Friday, December 10, 2010
The Republican Con Game
by Andrew Hacker
America's Hostage Crisis: Day 3,500 -- And Counting
When President Obama said he was forced to negotiate with hostage-takers, he conjured an image of ski-masked Republicans suddenly storming the White House and demanding tax cuts for the rich, a screaming Jane Middle Class in tow.
The imagery made it seem as if this bitter fight just emerged -- an impression reinforced by the breathless commentary of pundits who act as if history began last week. In reality, the hostage takers laid their "trap" a decade ago, as former Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett helpfully explained to The Daily Beast: "We knew that, politically, once you get [a big tax cut] into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it. That's not a bad legacy. The fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth."
Republicans have dominated the tax-cut debate because they have consistently kept their long-term objective in mind and skillfully, if ruthlessly, designed their initiatives to achieve it. Indeed, they've counted on the fact that most of us have short memories -- including, alas, journalists who say they want to keep politicians honest.
In our 2005 book Off Center, we summed up the Republican tax-cut strategy as follows:
Republicans carefully calibrated their presentation of the tax cuts to circumvent hostile public opinion. Three strategies were central -- each attuned to the tax cuts' principal liabilities. First, unrealistic projections of federal surpluses and of the costs of the tax changes were used to justify the tax cuts and obscure their effects on competing priorities. Second, Republican leaders managed the legislative agenda to prevent consideration of the tax cuts' specific effects on valued programs. And third, tax-cut advocates worked assiduously to make the cuts look far less tilted in favor of the rich and well connected than they really were...
To respond to their base, Republicans misled most Americans. On an unprecedented scale, phase-ins, sunsets, and time bombs were used to give the tax cuts of 2001 the most attractive public face possible while systematically stacking the deck in favor of Republicans' long-term aims. From top to bottom, Republicans larded the tax cuts with features that made sense only for the purposes of political manipulation.
Most reporters have done a lousy job of reminding us of this background. Why were the tax cuts of 2001 scheduled to expire? Because the Bush administration could not convince enough Senators back then that they were affordable, even at a time of record budget surpluses. The GOP's gamble was that when the tax cuts were due to expire, they would be extended because too many in Washington would be afraid to "raise taxes."
Many Democrats probably thought budgetary realities would make this hat trick hard to pull off. But the Democratic message, if you can call it that, is muddled and complex: one part fiscal rectitude, one part populism -- and lacking any clear alternative vision for the hundreds of billions that Republicans want to give to the rich. And it's made even less coherent by the non-trivial number of congressional Democrats who have basically accepted the GOP position.
Republicans, by contrast, bet on the power of a simple, unified message no matter how divorced from economic reality: failing to extend tax cuts skewed to the rich was to "raise taxes" on "ordinary Americans." And they bet that when the time came for a vote, nobody would remember how we got in this mess in the first place. For now, that bet has paid off -- big time.
Two years from now, tax cuts for the rich will come up for a vote in the lead-up to an election with the economy likely quite weak. Democrats had better start learning from history, lest they be condemned to repeat it.
Or, as President Bush memorably put it a year after the tax cuts passed, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
America's Hostage Crisis: Day 3,500 -- And Counting
When President Obama said he was forced to negotiate with hostage-takers, he conjured an image of ski-masked Republicans suddenly storming the White House and demanding tax cuts for the rich, a screaming Jane Middle Class in tow.
The imagery made it seem as if this bitter fight just emerged -- an impression reinforced by the breathless commentary of pundits who act as if history began last week. In reality, the hostage takers laid their "trap" a decade ago, as former Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett helpfully explained to The Daily Beast: "We knew that, politically, once you get [a big tax cut] into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it. That's not a bad legacy. The fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth."
Republicans have dominated the tax-cut debate because they have consistently kept their long-term objective in mind and skillfully, if ruthlessly, designed their initiatives to achieve it. Indeed, they've counted on the fact that most of us have short memories -- including, alas, journalists who say they want to keep politicians honest.
