Advancing DAPL and Keystone XL Will Employ Less People Than Developing Green Energy

President Donald Trump signed executive actions in support for the advancement of the Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipeline on Tuesday.

While environmentalists, the Standing Rock Sioux and other supporters celebrated former President Barack Obama’s effort to block construction of both pipelines, Trump’s move will counteract that.

Trump said that progressing with the pipelines’ development will create “lot of jobs, 28,000 jobs, great construction jobs.”

However, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Keystone XL, which was released by the State Department in January 2014, reported that it would establish about 3,900 construction jobs in Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Kansas in the time it would take to build the pipeline. That’s over seven times less than the number Trump suggested.

Admittedly, the report also notes that there are other non-construction jobs that could be created through this move, such as how firms that would be rewarded contracts for goods and services could establish an additional 16,100 jobs. However, many of these jobs would only be temporary, as the pipeline would be estimated to take one to two years to develop. After the pipeline is created, the number of permanent jobs that would be required would be at a significantly low number of 35.

However, the  U.S. Department of Energy released their January 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report, identifying that solar and wind energy employs more people than traditional oil, coal and gas industries combined. It cites that in 2016, about 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, and 102,000 workers were employed at wind firms in the U.S.

“The solar workforce increased by 25% in 2016, while wind employment increased by 32%,” the report stated.

The report also showed that 2.2 million Americans were employed, “in whole or in part, in the design, installation, and manufacture of Energy Efficiency products and services, adding 133,000 jobs in 2016.”

In the Electric Power Generation sector of the Department, the report noted that “net generation from coal sources declined by 53 percent between 2006 and September 2016, while electricity generation from natural gas increased by 33 percent and solar by over 5,000 percent.” Between September 2015 and 2016 alone, energy produced by solar power alone increased 35 percent nationwide while total solar generation has increased by 53 percent across the U.S.

The evolution in energy production shows in the job shifts. The share of natural gas, solar, and wind workers have increased more than coal mining, gas, and oil combined — in fact, jobs in tradition carbon-emitting energy industries have declined in past years.

With pressing need for divestment in oil and gas industries for the sake of climate change, moving forward with the Keystone XL and DAPL will not only endanger the environment, as well as the integrity and health of the Sioux tribe and other vulnerable communities, but the plans will also create less sustained employment production than investing in clean energy would.

As the Sioux tribe opposed Trump’s executive action, promising to take legal action, a lawyer for the tribe said that Trump acted “hastily and irresponsibly.” Those few words epitomize Trump’s move perfectly, not just environmentally and ethically, but also economically; it’s counterproductive to the promise of job creation that Trump promised his followers throughout his campaign and into his presidency.




Trump Stands For American Economy, But Will He Stand For Women?

It’s President Donald Trump’s first Monday in the White House, and the executive order he signed today shows the new president is not afraid to start working towards the goals he outlined during his campaign. However, being a content-heavy order, this move marks both progress and regression.

Monday’s executive order outlined a few rulings, two of which are getting a lot of attention:

  • Action to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation process.
  • Reinstatement of the “Mexico City policy” on abortion

These points each offer a variety of potentially positive and negative outcomes — either way, they’re a huge step away from what we’ve seen under former President Barack Obama’s actions and a step toward Trump’s efforts to focus on radically reshaping policy.

The TPP is a controversial trade negotiation Obama advocated for, involving 11 other Pacific Rim countries in hopes to “promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in the signatories’ countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections.” The agreement contains measures to lower both non-tariff and tariff barriers to trade and to establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, a system that allows individual companies to sue countries for alleged discriminatory practices.


The TPP  has problems that would be consequential for America. It omits currency rules that would undermine its market-opening benefits. Manipulation of currency has already proven to cause U.S. factories to fail and the unemployment of millions of American workers. The inclusion of the investor-state dispute settlement could also make the U.S. vulnerable to huge global corporations, granting them the ability to collect taxpayer money to compensate for lost profits. On top of this, the TPP would also threaten American workers with potential for further job outsourcing.

