Conan said it best some time ago: “We demand perfection of those admired by others.”

Libertinism doesn't bother me, do all the sex and drugs and binge eating you like, but violence against others does.

> do all the sex and drugs
> and binge eating you like,

Always good to hear from you, Nickers!

Good times!

Why should we believe anything produced by the FBI?

Why should we believe anything produced by the FBI?

Because they recorded the conversations? either the recordings are as stated, or they are not. They didn't have the means to doctor the recordings as we do today. Further, that doesn't seem like the sort of thing one would say if one were trying to shine on the FBI because you thought they might be bugging you.

This is what happens when men make gods of other men. You'll eventually be let down and disappointed. I for one eagerly anticipate the #MeToo movement demanding the removal of MLK statues, and the renaming of buildings, streets, and the national holiday[*]. As Alinsky said, make your opponents live by their own rules. Sauce, goose, gander.

As for these fine preachers, they should have spent less time diddling their parishioners and contemplating the words Matthew recorded (18:6)

If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

[*] That holiday should be renamed to reflect the fact that there were many more people pushing the civil rights issues in the 50s and 60s than just Dr. King.

Churchill was an imperialist. Columbus was an exploiter. Washington was a slave owner. Yet, sometimes it's those very qualities, or the experiences that led to them, that made the person what history needed him to be. After all, only Nixon could go to China.

George Patton was an unrepentant racist. He believed that African-Americans lacked the intelligence to fight in armor. Yet, he sent one of the country's first African-American armored battalion, the 761st, into combat, allowing it to amass an unrivaled combat record and make its mark in civil rights history alongside the Tuskegee Airmen and the Buffalo Soldiers.

And the 761st was lucky to have been delegated to Patton. Any other American general would have assigned them a provisional, non-combat role and pushed a white unit forward; but Patton was desperate for tanks and, if they came with colored soldiers, so be it.

Do we deplore Patton's racism or do we acknowledge his accidental role in civil rights history?

Without the admirable combat records of such groups as the 761st, the 758th, or the 332nd, Truman may not have been able to order the the armed forces to integrate in 1947, two years after the war's end.

That holiday should be renamed to reflect the fact that there were many more people pushing the civil rights issues in the 50s and 60s than just Dr. King. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at May 30, 2019 6:15 AM

I've long thought this. Perhaps we need a person for our holidays, a face to put with them. I don't think Civil Rights Day would be as cherished or honored.

After all, Presidents' Day does not seem to garner the reverence that Lincoln's Birthday or Washington's Birthday once did.

Yes yes yes! perhaps this info about MLK can block the madness of erasing history and demanding perfection from mere mortals. Sidenote on Chris Columbus: I listened to a lengthy interview with an historian who made a strong case that Columbus was NOT the exploiter and monster that seems to be the post-modern take on him. There are 4 major primary sources for what we know about Columbus and three of them show him to be a decent and devout man who had concerns about how the native Americans were treated. The fourth source is the writings of a contemporary of Columbus who hated him and wanted his job---and that's the one that Howard Zinn and his ilk use to condemn Columbus.

"They didn't have the means to doctor the recordings as we do today."

Be careful with this... it's like those ads for clickbait Web sites that say "These nude photos of this famous actress from the past have to be real because they didn't have Photoshop back then!" Yes, but they have Photoshop now. If all you get to see is a digital reproduction, that proves nothing about authenticity. You have to see or hear the originals yourself, or have that done by someone you trust.

As for King: At this point, the Left is only using King as a figurehead anyhow. They have already discarded King's ideas about a color-blind society. If the Left decides to dump King tomorrow, the self-styled black leaders will dutifully fall in line.

Agreed Cousin Dave. I forget which university marked the line "... where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." as racist.

There've been convincing allegations of infidelity and plagiarism by MLK for at least a quarter of a century. He's a shining example of the best of American culture nonetheless.

Watching a parishioner get raped is a previously undescribed level of depravity…

But my favorite photo of his marriage went like this: He fucked up, she caught him, and she's toying with him in front of the newspaper reporter and his photographer, and there's absolutely nothing he can do about it.

And let's be clear: Coretta was the woman for whom the expression "stone fox" was coined.

WTF were you thinking, man?

Yeah, the infidelity stuff about MLK has been known for a while, it was being talked about in the 90s already.

So can the statues of Jefferson and Robert E Lee remain where they are, please?
Otherwise, we’re like the Taliban dynamiting statues of Buddha.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

Otherwise, we’re like the Taliban dynamiting statues of Buddha.

Some people just want to see the world burn.

that there is no incompatibility between celebrating the achievements of people in the past and acknowledging that those people had - as we all do - major flaws.
__________________________________________

Depends what the commentator means by "celebrating."

