|
Post by Optimus on Aug 29, 2018 11:59:27 GMT -5
ETA: "apparently distant relationship with his wife?" I've been following McCain and his wife on twitter for quite some time. The relationship doesn't feel distant at all. Christ on a stick, Cass, you cherry-pick and willfully ignore more than most people I've encountered, at least when it comes to this topic. You are either intentionally misreading my posts or your fangirling over McCain has whipped up into such a frenzied state that your blinders don't let any light in whatsoever. You're displaying an absurdly thick case of motivated reasoning. I specifically said: Emphasis mine, because it seems that I need to stick the words directly in front of your face so that you can't ignore them (but, based on the totality of your posts in this thread, I'm confident you'll still find a way to ignore my words and distort my intent). I was saying that...AT THAT TIME...ACCORDING TO THAT REPORTER...McCain and his wife seemed distant (you'll notice that the article came out only 2 years after that apparently questionable book). I have also said, repeatedly, in this thread, that McCain seems to have softened in recent years. See if you can follow me here...a person can be a piece of shit for a large amount of their life and still somewhat turn it around and be a nicer person 10 years later. However, that doesn't magically erase all the shittiness. When considering a person's entire life, the totality of their words and actions must be considered. I have also said, repeatedly, that I don't think that McCain was awful or bad or worthy of much scorn. As far as Republicans go, I had mostly positive feelings toward him. But, I hold people like Bush, Sr. and Bob Dole in higher regard than I do McCain, because they accomplished more in their political careers AND also had the added benefit of not having reputations for being part-time assholes. So, when I assess who McCain was over the course of his life, I don't think he was all that bad but I also don't think he was super duper awesome either. I don't think he was "a great man," at least not historically. However, if I'd known him personally, and had that personal connection, I'd likely feel differently. He was definitely a war hero and acted bravely, heroically, and selflessly (from what I know) during his time in the military. But, when it comes to his political life, the TOTALITY OF IT is not great. As Amadan has pointed out, McCain never passed anything groundbreaking or even really noteworthy. He had one notable Obamacare vote recently (where he voted against repeal), and people seem to be focusing on that as if it somehow summed up his career (it definitely doesn't), but what else did he do? To me, how hard he fought for DADT and against gays in the military and against gay marriage for roughly 90% of his career far outweighs that one time he disagreed with Trump on a transgender ban. He also voted against women's rights, consistently and often: I do not think he was "a great man," because when I consider both his political career and his military career, they do not add up to "great." Viewed separately, he was a war hero and a somewhat slightly-more-than-mediocre politician. And, once again, I don't think he was a bad guy. I simply take a much more balanced, fair assessment of his life than you do. I'm trying to be fair and intellectually honest about his political career. You seem to be taking the attitude of a fan-girl cosplaying as McCain at DragonCon. That's fine and even though I think it's a bit excessive, I have no real issues with you doing that. But please stop willfully misrepresenting my position. My overall position, which I will repeat for the upteenth time so that it sinks in (though I doubt it will), is that I think McCain was a complex person who leaves behind a complex legacy. I don't think he was great, but I don't think he was awful. Overall, I think he was better than most current Republicans but not nearly as good as many past ones. The author of the article I quoted from above sums it up in a way that comes close to my attitude:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 12:13:55 GMT -5
Again, I've given the yardstick of greatness by which I am measuring him.
Yours is clearly different.
I actually don't know what your yardstick is, or who measures up to it. So -- tell me.
ETA:
In my book, many of the cavils you bring up are downright petty, not to mention unsubstantiated (e.g., the alleged distant relationship with his wife). Others, as I say, are baked into my flawed but great verdict. You think I'm willfully "ignoring them"--in fact, I just don't agree that they make the man not great. Either way, they don't affect his standing, using my yardstick. YOU don't think the totality make him great. I (and many others) disagree.
But hey, that's using my yardstick.
What is yours? Who measures up? Anyone who's been alive since you were an adult? Why are they great?
You throw lots of scorn at me for "fangirling." Is there no one you fanboy over? Or is the whole notion of fervently admiring someone just beneath contempt, because hey, they had flaws?
There are certain qualities I revere, certain qualities I abominate, and I feel strongly about both. Despise me if you must.
I have some idea of what you scorn. What do you revere? I am genuinely curious.
