Hmmmm

I remember seeing this:  

Then suddenly, I see this:

Makes you wonder.  Don't think I don't.  

The New York skyline as I remember it

True, the Twin Towers were built after I was born.  But I was so young that for my life they symbolized America as the economic center of the world.  Along with the United Nations they showed us as the captains of the Free World, and a hub of activity around which the world rotated.

That is no more.  The terrorist attacks were devastating, and exposed a cancerous growth in the world; an alliance between the emergent Left and any other country that would see America brought down from its perch, if not eliminated altogether.

It's no surprise that the political Left, within weeks of the attacks, began turning their attention, not toward fighting the terrorists, but making sure GW Bush didn't capitalize politically on the obvious boost the attacks would bring him.

Since then, it's been an eclipse of the American Experiment, as the whole of the Christian West is put under the test and declared guilty with no hope of redemption.  In that, the terrorists made a brilliant stroke against their adversary, the United States.  So far, it's been they who have been the victors - at least in the long term.

Nonetheless, as we awoke on this date 18 years ago, despite the uproar from the 2000 election, and charges of stolen elections and calls to eliminate the Electoral College, and accusations of political corruption as always, most imagined that the Towers would continue to symbolize America's unique place in the world for generations to come.  Who would have known then that we would be looking at the call to end nations in general, led by celebrities, politicians and popes, including the end to the American Experiment?   I know I didn't.

I'll give Archbishop Vigano this

At least he said who he is and what his accusations are.  In an age where 'a person has accused so and so' is enough to get you fired, it's nice to see names and specifics.  Just last week we had an op-ed by a brave anonymous individual taking it upon himself to thwart the results of a democratic election.  Now we have Diane Feinstein insisting an anonymous letter regarding an unspecific claim is something or another important regarding the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. 

I mean, are we ready to start saying 'destroy that life right now!' without even needing to form an accusation?  Seems we're going there.  I suppose we've already done away with due process, presumption of innocence and burden of proof in this #MeToo/BLM era. We shouldn't be surprised that other tidbits, like the right to face one's accuser, would be the next to go.

Thanks to Abp. Vigano for defying modern norms by actually saying what and who he is accusing and putting his name on it for all to see.  Seems like a blast from the past. 

Christianity and Karl Marx

John C Wright reminds us that, up until recently, Socialism, much less Communism, were as compatible with Christianity as Kosher ham.  All of a sudden however, socialism is practically the only path for salvation.  Even more shocking is the view that maybe Communism, which certainly had a few rough spots in its history, is not so bad.

The almost epic level of dumb required for this turn in events is bind boggling.  The countries that cast longing glances at socialist models of government in Europe are the best of the lot.  And they are mostly aborting themselves out of existence through low birthrates and a general apathy about the future of their own civilization.

Those are the best countries.  In other places that have trended toward socialist/communist, the record is cesspools of poverty, misery, oppression, tyranny, gulags, killing fields, and the suffering and death of endless tens of millions.

Despite it all, our best and brightest continue to move the line inch by inch toward a world where only that leftist dream of a truly socialist mandate can save us.  A world where Marx is the key, and Socialism the dogma.  That's like wanting to bet on the Dodgers for the 2017 World Series - today. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is doing scant little to resist the urge.  Some could argue it is becoming a willing accomplice. 

Granted, things change and we could always assume that Socialism today doesn't mean it will turn out military tyrannies or spin into Communist nightmares.  But that doesn't mean it will work either.  Given the conditions where it is in practice today, the burden is on those advocating for more of the same.

One of the driving forces behind this lunacy is the myth of progress.  That is, the idea that yesterday the world was fallen because everyone was stupid and evil, but today we're much better now.  Why, unlike everyone yesterday, we're now the intellectual apex of cognitive evolution and the moral and ethical hub of godlike perfection around which the entire history of the universe will spin.

Hence the quick and easy condemnation of people in history based on today's latest standards.  Hence the tendency of going through the lists of men who are guilty of having done what they were told was acceptable up until a few weeks ago.  That was then, when all was wrong.  But today, everything is right because, well, it's today.

So when the manifold terrors and failures of socialism and Communism are brought up, we're assured that those problems - if they're admitted to at all - where just part of the past.  Sure, there were rough roads, but that's because it wasn't us doing it.  Just as Pope Francis pointed out that the Church's teachings on the Death Penalty were the result of the Church not being as Christian as we are today, so our modern culture assumes that we will make all the changes necessary to ensure a socialist, or even Communist, success story.  After all, the problems were because those old timers weren't as good as we are today.  The evidence shows that when we get our hands on an issue, the result can only be success.  At least until tomorrow that is.

