California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage - New York Times [Politics][Civil Rights]

California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage - New York Times

---

May 16, 2008

California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

By ADAM LIPTAK

Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court's 4-to-3 decision striking down state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman makes California only the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages. The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days, is certain to play a role in the presidential campaign.

"In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, "the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

California already has a strong domestic partnership law that gives gay and lesbian couples nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage. The majority said that is not enough.

Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of the concept of marriage, Chief Justice George wrote, the state cannot limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court left open the possibility that another terms could denote state-sanctioned unions so long as that term was used across the board.

The state's ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted by the Legislature in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman. The question before the court was whether those laws violate provisions of the state Constitution protecting equality and fundamental rights.

Conservative groups have proposed a new initiative, this one to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot in November and approved by the voters, Thursday's decision would be overridden. The groups have gathered more than a million signatures on initiative petitions and submitted them to the state.

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, dissenting, said the majority had should have deferred to the state Legislature, which has in recent years increased legal protections for same-sex couples.

"But a bare majority of this court," Justice Baxter wrote, "not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves."

The California Legislature has twice passed bills allowing same-sex marriages, but they were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said they would overturn the 2000 referendum.

Mr. Schwarzenegger opposes the current ballot initiative seeking a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He said Thursday that he respected the court's decision and would not support overturning it, according to The Associated Press.

In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Before the California Supreme Court halted the practice, more than 4,000 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in San Francisco.

Albert Hofmann, 102; Chemist Discovered LSD [Health][History]

Albert Hofmann, 102; Chemist Discovered LSD

Albert Hofmann's formulation of LSD had wide-ranging social effects, and the drug was eventually made illegal. (Family Photo - Family Photo)

Albert Hofmann, 102; Chemist Discovered LSD

By Adam Bernstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 30, 2008; B07

Albert Hofmann, 102, a Swiss chemist and accidental father of LSD who came to view the much-vilified and abused hallucinogen he discovered in 1938 as his "problem child," died April 29 at his home in Burg, a village near Basel, Switzerland, after a heart attack.

His death was confirmed by Rick Doblin, the Boston-based founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a nonprofit pharmaceutical company developing LSD and other psychedelics for prescription medicines.

Lysergic acid diethylamide, thousands of times stronger than mescaline, can give its user an experience often described as psychedelic -- a kaleidoscopic twirling of the mind pulsating with color and movement.

After its discovery, LSD was viewed as a wonder drug with the potential to treat problems including schizophrenia and alcoholism. For the latter, some held the theory that chronic drinkers quit only after experiencing the hallucinations of delirium tremens.

LSD attracted many prominent advocates. They included Aldous Huxley, author of "Brave New World," and psychologist Timothy Leary, who saw the drug as a potent way for people to live up to his 1960s counterculture motto: "Turn on, tune in, drop out."

The CIA was also widely reported to have used LSD in experiments on unwitting subjects. This, and greater recreational use that caused some fatal overdoses, led to the widespread condemnation of the drug and, by the early 1970s, its criminalization. As a result, research permission and funding from state and federal agencies was terminated.

In Dr. Hofmann's opinion, outlawing LSD made its use even more attractive to young people and diminished any safeguards. He spoke of many hippies stopping by his home on the way to their spiritual quest, hoping to score from his "secret stash."

Dr. Hofmann came across LSD while working on medicinal uses of a fungus to act as a circulatory heart-lung stimulant. His first LSD "trip" occurred in 1943, a troubling experience that led him to write in his journal, "A demon had invaded me, had taken possession of my body, mind and soul."

Dr. Hofmann remained wary of LSD's recreational uses as well as its portrayal in the media.

"I was not surprised that it became a ritual drug in the youth anti-establishment movement, but I was shocked by irresponsible use that resulted in mental catastrophes," he told Playboy magazine in 2006. "That's what gave the health authorities a pretext for totally prohibiting its production, possession and use."

Albert Hofmann was born Jan. 11, 1906, in Baden, Switzerland. He was the oldest of four children, and after his father, a toolmaker, fell seriously ill, he was forced as a teenager to seek a commercial apprenticeship to support the family.

While learning a trade, he continued his private schooling with financial help from his godfather. In 1930, he received a doctorate from the University of Zurich, where he studied the chemistry of plants and animals, and he joined the pharmaceutical-chemical firm Sandoz (now Novartis) in Basel.

