On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr., delivered a speech to a massive group of civil rights marchers gathered around the Lincoln memorial in Washington DC. The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom brought together the nations most prominent civil rights leaders, along with tens of thousands of marchers, to press the United States government for equality. The culmination of this event was the influential and most memorable speech of Dr. King’s career. Popularly known as the “I have a Dream” speech, the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. influenced the Federal government to take more direct actions to more fully realize racial equality.
Mister Maestro, Inc., and Twentieth Century Fox Records Company recorded the speech and offered the recording for sale. Dr. King and his attorneys claimed that the speech was copyrighted and the recording violated that copyright. The court found in favor of Dr. King. Among the papers filed in the case and available at the National Archives at New York City is a deposition given by Martin Luther King, Jr. and signed in his own hand.
So, main stream media has exposed the 1% again. We have been hearing the rural, middle to lower class complain, object and provide negative evidence about the impact of drilling, fracking and pipelines that leak but have either been patted on the head, subjected to eminent domain for nominal amounts of money in some cases and definitely ignored by the 1%. Now, the possibility of fracking, drilling and all that comes with it is now in the back yard of the 1%. Most of us believe the 1% invests in extracting oil in all its forms, I guess assuming it’s on other people s land and neighborhoods but that cliché … Not in my back yard syndrome is now a big slap of reality to some 1%ers too and some have decided they aren’t having it … or will they. Anyway, the definition of NIMBY is spot on!
The so-called NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome reflects the propensity of local citizens and officials to insist on siting unwanted but necessary facilities anywhere but in their own community. The term has gained currency in relation to the siting of facilities that have a potential for adverse impacts on the environment, such as municipal waste incinerators and hazardous waste facilities. But it is equally applicable to the siting of prisons, methadone clinics, and psychiatric halfway houses— all of which are often subject to intense local opposition. For all of these examples, the best approach to the problem is that of primary prevention, which would lessen the need for such facilities. Success in siting an unwanted but needed facility requires that authorities fully involve the public with openness and integrity in all aspects of the planning process.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/not-in-my-backyard-nimby#ixzz2uOSJeqnm