Iraq the Vote

The cornerstone of any democracy is the right to vote. Today, for the first time in fifty years, the people of Iraq had the opportunity to vote for their national leaders. The doomsayers' fears largely unrealized, the people of Iraq turned out by the millions to exercise their franchise. This is a historic day in the middle east, and it is thanks in large part to President Bush's unswerving dedication that this election will happen on time and with security.

One could argue about the wisdom of this war itself, the United States' tactics, or our likelihood of success there. And to be sure, this is but one positive step in a long list of bitter tragedies. But it is a big step indeed--perhaps the biggest. On this day the naysayers' protestations are muted, indeed. I congratulate the people of Iraq on this historic day, and I wish them success at implementing an open, vibrant and representative democracy that honors the rights of Iraqis and all people.

Mazal tov.

They're Called Germans -- Not Nazis

Sixty years ago today Allied forces liberated the German death camp called Auschwitz - Birkenau. So ended the most important event in my life, the Shoah. It is not just the unspeakable German depravity that will always haunt me, but also its proximity to my--our--existance. In America, my own mother was a little girl playing in her back yard while, in Germany, soldiers were ripping other children from their mothers' arms, separating them forever. While my father was studying for his Bar Mitzvah, Germans were murdering learned Rabbis, defiling our sacred texts and burning our synagogues. And while our American economy sought more efficient mass production of automobiles and radios, Germans sought to perfect the industrialized mass murder of an ancient and peaceful people. All of these, while other Germans watched.

To be sure, there were also other Germans who resisted--and fiercely. But, relative to their complicit countrymen, their numbers were so depressingly small as to be insignificant. And so it is that I insist we call these offenders by name; it was not the Nazis or their political party or even their military officers who loosed this sickening depravity upon the world. It was the German people themselves--their society, their institutions, their collective soul--which nourished a Jewish blood lust which knew no bounds. Not a single truckload of Jewish families could have been herded to their death trains by dark of night without the corrupt complicity of neighbors peering with feigned powerlessness through their intact windows. Children screaming, women crying, bewildered men powerless to save their families. Show me one German who shielded a Jewish child with her life and I'll show you hundreds of thousands more who found stature in Jewish suffering.

Some people have asked, "Where was God"? How dare they? God was everywhere. In the books, in the wind, in the eyes of every person smacked by the butt of a gun into cattle cars. It was the Germans who hungered viciously to deny God's presence. Better to ask instead where was humanity. That is the question sadly, angrily left unanswered.

I wish I knew how to live with the mistrust I will always feel for my fellow humans. Which casual acquaintance would, in another context, have shot my grandmother for refusing to board a railcar, leaving her to die in a muddy street? Which would have seen the act and done nothing? Which would have fought with me to the last breath, delivering guns and bread to me in the Warsaw ghetto, dying as we all must, but proudly and with honor. Perhaps thankfully, these questions are unanswerable.

It was the Germans. They did it. They created the Nazis, voted for them, allowed them, followed them, fought for them, killed for them, and looked the other way for them. They cannot now blame them; they were them. And that is the point. Just as a fire cannot burn without oxygen, Nazis could not have hijacked a society if their countrymen had resisted. This must be the lesson from this dark time. To the question "could it ever happen again", the answer can be "no"--but only if people follow their better consciences and resist.

Peace.

Eighty-Five Years Ain't That Long

Did you know that women have only been able to vote in the United States for 85 years? Equality before the law is clearly an evolving concept in this country and we have to keep fighting the forces of repression until all Americans are equal before the law. The next and greatest battle is to secure civil marriage rights for same-gender couples.

Broken Clock? Time Will Tell.

Only a few days ago, I began to list Illinois politicians whose talents could not possibly have landed them in their current jobs without the benefit of powerful family connections (...think "Prince Harry"). Among those names unapologetically was Jesse Jackson, Jr.

I am not a fan of Junior's. First, if his name were, well, anything else, he'd have a work-a-day job like the rest of us. Second, he sounds annoyingly supercilious when he talks--a problem he's clearly been working on because, at least he now refrains from clearly enunciating EVERY LETTER. But he has a long way to go.