The incomparable Ella Frech asks why Hollywood is behind the latest movement to eliminate unworthy people?

It makes me almost ashamed to watch movies.  We're so quick to condemn Hollywood for its racism back in the day.  For its sexism back in the day.  For its homophobia back in the day.  For its pro-American propaganda back in the day.  We still call it out for being racist, sexist, and anti-Muslim today.  Why do we look to Hollywood for any moral guidance?

Because at different times, it also stood for good ideals and virtues, even if it had to do so subtly.  And because sometimes it is just good.  Nonetheless, unlike times in the past when art and culture were against the status quo and all about progressive reform, Hollywood is now almost completely in bed with the modern, post-Christian, secular Left.  It is a propaganda arm for that movement more than it has been propaganda for anything at any other time, WWII included.

And the Left is all about weeding out the unwanted while promising the rest of us a Utopia of unlimited sex, drugs, and celebration of my awesomeness.  Many of us just walk by, missing the signs of the times, just like all the people in ages past who missed the signs of their times, and allowed us to have all those juicy tyrannies, wars, revolts and genocides to read about in history books.

But, thanks be to God, this brilliant spark of the divine steps up to ask why Hollywood, in its modern manifestation, seems to think that the best handicapped people are dead handicapped people.  And it's true.  And it's sad that one of those movies mentioned is by a pop-icon of modern conservatism.  A reminder that there is a branch of conservatism that embraces almost all of the post-Christian decadence, death and debauchery of the secular Left, but with an emphasis on strong military readiness and tons of money.

Well done young Ella Frech.  You are now officially one of my heroes.

We're all about that race

Gorillas as understood today

'Bout that race.  In case you were worried about how long it would take to make the sad story about the gorilla shot at the Cincinnati Zoo into a racial crisis, worry no more!  It turns out all of the scrutiny aimed at the parents is - you guessed it - because they're Black!  Now, for the record, it's worth looking at this and the other cases of children and zoo animals that keep being referenced. Especially since the article tries to contrast this and other cases and concludes the only reason for the difference in treatment must be because Black Lives Matter!

First, this case involved the death of a gorilla, not some other animal or fierce predator.  Gorillas, as presented in our classrooms and popular culture, are practically doctoral candidates with heart and soul.  So in our cultural mind's eye, it's not just an animal, but a near person that was shot and killed.  That's part of the knee jerk reaction.

Second, contrary to what the piece suggests, the other cases have, in fact, brought out questions about the parenting skills when the case involved a child falling into the respective animal pit.  The frequently referenced story about the female gorilla that protected the young, unconscious child leaps to mind.  I distinctly remember questions being asked about how the child got in there in the first place.  I don't remember it being about race one way or another.

Third, it's now, not back then.  Even a dozen years ago, the modern call against responsibility for those who fall through the cracks of progressive morality was not nearly as loud or constant as today.  Today, the very thought of responsibility is anathema, and an entire section of American parents seem to regard holding parents accountable, or somehow telling kids the way it is, to be crimes punishable by all but death.  I understand not rushing to judgement.  I'm fine with not just lashing out at the parents.  But asking where the parents were is not tantamount to another Treblinka.

It is, however, also the age of social media.  This is a media that goes from blog post to scaffolding in less than 12 parsecs (for you Star Wars fans out there).  Within minutes, you had screams of witch hunt and inquisition being shouted in every direction: at the zoo, at the ones who shot the gorilla, at the parents, at the child.  You name it.  All of this before anyone knew the skin color of anyone other than the gorilla, which at this point has escaped condemnation.  And if you didn't think that once the parents' ethnicity was revealed that it wouldn't be made about race, especially against anyone daring to assume responsibility belongs to the parents, then all I can say is you might want to brush up on your current events.

As a bonus feature for making to the end of this post, you might want to read this, and pictures of tweets imagining that the real racism was when people thought the boy was white and, you know, white privilege and all.  So before we even knew the race of anyone, it was about race.  And how is it we consider conservatives as the only dunderheads in our society today?