ETA:
To note: Again, I never said he was a saint -- far from it. I never said I thought he was the greatest person who ever lived. I don't think that. I simply said in my view he was a great, if flawed, man, and I've said why. So please don't bother to go down the road of why he's not Lincoln or Nelson Mandela. I never said he was.
It may be the case -- in fact, I'm sure it is -- that I account more people as "great" than you would. But I'm interested in hearing what your yardstick(s) is/are, and who measures up. Are they flawless? If not, why don't their flaws make them not great?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 29, 2018 12:45:49 GMT -5
If you’ve never been in the military you don’t know---you CAN’T know---what it means to be a soldier. It really works the nerves of every veteran I know when someone who hasn’t raised their right hand and taken the oath to serve presumes the shit John McCain saw and lived and survived was simply the goddamn job he was supposed to do. To paraphrase Public Enemy, " John McCain was a hero to most but he never meant shit to some." Therefore he was no hero. Fine and dandy. To be a hero is not a status many seek and it is bestowed upon a few. Then the rest of us get to argue about it. To me, Martin Luther King, Jr., was an American hero. A hero who fucked around on his wife, but still a hero. King was not only a cheater but possibly a plagiarist as well. Yet despite his foibles and shortcomings he remains a hero to most Americans. A hero whom John McCain opposed being given the honor of a national holiday in his name. McCain later came to regret his opposition to the MLK holiday, but as Mother Jones reported, it wasn’t a 180 degree turn by the Arizona senator. When it comes to civil rights, McCain was all too frequently wrong. On many of the issues which matter most to me, the “Maverick” looks more like a traditional, party-line Republican politician. I don’t necessarily hate on McCain for his lack of courage on civil rights for women, gays, and people of color, but it’s hard to claim he was ahead of the curve either. So I won’t criticize anybody who looks sideways at all the proclamations and praises showered upon McCain as an American hero. There’s far too much evidence to the contrary based upon his long tenure in the Senate. McCain was rude, arrogant, cocky, self-assured, disdainful, contemptuous, impatient, unpleasant, and just an all-around dick when he felt like being one. Therefore, not a hero, right? Not necessarily.. I would contend not every hero is likable or consistent or pleasant or respectful or congenial. That’s Superman or Captain America. That’s not John McCain. If McCain is not a hero, pray tell which of his 99 colleagues in the U.S. Senate is? Tammy Duckworth immediately comes to mind, but her legislative record is skimpy with few notable accomplishments during her brief time in the upper chamber. There’s probably a few others in the Senate and the House whom are more deserving on being called a “hero” than Duckworth or McCain, but nobody comes to mind immediately and I’m not searching for the Greatest American Hero in Congress. Holla at me some other time… The point of fact is there is nobody else in the Senate who deserves such an outpouring of both respect as well as recrimination. Nobody else will be lying in both the Senate as well as the statehouse so people can pay their respects. Nobody else will take such a forceful and principled stance against torture now that McCain is gone. Nobody has ever been, nor will ever be, everyone’s hero. McCain provided plenty ammo for both sides of the “Was or Wasn’t McCain a hero?” argument. If it fills some need in someone to shit all over McCain’s legacy, I get it and I’ve done it. Almost a decade ago, I said about McCain’s decision to go negative against Barack Obama, If just selling himself as "the original maverick" were a winning strategy McCain would probably prefer to use it, but it appears, neither that nor "country first" have been enough to maintain the bounce the Palin pick gave him in the polls and with the base.
McCain knows he's going to be roasted by the press for going negative, but he also knows if it works, the press will fall back in line after the election. Besides, everyone loves to bash the press, so who cares what they're going to say?
Palin's remarks that Obama is not a man "who sees America as you see it and how I see America" is a thinly-veiled swipe at his patriotism and there's a none-too-subtle racial component to the attack. Obama looks different, thinks different and acts different than "you and I."