In our 2005 book Off Center, we summed up the Republican tax-cut strategy as follows:
Republicans carefully calibrated their presentation of the tax cuts to circumvent hostile public opinion. Three strategies were central -- each attuned to the tax cuts' principal liabilities. First, unrealistic projections of federal surpluses and of the costs of the tax changes were used to justify the tax cuts and obscure their effects on competing priorities. Second, Republican leaders managed the legislative agenda to prevent consideration of the tax cuts' specific effects on valued programs. And third, tax-cut advocates worked assiduously to make the cuts look far less tilted in favor of the rich and well connected than they really were...
To respond to their base, Republicans misled most Americans. On an unprecedented scale, phase-ins, sunsets, and time bombs were used to give the tax cuts of 2001 the most attractive public face possible while systematically stacking the deck in favor of Republicans' long-term aims. From top to bottom, Republicans larded the tax cuts with features that made sense only for the purposes of political manipulation.
Most reporters have done a lousy job of reminding us of this background. Why were the tax cuts of 2001 scheduled to expire? Because the Bush administration could not convince enough Senators back then that they were affordable, even at a time of record budget surpluses. The GOP's gamble was that when the tax cuts were due to expire, they would be extended because too many in Washington would be afraid to "raise taxes."
Many Democrats probably thought budgetary realities would make this hat trick hard to pull off. But the Democratic message, if you can call it that, is muddled and complex: one part fiscal rectitude, one part populism -- and lacking any clear alternative vision for the hundreds of billions that Republicans want to give to the rich. And it's made even less coherent by the non-trivial number of congressional Democrats who have basically accepted the GOP position.
Republicans, by contrast, bet on the power of a simple, unified message no matter how divorced from economic reality: failing to extend tax cuts skewed to the rich was to "raise taxes" on "ordinary Americans." And they bet that when the time came for a vote, nobody would remember how we got in this mess in the first place. For now, that bet has paid off -- big time.
Two years from now, tax cuts for the rich will come up for a vote in the lead-up to an election with the economy likely quite weak. Democrats had better start learning from history, lest they be condemned to repeat it.
Or, as President Bush memorably put it a year after the tax cuts passed, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Tax Deal
WE'll see how this plays out in the months to come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 7, 2010, 7:45 am
PAUL KRUGMAN
The Deal
So the tax deal is out. Obama extracted some concessions, with the big surprise being a payroll tax cut. How much better do these concessions make the thing?
Well, for starters we have the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. As I pointed out yesterday, the CBO estimated that such an extension would reduce unemployment relative to what it would have been otherwise by 0.1 to 0.3 percentage points in 2011, twice that in 2012.
To this, the deal added $120 billion in a payroll tax cut; $56 billion in extended unemployment benefits; about $40 billion in extension of other tax credit. Also, expensing of business investment.
I’d discount the last item: we’re awash in excess capacity, and likely to stay that way for years, so I don’t expect business investment to be noticeably affected by tax breaks that give an incentive to move spending up in time. The rest is about $220 billion, or about 0.75 percent of GDP over the two-year period. What’s the multiplier on that? Pretty high on UI, which will get spent; less on the rest. Overall, probably less than 1. So let’s say that this raises GDP by 0.7 percent relative to otherwise; rule of thumb is that one point on GDP is half a point on unemployment, so add 0.35 points to the CBO numbers.
That’s a two-year average; what about timing? Both the payroll tax break and the unemployment extension are for the first year only. So, a bigger boost next year, fading out in 2012. Since all the evidence says that elections depend on the rate of change of unemployment, not its level, this is actually bad news for Obama: he’s setting himself up for an economic stall in the months leading into the 2012 election.
Oh, and he’s overpromising again:
“It’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery,” Mr. Obama said. “It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.”
Millions of new jobs? Millions? Not by my arithmetic.
So, was this worth it? I’d still say no, although it’s better than what I expected over the weekend. It still greatly increases the chances of the Bush tax cuts being made permanent — especially because the front-loading of the stimulative stuff actually worsens Obama’s 2012 electoral prospects.
Overall, enough sweetener has been added to diminish, but not eliminate, the bitterness of the disappointment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 7, 2010, 7:45 am
PAUL KRUGMAN
The Deal
So the tax deal is out. Obama extracted some concessions, with the big surprise being a payroll tax cut. How much better do these concessions make the thing?