Contrasting plans between Obama and Trump — who campaigned against the deal but also faced criticism for offshoring much of his business manufacturing production — is what influenced many blue-collar workers to abandon the Democratic platform and flock to Trump’s side. In agreeing to abandon TPP negotiations, Trump made a move for the people. While we await for how he further approaches foreign and trade agreements, this move in the meantime is a preferable one for the American people.

However, Trump’s executive order on abortion is one that takes a step backwards on women’s rights and healthcare. The rule, one previously seen during the Reagan administration, prevents foreign organizations that receive money from the U.S. from discussing abortion or providing abortion services to women and families.

This policy has proven to be detrimental to women’s health in the past. BuzzFeed News reports that leading family planning NGO Marie Stopes International stated that preventing access to safe prevention and treatment around abortion will increase unsafe abortion rates and maternal fatality.

“MSI estimates there will be an additional 2.2 million abortions globally each year — 2.1 million of which will be unsafe,” the article writes, citing that women seeking abortion will seek “back alley” and risky ways of aborting their pregnancies. The World Health Organization estimates that unsafe abortions account for 13 percent of maternal fatalities. The rates could increase with Trump’s policy in place.

While this ruling also targets abortion, there are other risks that would be harmful to women’s health. As the United States Agency for International Development — better known as USAID — is a global provider of family planning services, including the abortion services and information access Trump stands against, cutting funding would also cut the many other services USAID provides.

CHANGE states that USAID provides nearly half of all global funding for women’s contraception — an imperative tool in HIV prevention. Without funding, women will find dramatic decreases in contraception accessibility. Cutting USAID funding would also mean reduction in staffing and could mean more clinics would close. BuzzFeed cites that under the Bush administration’s implementation of this kind of policy, “a network of clinics that served more than 1,300 communities in Ghana had to cut its nursing staff by 44%.”

These potential decreases in important services and tools for women and their families globally could impact HIV, as contraception information and distribution is imperative to prevention.

NARAL Pro-Choice America’s president, Ukyse Hogue, summarized the situation well.

“Family planning clinics are really critical. Sometimes they’re the first point of entry into the health system when it comes to HIV prevention and treatment,” she said. “People are getting access information about using condoms to prevent HIV. It’s a place where an HIV diagnosis can be made.”

After the Women’s March on Washington D.C. this past weekend — which stood in addition to over 300 other sister marches in the country and supporting marches of over 50 other countries — largely advocating for pro-choice policies, this move is one that huge numbers of women are fighting against.


Although Trump’s order will have to face Congress, with the House and Senate under a Republican majority also in-line with the anti-abortion platform, the women who marched this past weekend will have to continue pushing their state representatives and senators if they want to protect the integrity of women’s healthcare that they stand for.

While Trump, the House and Senate have the upper hand against these women, Bernie Sanders articulated hope and the strength women have in fighting for their ability to defend their bodily agency:

“Women aren’t going back to second-class citizenship. They are going forward. We are all in this together,” Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote on Twitter.

Violent Anti-Trump Protests Need to Stop

This afternoon, the New York Times reported on the protests on the parade route President Donald Trump was going to proceed on this afternoon.

They threw rocks and bricks at the police. They smashed car windows. They lit trash cans on fire. Officers held riot shields and used other “nonlethal crowd-control tools” against the many protesters to prevent them from advancing. The Times wrote that earlier in the day, protesters smashed glass fronts of a Bank of America and a Starbucks as well. At least 95 people were arrested, according to the Metropolitan Police Department.


During his inauguration speech today, Trump stated something very grim about the state of America today.

“This American carnage stops right here and stops right now,” he said.

Although Trump was referring to the economic disparity, failing of education systems, and problems with drugs and crime, the violent anti-Trump protests also contribute to the negativity conservatives and Trump followers often cite when they think about liberals in America. They view violent protesters as illegitimately as Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) views Trump’s presidency. It continues the narrative of a divided America. The protesters are condemned. The left is condemned. No progress is made.

