The Long, Long Life of Covid-19

As another Covid-19 tsunami washes over us we demand to know "When will this damn thing end?" Looking at the history of pandemics this corona virus and its spawn will undoubtedly live with us for a long, long time. 

The septicemic and bubonic plagues, two of the three that erased half of Europe's population in the 14th century still emerge about half a dozen times each year in the U.S. with about 7,000 reported globally. Given these once-dreaded Black Plagues are not transmitted between humans and are effectively treated with antibiotics they are unlikely to again ravage humanity. The 1957 influenza pandemic killed an estimated 1 million worldwide and the 1968 outbreak of the "Hong Kong" flu as many as 4 million. HIV-AIDS was first identified in 1983 and still infects about 1.7 million people  each year. There are effective treatments that reduce the individual viral counts to near zero. There is no protective vaccine. 

We can reasonably assume that a Covid-19 vaccine will eventually be developed and distributed widely enough to forestall a plague event like those in the 14th century. But vaccines only help the human immune system battle the virus. Vaccines do not wipe out the virus itself. And they certainly do nothing to ease the practical impacts of the pandemic or, more importantly, lessen lingering psychological pain. 

Much sooner than later there will be a financial reckoning and the bill will be difficult for most of us to understand. A study by two Harvard economists published in JAMA the cost will top $16 trillion in the U.S. alone. That is about 90 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. More concretely the paper pegs the cost to a family of four at $200,000 over the lifetimes of its members. The Congressional Budget Office estimates GDP growth will reach pre-pandemic levels only in the second half of 2022. 

Even before the Covid-19 outbreak was recognized as a global phenomenon academics launched a plethora of studies and surveys attempting to discern the psychological effects of the virus and disease as well as the measures taken to stymie its progress. Few found anything more than provided by a basic dose of common sense: people were more anxious, depressed and sleepless than normal; people with pre-existing mental issues exhibited higher incidences of these problems. Suggestions for relieving these symptoms of distress go no deeper than do the four words a physician says to a patient who wants to lose weight. 

There is no reason to believe that demonstrable progress in controlling Covid-19 will provide relief to an anxious populace. The abysmal failure of so many politicians to offer leadership and solutions has been well-publicized. Future pronouncements and initiatives will hit a hard of wall of skepticism. The inevitable exposure of how the wealthy will buy places at the head of inoculation lines will generate equal or greater levels of anger. 

Even if Covid-19 disappeared tomorrow it would continue to wreak havoc. This damn thing won't end for a long, long time. 

Let's Use Shame To Fight Covid-19

Wear a mask, wash your hands, keep six feet apart, don't gather in groups. 

Pretty darn simple but some

among us just don't want to play by those rules and its been demonstrated over and over they are risking the health of others. 

What can be done? During the 1918 pandemic San Franciscans refusing to wear masks risked being hauled into special pandemic courts and slapped with heavy fines or some days in jail. Even though I rather like that idea, I realize such a move would be rather difficult in today's overly litigious society. Police have better things to do than develop writer's cramp handing out citations (although they should step up in egregious situations such as large parties.)

But there is shame, one of the most powerful tools we have to regulate behavior. Shame, what Sartre called the "immediate shudder which runs through me from head to foot" is fundamental and painful. Even the thought of the shame attached to a certain act is enough to deter someone from dancing down the wrong path.

Delivering shame is easy. Localized web sites and Youtube channels showing people flaunting the rules needed to fight Covid-19. Is your neighbor hosting 15 at a mid-summer dinner party? Grab a snap and post away, including the address. Don't know the names of the young jerks gathering at the beach or park? That's OK, just zoom in on the faces. This could be bigger than the Karen or Instant Karma vids so enjoyable to watch and actually have some impact on a serious issue. 

There's always a downside, right? Pretty minimal in this case. The infraction is evident in the video or photo which was taken in public. Malice can hardly be attached because the poster likely doesn't know the people involved in the group hug or kegger. Crazy people seeking revenge? Don't require registration to post. 

What fun. And for such a good cause. 

 

Sorry About Your Loved One. Not.

        Dear Mr., Mrs, Ms., Mrx, Msx etc.:

I have no intention of visiting your grandparent/aunt/uncle/mother/father at [insert name of health care facility] to notarize their signature(s) on their estate documents/deed of trust/power of attorney or any other document that requires the imprint of a notary stamp for legal validation.

