Obama v.s MLK?

While reading over James Baldwin's essay, Struggling to Be Free, all I could think about was how Baldwin was describing MLK, that it sounded similar to as if someone was describing President Barack Obama. To sum up a point Baldwin made about MLK was saying that King was a great public speaker. It was his tone, presence and manner that made people want to listen to what he had to say. King did not only reach out to the black and white people but he would give every person the self-respect that they deserved. As for Obama, we all know how great of a speaker he is himself. I agree in saying that Obama and King are similar but they also have their differences. Obama is black AND white, i think since he became president some people are only looking at him as being JUST black. When Obama is up in the public eye we need to consider that he is a black man, but he IS also white and that he was not just elected to help the one side of the spectrum. King was the turning point in society. Although, he was for making a change for the black people of that time, Obama is wanting to make a change for the society as a whole.
I wanted to see what other people thought about this topic too, so I looked up a little search on Google. It is obvious that this is going to be a very tough subject to agree upon, but a lot of the posts from YahooAnwers MOSTLY said that Obama and MLK do not compare even close as to being the same. One post said, "Obama is a master at precisely and articulating analyzing a problem; BUT, he never gives solutions. Same with this speech. He brilliantly hit the nail on the head about the problem but offered NO SOLUTIONS", another quote stated said, "King appealed to the heart, Malcom X to the gut, and Obama to the mind." Which is a powerful statement in of itself. There's a little food for thought. Now I'll leave it up to you to form your own opinion.

LSD

Some people always thought the the psychedelic designs of the 60's and the big fancy font was so radical and cool, which they are but after reading more about LSD and its effects it became clearer as to why they looked so cool. In the 60's was, to me at least, one of the most accepted drugs by adolescence at the time. It blows my mind as to how and why the law enforcement would just allow these people to hold "acid parties", which was based around LSD in kool-aid and bands playing. I didn't know much about LSD and its effects so I looked it up online and it explain a lot. LSD can take your perspective of life and flip it. Sometimes the 'trip' can make the colors of your vision blur together and sometimes give the effect that everything is distorted or just mushing together. When you look at the graphics from back then you can see how colors are all swirled together and everything is just kind of one big blob, which you can imagine is how these hippies see life when most of the time they were on LSD trips. I'm still surprised that it took until 1966 for it to actually become illegal. What as lo surprised me is the fact that the Beatles did LSD. Its like LSD was an outlet for people compared to what women feel about shopping today. It provides this high that feels so good at the time but once its all over, you're just really left with nothing but materialistic things that really mean nothing. LSD's after effect would just be the fact of being back to reality.