Political scientist Erica Chenoweth gave a talk at TEDxBoulder Sept. 21, 2013 that empirically proves the efficacy of nonviolent over violent action.

At her talk, she mentioned how she attended a workshop held by the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. She cited the types of readings they covered there.

“The authors described civil resistance as an active form of conflict where unarmed civilians used tactics like protests, demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, and many other forms of mass noncooperation to confront oppression. They brought up cases like Serbia, where a nonviolent revolution toppled Slobodan Milosevic—the butcher of the Balkans—in October of 2000, or the Philippines where the People Power movement ousted Ferdinand Marcos in 1986.”

Chenoweth used to believe that violence is the best way to usurp a dictator, as history is rife with coups, rebellions, civil wars and violent protests like the one seen in Washington D.C. today. However, after she collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns and actions to overthrow governments or fight for territorial liberation since the beginning of the 20th century, she found how much more effective nonviolence is.

The charts she assembled from her research illustrate how nonviolence carries success at a rate nearly double that of violent campaigns:


success by decade.png

Take this into consideration with protest in the future. Protesting comes in many forms. The ones at D.C. today and the other violent ones we’ve been seeing since Trump has gained footing during his campaign, are the ones that will do more harm than good.

Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) stands against these types of protests.

“Any person who is a Bernie Sanders supporter, please, do not in any way, shape or form engage in violence,” he said.

After recently celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day, it is important to continue supporting him beyond the holiday by remembering methods of peaceful resistance in opposing Trump’s unpopular and potentially harmful platforms. Through organization, grassroots efforts, rallying, writing letters to congressmen and flooding their phones with phone calls, your actions will do more to combat policies you disagree with than violent action will ever accomplish.

You can also take a more underground approach to protest by volunteering. Support organizations and groups that will be most vulnerable under a Trump administration. Volunteer at Planned Parenthood. Donate to a food shelter. Serve your local communities. Resist through positive reinforcement and action.

I leave you with a Martin Luther King Jr. quote that resonates with the direction in which unhappy and afraid Americans need to move in as they move against the new president these next few years:

“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.”


Arts and Humanities Deemed “Waste” by Conservatives as National Endowments Face Extermination

President-elect Donald Trump, soon to be president tomorrow, has been aggressively planning to cut government spending and regulation.

Trump’s pick for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt  wants to reduce carbon emission regulations. Betsy DeVos, his appointee for Secretary of Education is a supporter of charter rather than public schools. His choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) stands ardently against Obamacare and governmental involvement in health services. On top of this, the departments of Commerce and Energy, Transportation, Justice and State are at risk of significant cuts and potential elimination. He is also planning the elimination of 25 different grant programs that counter violence against women

With the limited funding and threat of termination of so many different programs and offices of government, however, the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely.

Trump’s promise to rid these arts and humanities programs threaten the continuation of important yet often overlooked fields of work. The endowments offer grants for artistic and educational productions, exhibitions, research, and much more. With so few grant opportunities for the study and research of these fields already, a complete elimination of these National Endowments would be devastating for professionals, students, and others who dedicate their work and time to examining and creating important works in our society.

While these fields of study are already suffering, eliminating funds would also make accessing art and work done in the humanities even more difficult. Take theater, for example. In the U.S., where funding is already sparse, theater shows — even off-Broadway types of shows — cost ridiculous amounts of money, with some tickets starting at over $100. Compare this to European countries or to Canada. In the U.K., funding for theater and the arts is significantly higher than in America. The National Theatre in London is able to charge tickets starting at as low as £15. As of now, that’s still less than $20.


Because of this funding, people are able to attend theater shows and appreciate the arts. With already insane prices to access theater, art museums, and other products of the arts and humanities in America, naturally these important parts of our culture and society would be struggling. To cut funding further would essentially be a death wish to those fields of work altogether.