I offer two reasons for this blanket declaration, something I never would have made as little as six months ago. 

  The first involves hygiene. Health care facilities at the best of times are incubators of germs and viruses, some of which have yet to be discovered by science and many of which cause incurable diseases. But we are not living in the best of times. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has caused Covid-19 in about 19.4 million people worldwide, killing 700,000 of them. Hospitals and other such petri dishes, notably nursing homes, are prime breeding grounds for and distributors of the virus.  

My second reason is simpler. You want me to risk my health because you lack even a shred of foresight and common sense, qualities that would have prompted you to get the damn paperwork filled out and signed before the ingestion of who knows how many drugs became necessary to enable  your loved one to simply grasp a pen. Your failure to take these simple steps is as dumb and disrespectful to others as not wearing a mask and standing too close together when in public. 

I'm willing to bet you'll find someone with a notary commission willing to toddle over to [insert name of of health care facility] and complete the documents you ignored for so long but now deem so vital. I hope they charge you based on the level of risk they are running. Maybe that will teach you to think. For once. 

How President Biden Will Disappoint Me

I am sure President Joe Biden will disappointment me, 

likely several times in several ways. 

For one thing, he probably won't choose an attorney general who pledges to focus the Justice Department's considerable resources on putting Donald J. Trump and every one of his political appointees into super-max prisons.

Even with a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress, he likely won't propose a 99 percent tax on personal wealth of more than $1 billion and channel the money into a free college education for anyone who legitimately gains admission. 

No way will Biden tell Vladimir Putin to kiss his Irish butt. He probably will refrain from sharing the same sentiment with MBS, Viktor Orban, Rodrigo Duterte and all the other fascist dictators making life difficult for so many people. No, I just don't see him doing that. 

I really doubt his plan to fight the spread of Covid-19 will include quarantining Florida, Texas, Arizona, every college fraternity and everyone who honestly believes that laws mandating the use of face masks is part of a plot to destroy all personal freedoms. 

Other Biden disappointments will probably include declining to nominate Barack Obama as secretary of state,  Tammy Duckworth as secretary of defense, and Alexander Vindman as national security advisor. 

I forgive President Biden for disappointing me in these matters and the others that arise during his time in office. Giving him a pass on his mistakes is easy because I know he will make them while trying to do what is reasonable and - for the most part - good for all of us. Given recent history, that's enough for me. 

Beware The "Veteran" Journalist

The other day I read a description of someone that included a phrase I always dread in several ways: “veteran journalist.”

That two-word label undoubtedly was intended as a mark of respect or to lend credibility to something the journalist wrote or said. It implied expertise and knowledge based on length of service in a job or profession. Time equals wisdom, right?

I don’t think so. I take the view of UCLA psychologist Matthew Lieberman who wrote in Psychology Today that at some point in life, we stop learning and become "knowers."

Journalists are particularly vulnerable to this.

The longer a reporter covers politics the more often he or she references long-ago elections in the hope of providing context. It’s easy to reference the losing re-election efforts of one-term presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush when opining about Trump’s re-election campaign. But those defeats are irrelevant to the 2020 election because of drastically changed demographics, socio-political upheaval, and the demonstrable mental instability of the President himself.

And it’s not necessarily age the transition from learning to knowing and stasis. There are  journalists of all ages who take the easy path and reach back to irrelevant ideas and stats to enhance their alleged sagacity.

So, should we ignore the “knowers” because they haven’t moved forward in their learning? Not at all. There are any number of worthwhile journalistic traditions and standards that remain relevant today and must be passed on an reinforced by writers and editors who worked under them and absorbed their value. Some of the best interviewers are those with enough experience to know when to push, pull back or even walk out.

And, no, journalists don’t necessarily mentally check out when they hit a certain point in their career. Certainly some rely on their description as “veterans” to sustain the flow of paychecks. But others, who aren’t necessarily keeping up on every nuance of every minute change in society still have the smarts to understand what they can contribute and add to the knowledge of others. Those are the ones we should listen to.

Our 14th Century Solutions to Covid-19

When it comes to pandemics, we 21^st century types aren’t coping with   Covid-19 much differently than the good folks of the 14^th century during the Black Death.