Among his early accomplishments was the synthesis of an alkaloid that prompted uterine contractions to stop postpartum bleeding.

In 1938, he was exploring a circulatory heart-lung stimulant when he happened on LSD-25 while conducting purification and crystallization experiments on the fungus ergot, which grows on rye. Ergot had been long used to induce childbirth.

Lysergic acid is an active part of therapeutically essential ergot alkaloids, and Dr. Hofmann began combining it with other molecules for his research.

At the time, LSD showed little effect on lab animals besides some agitation. It was shelved for five years until he, on a hunch, repeated the experiment to help him with another medical study.

Having unknowingly absorbed some of the compound, he experienced a dizzying sensation that also made him restless.

He wrote in a journal about this first known encounter: "At home I lay down and sank into a not unpleasant intoxicated-like condition, characterized by an extremely stimulated imagination.

"In a dreamlike state, with eyes closed (I found the daylight to be unpleasantly glaring), I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors. After some two hours this condition faded away."

Three days later, April 19, he bicycled home after consuming 250 micrograms of LSD in a now-famous "trip" that has become known as Bicycle Day. The route he took home was later named in his honor.

That time, he said, he felt some of the darker symptoms of the drug: a feeling of impending death, of possession by the devil, of feeling violently threatened by family and neighbors. Above all, he wrote, "I was seized by the dreadful fear of going insane."

As he continued to study the drug, Dr. Hofmann struck up a correspondence with German novelist Ernst Junger, who had experimented with mescaline. At Dr. Hofmann's home in 1951, the scientist administered .05 of a milligram of LSD to Junger and himself as they were surrounded by violet roses, Japanese incense and a Mozart concerto for flute and harp.

"Ernst Junger enjoyed the color display of oriental images," he later wrote. "I was on a trip among Berber tribes in North Africa, saw colored caravans and lush oases."

Further controlled experimentation by University of Zurich scientists on humans subjects -- some with psychiatric problems -- showed a similar calming reaction. This led Sandoz to manufacture LSD under the trade name Delysid by the late 1940s.

It entered the U.S. market and, during the next two decades, LSD was intensely researched as a drug to treat all manner of emotional and addictive disorders. Humphry F. Osmond, a British-born psychiatrist, introduced the word "psychedelic" to describe the effects of mescaline and LSD while corresponding with Huxley in 1956.

Dr. Hofmann wrote in a 1980 book, "LSD, My Problem Child," that LSD brought him the "same happiness and gratification that any pharmaceutical chemist would feel on learning that a substance he or she produced might possibly develop into a valuable medicament."

But he said he was increasingly disturbed by a "huge wave of an inebriant mania that began to spread over the Western world, above all the United States, at the end of the 1950s. . . . The more [LSD's] use as an inebriant was disseminated, bringing an upsurge in the number of untoward incidents caused by careless, medically unsupervised use, the more LSD became a problem child for me and for the Sandoz firm."

He described meeting Leary in September 1971 at a railway station snack bar in Lausanne; Leary was living in Switzerland. He said they had a cordial but strong exchange of words in which Dr. Hofmann criticized Leary's self-promotion and his "propagation of LSD use" among impressionable young people.

Dr. Hofmann said that Leary said that American teenagers "with regard to information and life experience, were comparable to adult Europeans. . . . For that reason, he deemed the LSD experience significant, useful, and enriching, even for people still very young in years."

Dr. Hofmann headed the research department for natural medicines at Sandoz before retiring in 1971. At the company in the 1950s and 1960s, he discovered and named many of the active hallucinogenic ingredients in Mexican "magic mushrooms," including psilocybin and psilocin. He was credited with important developments in medications for geriatric and gynecological uses as well as drugs to control blood pressure.

He was a member of the Nobel Prize Committee and a fellow of the World Academy of Sciences. He was a prolific writer of scientific articles and the author of several books, many of which tried to bind the scientific with the spiritual. In particular, he denounced the demonization of LSD after hippies and societal dropouts seemed to have monopolized the media's focus.

In his 1989 book "Insight Outlook," he wrote that LSD taken by "mentally stable persons in the right set and setting" was suited to the Western world, which he saw rife with "materialism, estrangement from nature, . . . [and] the missing of a sense-making philosophical fundamentalness of life."