Stop reading right now

OK, read the last post I put up today.  And then stop and read this.  Simply one of the best assessments of our crumbling society I've read.  Sure, it has the benefit of hindsight.  It also manages to make some predictions that, unless you are a blind optimist, will likely come true far sooner than we ever imagined.  But enough of my rambling.  Click the link.  Read it and read it again.  I'm going to, and then I might dare to add something at a later date.

Donald Trump: Two views

Two different takes on Donald Trump by two writers I admire.  Here, Michael Flynn takes a bird's eye view of the entire election phenomenon, and rightly sets Trump in context of the greater mess in which we find ourselves.  John C. Wright, on the other hand, appears to endorse Trump at least as a preferable choice to either Democratic candidate.  He seems to prefer Cruz, but would take Trump for all his foibles because of the greater threat of the Democrats and the Left.

Both are good, thoughtful writers, the type who can cause me to  think things over even when I'm pretty sure I'm not budging.  Not that I'll endorse Trump any time soon, but I certainly can see the grave threats, not because of the economic or social policies of the Democratic alternatives, but because of the greater threat that the Secular Left poses not just to religious liberty, but to the values of the Christian Religion in general.

Speaking of thoughtful writers I admire, over at Sardonic Ex Curia, a little more time is given to unpacking the article I referenced here.  It's a good, and fair, appraisal.  Well worth the read.  Especially since this is the election season where nothing is real, and everyone seems to want to get hung about it.

Another opinion about Socialism

 

But then, what does he know?  I have it on good authority that Sanders isn't really a Socialist at all.  In fact, what he proposes has nothing to do with Socialism.  In fact, there aren't that many Socialist countries in the world after all.  More to the point, I'm not sure there was ever such a thing as Socialism.  This doubt is not coming from Sanders, by the way.  Sander mistakenly thinks he's a Socialist, and many of his liberal Democratic supporters are thrilled because of it.  No, the doubt is coming from Conservatives and Catholics who are enthusiastically embracing Sanders, all the while reminding me and others that he is no Socialist because, in the end, can anyone really say what Socialism is for sure?  Apparently Kasparov can.  But then, what does he know? 

Dear America

Listen.  Reflect.  Repeat.

Good

One of the greatest barriers to eliminating racism isn't racists, but those who exploit or even encourage racism for their own gain.  We can't have enough cases where those who shamelessly exploit or even promote such a heinous evil as racism purely for political or personal gain are called out on the carpet at best, charged with the crimes they deserve at worst.

The sudden Conservative love affair with Bernie Sanders

I know we've pointed out that Mark Shea and other Catholic liberals support Bernie Sanders.  Oh, they might not vote for him.  The Internet gave a platform to a disproportion number of people who are proud of their former status of high school outcasts rolling their percentage dice in the hopes of nabbing that +5 Holy Avenger.  They just follow through as an adult: happy to heap opinions and condemnations on the team with no feeling of obligation to actually join the team.  A generation of arm chair quarterbacks to be sure.  And the perfect way to support something while at the same time proudly washing your hands of any responsibility for having supported it.

But over and over, I see a growing number of self-proclaimed conservatives not in that camp throwing their hat into the Bernie Sanders ring.  It's true, the GOP hasn't given them much.  Kasich has potential, but his nice-guy John persona, and his willingness to throw up his hands and say 'oh well, the Left won again, that's good enough for me!' doesn't bode well for those who think moral issues are actually important.  And after nine months of Mr. "Don't attack others", he let's fly on - who else? - Marco Rubio!

Rubio seems to be the hopeful, but there is still that feeling he's a lightweight.  In the end, a sharp, fast thinking and resolute lightweight, but a lightweight nonetheless.  Carson is out.  Cruz?  The guy just grates on everyone's nerves, and seems to mistake the fact that his manner and style are the reason some are off put by him.  Instead, he imagines it's because he's the only politician standing on principles.  No, it's because he comes off as a giant fingernail on the debate chalkboard. 

And then there is Trump.  The discount Mussolini of the election cycle.  He cares not what he says.  He lies.  He contradicts himself.  He will insist he didn't say something he said five minutes earlier. He's petty.  He's childish.  He's a five year old brat in a $5000.00 business suit.  He embodies almost everything conservatives and Christians have ever opposed.  And there is nothing in the universe to suggest he won't throw all his promises out the window if elected and jump into bed with the side he has consistently supported over the decades and up until recently. 