Well, for starters we have the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. As I pointed out yesterday, the CBO estimated that such an extension would reduce unemployment relative to what it would have been otherwise by 0.1 to 0.3 percentage points in 2011, twice that in 2012.
To this, the deal added $120 billion in a payroll tax cut; $56 billion in extended unemployment benefits; about $40 billion in extension of other tax credit. Also, expensing of business investment.
I’d discount the last item: we’re awash in excess capacity, and likely to stay that way for years, so I don’t expect business investment to be noticeably affected by tax breaks that give an incentive to move spending up in time. The rest is about $220 billion, or about 0.75 percent of GDP over the two-year period. What’s the multiplier on that? Pretty high on UI, which will get spent; less on the rest. Overall, probably less than 1. So let’s say that this raises GDP by 0.7 percent relative to otherwise; rule of thumb is that one point on GDP is half a point on unemployment, so add 0.35 points to the CBO numbers.
That’s a two-year average; what about timing? Both the payroll tax break and the unemployment extension are for the first year only. So, a bigger boost next year, fading out in 2012. Since all the evidence says that elections depend on the rate of change of unemployment, not its level, this is actually bad news for Obama: he’s setting himself up for an economic stall in the months leading into the 2012 election.
Oh, and he’s overpromising again:
“It’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery,” Mr. Obama said. “It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.”
Millions of new jobs? Millions? Not by my arithmetic.
So, was this worth it? I’d still say no, although it’s better than what I expected over the weekend. It still greatly increases the chances of the Bush tax cuts being made permanent — especially because the front-loading of the stimulative stuff actually worsens Obama’s 2012 electoral prospects.
Overall, enough sweetener has been added to diminish, but not eliminate, the bitterness of the disappointment.
Monday, December 6, 2010
A Conservative Distinction without a Difference
Jonathan Chait
George Will Redefines The Conservative Judicial Philosophy
George Will Redefines The Conservative Judicial Philosophy Boss Hogg, The Mystery Revealed December 6, 2010 George Will's Sunday column has introduced one of the finest semantic innovations in modern political propaganda. For decades, conservatives have defined their judicial philosophy as minimalism. The liberal postwar courts had expanded social rights by aggressively interpreting the Constitution, and conservatives painted this, not altogether incorrectly, as using courts to win victories that could not be won at the ballot box. In the last couple decades, though, conservatives have increasingly been tempted to use their newfound judicial majorities to do the same.
The two conservative impulses sat side by side a bit uncomfortably, like a moralizing televangelist who was conducting an affair on the side. What the movement needed was some way to reconcile the two beliefs. Now Will has supplied it:
"There is," Willett explains, "a profound difference between an activist judge and an engaged judge." The former creates rights not specified or implied by the Constitution. The latter defends rights the Framers actually placed there and prevents the elected branches from usurping the judiciary's duty to declare what the Constitution means.
Do you understand the distinction? An activist judge is one who is overturning laws that conservatives approve of. An engaged judge is completely different -- he's overturning laws that liberals approve of. There's no comparison between the two.
George Will Redefines The Conservative Judicial Philosophy
George Will Redefines The Conservative Judicial Philosophy Boss Hogg, The Mystery Revealed December 6, 2010 George Will's Sunday column has introduced one of the finest semantic innovations in modern political propaganda. For decades, conservatives have defined their judicial philosophy as minimalism. The liberal postwar courts had expanded social rights by aggressively interpreting the Constitution, and conservatives painted this, not altogether incorrectly, as using courts to win victories that could not be won at the ballot box. In the last couple decades, though, conservatives have increasingly been tempted to use their newfound judicial majorities to do the same.
The two conservative impulses sat side by side a bit uncomfortably, like a moralizing televangelist who was conducting an affair on the side. What the movement needed was some way to reconcile the two beliefs. Now Will has supplied it:
"There is," Willett explains, "a profound difference between an activist judge and an engaged judge." The former creates rights not specified or implied by the Constitution. The latter defends rights the Framers actually placed there and prevents the elected branches from usurping the judiciary's duty to declare what the Constitution means.