His 100th birthday was celebrated in Basel as a referendum on his greatest discovery. He attended the conference, "LSD: Problem Child and Wonder Drug," and told one reporter that it was his daily diet of a raw egg that kept him spry, not, as many LSD enthusiasts suspected, his long-ago experiments.

His wife of more than 70 years, Anita Hofmann, died in December. One son died years earlier.

Survivors include three children.

New Look at Death Sentences and Race - New York Times [Legal][Interesting]

This is been going on unchecked for so long and so many people have lost their lives. Its sickening.

 ~P

New Look at Death Sentences and Race - New York Times

---

April 29, 2008

Sidebar

New Look at Death Sentences and Race

By ADAM LIPTAK

About 1,100 people have been executed in the United States in the last three decades. Harris County, Tex., which includes Houston, accounts for more than 100 of those executions. Indeed, Harris County has sent more people to the death chamber than any state but Texas itself.

Yet Harris County's capital justice system has not been the subject of intensive research — until now. A new study to be published in The Houston Law Review this fall has found two sorts of racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty there, one commonplace and one surprising.

The unexceptional finding is that defendants who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill blacks. More than 20 studies around the nation have come to similar conclusions.

But the new study also detected a more straightforward disparity. It found that the race of the defendant by itself plays a major role in explaining who is sentenced to death.

It has never been conclusively proven that, all else being equal, blacks are more likely to be sentenced to death than whites in the three decades since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Many experts, including some opposed to the death penalty, have said that evidence of that sort of direct discrimination is spotty and equivocal.

But the author of the new study, Scott Phillips, a professor of sociology and criminology at the University of Denver, found a robust relationship between race and the likelihood of being sentenced to death even after the race of the victim and other factors were held constant.

His statistics have profound implications. For every 100 black defendants and 100 white defendants indicted for capital murder in Harris County, Professor Phillips found that an average of 12 white defendants and 17 black ones would be sent to death row. In other words, Professor Phillips wrote, "five black defendants would be sentenced to the ultimate sanction because of race."

Scott Durfee, the general counsel for the Harris County district attorney's office, rejected Professor Phillips's conclusions and said that district attorneys there had long taken steps to insulate themselves from knowing the race of defendants and victims as they decided whether to seek the death penalty.

"To the extent Professor Phillips indicates otherwise, all we can say is that you would have to look at each individual case," Mr. Durfee said. "If you do that, I'm fairly sure that you would see that the decision was rational and reasonable."

Indeed, the raw numbers support Mr. Durfee.

John B. Holmes Jr., the district attorney in the years Professor Phillips studied, 1992 to 1999, asked for the death sentence against 27 percent of the white defendants, 25 percent of the Hispanic defendants and 25 percent of the black defendants. (Professor Phillips studied 504 defendants indicted for the murders of 614 people. About half of the defendants were black; a quarter each were white and Hispanic.)

Mr. Holmes was, Professor Phillips said, selective but effective: he asked for the death sentence against 129 defendants and obtained 98.)

But Professor Phillips said that the numbers suggesting evenhandedness in seeking the death penalty did not tell the whole story. Once the kinds of murders committed by black defendants were taken into consideration — terrible, to be sure, but on average less heinous, less apt to involve vulnerable victims and brutality, and less often committed by an adult — "the bar appears to have been set lower for pursuing death against black defendants," Professor Phillips concluded.

Professor Phillips wrote about percentages and not particular cases, but his data suggest that black defendants were overrepresented in cases involving shootings during robberies, while white defendants were more likely to have committed murders during rapes and kidnappings and to have beaten, stabbed or choked their victims.

When the nature of the crime is taken into account, Professor Phillips wrote, "the odds of a death trial are 1.75 times higher against black defendants than white defendants." Harris County juries corrected for that disparity to an extent, so that the odds of a death sentence for black defendants after trial dropped to 1.49.

Jon Sorensen, a professor of justice studies at Prairie View A&M University in Texas, said he was suspicious of Professor Phillips's methodology.

"It's bizarre," Professor Sorensen said. "It starts out with no evidence of racism. Then he controls for stuff."

Moreover, Professor Sorensen said, Professor Phillips failed to take account of other significant factors, including the socioeconomic status of the victims.

Professor Sorensen said he remained convinced that racial disparities, if they exist at all, "are victim-based only," as earlier studies have found.