So, why does Junior deserve a blog post of his very own? Hint: it's not because he's entitled by virtue of his name. No, he actually did something momentous by focusing attention on the rampant scandals at Chicago City Hall. What's your favorite? Trucking? Towing? Minority contracts? Safety inspectors? Get in line. And bring your wallet.

The Chicago Sun Times and Chicago Tribune have long reported on the scandalous pigs feeding at the taxpayers' trough. But now Jesse is asking why our docile city council shows not the slightest interest in investigating the corrupt government which it rubberstamps at every turn. He's right to ask. So, darn it, as much as this pains me, I hereby take back every negative thought I've ever had about the Congressman (...which is just about every thought. Ever.) He has asked the tough question that needed to be asked. But, in so doing, he kicked up a dust storm of publicity which our daily newspapers, with their disinterested reporters, apparently could not muster.

This is good for those who demand change. But it begs the question "why?". Most people think it's because The Congressman wants to be The Mayor, and that would be a shame. I just don't see the point in removing one prince of entitlement to install another. Rather, I prefer to believe it's because The Congressman actually believes the high-minded stuff he's spouting about the democratic process. Hopefully, he speaks with a lower-case "d". Otherwise, it wont' be pretty.

Whatever his motives, he correctly points the interrogation lamp in the direction of Mayor Daley and the "Rubber Stamp Brigade". Even if his motives are suspect, I give him a lot of credit. Hell, even a broken clock is right twice each day. But only time will tell if the Congressman has found rare political courage or is is just another broken clock.

Illinois Family Tree

Following is a (still partial) list of Illinois and/or Chicago politicians related to other politicians in the city and/or state:

Rod Blagojevich - Governor
His father-in-law is long-time, powerful Chicago city alderman, Richard Mell.

Lisa Madigan - Attorney General
Her father, powerful Democrat Mike Madigan, is Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives

Mayor Richard M. Daley - Mayor of Chicago
His father was Da Boss, the inimitable power-broker Richard J. Daley. His brother, John Daley, is on the Cook County Illinois Board, and is Chair of its Finance Committee. His other brother, William Daley, is the former Secretary of Commerce under President Bill Clinton.

Jesse Jackson Jr. - U. S. Representative, 2nd District, IL
His father, Jesse Jackson, is the Founder and President of Rainbow/PUSH and twice ran for President of the United States

Daniel Lipinski - U. S. Representative, 3rd District, IL
His father, William Lipinski, held this Congressional seat for eleven terms (22 years). Throughout the 2004 primary campaign, the elder Lipinski went to great lengths to deny rumors that he intended to resign his seat. Then, after the primary which--in more democratic jurisdictions, is where the PEOPLE decide whom they want to run--Pops Lipinski exited the race and pulled the strings for his old-time political machine to "appoint" Junior as the Democratic candidate. Incidentally, until his "appointment", Junior had been a poli-sci professor living in Tennessee.

If you are aware of other familial connections, please add a comment to this blog and I will add the information. In addition, please comment regarding whether you think any of the above-reference politicians would have been able to win political office without the fame and/or connections afforded them by their familial political connections.

So Help me God

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. 'So help me, God.'"

First uttered by George Washington in 1789, these words will be uttered again today by an elected American president -- a fact which should give all Americans great pride. Regardless whether one supported the victorious presidential candidate, the process of the states electing the President through a vote of all their citizens is a process which has worked remarkably well for 215 years.

I did not support candidate George W. Bush during either of his two presidential elections, and I oppose many of his policies as President. But for today, let's put politics aside and celebrate a system of government of, by and for the people.

Happy Birthday to Me!!

Today is my 41st Birthday! To know me is to know that birthdays rank right up there with snow and barbecue beef ribs on the list of things that make me happy. Following are a few factoids concerning this momentous day:

I was born at the end of the last day of the Capricorn zodiac, and right at the beginning of Aquarius. That makes my birthday the dawning of the age of Aquarius...

I am the youngest of four children and the youngest of 26 grandchildren (on my mother's side) and the youngest of seven grandchildren on my father's side. In addition, my mother was the youngest of ten and my father was the youngest of three. This means that if you're reading this and you're related to me, there's an excellent chance you're older than I am.