I drew this conclusion after watching a lecture series on the Black Death produced by Great Courses and offered by Amazon Prime Video. I understand that is rather morbid viewing compared to the many mood-lifting offers available, but I’m glad I hunkered down to several hours of fascinating, if dark, history lessons.

The first thing I figured out was Covid-19 is pretty much a wimp pandemic with a death rate of just 1.4 percent of people infected. The influenza pandemic of 1918 infected 500 million people – a third of the world’s population – and killed 50 million.

The many 14^th century waves of plague wiped out half the population in what we now know as Europe. And the population loss wasn't recovered for two centuries due to subsequent onslaughts, some lasting a decade.

More importantly, the documentation by lecturer Dorsey Armstrong, a professor of medieval literature at Purdue, shows that in some ways we’re not coping with viral Covid-19 much differently than the good people of the 14^th century did their brutal infectious assaults.

Armstrong notes during the later ‘Black Death” years, some ports ordered incoming ships, crew sand goods to remain offshore for forty days before entry, hence the word quarantine. In some cities, everyone in an infected person’s family was required to remain in their home until they were proved healthy. People in public covered their faces with floral bouquets or cloth infused with spices to fend off “miasmic” odors thought to carry the plague. During peak infestations the number of dead bodies overwhelmed the resources available to dispose of them.

Armstrong makes clear medieval medicine was more mystic than scientific and nothing its guesswork offered prevented wave after wave of plague from killing millions of people. The greatest plague infestation of London ended in 1666 only when the ‘Great Fire’ ravaged the city and, consequently, its rat and flea populations. Even today there are no ‘cures’ for viral infections such as influenza or Covid-19 or any of their permutations. Yet, we desperately reach out for anything that even nips at the edge of the problem.

Prayer was no more effective during the 14^th century than today. Then, the faithful asked why their spiritual leaders were dying in the same numbers as they if the priests are so close to God. Some scholars contend such widespread skepticism fed ideas that resulted in the Reformation. And, how many of us today have rolled our eyes when some pastor defies bans on church gatherings claiming god will out and, along with a couple dozen parishioners, comes down with Covid-19?

In the medieval world, science had no cure or prevention for the forms of plague that combined to create the Black Death. And science has no cure or prevention for Covid-19. People tried outlandish and irrational cures then and now. Sacrificing children? Drinking poisonous cleaning fluids?

The impact of the plagues that assailed the Western medieval world was profound. Many scholars have asserted that, absent the fundamental political, social and economic changes caused by the Black Death, the Renaissance might have been delayed by a century or more.

In 2020 we still possess few defense and no cures for viral diseases, including Covid-19. We’re suffering only the first global wave of the pandemic so we're focused on survival. We have little time or energy to imagine what the future will look like. I’m willing to wager, though, that the impact on every part of global society will be just as profound as in the medieval era and, because of modern technology, much faster to arrive.

Fashion Tip for Cops

Want a bit more rapport with people, be able to communicate on a quieter note and maybe even persuade them to cooperate without choking them unconscious?

Grow some hair and lose the wraparound shades.

Immunity for Cops Is The Problem

All the criticism and outright hatred form so many parts of society showered on cops just now means nothing to them. They are and will remain blind and deaf to aggrieved outsiders of any status.  There is no motivation for them to change their “us and them” attitude. None.

Cops don’t have to change because they are allowed by law to go about their jobs with virtually no fear of serious consequences regardless of how insulting, demeaning or violent their behavior.

Yes, cops can be charged with crimes just like the rest of us. With the spread of mobile phone cameras and social media, more are being held accountable for sometimes truly horrific acts, such as the deliberate murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Even then, they only receive a version of justice light. Floyd's murderer, Derek Chauvin, is actually eligible for a $50K annual pension when he turns 50.

But each day, cops go to work knowing that unless they are particularly stupid, they can go about the business of pushing people around, physically assaulting them and, even, ruining their lives for a couple of reasons. One is a nasty legal doctrine called qualified immunity.

Simply put, qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their assigned capacities from lawsuits unless their behavior is clearly illegal or unconstitutional. The notional concept behind this doctrine is to protect public employees from legal harassments simply for doing their jobs. In effect, it gives cops almost carte blanche to act as they will as long as they’re on the job.