Trump’s plans around cutting funds from the two National Endowments aren’t a complete making of his own; The Hill reports that Trump could have gotten his spending ideas by a blueprint published last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Brian Darling, a former aide to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and former staffer at the Heritage Foundation made a statement that further shows that these negative sentiments towards the arts and humanities are more than just the President-elect’s

“The Trump Administration needs to reform and cut spending dramatically, and targeting waste like the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be a good first step in showing that the Trump Administration is serious about radically reforming the federal budget,” Darling said.

Furthermore, conservatives are also undermining artistic expression. Until recently, a painting by a student depicting protests in Ferguson, MO,  was displayed at Capitol Hill. Republicans had been complaining about the painting, which depicts a pig in a police uniform pointing a gun at a protester — the artist’s way of expressing their sentiment towards the protests following Michael Brown’s death. As the painting was removed, congressional opponents of the painting argued that it violated rules for a national student arts competition by portraying subjects of current political controversy or of a sensationalistic or gruesome nature.


The painting has already been taken down several times. But now it faces permanent removal.

This instance of rejection of political art captures overall conservative and congressional sentiment about art and the humanities right now. The arts are political. If what you create, research, or report is deemed acceptable, nothing new grows. People and voices are silenced. Much like how if we always accepted the way science functions today, we would stop innovating and creating more advanced technology. Only, in defunding the arts and humanities, in removing work you disagree with, you stand against those who are already struggle, those who’ve been neglected, those who’ve been omitted.

Although we’ve been hearing about how women, people dependent on public healthcare, racial minorities, people of the LGBT+ community, and other marginalized groups are at risk of losing rights and justice with Trump’s incoming administration, it is important to also stand in solidarity with fields of study that are also in the shadows. The arts and humanities are integral to our nation’s history, culture, and society. Trump and Republican neglect — even villainization — of these fields will only continue to snuff them out.


Trump’s Inauguration Can’t Outshine Obama’s

On Jan. 20, 2009, President Barack Obama’s presidential inauguration had a record-breaking turnout. 1.8 million people were estimated to gather at the National Mall eight years ago to watch Obama take his oath of office.


President-elect Donald Trump will be lucky to gather half of that turnout as inaugural planners estimate that Trump’s inauguration will have about 900,000 attendees, protesters included. At an event last night, Trump thought otherwise, however.

“So many people are talking about what’s going on and now they’ve just announced we’re going to have record crowds coming,” Trump said.

Based on current estimates, however, Trump will not be breaking any records in inaugural turnout; he will not even break close numbers. Besides Obama, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s inauguration is thought to be the second most attended with an estimated crowd size of 1.2 million in 1965.

Although Trump’s estimated inaugural attendees may not be coming at significantly low number — with Bill Clinton’s at 800,000 and George W. Bush at 300,000 at their first inaugurations — the comparison between Trump and Obama’s inaugurations will be noticeable, certainly serving as a comparison between the nation’s overall popular opinions and approval ratings of the two.

Looking at ratings, numbers for approval of Trump are almost half as much as Obama as of this month. A Gallup poll found that 40 percent find Trump favorable, while eight years ago 78 percent found Obama favorable. There is a greater gap in the percentage of how unfavorable each of the two are and were as well; Trump stands at 55 percent while Obama stood at 18 percent in this category. In fact, out of all recent presidents since Clinton, Trump is the only one who has a higher percentage of unfavorable ratings than favorable.

These statistics are very tangible; estimates of up to tens of thousands of protesters will be at the inauguration, and the Washington Post reports that nearly 60 Democratic lawmakers are boycotting by choosing not to attend. This includes civil rights activist and Georgia Congressman John Lewis, who recently cited that Trump is an illegitimate president.

The rejection of the president-elect’s inauguration doesn’t stop on Jan. 20, however. On Saturday, the day after the inauguration, there will be the Women’s March on Washington. D.C. officials report that the 1,200 bus permits issued for the protest are triple the 393 for the inauguration. The March’s Facebook event shows that 208,000 people intend on marching in Washington — that’s about a fourth of the expected crowd turnout for Trump’s inauguration the day before.