Do you understand the distinction? An activist judge is one who is overturning laws that conservatives approve of. An engaged judge is completely different -- he's overturning laws that liberals approve of. There's no comparison between the two.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
A Review of Eric Foner's New Book on Lincoln & Slavery
Friday, November 26, 2010
THE FIERY TRIAL
Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery
By Eric Foner
Norton. 426 pp. $29.95
The value of Eric Foner's "The Fiery Trial" lies in its comprehensive review of mostly familiar material; in its sensible evaluation of the full range of information already available about Abraham Lincoln and slavery; and in the deft thoroughness of its scholarship. "The Fiery Trial" does well what has already been done before "but ne'er so well expressed." It's an advantage, though, to have the record, and its uses and misuses, all in one place, and this will now be the book of first convenience to go to on the subject. Not surprisingly, its greatest strength is in context, not foreground. This follows from Foner's belief that "the private Lincoln will forever remain elusive."
As Foner and most Lincoln scholars recognize, Lincoln's moral position was clear from the start: He detested slavery. He had, though, a deep respect and absolute fealty to the Constitution, under which slavery was legal. He never changed his view that pro-slavery state laws must be respected until forces beyond his control gave him the opportunity that he had done everything possible to avoid. From the start of his political career and up until about late 1862, he wanted only to prevent the spread of slavery, to look toward eventual emancipation through a change in public opinion, to solve the "Negro problem" by colonization (sponsoring emigration back to Africa) and to avoid bloodshed.
What gives the book its major spurt of energy and freshness is its account of the complicated political and social context in which Lincoln's views on slavery were formed and the large number of people and movements that helped create the dominant attitudes toward slavery in early and mid-19th-century America. The book "is intended to be both less and more than another biography," Foner claims in his preface. Actually, it's not a biography at all. It is different from a biography, and consequently neither "less" nor "more."
What "The Fiery Trial" does have in common with biography is that it is a chronological account of Lincoln and slavery. This has the advantage of giving it some forward pace but the disadvantages of repeating what has already been done by numbers of estimable biographers in less limited narratives of Lincoln's life, and of discouraging intellectual history and analysis. The book functions almost entirely as a narrative of Lincoln's attitudes toward slavery as a politician, providing more surface than depth. Foner's approach, though, is probably essential to his thesis: that "Lincoln's career was a process of moral and political education and deepening anti-slavery conviction . . . that the hallmark of Lincoln's greatness was his capacity for growth." True?
Probably not. Foner's justification for "The Fiery Trial" is that "there is value in tracing Lincoln's growth, as it were, forward." "As it were" reveals a nice hesitancy or qualification that the book as a whole doesn't maintain. Foner's basic claim is at least an exaggeration, if not wrong. A stronger argument can be made that Lincoln hardly "grew" at all on the issue of slavery, that he responded to changing circumstances that he did not create and that brought him into a public role in which he could not avoid taking the positions that led to the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. But Foner's narrative almost requires that his main character develop morally.
"The Fiery Trial" maintains this thesis despite the facts that it narrates. And it may be that the paradigm of moral growth and its importance to Foner (and, of course, to others) precedes an examination of the record. To give credit to Lincoln for moral progression seems beyond the facts and unnecessary for our appreciation of this arguably greatest of all American presidents.
"The Fiery Trial" gives brief attention to Rep. John Quincy Adams's prescription in the 1840s for overcoming the constitutional obstacle to legal emancipation. Adams believed that, since it would be impossible to attain the legislative votes for altering the Constitution, only the exercise of the president's war powers, granted by the Constitution, could eliminate slavery. Adams predicted that would happen. Did Lincoln, who was on the House floor in 1848 when Adams collapsed and who was appointed to the funeral committee, read or even know of Adams's speeches before they were brought to his attention in 1861? It was, in effect, not Lincoln but the Confederate South that initiated emancipation, as Adams anticipated. It did so by seceding, which Lincoln calculatingly labeled "rebellion." That activated his war powers as president. The rest is history, "as it were."
Fred Kaplan is the author, most recently, of "Lincoln: The Biography of a Writer."