Another brick in a protective wall surrounding bad cops is their unions. Organized unions go far beyond collective bargaining activities to make sure their members are treated fairly while on the job. This includes making sure members aren’t arbitrarily disciplined, including firing. Fair enough. But in the case of police unions this often means building roadblocks to even minor reforms. It also allows them to get involved in deciding who will govern police departments.

It would require a long and likely bitter fight to make changes in the areas of qualified immunity and the power of police unions. It would be wrong to eliminate all protections against unfair treatment and abuse of tort laws.

Unlike all other government employees, cops have life and death authority over everyone they meet and in all circumstances. Allowing them equally unique protections gives them the feeling of invulnerability that is too often displayed in racist and violent acts.

A Palo Alto Kind of Curfew

Ah, Palo Alto, California. Home to Stanford University, Tesla, and a handful of billionaires .

To protect our homes (median price $3.1m per Zillow) and businesses from an onslaught of rioters and looters protesting the police murder of black men, city officials have imposed a curfew from 8:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. This order, in effect until Friday the 13^th, is entirely prospective as there have been scant protests and no violence whatsoever here marking the death of George Floyd or anyone else. 

Outrage at the curfew has poured forth, particularly as expressed in the Palo Alto Weekly newspaper Town Square forum. Many residents have gone bonkers over the notion they can be charged with a misdemeanor for walking their rescue dogs before bedtime. Others are taking a higher road and claiming the city is shredding the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless of what the cops and the mayor says, and what our outraged citizenry seems to think, the curfew is designed to keep people of color out of town on the premise that they are the primary instigators of violence. Absent African-Americans on our streets during this trying time, we can feel safe is the idea. It’s sort of a 21^st Century version of sundown laws.

Reading this assertion would undoubtedly raise a collective OMG! from city leaders, followed by sputtering protestations about how they enforce the law evenly regardless of a miscreant’s ethnic or racial makeup.

But the numbers back me up.

The latest U.S. Census estimates say 60 percent of Palo Alto's 65,364 residents were White. Asians, at 32 percent of the population, represented the largest minority group. Hispanics logged in at 6 percent. African-Americans represented just 2 percent of the city’s makeup.

The largest number of African-Americans in the area live in East Palo Alto and represent 16 percent of that city’s population of 28,155.

Given those numbers any significant protest of Floyd’s murder would have to involve a large number of angry African-Americans from throughout the Bay Area. And that cannot sit well with the powers that be, particularly the cops.

So, Palo Alto’s leadership launched a pre-emptive curfew that will deter some protestors from visiting and give the cops an excuse to arrest even the most peaceful of those who do.

Simple, eh?

What Happened to Gun Control?

A CCW permit renewal notice from the Arizona Department of Public Safety sent me online to research the status of gun control efforts around the nation. The results were clear: Fergeddabout it.

In a way, the utter lack of any momentum behind tighter firearm controls is understandable. Our president believes it's a good idea to threaten war with a moody dictator who owns a nuclear arsenal. Republicans own the White House as well as Congress but still show no interest whatsoever in governing. Besides, the idea of Republicans bucking the NRA is the precise definition of a fanciful notion.

State lawmakers seem more focused on regulating where people can urinate than on public safety matters. Other than proposals  to protect killer cops.

Nor are the courts helping matters. California has a raft of new gun control was but the first major challenge to them was successful when a judge ruled  banning high-capacity magazines interfered with citizens' second amendment rights. When the judge's order is appealed I plan to file an amicus brief that simply says, "Huh?"

Five years ago I obtained a mail order concealed carry permit from Arizona that is honored by 30 other states. I did so to illustrate why efforts to regulate gun possession should focus on legislatures rather than Congress. That remains true.

But the impetus for change disappeared as soon as mass shootings faded from our memories and right wing (nuts) gained more power. People who care intensely about this issue must despair.

Thumbs Down on Growth in Palo Alto

Come on folks. We know in our heart of hearts the cause of so many woes faced by Palo Altans.  Developers need relentless growth to keep the profits flowing in and our government is more than happy to help.

They are hooked on it. Physical growth (up for the most part given our distinct boundaries.) Economic growth (still defined as jobs, jobs, jobs.) Population growth (we simply must house the people who work here.)

Never mind that convoluted efforts to enable relentless growth give only  lip service to solving such nasty side effects as horrific traffic, insane housing costs,  and let’s not even begin to talk about parking -- anywhere. Growth is the unquestioned goal and we must drive forward.