And the relaunching of John McCain as the Great White Hope against the Black Usurper begins.For some like me, I can detest the man’s politics while admiring his service to his country and his willingness to reach across the aisle to work with the opposition. McCain found a way to seek common ground with those he differed with politically instead of denigrating them in the manner a certain fear- mongering demagogue recently did when he called his “antifa” opponents “violent people.” What the Psychopath-In-Chief ignores as he always does are inconvient facts that there is NO proven predilection to violence by the Anti-Fascist Left as there is by the Alternative Right. As a prominent part of his base, Trump wouldn't rebuff the far-right radical fringe that backs him. But McCain would and did all the way to the end. That should be worth something in any assessment of his legacy. When McCain defended Obama at that campaign rally, it wasn’t something he did to win the praise of his press groupies. He did so not to score cool points with anyone. He did so because it was the right thing to do. That's also worth something. I’m pretty much okay with the disapproving throngs who disagree with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Cassandra or me. It’s perfectly fine to admire McCain or hold him in contempt. God knows there’s ample evidence for either argument. John McCain was a complicated man in life and is no less so in death. But I don’t care who agrees or disagrees with me. I honor the man McCain was and not the public image so many think he was and. John McCain was a man and like most men he was complicated, fallible and flawed. McCain has already written the book of his life and while others are free to opine on what it meant, nothing said here will detract or enhance that life. We won't be here having this discussion when a Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer leave the scene.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 29, 2018 13:05:40 GMT -5
If you’ve never been in the military you don’t know---you CAN’T know---what it means to be a soldier. It really works the nerves of every veteran I know when someone who hasn’t raised their right hand and taken the oath to serve presumes the shit John McCain saw and lived and survived was simply the goddamn job he was supposed to do. I'm not sure if this is a response to my comment that McCain did what we expect military officers to do (I am a veteran also, incidentally), but if it is - I did not phrase it as "simply the goddamn job he was supposed to do" because it wasn't, we don't expect our veterans to be captured and tortured. But the military does have codes of conduct describing what is expected of servicemen and women who wind up in that situation. McCain went above and beyond in meeting that standard, and I respect and admire him for that. I cannot say for certain if I would have done the same, because no one who hasn't been in that situation can say for certain what they would do. But I hesitate at applying the overused term "hero" because, maybe optimistically, I really do think most US military officers would pass that test. It's not that I have a low opinion of McCain, but a high opinion of what most people who are high-achieving and dedicated enough to become an officer in the first place will accomplishment when put under extraordinary pressure. Possibly I use an overly-literal interpretation of the word "hero," and everyone else is using it differently than I am. I agree with the rest. But I think this entire discussion boils down to personal definitions of "hero" and "great." Clearly we do not all have the same criteria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 13:09:19 GMT -5
I agree with every word you just said, NT -- the good and the bad.
I don't dispute for a minute that the man was controversial and unsaintly, nor do I assert that his senatorial legacy lives up to everything I'd want. Surely it doesn't. I disagreed with him often and vehemently. Occasionally, I wanted to hit him with a cast-iron frying pan. (Actually, his legacy doesn't live up to everything he'd want, either -- and he said so.) Your measure of the man is going to depend on your yardstick -- which is why I'm asking about what peoples' yardsticks are.
Valor, self-sacrifice, and standing for one's principles are yuuuuge for me.
Heh. FWIW, I also have an affection for cantankerous people. I don't mean it's a quality that makes someone great. I just mean it's one that doesn't particularly weigh against someone in my book. I like some passion. Sometimes people deserve to be told to fuck off. I've always kind of enjoyed McCain's irascibleness. Sue me.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 13:25:27 GMT -5
Taking aside Vietnam --
The man's funeral arrangements alone make me say "damn, this was a remarkable man." Take his asking Obama to speak, and Obama agreeing. Now, as NT discusses above, that was a hard-fought, often bitter, campaign, and McCain lost. McCain clearly disagreed with many, probably most, of Obama's priorities. But when it came down to it, McCain gave the thumbs down to overturn Obama's signature accomplishment, not because he loved it, but because his own colleagues had nothing decent to replace it. McCain wouldn't accede to his side's attempt to smear Obama with the racist birther crap (something that probably worked against him with Duh Base). And in the end, McCain wanted Obama to speak at his funeral -- marking his often-time opponent as a man he deeply respected, upholding him, in the face of the whole toxic alt-right bullshit so much of the GOP is countenancing, as a representative of true American values. There a shit ton of people from his own party he could have asked. Hell, he could just have had Bush. But he made a point of asking the man who defeated him in the 2008 election -- to put him on the pedestal of "yes, this was my president."