THE FIERY TRIAL
Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery
By Eric Foner
Norton. 426 pp. $29.95
The value of Eric Foner's "The Fiery Trial" lies in its comprehensive review of mostly familiar material; in its sensible evaluation of the full range of information already available about Abraham Lincoln and slavery; and in the deft thoroughness of its scholarship. "The Fiery Trial" does well what has already been done before "but ne'er so well expressed." It's an advantage, though, to have the record, and its uses and misuses, all in one place, and this will now be the book of first convenience to go to on the subject. Not surprisingly, its greatest strength is in context, not foreground. This follows from Foner's belief that "the private Lincoln will forever remain elusive."
As Foner and most Lincoln scholars recognize, Lincoln's moral position was clear from the start: He detested slavery. He had, though, a deep respect and absolute fealty to the Constitution, under which slavery was legal. He never changed his view that pro-slavery state laws must be respected until forces beyond his control gave him the opportunity that he had done everything possible to avoid. From the start of his political career and up until about late 1862, he wanted only to prevent the spread of slavery, to look toward eventual emancipation through a change in public opinion, to solve the "Negro problem" by colonization (sponsoring emigration back to Africa) and to avoid bloodshed.
What gives the book its major spurt of energy and freshness is its account of the complicated political and social context in which Lincoln's views on slavery were formed and the large number of people and movements that helped create the dominant attitudes toward slavery in early and mid-19th-century America. The book "is intended to be both less and more than another biography," Foner claims in his preface. Actually, it's not a biography at all. It is different from a biography, and consequently neither "less" nor "more."
What "The Fiery Trial" does have in common with biography is that it is a chronological account of Lincoln and slavery. This has the advantage of giving it some forward pace but the disadvantages of repeating what has already been done by numbers of estimable biographers in less limited narratives of Lincoln's life, and of discouraging intellectual history and analysis. The book functions almost entirely as a narrative of Lincoln's attitudes toward slavery as a politician, providing more surface than depth. Foner's approach, though, is probably essential to his thesis: that "Lincoln's career was a process of moral and political education and deepening anti-slavery conviction . . . that the hallmark of Lincoln's greatness was his capacity for growth." True?
Probably not. Foner's justification for "The Fiery Trial" is that "there is value in tracing Lincoln's growth, as it were, forward." "As it were" reveals a nice hesitancy or qualification that the book as a whole doesn't maintain. Foner's basic claim is at least an exaggeration, if not wrong. A stronger argument can be made that Lincoln hardly "grew" at all on the issue of slavery, that he responded to changing circumstances that he did not create and that brought him into a public role in which he could not avoid taking the positions that led to the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. But Foner's narrative almost requires that his main character develop morally.
"The Fiery Trial" maintains this thesis despite the facts that it narrates. And it may be that the paradigm of moral growth and its importance to Foner (and, of course, to others) precedes an examination of the record. To give credit to Lincoln for moral progression seems beyond the facts and unnecessary for our appreciation of this arguably greatest of all American presidents.
"The Fiery Trial" gives brief attention to Rep. John Quincy Adams's prescription in the 1840s for overcoming the constitutional obstacle to legal emancipation. Adams believed that, since it would be impossible to attain the legislative votes for altering the Constitution, only the exercise of the president's war powers, granted by the Constitution, could eliminate slavery. Adams predicted that would happen. Did Lincoln, who was on the House floor in 1848 when Adams collapsed and who was appointed to the funeral committee, read or even know of Adams's speeches before they were brought to his attention in 1861? It was, in effect, not Lincoln but the Confederate South that initiated emancipation, as Adams anticipated. It did so by seceding, which Lincoln calculatingly labeled "rebellion." That activated his war powers as president. The rest is history, "as it were."
Fred Kaplan is the author, most recently, of "Lincoln: The Biography of a Writer."
Laura Hillenbrand - Seabiscuit (2)
This book about the famous racehorse Seabiscuit, published in 2001, was a huge bestseller. I purchased the PB when as it was published when we were in California in August of 2002. I gave my copy to Grandpa O'Riley and later bought another one for myself. Then I put it on the shelf.