Maybe not.

Jobs? That means more office square footage so companies can boast they are headquartered in Palo Alto rather than Mountain View or (OMG) Redwood City. Commercial leases per square foot in some parts of Palo Alto are higher than those in Manhattan. It also means thousands more people fighting for services and cars jamming streets well away from their offices.

More housing for new tech and service workers? Zillow posits Palo Alto’s median home price at about $2.6 million. Average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,837, according to Rentjungle. People looking to live a few miles south in Mountain View face average one-bedroom rents $2,849. Anyone who could create a meaningful stock of affordable housing in such a market would deserve canonization. Not going to happen.

Increased property tax revenue? New construction means more property tax money flowing into city coffers. But a lot of that increase goes to servicing the new construction via infrastructure and other service.  

More money for the overall economy? Office workers spend a lot of money on lunch but at the end of the day they return to houses and apartments somewhere else.

Now is a good time and Palo Alto the right place to test the innate assumption that growth in and of itself is good.  “Yes, but it must be achieved in a way that takes into account…” is an unacceptable answer because there is no right way to cram more into Palo Alto’s borders without the consequence we’re already coping with. The tap should either be on or off. And that decision should be made by the citizens, not developers and their cronies.

A Plan for Trumpite Pushback

Let’s say a crazed Turmpite Republican is on the primary election ballot for whatever office in a GOP-majority district. In the Democratic column are a couple of benign nobodies everyone figures are just out for the free cookies at the candidate forums as they have no chance of winning.

Just for funs, let’s try this:

Somehow a non-Trumpite Republican is persuaded to run. She picks up support and votes from sane GOP voters.

Democrat voters re-register as Republicans and combine with the sane Republicans to defeat the Trumpite.

Re-registered Democrats switch back for the general election. Regardless of the outcome, there will be someone certified as rational in office.

There might be a few, tiny holes in this plan. But might not creative yet perfrectly legal tactics such as this be one tactic to resist the fascist juggernaut? A few victories might even emerge.

Think.

Trump's Plan for Russia

I have discovered Donald Trump's true motivation for seeking the presidency. He wants to take care of his pal, Vladimir Putin.

It's no secret Trump owes millions to Russian companies and oligarchs. His former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, made millions from the Russian government. Trump has spoken admiringly of Putin on more than one occasion. He even invited Russian hackers to infiltrate U.S. computers in an effort to uncover some of Hillary Clinton's supposedly lost emails. Two of his three wives (Ivana and Melania) are of slavic extraction and it's rumored number two, Marla Maples, likes borscht.

But what could Trump do for his bra Vlad as president? It's not exactly like the U.S. and Russia can hold hands underneath the diplomatic negotiating table when they get together.

Perhaps the most straightforward gesture would be to sell Alaska back to Putin and his oligarch chums. Adjusted for inflation, the break even price would be about $110 million but a president who wrote a book on the art of the deal likely would do much better.

Selling Alaska back to the Russians would have benefits beyond just the price. Alaska currently receives about $1.50 in federal money for every dollar it sends to Washington so savings would accrue as soon as contracts are signed. Russian vodka would cost less because importers would be hauling the stuff from distilleries in Juneau rather than Minsk.

Culturally, Americans and Canadians could more easily gain international travel experience. Absent two colleagues. U.S. senators could stretch out a bit more when debating and voting. And, to be blunt, Alaska's 710,000 residents would hardly be missed in a nation of 350 million.

Of course there would be drawbacks. Already outrageous prices for Bering Sea salmon and crab probably would jump. Any number of preppers and dog sled racers would flood into the Lower 48 once it became clear Alaska would be changing hands. Easing that burden is the fact Wyoming, Idaho and Montana have plenty of room.

In all, I see no real reasons for President The Donald not to sit down with President Putin right after the inauguration over a couple of drinks to start hammering out an agreement. After all, they are already buds.

Homeowners Are the Housing Problem

I own a home in Palo Alto, California but please don't hate me.

For various reasons few new homes are built in Palo Alto, which limits the supply. Concurrently, many people would like to live here for access to great schools, a Mediterranean climate, Stanford University, career opportunities offered by Silicon Valley, proximity to San Francisco and so on.

The median home price in my city of about 60,000 people is $2.5 million and the median rent is $6,100.