Admiring individuals in private is one thing, but I learned long ago not to speak in praise, even to close friends, of any politician, for starters. Sooner or later politicians will disappoint you in a very bad way, and you don't want anyone to remember what you said. The same applies to most entertainers. I would have been happy to see Cat Stevens in concert 30-plus years ago, but I would never spend money on him after 1989 - hint, hint. In the same vein, I don't like to go to any campaign rallies for people running for office, per se. (Attending a lecture by a politician is another matter - sometimes.)

As a wise man said (and he definitely had flaws as well):

"...but never be seen tagging along at the tail end of a demonstration; never be found hopping up and down on the fringe of a pop group; and above all never, never strike."

(While he didn't exactly spell this out, there was a certain implication that searching for a true love with one person is parallel to false hero-worship - or to religion, as more and more scientists are pointing out, these days.)

Speaking of why it's often best to bite your tongue when you want to praise people you don't really know for their "good qualities":

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/2360535-toddler-classes-help-moms-more-kids

It's from 2007 and it's about why the teaching of "esoteric skills" is no substitute for the building of character in children. Trouble is, you'd better know exactly what you're talking about. (Maybe Rosemond should have focused on someone who'd been dead for years - but that wouldn't have worked in this particular column.)

Last paragraphs:

"...I blame Tiger Woods' parents for having started this modern mania by providing professional golf lessons to Tiger when he was a toddler. As everyone knows, Tiger went on to become perhaps the best golfer the world has ever seen. (Then, there is Ernie Banks, star shortstop for the long-suffering Chicago Cubs, who did not begin playing baseball until he was 18.) But no one seems to consider where Tiger might be today if when his parents were providing him with professional golf lessons, all the other parents in America were doing the same thing. Would he have won the Masters, or would he have been in the crowd, watching the winner walk up the 18th hole?

"Personally, I admire Tiger more for his grace, manners, apparent humility and the fact that he seems to have formed a stable marriage than I do for his golfing skills. From all that I've seen, he seems like a generally nice guy who has figured out how to not be regular feature on the front page of Star magazine. I take it his parents made sure he learned to be a gentleman while he was learning to play golf. If something happened to Tiger that prevented him from ever again swinging a golf club, he'd still be a gentleman. That's what counts, you see?

"Unfortunately, there are no bumper stickers that read: My child has great manners!"

Juliette Edgarina Hoover ("You can call me Mary") had a problem with King's sex life?

"I for one eagerly anticipate the #MeToo movement demanding the removal of MLK statues, and the renaming of buildings, streets, and the national holiday[*]."

If you enjoy watching others detonate, ask them why they use the pound sign in that case:

"What is that? PoundMeToo?"

First off, I do not believe that these latest allegations are true. That the FBI (wasn't Hoover in charge then?) would sit on such evidence and NOT do something to take King down is not believable to me.

Second, it is one thing to cheat on your spouse. Quite another to engage in rape - even as a bystander. King may have been a cad to his wife, but, a rapist? I find that hard to believe.

Thirdly, even if this is true it by no means will do anything to stop those from going after white men in history - they are STILL guilty. With some on the left, whites are always guilty. They will make excuses for King such as King will be seem as stooping so low because whitey forced him to. Many of the left do not "rethink" as commenter quoted by Dreher has suggested. If anything they doubled down on their ideology and twist facts even more to fit their narrative.

"Juliette Edgarina Hoover ("You can call me Mary") had a problem with King's sex life?"

Clearly not, else the content of these tapes would have been released when he had control of them.

"What is that? PoundMeToo?"

Radwaste, that's HILARIOUS. but you're probably gonna burn in hell for it.

__________

I'm thinking this won't hurt MLK's legacy - the mainstream media will ignore it, just like they're ignoring the Highland Ranch school shooting because the perpetrators' beliefs and identities were politically inconvenient to the narrative.

And even if it does get widely disseminated, there's always the Burleigh Rule.

" else the content of these tapes would have been released when he had control of them."

I'm more inclined to believe the head of the secret police would use sex tapes for coercion.

I see no reason to believe the allegation that Dr. King watched a woman being raped. This allegation is, at best, raw intelligence -- "salacious and unverified" as one of our elite "betters" (in his one mind, anyway) once said. Contrary to Herr Mueller's take, we don't exonerate people, we assume that they are innocent until proven guilty. Allegations about philandering are one thing. But accusation about watching a rape is just too over the top. I do not believe it.

"the mainstream media will ignore it, just like they're ignoring the"

... Protocols of the Elders of Zion?