This discussion, at least where the courts are concerned, is entirely academic. Twenty-one years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that even solid statistical evidence of racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty did not offend the Constitution. The vote was 5 to 4, and the case was McCleskey v. Kemp.

That ruling closed off what had seemed to opponents of the death penalty a promising line of attack, and they are still furious about it, comparing it to the court's infamous 1857 decision that blacks slaves were property and not citizens.

"McCleskey is the Dred Scott decision of our time," Anthony G. Amsterdam, a law professor at New York University, said in speech last year at Columbia.

"It is a decision for which our children's children will reproach our generation and abhor the legal legacy we leave them," said Professor Amsterdam, who worked on the McCleskey case and many other capital punishment landmarks.

The majority opinion in McCleskey was written by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. After he retired, his biographer asked Justice Powell whether, given the chance, he would change his vote in any case.

"Yes," Justice Powell said. "McCleskey v. Kemp."

Howstuffworks "Who was the real Count Dracula?" [Interesting][History]

Howstuffworks "Who was the real Count Dracula?"

Who was the real Count Dracula?

by Josh Clark

Who was the real Count Dracula?

It wasn't until he came across documents during his research at the British Museum that novelist Bram Stoker found the man who would serve as the perfect foundation for his classic gothic horror character, Count Dracula [source: Kent State University]. Vlad Tepes (pronounced te'-pish), a 15th-century prince from the dark, forested mountains of Eastern Europe was his inspiration.

CBS Photo Archive via Getty Images
The popular conception of Dracula runs the gamut from horrific vampire to comic relief (like Grandpa on the TV show "The Munsters"). But what was the real Dracula like?

Accounts of Vlad Tepes' cruelty have been distorted throughout history, and Stoker's adaption seemed to help perpetrate these distortions. The prince was bestowed with the surname "Tepes" ("Impaler") based on his fondness for impaling victims. It was his father from whom he proudly took the name "Dracula" ("Son of the Dragon"). Tepes was no vampire, although one historic account details how he drank a victim's blood [source: West Grey Times]. And Tepes certainly wasn't immortal (it's unclear how he died), as Stoker's count is.

But Stoker wasn't just inspired by the prince's name. Tepes' reign was a cruel and bloody one.

When investigating sensational history, it's easy to find grossly exaggerated tales that obscure the facts. In the rare case of Vlad Tepes, little exaggeration is needed. Tens of thousands of people were tortured, maimed or died by his hand or command [source: University of Louisiana]. This isn't in dispute -- it's accounts of Tepes' motives where distortion tends to emerge.

As the prince of Wallachia, a region in Romania, and a defender of Christianity against the Muslim Turks, Tepes made many powerful enemies. His enemies spread propaganda about the ruler, which inadvertently assured Tepes' place in history. Tepes' deeds and atrocities made such an impression, in fact, that an unflattering epic poem about him was published on the Gutenberg printing press just eight years after the same moveable type was used to print the first Bible [source: Mundorf and Mundorf]. Had his detractors not campaigned against him, generating publications that survive today, Tepes' legacy may have been lost.

So who was this man? Was Tepes as bloodthirsty in real life as his fictional counterpart is in movies and books? The short answer is yes -- even more so. Read about the real Dracula on the next page.

Vlad the Impaler

Bram Stoker's fictionalization of Vlad Tepes spurred scholarly research into the real man. Research has attempted to show the motives for his murderousness. Tepes desired a unified Romania -- free from the outside influences of Germany, Hungary and the Turks.

His consolidation of local power was harsh. On Easter Day, 1456, Tepes invited regional nobility to dine with him. Following the meal, he had the old and infirm murdered and marched the remaining guests 50 miles to a dilapidated castle, which he took as his own. There, he put the nobility to hard labor restoring it. Most died during from maltreatment and exhaustion; those who didn't were impaled alive on spikes outside the castle when restorations were complete [source: Carroll].

Imagino/Getty Images
A painting of Vlad (Dracula) Tepes, the 15th-century prince who inspired Bram Stoker's fictional vampire

Vlad's father, Vlad Dracul, ruled Wallachia from 1436 to 1442, was unseated by his countrymen and regained the throne from 1443 to 1446. Vlad Tepes served in the same position from 1456 to 1462 [source: Tacitus]. When he was inducted into the Order of the Dragon, a secretive organization of Christian knights, he took the name "Dracula." The name would be replaced by the nickname "Tepes" from those who feared and hated him.