When I was nine, I had a bowling party for my birthday. When I was 16, my friends Lynn and Carol kidnapped me for breakfast at Denny's. At 21, my Mom & her friend, Jody, drove to Mizzou to take me out to dinner. At 30, I had a party at my apartment in St. Louis. At 40, Bill and I took Mike & Susie to dinner at Spaggia. I heard a good saying today. Someone said that people who are able to celebrate their birthdays should do so with gusto for all those who no longer can.

So far today, I've gotten birthday wishes from: Bill (of course), Mom & Jim, Anna Lynn, Karen (yesterday), Chrissy & Kevin, Neal Weisenberg, Mike Teplitsky, Gil, Maribeth (my assistant), Heather (another assistant in the office), Joe Siegler, Lee Griesbach, Aunt Gladys, Barbara, Mike Boxerman, Jeremy Kriegel, Ruth Gagliard, Kevin Gagliard, Todd Taylor, Sondra, Lili, Micah, Kevin Casey, Scott Frenkel and more!

We had planned that we might go out for dinner, but Bill was pretty tired from his day trip to Pittsburgh so, instead of going out to dinner, we had my "traditional" birthday dinner -- barbecued beef ribs, peas with sauteed mushrooms and chocolate cake. Mmmmmm. Quite tasty, if I may say so.

All in all, it has been a great birthday and I really enjoyed myself, which is the whole point, n'est-ce pas? And now, it's time for bed. Thank you everyone for a great dawning of the age of Aquarius.

We Shall Overcome

Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail

[Note: All typographical errors are from the original source and therefore have not been corrected.]

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This response to a published statement by eight fellow clergymen from Alabama (Bishop C. C. J. Carpenter, Bishop Joseph A. Durick, Rabbi Hilton L. Grafman, Bishop Paul Hardin, Bishop Holan B. Harmon, the Reverend George M. Murray. the Reverend Edward V. Ramage and the Reverend Earl Stallings) was composed under somewhat constricting circumstance. Begun on the margins of the newspaper in which the statement appeared while I was in jail, the letter was continued on scraps of writing paper supplied by a friendly Negro trusty, and concluded on a pad my attorneys were eventually permitted to leave me. Although the text remains in substance unaltered, I have indulged in the author's prerogative of polishing it for publication.

April 16, 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 statements 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 an 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 bad 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 with with-drawal 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 mayoralty 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-oat 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, we 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 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 stiff 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 dark 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 no 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 won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat 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 distort 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 awful. Paul Tillich 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 ace 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 fan 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 an 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: "An 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 rational 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 6e solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that 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 an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist 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, Jeans 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 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 non segregated 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 Rio 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 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 leader era; an 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, on 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 Walleye 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? l 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. Par 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 vi 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 jai 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, ham and all over the nation, because the goal of America k 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 handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in pubic. 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 fleets 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 k 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.

All the Wasted Time

Following is a letter penned by eight white Alabama clergymen who, in their attempt to recognize the genuine deep feelings held by both sides of the early 1960s civil rights debate, lost sight of the eternal truth that people just want equality and respect. I publish this piece to my blog today because it--along with years of injustice--caused Dr. Martin Luther King to write The Letter From the Birmingham Jail, which I first read as a freshman at the University of Missouri - Columbia.

I have tried to read The Letter every year on Dr. King's birthday--a national holiday is one thing, but the import of his message is in the words he so skillfully employed to advance a just cause before a mostly callous world. So come with me now to the American South, circa 1963 (Dr. King's Letter in response to be published tomorrow)...

The following is the public statement directed to Martin Luther King, Jr., by eight Alabama clergymen

We the undersigned clergymen are among those who, in January, issued "an appeal for law and order and common sense," in dealing with racial problems in Alabama. We expressed understanding that honest convictions in racial matters could properly be pursued in the courts, but urged that decisions of those courts should in the meantime be peacefully obeyed.

Since that time there had been some evidence of increased forbearance and a willingness to face facts. Responsible citizens have undertaken to work on various problems which cause racial friction and unrest. In Birmingham, recent public events have given indication that we all have opportunity for a new constructive and realistic approach to racial problems.

However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and led in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.