So I get that, for Conservatives, there isn't much hope.  But here's the thing.  Bernie represents everything Conservatives and orthodox Christians have stood against every bit as much as Trump.  His constant promise of everything free sounds nice, but when has that ever worked?  His moral stances are straight out of the pits of hell.  Not only does he give full carte blanche to the sex and drugs culture in the era of 30 million dead from AIDS, but he supports abortion as fully as you can support abortion.  From conception until you squeak out the birth canal, by Bernie's votes you are a marked person.  And that doesn't count his support for assisted suicide.  For the record, I have found nothing about his support for euthanasia as practiced in some European countries.  But apart from that, there is nothing about Sanders that isn't the living, breathing embodiment of the Culture of Death that Conservatives once decried.

In addition, there is the fact that he says he's a Socialist.  I know, I know.  Suddenly nobody seems to know what Socialism really is.  Nobody knows if it's ever been tried.  Nobody quite knows if there are any countries in Europe that are really Socialist.  And yet, strangely, we seem to have no end of examples people want to point to prove how awesome Socialism is.  Select examples to be sure, but examples nonetheless. 

But like I said the other day, when did Socialism become all hunky-dory anyway?  Sure, I don't see European examples rallying behind dictators and arming the next panzer divisions.  But was WWII such an overwhelming force of the last century that we've come to believe the only threat to goodness and life and the future is a European dictator building concentration camps and lining up panzer divisions?  Couldn't there be other dangers?  Other evils?  Other sins, many of which seem almost to walk hand in hand with the various Socialist ideals of Europe that Americans love to point to?  I'm not arguing cause and effect.  I merely point out that most Socialist countries trotted out at proof of Socialism's awesomeness seem to have an internal rot that isn't difficult to notice.  It's bad enough to point to a tree that looks outwardly healthy but is rotten inside.  It's worse when I can see the rot inside and we insist it's no big deal.

Despite it all, the rush to Sanders is increasing.  Some of it appears to be that libertarian branch of Conservatism that has always flirted with isolationism as the only proper course of action.  I realize that there isn't a libertarian out there who seems to admit to isolationism.  But when you look at what they're saying - deal with people economically until things get blown halfway to hell, then pull back and wait for the storm to pass - that's isolationism.  Not only was that approach once condemned by both liberal and conservative Christians, we have to admit that if it didn't work in the era of Orphan Annie and Glenn Miller, it probably won't work in the era of Lady Gaga and Modern Family.

Apart from that, I don't know. What is going on here?  Why are so many "Conservatives" either implicitly supporting Bernie in all but votes, or actually diving head first and supporting him?  The question is not rhetorical.  I don't have an answer.  Without diving into the world of judgmentalism, I can't really account for it.  I know that our country is in dire straights, despite what the Propaganda Ministry says.  I understand that the world is changing, and much of it doesn't appear to be for the better.  I know that we're watching a worldview we once assumed to be true crumble before our eyes.  I got it.  But to suddenly take all of those things that were the non-negotiables, the difference between Heaven and Hell, the very essence of Life and Death, and throw them out the window?  Act as if it no longer matters?  If so, then what have we to say to all of those in the past who, when faced with difficult times, followed the worst solutions based on the most evil premises simply because, in the end, at least they got the trains to run on time?

Robert Royal looks at Iowa

And tosses a splash of cold water in the face when we consider what is at stake.  For those who have written off the United States, it's no big deal.  But for those who still cling to the idea that we can salvage the nation before it's too late, it's worth a read. 

America's Holy Day of Obligation

Celebrating our substitute Jesus.  Really.  I can't remember the last time I heard a speech or even a sermon without hearing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. referenced.  He has a national holiday.  Kids spend weeks studying and learning about him.  My boys began getting ready for MLK day before Winter Vacation time.  That's what we used to call Christmas Vacation in the olden days.  The meaning of his holiday is emphasized.  Good works and good will towards men are spoken of.  There are no vices even acknowledged, much less mentioned.  He is studied in our history books only in a celebratory way.  Lincoln, Washington, the Christian faith get none of that.  And in my boys' history books, no president was given a full page celebratory article. 

He is, basically, the substitute Jesus.  He is a holy man, a religious icon, a sacred name we can invoke in an age where Christians are increasingly accepting that their faith, their morals, and their Savior had best stay in the closet where they belong, at least until they are willing to change those things to conform to the modern way.