Vlad Dracula's social ideologies were contradictory. He wanted to be remembered as a saint -- he murdered a Catholic monk who denied that Tepes would be canonized (sainted) [source: Carroll]. Yet his behavior was hardly saintly. Having come to view destitution as a scourge on his domain, Tepes invited his poverty-stricken subjects to dine with him. At the end of the dinner, he had the dining room locked, and his guards set fire to it, killing those inside [source: Marinari].

His foreign enemies suffered equal (if not worse) fates than his subjects. For four years, Tepes and his younger brother were imprisoned by Turks after their father sent them as tribute to the sultan Mehmet. Tepes' father had become a puppet leader of Wallachia for the Turks, and his sons were imprisoned to guarantee their father's continued loyalty [source: Fasulo]. Tepes was meant to become a future puppet leader like his father. But rather than keep allegiance to the Turks, he resolved to fight them.

When he became prince in 1456, Tepes took strides toward Romanian independence. He developed biological warfare, sending subjects disguised as Turks, stricken with infectious disease, to live among the armies in their camps [source: Marinari]. For those Turks who survived, when they invaded the capital of Wallachia, Tirgoviste, they found a forest (about one-half mile by two miles in dimension) made entirely of corpses of captured prisoners impaled on spikes. The invaders left quickly [source: Carroll].

Impalement, the method of execution that gave Tepes his name, is an extraordinarily painful way to die. Tepes ensured maximum pain when he impaled his victims by rounding the ends of spikes and oiling them to reduce tearing. Spikes were introduced into the victim's anus and pushed in until the other end emerged from the victim's mouth. The impaled victim was then hoisted vertically, and left to writhe in agony, sometimes for days [source: Fasulo].

The aged vampire in Stoker's novel required blood to stay alive; Tepes shed blood by the bucketful to promote his lifelong goals. Conservative estimates put his victim count at 40,000 [source: University of Louisiana]. It's also significant to note that eating and death were so intertwined in Tepes' life. He often dined with guests before killing them, and he was reputed to have taken meals outdoors, among impaled dead and dying [source: Martin]

Why is blood such a significant symbol of vitality and power in fiction, allegory and reality? Find out about the symbolism of blood on the next page.

Blood: Symbol of Life

Most Christians wouldn't infer vampirism from the story of the Last Supper. Christ offers the chalice containing wine to signify his blood to his disciples and directs them to drink it. But there is a parallel between the Eucharist and vampire legends: Both suggest that the consumption of blood is an act of obtaining vitality.

Christ told his disciples he'd shed his blood for their forgiveness. By drinking it, they were taking part in his everlasting divinity. Similarly, through ingesting the blood of others, vampires of lore may live eternally here on Earth.

According to some sources, blood is also reputed for its mythic ability to maintain beauty. When Bram Stoker's fictional Dracula fed on blood, his appearance reverted to a handsome, youthful version of himself. The 16th-century Hungarian countess Elizabeth Bathory is said to have used the blood of her murdered victims to promote her skin's health. Some Renaissance-era women believed applying the blood of doves to their skin could maintain beauty [source: McNally]. And even today, some women apply rouge or pinch their cheeks to create the appearance of a healthy flush.

Anthropophagy (cannibalism) is another example of the symbolic (and literal) vitality derived from eating the flesh or drinking the blood of others. Through cannibalism, symbolic vitality generally comes from two sources: kin and the vanquished. Endocannibalism refers to eating the flesh of a member of one's group. In some cultures, eating the flesh of a relative serves as a way of carrying on the line of ancestors [source: Goldman]. Exocannibalism is eating the flesh of one outside the eater's group, like a conquered foe. Tepes committed exocannibalism in one account when he ingested the blood of captured Turks, although there's no evidence he believed he gained any tangible power from the act. Rather, he ate blood-dipped bread from a bowl as a signal of what the future held in store for the Turks [source: West Grey Times].

Uwe Zucchi/AFP/Getty Images
Cannibalism is associated with madness in the modern, developed world. German Armin Meiwes was convicted of manslaughter for killing and eating another, willing human.

Instances of nonritual cannibalism also produce vitality. Perhaps the most famous case of cannibalism took place in 1972, when an airplane carrying the Uruguayan national soccer team crashed in the Andes Mountains. Several members were left alive and resorted to cannibalizing their dead teammates to survive for more than two months [source: Walton].