We agree rather with certain local Negro leadership which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area. And we believe this kind of facing of issues can best be accomplished by citizens of our own metropolitan area, white and Negro, meeting with their knowledge and experience of the local situation. All of us need to face that responsibility and find proper channels for its accomplishment.

Just as we formerly pointed out that "hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions," we also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.

We commend the community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement officials in particular, on the calm manner in which these demonstrations have been handled. We urge the public to continue to show restraint should the demonstrations continue, and the law enforcement officials to remain calm and continue to protect our city from violence.

We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense.


Bishop C.C.J. Carpenter, D.D., LL.D., Episcopalian Bishop of Alabama

Bishop Joseph A. Durick, D.D., Auxiliary Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Mobile, Birmingham

Rabbi Milton L. Grafman, Temple Emanu-El, Birmingham, Alabama

Bishop Paul Hardin, Methodist Bishop of the Alabama-West Florida Conference

Bishop Nolan B. Harmon, Bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the Methodist Church

Rev. George M. Murray, D.D., LL.D, Bishop Coadjutor, Episcopal Diocese of Alabama

Rev. Edward V. Ramage, Moderator, Synod of the Alabama Presbyterian Church in the United States

Rev. Earl Stallings, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Birmingham, Alabama

April 12, 1963

Happy Birthday to Lynnie

Today is my sister's 50th birthday. Not just any sister, mind you, but the oldest of all my siblings. That's pretty special. One of my earlier memories of my sister is when she took me a few times to have a picnic on the wide, grassy boulevards on Fair Ave., in Columbus, Oh. That was back when she was young enough to think it was fun to do that sort of thing with a four year-old brother. She was right. I also remember one year when she had a boy/girl party downstairs at our house in Columbus. I think she was about 15. They were all dancing to the popular songs of the day, and they were so cool. Especially my sister. I mean think about it, what did all these cool, older kids who were dancing my basement have in common, if not for my sister?!

And when we all piled into our 1969 Country Squire to take her to college? Everyone was bawling their eyes out on the way home as if someone killed our dog. How dare she go so far away to school?! It was almost 2 hours from home! It may seem funny, now, but it sure wasn't funny back then. I don't know about the rest of my family, but six people around the dinner table was all I ever knew! What would we do now!? Dinner was never quite the same, after that. I remember the first time she came home on a visit from college. I think she surprised us (or, at least, me). You'd think she'd just come home from a war, we were so glad to see her.

After that, I spent the next twenty-or-so years being a teenager, and she got busy raising a family. But now that's all mostly done, and we have a nice relationship, which is very rewarding for a little brother who always looked up to his oldest sister. There are many other memories, many of them birthdays (we make a big deal over birthdays in my family).

So, happy birthday, Lynnie!

Love, Your Little (er, how 'bout younger?) Brother.

Let it Snow!

I love snow. I love snow. I love snow.

I love hearing it's going to snow. I love watching it snow. I love walking in snow. I love driving in snow. I love seeing snow all over the trees and the shrubs. I even love a well-intentioned snow ball from time to time. Isn't snow great?

Capitalist Pig Roast

While on the treadmill at my athletic club recently, I was watching two high-mounted television monitors. The television on the right was showing a CNN report about the awful December 26th earthquake and tsunami. From Thailand to Indonesia to Sri Lanka, it was one devastating scene after another--distraught parents searching for their children, children wandering alone, dazed and crying, the injured lying in makeshift hospital beds, the dead lying in makeshift morgues. Wide eyes searching plaintively, begging for a morsel of food, a comforting shoulder.

On the next monitor, the "Style" channel was showing the Annual Napa Valley Wine Auction. Let your eyes linger once more on that term W I N E A U C T I O N. Oh, but that was not all, since positively all parties for the rich and self-important have to have a theme, this party was done in the manner of a 1920s speakeasy. Fake guards guarding fake doors. Fake passwords to get in and mingle with, I'll guess, a bunch of fake personalities. How lovely not to be in Sri Lanka. These bourgeois pretenders to the throne, with their diamonds furs and costly cars, would look like vapid idiots on even the best day B I D D I N G on W I N E. On that day, though, they looked even worse. Awful what happened over there with that Tsumani, isn't it dear. Oh my, yes! Just awful. Have you seen the hors d'oeuvres?
__________________________________

The Dow Jones Newswire reports that Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings gave their CEOs an average raise of 33%, while those firms' stocks rose an average of 4.7%. Total compensation, including salary and a variety of cash and stock-related bonuses, totaled $32 million for Merrill's Stan O'Neal, $22 million for Morgan Stanley's Phil Purcell, $29.8 million for Henry Paulson Jr. of Goldman, and $26.3 million for Richard Fuld of Lehman.

