Oh what a deliciously provocative post! You must be very proud of yourself!

Of course you know that there is no parallel with opposition to Dr. Thames and one's feelings about the President. I for instance am a Republican. But you know that if you read the board.

While I agree that political remarks at anyone's funeral are highly inappropriate, and I agree that the incident yesterday was uncalled-for, I think your post is just designed to start something.

LVN calls 'em like she sees 'em...and she usually sees 'em pretty clearly!

Some of those remarks had nothing to do with Mrs. King's funeral...they were aimed at OUR President.  I don't have any problem with someone exercising their freedom of speech rights in commenting on someone else's freedom of speech rights.  Although, if I were on the Republican National Committee, I'd encourage Jimmy Carter to keep talking.

Sometimes things come down to a question of manners. It was simply bad manners to use Mrs. King's funeral for any other purpose than talking about her. That includes the protesters (I hadn't heard about them.)

My point was not about the funeral, however. My point was about the original poster drawing a false parallel between criticism of the President of USM with criticism of the President of the United States. The poster meant to be provocative, and succeeded.

(Thanks for the kudos, I just wish I could see my own path clearly . . . )

Not your place wrote:

---

With all due respect to my friend LVN, if the King family doesn't object it isn't anyone else's place to object to what goes on at Mrs. King's funeral. If I were going to object to something, though, it would be to the protesters from that hateful Westboro Baptist Church who picketed the funeral in protest of Mrs. King's strong stand against homophobia and in favor of gay rights. I notice the right isn't saying any of the remarks were in error...only objecting to the appropriateness. There's a surprise for you.

---

For what it's worth, I heard today that at least one member of her family (who claimed to be speaking for others) did object to the remarks in question.  A desire to prevent such remarks is probably what led to the non-appearance of such other luminaries as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.  Political attacks at a funeral are pretty tacky (IMHO), no matter who is offering them or what opinion is being expressed. 

It would be easy enough to dispute the remarks made yesterday, but a funeral is not a place for a poltical debate.  In fact, that's one of the reasons that the remarks were so tacky -- they were essentially hit-and-run jobs, since the persons being attacked would never think of responding under the circumstances.  Imagine what would have happened if Bush had gotten up and mentioned that it was Democrats who ordered the wire-tapping of the Kings or that every major intelligency agency in the world agreed with ours that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  Debates are fine (and welcome) in the proper place.

By the way, the members of the Church you mention are (again IMHO) particularly vile and disgusting people. 

Not your place wrote:

---

 If the family objects, that is THEIR prerogative, which is precisely what I said in my original post. And, I believe you are mistaken about Democrats ordering the wiretaps on the Kings. If recollection serves correctly, it was J. Edgar himself who ordered that crap and he was no friend of the Democrats. As for hit-and-run jobs, I don't think either side of the debate needs to be throwing rocks from their glass houses on that one.

---

 

Surely you don't object to others (on this board and elsewhere) expressing their personal beliefs that political attacks at a funeral are tacky?  If the Kings also think it was tacky, more power to them.

Here, by the way, is the beginning of an article on the wire-tapping, written by a writer who is no friend of Republicans:

 

n October 10, 1963, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy committed what is widely viewed as one of the most ignominious acts in modern American history: he authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin wiretapping the telephones of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Kennedy believed that one of King's closest advisers was a top-level member of the American Communist Party, and that King had repeatedly misled Administration officials about his ongoing close ties with the man. Kennedy acted reluctantly, and his order remained secret until May of 1968, just a few weeks after King's assassination and a few days before Kennedy's own. But the FBI onslaught against King that followed Kennedy's authorization remains notorious, and the stains on the reputations of everyone involved are indelible.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200207/garrow

Amen corner wrote:

---

I watched with great interest the funeral of Coretta King. The most striking thing was the way the big liberals used a solemn occasion to get in a cheap shot at George Bush. It sort of reminds me of the Thames bashing so prevalent these days. The libs are foaming at the mouth.

---

This is completely predictable. The last refuges of liberalism are college faculties and black churches.

