.
Another contrast was immigration. I have always supported liberalized immigration and knew that the 2007 reform would have failed because Democrats, under pressure from unions, never were interested in liberalizing legal entry for low-skill immigrants or temporary workers, were more interested in politically exploiting future votes of unauthorized Latino aliens; they were conflating symptoms with disease.
I never liked or respected the loud, strident xenophobic so-called "conservatives". Of course, the Obama Administration made it easy by politicizing enforcement and abusing prosecutorial discretion, violating the rule of law and equal protection. I understood Arizona's frustration with the federal government's failure to control the border, with the state facing a disproportionate burden of related collateral damage (e.g., trespassing, violence, etc.) But I always thought Arizona's better option was to sue the federal government than to shadow immigration enforcement and subsidize redundant operations. But to be honest, I never liked threats to businesses for participating in voluntary work contracts versus being accountable to a federal or state labor bureaucracy. I also can't understand why other state GOP organizations want to emulate the California GOP's suicidal immigration agenda in the 1990's.
Even though my overall position has been fairly consistent (I've more recently also emphasized the importance of lower-skill immigrants and expanding the pipelines), my commentaries have often focused on the basic talking points vs. the big picture.
There are other issues where my perspective has evolved, and there will be one or more follow-up posts.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary McCoy and Townhall |
The Beatles, "For You Blue"