With regard to Morgan Stanley, its shares fell 8.2% in its fiscal year ended Nov. 30, while its CEO got a 47% raise from the previous year's pay, which Morgan puts at $15 million, after adjusting for options that were offered in 2003 but not 2004.

I find that particularly interesting (read: "galling"). I know a Sales Assistant who has worked at Morgan Stanley for more than 20 years. In case you aren't aware, Sales Assistants are the people who actually keep brokerage firms in business while their brokers are out playing golf or otherwise ignoring their customers. It should suffice to say that, without Sales Assistants like the one I know, Phil Purcell might be looking for another job (bank robber maybe?). Oh, guess what my friend, the Sales Assistant makes after 20 years on the job: $30,000.
_________________________

Wall Street Journal Says CEO Bonuses Rise 46.4% In 2004

CEO bonuses surged last year. At 100 major U.S. corporations, CEO bonuses rose 46.4% to a median of $1.14 million. Among big winners were Michael Eisner at Walt Disney Co., where 45% of the shares voted at its 2004 annual meeting opposed his re-election to its board; and John Tyson at Tyson Foods Inc., the target of a recent Securities and Exchange Commission probe into whether the company improperly accounted for perquisites provided to Don Tyson, his father and predecessor.

At Disney, Mr. Eisner pocketed a $7.25 million cash bonus for the year that ended Sept. 30, up from nothing the year before. Disney directors rewarded him for its robust earnings recovery despite the shareholder revolt that cost him his chairmanship last March.

At Shaw Group Inc., a Baton Rouge, La., construction-and-engineering business, Chief Executive J.M. Bernhard Jr. received a $238,000 bonus for a year in which the company lost $31 million. He has led Shaw since he helped found it in 1987 and remains its biggest individual shareholder.
"In the judgment of the compensation committee of the board of directors, he earned [the bonus]," says Chris Sammons, a Shaw vice president. During the second half of fiscal 2004, which ended Aug. 31, Mr. Sammons adds, "the company returned to profitability and generated significant cash flow."

Mr. Bernhard was one of five chiefs whose bonuses went up while their employers' net income went down last year.

On the other hand, several CEOs experienced steep upturns in both bonus and profitability. Brian L. Halla, head of National Semiconductor Corp. in Santa Clara, Calif., received a $5 million bonus for the year ended May 30, representing a 12-fold increase over the prior year's $400,500. Reaping his biggest bonus since he took command in 1996 "was wonderful," Mr. Halla remembers. "I feel I should pay somebody for doing this job."

The semiconductor maker swung to a $283 million net profit in fiscal 2004 from a $33.3 million net loss in fiscal 2003. The board also paid Mr. Halla a handsome bonus because the company exceeded maximum performance levels set for revenue growth and return on invested capital.
Mr. Halla may soon collect an even fatter bonus check. He can make up to $6 million a year under a new pay plan intended to sweeten senior officers' potential cash incentives and reduce their reliance on options. He got one million options (adjusted for a subsequent stock split) in fiscal 2004, 22% fewer than in 2003.

The $6.6 million bonus Joseph W. Luter III at Smithfield Foods Inc. garnered for the year ended May 2 was a nearly ninefold increase from $698,429 the year before. He has run the Smithfield, Va., meat processor since April 1975 and made an $850,000 salary for almost five years.
Smithfield directors say they decided to award Mr. Luter a bonus only if 2004 pretax profit exceeded $100 million. They gave him 2% of such earnings between $100 million and $300 million plus 3% of the portion over $300 million. The company posted record net income of $227.1 million last year.

"We were trying to make sure [Mr. Luter's] rewards are based on the ups and downs of the company," says Ray A. Goldberg, an emeritus Harvard professor of agriculture and business who chairs the board's pay panel. "Compared to others in the industry, he's underpaid -- including bonuses."