Now I've read it and quite a story it is. I had never heard of Seabiscuit before this book. It's quite a story of how a particular horse owner, a trainer, and a jockey accidentally got together to guide a thoroughbread horse to fame during the latter years of the Great Depression.
I learn of this bygone era, the world of horseracing in the 1920's and 30's, the highs and lows and in particular the precarious world of the jockey. Those guys were in a dangerous profession for mostly low pay and the huge risk of injury each time they mounted a horse.
The book is a marvelous evocation of a bygone era in American history.
Now I've read it and quite a story it is. I had never heard of Seabiscuit before this book. It's quite a story of how a particular horse owner, a trainer, and a jockey accidentally got together to guide a thoroughbread horse to fame during the latter years of the Great Depression.
I learn of this bygone era, the world of horseracing in the 1920's and 30's, the highs and lows and in particular the precarious world of the jockey. Those guys were in a dangerous profession for mostly low pay and the huge risk of injury each time they mounted a horse.
The book is a marvelous evocation of a bygone era in American history.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Rosa Parks - December 1, 1955
The modern civil rights movement is considered to have begun on December 1, 1955, when a seamstress named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a public Montgomery bus to a white person. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, which went on for a year, is the most significant event in the history of Alabama.
From al.com
Rosa Parks, bus boycott remembered by Google and many more
Published: Wednesday, December 01, 2010, 6:39 AM
On Dec. 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, a black seamstress, was arrested after refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., city bus. The incident sparked a year-long boycott of the buses by blacks, The Associated Press, this day in history.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott history is well told by the Montgomery Advertiser.
This week, the River Region celebrates that 55th anniversary, and the movement Parks helped propel forward.
This morning, others are taking note of the anniversary, including the world's largest internet search engine:
Google Commemorates Rosa Parks With New Doodle, from Erictric
"What could be called an incredibly refreshing image, Google has today posted up a Doodle commemorating Rosa Louise McCauley Parks (lived February 4, 1913 – October 24, 2005). Ms. Parks, of course, is most famous for refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama public bus to a white passenger 55 years ago today."
Rosa Parks sparks Civil Rights Movement, from Politico
"On this day in 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested and charged with violating an ordinance that required her to relinquish her bus seat to a white passenger. Her act of defiance sparked a yearlong bus boycott in the segregated city."
Rosa Parks' legacy endures decades later, from CNN International
"Little did Rosa Parks know that her act of civil disobedience 55 years ago would help end segregation laws in the South"
Remembering Rosa Parks – 55 years later, from Gather.com
"If it can be called courage to march and speak, backed up by thousands of supporters, television, and coverage by the nation's news media, then what can we call a single act of stubborn defiance, over an otherwise trivial matter?"
From al.com
Rosa Parks, bus boycott remembered by Google and many more
Published: Wednesday, December 01, 2010, 6:39 AM
On Dec. 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, a black seamstress, was arrested after refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., city bus. The incident sparked a year-long boycott of the buses by blacks, The Associated Press, this day in history.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott history is well told by the Montgomery Advertiser.
This week, the River Region celebrates that 55th anniversary, and the movement Parks helped propel forward.
This morning, others are taking note of the anniversary, including the world's largest internet search engine:
Google Commemorates Rosa Parks With New Doodle, from Erictric
"What could be called an incredibly refreshing image, Google has today posted up a Doodle commemorating Rosa Louise McCauley Parks (lived February 4, 1913 – October 24, 2005). Ms. Parks, of course, is most famous for refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama public bus to a white passenger 55 years ago today."
Rosa Parks sparks Civil Rights Movement, from Politico
"On this day in 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested and charged with violating an ordinance that required her to relinquish her bus seat to a white passenger. Her act of defiance sparked a yearlong bus boycott in the segregated city."
Rosa Parks' legacy endures decades later, from CNN International
"Little did Rosa Parks know that her act of civil disobedience 55 years ago would help end segregation laws in the South"
Remembering Rosa Parks – 55 years later, from Gather.com
"If it can be called courage to march and speak, backed up by thousands of supporters, television, and coverage by the nation's news media, then what can we call a single act of stubborn defiance, over an otherwise trivial matter?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)