It appears our ancestors took some time to develop mores -- cultural restrictions -- against cannibalism. Evidence of anthropophagy as recent as around A.D. 1100 has been uncovered at Anasazi settlements in the Southwestern United States [source: Melmer]. And genetic researchers have found a gene variant spread among humans throughout the world that suggests we descended from cannibals [source: BBC].

Vampire legends, then, may be allegories for real-life monsters -- perhaps like Vlad Tepes -- that have refused to honor the sacred taboo against consuming the vitality of other humans

Life's Little Mysteries: Why Do Women Wear High Heels and Why Did the Kamikaze Pilots Wear Helmets? [Interesting]

Life's Little Mysteries: Why Do Women Wear High Heels and Why Did the Kamikaze Pilots Wear Helmets?

Life's Little Mysteries: Why Do Women Wear High Heels and Why Did the Kamikaze Pilots Wear Helmets?

In this Daily Mail article, Robert Frank uses economics to explain the situations you encounter in everyday life. For example -- Why do women endure uncomfortable high heels? High heels are uncomfortable and make walking more difficult. But they also increase height, as well as forcing the back to arch, pushing the bosom forward and the buttocks back, thereby accentuating the female form -- and men, apparently, prefer an exaggerated female figure. Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets? In 1944, the Japanese military launched a campaign of kamikaze attacks, in which pilots attempted to crash explosives-laden planes into American warships. Why did these pilots wear helmets for a suicide mission? Planes often experienced severe turbulence before reaching their targets, so they needed to protected so that they could get there. But more importantly, it was not actually the express intention that these pilots commit suicide -- their charge was to destroy their targets by any means necessary. The hope was that the pilots would return safely, even though the expectation was that most would not. Why are DVDs sold in larger packages than CDs, even though the discs are the same size? Prior to the appearance of CDs, most music was sold on vinyl records. To accommodate stores, CD cases were designed to be a little less than half as wide as record sleeves, so that they two rows of CD cases could fit on a record rack with a divider between them. But before DVDs became popular, most film rental stores carried videotapes in the VHS format. The videos were usually displayed side by side with their spines out. Making DVD cases the same height enabled stores to display their new DVD stocks on existing shelves. For yet more fascinating explanations of everyday life, click the link below. Sources: Daily Mail March 29, 2008

King's final crusade: The radical push for a new America [History][Interesting]

King's final crusade: The radical push for a new America - CNN.com

King's final crusade: The radical push for a new America

• Story Highlights
• Before his death, King had become radical, scholars and activists say
  
• The revolutionary "Poor People's Campaign" alarmed King's closest advisers
  
• Campaign aimed to withdraw funding for Vietnam War and abolish poverty
  
• King also angered his most important ally, President Lyndon Johnson

By John Blake
CNN

(CNN) -- The Rev. Bernard LaFayette Jr. was resting at his Chicago, Illinois, home one autumn weekend in 1967 when the phone rang. The caller didn't identify himself, but LaFayette immediately recognized the baritone voice.

By the time Dr. King made his final trip to Memphis, he was planning the most radical campaign of his ministry.

"Bernard, I need you," the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said. "This may be my last campaign. We're going for broke."

Most Americans think of King as the "I Have a Dream" preacher at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. But the man who made his final trip to Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968 had become radical, scholars and activists say. King was gambling his legacy on a final crusade that was so revolutionary, it alarmed many of his closest advisers. Some became concerned about his emotional stability.

King called his crusade the Poor People's Campaign. He planned to march on Washington with a multiracial army of poor people who would build shantytowns at the Lincoln Memorial -- and paralyze the nation's capital if they had to.

The campaign's goal: force the federal government to withdraw funding for the Vietnam War and commit instead to abolishing poverty.

What King was saying by this time was even more provocative than what he planned. In his final presidential address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he said the movement should address "the question of restructuring the whole of American society."

He called for a guaranteed annual wage for all able-bodied people, he urged the nationalization of some industries, and he told people to "question the capitalistic economy."

"It didn't cost the nation one penny to integrate lunch counters ... but now we are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power," King said during a trip to Mississippi in February 1968.

The campaign was so risky that King told LaFayette, a Southern Christian Leadership Conference leader, during their phone call that he was going to appoint a new layer of executives to the civil rights group he co-founded.