But MLK?  There is no change needed.  Like most mythical figures, we are high on veneration, and low on obedience.  Truth be told, Malcolm X is far closer to the representative figure of where the Civil Rights movement went than Dr. King.  After all, one of the fundamental dreams he had in his famous speech was for a day when the color of our children's skin didn't matter.  Fast forward to today.  I dare say the color of people's skin is the first and primary factor in almost anything that occurs today.  And often times, not for the best reasons.  As a symbolic figurehead he does quite well.  But when it comes to actually listening to what he said?  I fear not so much.

So it's the holy day that replaced Christmas and other Jesus days for a post-Christian society.  The modern movement discovered that they could mold and shape (and subsequently ignore) Dr. King as they see fit.  Much in the same way, I'll bet, they believe they can do with Pope Francis.  Whatever Pope Francis actually says about homosexuality, for example, will be irrelevant.  They will hoist him up the modern flagpole next to Dr. King, pay about as much attention to him as is convenient, and use him as the only acceptable Pope that any Catholic dare reference.  Just like Dr. King can be quoted, praised, referenced and venerated, as long as it is for modern acceptable narratives.  And if you get out and start dropping that J-Term when talking about MLK, well then I'm afraid we're just going to have to show you the door. 

I wonder what the motive was

I'll have to keep checking back as the media works to unpack why this was done.

The most violent country in history

Is the United States, to hear some people say it.  Turns out, we do have a pretty high rate of murders.  At least for civilized countries (we use the term 'industrialized', but let's face it, what we mean is 'civilized').   According to this website, we're at around 42 per every million people.  Or around 12,600 a year.

According to the little graph, the rate has also dropped rather sharply over the last ten years.

Now, according to this page, the rate in the UK has also dropped, rather dramatically.  And though some overstate the case (I've heard the UK having no more than 10 killed a year), it can't be argued that the UK's overall murder rate is impressively low.

However, I also noticed in that second website that the rate spiked in England in 2002 to almost double what it is today.  So, what did the UK do that reduced that?  What laws did it change?  What was different about living in the UK in 2002 than today?

What has the US done differently?  What laws have been passed and gun restrictions and all in the US in the last 10 years to bring about this reduction in our backyard?

I'm not saying if laws and rules can reduce violence or prevent deaths that I'm against them.  I just hear a lot of fluff with teeth when it comes to this debate.  We need to be like Europe.  We need to be like England.  We need to pass laws because of the out of control killings.  But exactly how?  Exactly what?  How will these things make the changes we want?  How will they work?  What has worked already?  Or are there other factors that we must consider?

Again, I'm no expert in this field.  Nor am I a professional statistician.  I just get the feeling that there is more to the debate than we are being allowed to discuss.

Catholic bishop rips cowboys

Using cowboy mentality as it typically is used - as a grave insult - the bishop of Dallas has enthusiastically supported Obama's actions, and hopes for more.  Other Catholics are likewise decrying the recent attempts to loosen gun restrictions and open up more legal possession of guns.  According to the article, Pope Francis and the US Catholic Bishops wish the US could follow other countries and their laws that have reduced gun violence.

I guess my somewhat uninformed question is this: do open carry laws lead to more gun violence?  In his speech, President Obama said that Kansas recently loosened gun restrictions and has seen an uptick in gun violence.  Is this the case?  Gun violence seems to have gone down nationwide.  Murders, too.  I don't know.

My suspicion is that there isn't a direct link between loosening gun ownership restrictions and violent crime.  For no other reason than the media doesn't plaster stats and graphs all over the place proving it.  As for the other countries?  I have a feeling more is involved than merely gun regulations.  But again, not owning a gun myself, I'm rather uninformed.

I do know that I have a profound distrust for the movement most associated with calling for more gun control, based on actions and attitudes I witness in other areas.  But, I seem to be a minority in that one.  At least I'm a minority in the Catholic witness.  Perhaps the Christian one.

Because Jesus says so

Yep, there is no other choice but that Obama was sincere.  Maybe he was.  I don't know. I remember when Bill Clinton got all teary eyed, and when John Boehner did the same, and both were mocked in turn.  In this case, I don't see a man who is faking tears as much as I see a man who is deliberately belligerent in dealing with his political opponents, who then uses their obvious frustration with being treated the way he treats them in order to justify dodging those pesky Constitutional processes.  Knowing, of course, that the media narrative will back him all the way.

