I've been thinking and thinking til my brain started to hurt.  

I took some advice I read on a post here and decided to research two folks who I admired but did not know too much about.  The first was Mahatma Ghandi, an Indian man who believed in non-violent protest.  Fascinating.

Next was Martin Luther King, Jr.  I think most know who he was, what he accomplished and what happened to him.

I took a deeper look and found this "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".

Now, he wrote this letter to some pastors, as Mr. King was himself a pastor.

Caught my eye: In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: 1) Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive. 2) Negotiation. 3) Self-purification and 4) Direct action. We have gone through all of these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying of the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community.

So what can we insert instead of racial?  All races are involved this time.

Next:  You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, etc.? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We, therefore, concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

Link it came from: http://www.historicaltextarchi…..8;artid=40

Funny thing is, Mr. King also studied Mahatma Ghandi.

No one wants to lead because, I don't know, we don't want to end up like other civil rights leaders did?  Is this a civil rights issue?  Looks like it to me.  Do we need a leader when WE can get together, throw our ideas in the pot, focus, and move?  Please, let me know what you think.