The March’s movement is not limited to D.C. Over 300 sister marches are going to take place in the U.S., from Los Angeles to New York City. In addition, 30 different countries are also holding support marches as well.

Compared to Obama’s entrance into his presidency, Trump is definitely going to be facing difficulty in gaining respect and approval from Americans and other people globally. The New York Times reported after Obama was inaugurated that the number of protesters at Obama’s inauguration were “few and scattered.”

Although estimated numbers and statistics can only predict so much, the evidence of negative sentiment that the nation is expressing — from governmental leaders to the common people — perfectly illustrates how Trump will need to readjust himself and his approach towards his incoming position if he wants any baseline respect from Americans.

Trump EPA Administrator Pick Scott Pruitt Threatens American Economy, Environment & Health

Tomorrow, congressional hearings begin for President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for EPA Administrator, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

The irony of this appointment? Pruitt is a climate change skeptic.

Trump has held questionable stances on climate change in the past, tweeting in 2012 that “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” Although he denied to have ever posted this tweet during the presidential debates last fall, Trump’s pick for his EPA administrator continues the narrative that Trump does not put environmental protection or climate change as high-priority parts of his agenda. He certainly disagrees with President Barack Obama’s current handling of EPA management.

trump climate change china tweet.png

“For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn,” Trump said in a December statement.

Trump believes that Pruitt will reverse these trends, and with the new appointee’s history concerning the oil industry and environmental dealings, we will certainly see change. This change, however, may be costly to Americans in more ways than one.

Beginning with Pruitt’s background, it is notable to mention that on his own official biography, he is described as ” a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.”This includes how he is a major proponent for the oil industry, fighting strongly against environmental regulations. He became one of a number of state attorneys to combat the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, aimed at reducing carbon emissions from the electricity sector. Additionally, he has also sued with other attorneys general over the EPA’s regulations seeking to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.

The Clean Power Plan

These regulations passed by the EPA are known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. This 2011 ruling’s intentions are to protect “the health of millions of Americans by helping states reduce air pollution and meet Clean Air Act Standards.” As the plan estimated to cost $800 million, according to an EPA regulatory impact analysis, conservative politicians, including Pruitt, have aggressively fought against it.

However, not implementing regulations such as this will be costly to the country in the long-term. Failing to combat carbon emissions will only contribute to climate change-related incidents, including desertification, flooding, and rising sea levels damaging coastlines. This will create more infrastructure costs than we already see and will risk the safety of vulnerable Americans

Furthermore, not working to reduce carbon emissions will only continue increasing health-related consequences. According to climate change advocacy group DARA, in 2010 5 million people have died due to climate change-related incidents. Not only do the natural disasters stated above damage American landscapes and communities, but they also harm agricultural production. Take California, for example, which faces depleting aquifers, dry ground water sources, and crises concerning providing fresh water to less empowered Californians. Illnesses from extreme hot and cold temperatures from climate impacts also affect about 700,000 deaths annually. Furthermore, pollution, indoor smoke, and other emission hazards related to industries like the ones Pruitt defends cause the rest of the 5 million deaths DARA cites. These are carried through respiratory ailments like lung cancer.


While Pruitt denies climate change and defends the oil industry, reducing carbon emissions would decrease the costs we see from the impacts of climate change. It is estimated that cutting carbon emissions can save $120 to $280 billion in health savings annually.It could prevent 19,000 hospital and emergency department visits, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks, and 34,000 premature deaths. With less illness, work production can also increase, as it is estimated that up to 1.8 million days of work and school are missed due to carbon emission trends today.

Next Big Future


Given all of these factors, DARA estimates through its report “that by 2030 the US will suffer the highest total amount of economic losses of any nation on the planet, losing about $40 billion a year by 2030 due to climate change effects.”

Although Pruitt lost his lawsuit against the EPA’s CSAPR in 2014, if he were to head the EPA he would have significant leverage and power in enforcing his agenda, which ignores the dangers of climate change and carbon emissions.