Maybe he did get sincerely teared up when he thought about those slain children.  I know I do.  If he acted like he was willing to look at more than just guns! Guns! GUNS! (and now mental health) as the problem, then I might be more sympathetic to his pain.  After all, if you really want to solve the problem, you'll be honest about the whole problem, not just the parts of the problem that support your agendas.

I say the same to those who are so casually invoking the eternal mind of the Thrice-Holy God with this little graphic in order to score the same cheap points they so flippantly condemn.

To be pro gun is to be pro life

I don't know about that.  Certainly an argument, a powerful, non-post-modern argument, a strong non-liberal argument, can be made that pro-gun rights is pro-life.  And certainly being against gun rights and gun ownership or guns in general doesn't make one pro-life either.  Still, here's the argument.  It is good because it reminds us that school shootings and mass killings in the work place are not things that have plagued mankind from the beginning, or even most of the 20th Century.  They're relatively recent historically speaking.  It also reminds me of how my Mom used to keep a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun in her bedroom when Dad was away on the road.  She told us to leave it alone.  And we did.  Because we had been taught what guns are, and what they aren't.  So looking at things like what sort of a society or world we've made might be the better approach to solving the problem, rather than just yelling 'guns! Guns! GUNS!' and ignoring other deaths and crimes because it doesn't advance the agenda.

Brandon Vogt loves MLK

And gets an earful from the growing tide of folks saying 'wait a minute.'  He does link to Father Barron, who also has much glory and honor and praise to give to Dr. King.  I know, in the past I've been somewhat harsh on my appraisals, not so much of Rev. King, but of the god worship directed at him.  As one who worked with some inner city missions in my ministry days, and came across many African American ministers of a variety of stripes, my starry-eyed view of the post-Civil Rights era was dimmed.  I used to think it was a holdover of racists white ideology to think there were equivalents in the Black community to racist white guys. But more than once I ran into Blacks who held more hatred for whites than Khrushchev had for shoes.  Not all were that way of course, but enough that it was beyond a negligible number. Which made me wonder what part of King's message they actually followed.  What I noticed was an almost propensity for many to lean more toward Malcolm X than King's message, all the while flaunting King as the end all to everything.

Plus, I just happened to be of that particular generation that was old enough to remember the death rattle of pre-Boomer liberalism, and young enough to see the emergence in full force of our post-Christian, post-traditional culture.  So growing up, I listened to more than one teacher or professor draw a thick line between hip, enlightened progressives who were all about the brave new world and the backward thinking, hayseed hicks and bigots and dolts who did such quaint and mindless things like, you know, venerating old dead people.  I can remember lectures in which the statues of Jefferson and Lincoln and the Washington Monument were just evidence of how low and pathetic the old way was, and why it was time to break the chains of simple minds and small thinking.

So naturally it came as quite a shock when the issue of a national holiday for Dr. King came up, and I noticed many who had mocked President's day and ridiculed the celebration of other traditional heroes were the first to line up and demand unqualified official veneration of Dr. King.  I also noticed the turmoil and vitriol that accompanied the debate  as states that didn't want to follow suit were threatened, and districts that questioned adding another day off of school were called racist and summarily smacked down in the name of this new tolerance.

Again, the irony being that this sort of 'we're beautiful, you're evil' seemed like so many things that weren't based on Dr. King's teachings.  I know, Dr. King was a complex person, as all great men and women are.  As all not-so-great men and women are.  Some of his tactics have been questioned in recent years.  In the secular world, some younger atheists are meeting the challenge of 'what about Dr. King', when stating religious people never do good, by trashing Dr. King.  Others have now begun to look at certain potential missteps on the part of the good Reverend.

For me, even if he turns out to be the scum of the earth, and his holiday reduced to a time for furniture sales, what he did will still be noteworthy.  But not for what it, and the holiday celebrating it, became.  To me, it is noteworthy to remind ourselves that no matter how noble the cause, causes are taken up by flawed people, and almost inevitably screwed up by their flawed followers.  And yet, we still need to remember the better parts of what was accomplished.  We need to remember the good that Dr. King accomplished and focus on that, without the need for starry eyed hero worship or just using it as a prop for less King-like tactics.  And, to be consistent  it might be time to start applying the lesson to other people and movements as well.  Perhaps like those other dead guys like Jefferson, Washington, and various former heroes of our old, simple nation, if not applying this principle to the nation itself.