"He was anticipating that we might be hit with some assassinations, so he wanted somebody left to assume responsibilities to keep it going," said LaFayette, who was appointed director of the Poor People's Campaign.

Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Parting the Waters: America in the King Years," said King didn't expect the crowds in Washington to embrace his vision of economic equality. He expected violent reprisals from troops. He might die. Yet King hoped that the sacrifice would lead to an economic bill of rights for poor people.

"When he did the Poor People's Campaign, he knew it wasn't likely to win," Branch said. "It was a witness."

But it was a witness that few people were prepared to hear, said Roger Wilkins, a U.S. Justice Department official designated as the liaison between King's final campaign and the federal government.

"By 1968, a lot of white people had gotten tired of civil rights and thinking of race," Wilkins said. "The picture of docile black people holding hands and singing freedom songs had been replaced by images of poor blacks rampaging through cities, looting and burning."

King had also lost the ear of his most important ally, President Lyndon Johnson. On April 4, 1967, exactly a year before he was assassinated, King delivered a highly publicized speech against the Vietnam War.

"Johnson was outraged," Wilkins said. "He turned sour toward King and the movement. He felt that Martin had rejected him."

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, King's own organization, withdrew support from him. The group's board of directors voted against publicly backing King's opposition to Vietnam. Other black civil rights leaders criticized King as well.

"There were some black preachers telling him he was out of his element," LaFayette said.

King became depressed at times, Branch said. One night, King -- alone with a whiskey -- awakened friends in adjoining hotel rooms with his shouting: "I don't want to do this anymore! I want to go back to my little church!"

"The shameful truth is that very few people were paying attention to him," Branch said.

King mused about getting out of the civil rights business. He considered the idea of becoming dean of the chapel at Boston University, his alma mater, Branch said.

"He was constantly saying, 'Oh, I wish I could do this,' but he could never do it," Branch said. He was just possessed by the movement."

Yet King's evolution opened alliances with new supporters such as anti-war activists, said the Rev. Vincent Harding, an author and friend of King's who helped write his 1967 speech denouncing the Vietnam War.

"Some people were backing off at the same moment that there were other kinds of people who now recognized that King was not there for black people but for a new American society," Harding said. "Those who wanted to work for this new society were seeing him as a hero."

What this new American society could have looked like under King's leadership is unclear. He never got the chance to lead his final crusade.

He was assassinated in Memphis on April 4, 1968, while helping lead sanitation workers on strike.

The Poor People's Campaign has faded from historical memory. It remains the most overlooked part of King's legacy, Wilkins said.

It remains in the shadows because King rewrote the traditional civil rights script, Wilkins said. As long as he fed Americans images of bigoted Southern sheriffs clubbing demonstrators, people could remain comfortable. But the Poor People's Campaign gave Americans a new cast of villains: themselves. Americans didn't want to look at the face of poverty, but King was going to force them, he said.

"When the movement was just about the South, you weren't rattling the status quo," Wilkins said. 'You were doing things that made Northerners feel morally superior to the South."

LaFayette last saw King on the day he was assassinated. At the time, King was still thinking big. He told LaFayette that he wanted to globalize nonviolent protests.

King may have been isolated and dejected during those last days, but that's not the man LaFayette remembers. He takes comfort from one of King's final moments: the "mountaintop" sermon King gave the night before he was assassinated.

"You could see it in his eyes; he was consumed with passion," LaFayette said. "He was prepared. They didn't take his life. He gave it up. They didn't have to run him down and try to catch him. He was standing tall despite the threats.

"You can't take a person's life who's already given it up."

Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit - CNN.com - Sent Using Google Toolbar

Leave it to Wal-Mart...
~P~

Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit - CNN.com

Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

• Story Highlights
• Debbie Shank, 52, suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident
  
• Wal-Mart's health plan sued Shank and her family to recoup what it paid out
  
• The Shanks got money in suit; Wal-Mart says policy means couple can't get benefits
  
• Couple's son was killed in Iraq after they lost lawsuit to Wal-Mart
  
• Next Article in U.S. »

• Read
• VIDEO

By Randi Kaye
CNN

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000.

1 of 3

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

Don't Miss

• Sound off: 'Anderson Cooper 360°' Blog
• 'Anderson Cooper 360°' Daily Podcast
• 'Anderson Cooper 360°'

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money. Watch this couple's story »

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her." E-mail to a friend