The EPA mission statement states that its “basic mission is to protect human health and the environment — air, water, and land.” It aims to do this through four types of regulations: “controlling the emission discharge of pollution; regulating certain industrial waste and products; public information requirements; and cleanup of contaminated sites.”

Everything Pruitt stands for is against what the EPA stands for. In denying climate change and refusing to reinforce emission regulations, our economy, human health, and environment are all at a significant risk. As Pruitt’s hearings begin tomorrow, it is critical that his stances are challenged. His feet must be put to the fire. Climate change is deteriorating the well being of our ecosystems, our economic integrity, our health, and our world at large. We have so little time to fix the damage that has been done. And we cannot risk to waste anymore time in rectifying it.

Trump Fails to Uphold Principles of Martin Luther King Jr.

Today we celebrate and remember the works of Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., keeping him in mind as we continue to fight for civil rights, equity, and justice. As many observe the holiday, President-elect Donald Trump has his own way of acknowledging Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

“Celebrate Martin Luther King Day and all of the many wonderful things that he stood for. Honor him for being the great man that he was!” Trump tweeted early in the day.


Later in the afternoon, Trump met with King’s son, Martin Luther King III at Trump Tower. King said that the meeting was “constructive,” hoping that Trump will be a “bridge-builder” in helping the nation become greater moving forward. He also said that in the “heat of emotion, a lot of things get said on both sides,” abstaining from criticizing Trump

While King may be hopeful, recent and past events concerning Trump and civil rights and African American communities proves that the president-elect may not uphold Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy and dreams.

Sources from Trump’s senior transition initially stated that Trump would visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington D.C. in observance of the holiday. However, ABC reported that they discovered that
the visit was removed from his calendar.” Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, later revealed that the president-elect had actually never planned to visit the museum today.

Furthermore, recent events concerning civil rights leader and U.S. Representative John Lewis prove to question Trump’s dedication to King’s legacy. Lewis, who marched beside King and was beaten and nearly killed by state troopers in Selma, AL, recently said in a “Meet the Press” interview that he did not see Trump “as a legitimate president.”

The president-elect tweeted in response to Lewis’ claims.

“Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk – no action or results! Sad!” Trump tweeted.




Various politicians defended Lewis with tweets on Saturday, with Sen. Kamala Harris, D-CA, calling Lewis “an icon of the civil rights movement who is fearless in the pursuit of justice and equality,” and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-NE, tweeting, “John Lewis and his ‘talk’ have changed the world.”

With this in mind, Trump’s appointees for his cabinet have also contradicted the mission of Martin Luther King Jr. The New York Times recently released an article proving that Trump’s cabinet has the most white males appointed that America has seen since President Ronald Reagan’s administration. Furthermore, Trump’s pick for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has only reinforced future views of a racially discriminatory cabinet.

Sessions was deemed too racist to be appointed as a federal judge during the Reagan administration in 1986 and has celebrated the Supreme Court ruling which obliterated the central enforcement tools in the Voting Rights Act. Sessions has also denounced allegations of police departments practicing racial discrimination against African Americans.


Needless to say, a man like Sessions, someone who Trump chose to be part of the cabinet which will represent Trump’s policies and principles, shows how the president-elect’s vision of his presidency will most likely fail to uphold King’s defense for civil rights.

As the white supremacist “alt-right” has also found a voice through Trump’s platforms, hate crimes towards marginalized groups, including racial minorities, have also increased since Election Day in November. Trump, while claiming he does not stand for the empowerment of the alt-right, has certainly enabled them with the bigotry, racist claims, and wall-building rhetoric he espoused during his presidential campaign.

With the despair that many minority groups feel about Trump’s inauguration this coming Friday, however, it is important to stay unified and to refuse to accept racist notions and policies moving forward. We can reflect and continue persisting for justice by meditating on King’s words.

“There are some things in our society and in our world to which I’m proud to be maladjusted, which I call upon all people of good will to be maladjusted, until the good society is realized,” King had said. “I never intend to become adjusted to segregation and discrimination. I never intend to adjust myself to economic conditions that will take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few. I never intend to adjust myself to the madness of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence.”