Mr. Tyson, leader of the nation's biggest U.S. meatpacker, received a $5.4 million bonus for the year ended Oct. 2. It was his largest since he assumed the helm in April 2000 and more than twice as big as his 2003 bonus.

Under the senior-executive bonus plan, the Tyson Foods chairman and CEO should have collected only about $4.6 million. Directors of the Springdale, Ark., company justified the extra cash by using criteria from a new bonus plan being submitted for shareholder approval, according to the proxy.

Mr. Tyson's employment contract guarantees him a $1 million salary, 500,000 stock options a year, an annual grant of performance shares valued at $2.47 million, and personal use of corporate aircraft. Among his other perks last year was a $2,000 department-store gift card for the holidays.

"We experienced a record year in 2004, and as a result, overall compensation including performance-based bonuses, reflected the company's results," says Gary Mickelson, a Tyson spokesman. "We believe our compensation program, which is largely performance-based and approved by three independent board members, is consistent with other programs at similarly sized companies."

Tyson Foods and Don Tyson, its retired chief, have offered to pay a combined $1.7 million to settle the SEC probe without admitting any wrongdoing. The full commission has yet to approve the deal. Agency staffers previously planned to recommend a civil action against the concern for allegedly failing to accurately disclose about $1.7 million of benefits given to the elder Mr. Tyson in the fiscal years 1997 through 2003.

Some chief executives received a bonus last year not long before they lost their corner office. Carly Fiorina, Hewlett-Packard Co.'s chairman and chief executive, won a bonus of about $1 million for the first six months of the year that ended Oct. 31. She failed to land a second-half bonus because the giant printer and computer maker missed performance targets such as higher net profit and revenue.

The Palo Alto, Calif., company nevertheless paid her a $567,000 discretionary bonus in mid-December -- part of $90 million distributed to all employees following its fourth-quarter earnings recovery. Directors sought "to recognize the hard work that was put in after a very difficult third quarter," recalls Bob Sherbin, an H-P spokesman.

The board dismissed Ms. Fiorina earlier this month. "You have to wonder how directors justify paying big bonuses and a few months later firing a CEO," says Carol Bowie, director of governance-research services at the Investor Responsibility Research Center in Washington.

B'reisheet

Breisheet there was a vast expanse of web. And therein were created letters on the page, which letters begat words and sentences, paragraphs and thoughts, musings and the occasional recipe. And it was good.

Hello World. My name is Jonathan. Jonathan Daniel Edelman. I've heard it reported that bloggers were very nearly voted 2004 "Persons of the Year" by Time magazine, only to have George W. Bush snag the title as his own. How, you may ask, did that happen? How could it not!? Heck, anyone who can be reelected president after starting a fraudulent war, turning a federal budget surplus into a staggering deficit and--this is good--sending Martha Stewart to jail while Ken Lay remains free to terrorize bankrupt Houstonians deserves to be Person of the Millenium! Way to go George.

But I digress. Bloggers were almost Persons of the Year, and I identify with "almost". Once, for example, I almost won the state lottery. Yep, I had four of the six required numbers and missed getting five numbers by only one digit! Mmm hmm, I almost had five of the six numbers needed to win the lottery. Another time I almost missed the chance to grow up when I almost "bought the farm" with a head-on collision on a dusty country road in Wisconsin. Good thing my friend Todd grabbed the steering wheel or we'd almost have been road-kill. As you can see, I have a well-deserved affinity for "almost".

Now, of course, by starting a blog--officially, as of today, being a "blogger" (how au courant is that!?)--I was almost voted Person of the Year by Time Magazine! And I didn't even have to start a war.

For years I've wanted to keep a diary. Or get some of my op-eds published--I have several which are almost complete, and one brilliant piece which the New York Times audaciously declined. But blogging is so utterly immediate! While the The New York Times saves extra space for the apocryphal bamboozlings of Jayson Blair, I can already have published to my blog which could potentially have a wider circulation than the Old Grey Lady, herself. Take that, Sulzberger, you old so and so!

One thing's for sure. I have plenty to say. And, for now, this is as good a place as any to say it. Stay tuned.