Angeline will be first in line to vote for presidential candidat billery...uh hillary...hillary has the interest of the people at heart, huh?

Lest we forget wrote:

---

Love your sarcasm about making Iraq "free."  I guess it would be better if Saddam were still in control there and if the Taliban were still running Afghanistan.  At least there's now a slight hope that people in those countries will be able to express themselves freely and maybe even live in a country with a few freedoms - a right we all take for granted on this board.  The women of Iraq and Afghanistan thank you for your concern!  Were you also opposed to the liberation of Kuwait?

---

How anti-American do you have to be to believe that we should have spent billions of dollars doing whatever we are doing in Iraq, risking American soldiers' lives and killing thousands of Iraqis while leaving levees in disrepair, schools crumbling, Hurricane relief undelivered, Medicaire recipients without all the drugs they need, our water and air more polluted, and millions of people without access to any health insurance or health care?  In the past, such international interventionism was a decidely un-conservative thing to do, but now, apparently, because Saint Bush says its alright we should just go along with it.   I don't always agree with Angeline, but I sure appreciate the streak of nationalism she is showing - it is time we took care of our own.

Angeline wrote:

---

Meanwhile, more to the point of higher education, Bush signed cuts in student loans yesterday.  What's worse: a little rhetoric at a funeral (and the faux shock and outrage by right-wing whites ventures into the theater of the absurd) or the very real impacts of a president and his party who cut support for American citizens while spending ever more billions to make Iraq "free"?

---

Didn't I tell you,those libs are foaming at the mouth.They hate freedom.They want the government to put evryone on the dole.

Those levees were crumbling under Saint Clinton too...reports written during his "reign."  Wonder why he didn't do anything about it?

I am proud my country took the snake out of the grass.

LVN wrote:

---

Anybody who's ever lived in New Orleans knows you can't blame the levee mess, or most of a lot of other bad stuff, on any past or present President of the United States. Let's remember, this is a city which would spend millions of dollars to throw a party and let its children go to school in the nastiest conditions you can imagine.

---

Please let’s keep things in perspective, LVN.    The people of New Orleans do spend much money on “parties”.  But really Mardi Gras is an investment in the entertainment industry that results in millions in profits for the city.  Your comment makes it seem like people are wasting money on trivial things.   Neither the city nor the state has the resources to build and maintain levees by themselves.  All along the Mississippi, the Federal Gov built the levees.  

 

Your comment implied the people of N.O. have the wealth to do this but chose to party.  I hope I didn’t misunderstand your intention.   

 

I agree the schools are terrible, but they became so in part from the "White Flight" from the city.  On average, N.O. is a very poor city.

NewOrleanian wrote:

---

LVN wrote:
Anybody who's ever lived in New Orleans knows you can't blame the levee mess, or most of a lot of other bad stuff, on any past or present President of the United States. Let's remember, this is a city which would spend millions of dollars to throw a party and let its children go to school in the nastiest conditions you can imagine.

Please let’s keep things in perspective, LVN.    The people of New Orleans do spend much money on “parties”.  But really Mardi Gras is an investment in the entertainment industry that results in millions in profits for the city.  Your comment makes it seem like people are wasting money on trivial things.   Neither the city nor the state has the resources to build and maintain levees by themselves.  All along the Mississippi, the Federal Gov built the levees.  
 
Your comment implied the people of N.O. have the wealth to do this but chose to party.  I hope I didn’t misunderstand your intention.   
 
I agree the schools are terrible, but they became so in part from the "White Flight" from the city.  On average, N.O. is a very poor city.

---

The "white flight" comment is interesting for several reasons.First,people who are not enrolled in a school get blamed for it being a poor school. We might want to say that USM is a 4 level university because of the "flight" of good students from South Mississippi to better schools. Secondly,implicit in this comment is fact that the remaining black students are not very good students ,which we all can agree unfortunately is true. I would imagine it's not money since the teachers unions keep expenditures and staffing relatively high. I've read Charles Bolton's book on school desegregation in Miss. and he makes the same error of blaming the poor schools on the folks who are not enrolled.