These prices are often decried as "insane," "ridiculous," and "unconscionable." But they simply reflect the market's judgment, right? Not really.

The market does not exist in and of itself. It is an abstraction aggregating many human decisions. In Palo Alto real estate the most important decisions are made by sellers. And sellers are thinking big.

According to real estate site Zillow, my rickety 90-year-old, 1,050-square-foot bungalow might fetch almost eight times what we paid for it. A nearby home that has remained in the same family for 60 years could easily fetch 80 times what was initially paid. Similar situations exist all over town.

When people look to purchase a home in Palo Alto they are confronted by sellers who demand double digit multiples of what they paid. Doubling or even tripling their investment isn't good enough. They want the 10X or even 80X gain. Greed or simply good business?

The only ameliorating factor is an attitude of entitlement among some people who want to live in Palo Alto. Too many are literally outraged they are unable to afford to purchase a home or rent an apartment here. I have little sympathy for their complaints. There are many wonderful and more affordable places to live with equally good weather, excellent schools and amenities. They just aren't here.

At the bottom line (a necessary cliche) lies a fundamental conflict. The debate is over housing, a basic human need. But it also involves a financial asset, often the largest in a family's portfolio and sometimes the cornerstone of a retirement plan. As a potential beneficiary of this system, I hesitate to land solidly on either side.

Thank the 1 Percent for Donald and Bernie

How did the country get to the point where a fascist could gather millions of less-than-bright, gun-toting retromingents to upend a staid and polished political system? And what's up with those 13 million closeted left-wingers who backed an avowed socialist?

The answers can be found along Park Avenue in New York and hidden behind gates in Atherton, California and other enclaves of the venal and greedy.

It was the 1 percent who created the conditions that nurture the frustrations fueling populist anger. The Wall Street types who crashed the mortgage market and forced so many people from their homes. The corporations who stash literally trillions of dollars overseas to avoid taxes while keeping wages stagnant to shore up profits. The same people who are vacuuming up every dollar generated by the economic recovery.

In the past, the oligarchs (yes, that is the correct word) kept things quiet by sharing enough of the economic pie to satisfy most people and give others the hope they could one day get a taste. Unfortunately for them, they upped their greed quotient to the point where they shut out everyone else. And now everyone else is beginning to fight back.

Violence and Black Lives

Many are mindlessly batting around Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas K. Gandhi as examples to follow in fighting the flood tide of violence against black people and, now, the police. If people cite those pillars of civil and human rights to insist on a strictly non-violent approach to change, they are dead wrong. 

Both King and Gandhi were shot to death. Both believed at times that violence to fight violence was sometimes appropriate. 

King's views evolved over the years and, at the time of his assassination, he refused to knowingly have guns around himself. But in 1956 when the Montgomery bus boycott set a fire under already simmering racial tensions, King kept a number of weapons in his home and even unsuccessfully applied for a concealed carry permit, according to UCLA law professor Adam Winkler author of the book "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America."  

It was not uncommon for other U.S. civil rights leaders to keep firearms on hand for defense, including Medgar Evers and Andrew Young. Historian and former Student Nonviolent Coordidnating Committee field leader Charles E. Cobb Jr. has said that some around King kept guns available. "They would say, even as they were cleaning their rifles, how glad they were to be part of the movement," Cobb said in a Huffington Post interview. "They knew King wasn't going to be carrying a weapon so people's attitude was, 'We're not going to let the white people kill him.'"

But, Gandhi? Yes, him too. 

Gandhi based his philosophy on nonviolence. He often called it "infinitely superior" to the use of force, even, in some cases, for self-defense. But the saintly advocate for freedom had his limits. 

In a 1920 publication ironically titled "The Doctrine of the Sword," Gandhi made a strong case for nonviolence as the best way to free India of British colonial rule. However, he noted that sometimes violence is necessary to fight dangerous forces. 

Gandhi reminded readers he took up arms to fight against the Boer and Zulu uprisings in South Africa. He said Indians need not be "paralysed before the machine guns, the tanks and the aeroplanes of the English" and urged people who would turn to guns to gain training in their use. "I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."

Neither King or Gandhi ever urged the use of terror, murder or violent aggression. But both men recognized no one need to embrace oppression or even death simply to stand on a pedestal of superior morality.

(photos from biography.com)