That's just a stunning tribute -- and it's one Obama returned by agreeing to eulogize him. Damn, I find that moving. Especially in this age of dissension and partisan ugliness. It's beautiful and I revere both men that much more for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 14:55:50 GMT -5
By the way, I don't know where to put this -- it doesn't belong in the tribute thread, and I don't want to start a third McCain thread -- so I'll put it here. One thing that is blowing my mind: Chuck Schumer proposed naming the Russell Senate office building after McCain. Jeff Flake co-sponsored the proposal. That building is currently named after a Democratic Senator -- one who yes, was a Senate leader in his day, but was also someone who supported racial segregation and was for decades a leader of southern opposition to the civil rights movement. There have been several past proposals to remove Russell's name from the building for that reason over the years. The proposal to rename the building after McCain has a lot of support from Democratic Senators. It's the Republicans trying to block it. And unfortunately, the reason seems to be that it would anger Trump-supporters who regard McCain (who voted with Republicans 87% of the time) as a RINO traitor and buy into Trump's constant attacks on him. That's...sad. My understanding is that this building is one of the few the Senate could vote to name after McCain without Trump's stamp of approval -- which obviously he will never give. Anyway. I salute Schumer for the thought, and give a nod to Flake for joining him to co-sponsor it. I am with those who think Russell's name should come off the building, whether replaced by McCain's or not. ETA: Other things to note: Russell served in the Senate until 1971. I don't see anything suggesting that he "evolved" on racial segregation. And he was not merely silent or cowardly on the subject -- he led opposition to civil rights and integration. And after the civil right act passed, he led a southern boycott of the 1964 Democratic National Convention in protest. That's one serious, committed racist, putting racism over party. I mean, there are complicated legacies, and then there's that. I think it's beyond the pale, and whatever else the man may have accomplished in his career, that overshadows it. He shouldn't have a senate office building named after him. Russell has several other buildings named for him, some streets, schools, a dam... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell_Jr.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 20:25:14 GMT -5
Serious question for you vets and people who know more about military history than I do ( nighttimer , Amadan , haggis , prozyan -- I'm thinking this is all of you ) : How many other vets are there who were tortured for years, were given an opportunity for preferential early release, and declined it, despite the fact that it meant they'd be tortured even more? How common/uncommon is this? I know of others who were tortured, some for extended periods of time, but the particular combination of being given an opportunity for release and declining it, knowing it will mean additional torture (my understanding is that he was subjected to extra torture for refusing, since they actually wanted to release him) -- I don't actually know of anyone else. But I admit I don't know -- maybe it is more common than I thought. I won't think it's less heroic. I will still think it's astonishing and admirable. But I'd be interested in knowing if it's as uncommon as I think. Valor in battle -- taking a bullet or risking death for your comrades, etc. -- is extremely heroic and admirable to me as well. But I think it is more common than doggedly enduring five and half years of torture, solitary confinement, etc., when you could have been released, all for the sake of a principle. Am I wrong? (Bet some of you didn't know I was such a military fangirl. I was engaged to a Marine Corps pilot once upon a time.) ETA: McCain being an admiral's son put him in a rather special position -- the Vietnamese wanted to release him for propaganda purposes. That's why he got the offer of preferential release (repeatedly, I understand) in the first place, and that's why they punished him for refusing. The fact of his being an admiral's son, along with the fact that my google searches haven't turned up others who did the same, makes me think it's unusual. There's also the sheer length of time of his torment -- not weeks or months, but five and a half years of torture, two of it in solitary confinement. How many countries participated in torture of prisoners of war, and for that length of time? It seems like it must be extraordinary. But I am no military scholar and it may be more common than I think.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 29, 2018 20:45:17 GMT -5
I don't know if there are any other situations comparable to McCain's, since he was an unusual case (a captured officer who was the son of a VIP - a field-grade officer in this case). Probably that hadn't happened since World War II, and I don't know of any specific WWII cases offhand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 21:17:07 GMT -5
I've been spending my evening reading about torture and prisoners of war. I may have to stop that and pick up a nice cozy mystery if I don't want nightmares.
It is absolutely horrifying what people can do to other people. That is all. I get how people can kill. I get how they can fight. What I don't get is how anyone can deliberately, systematically cause prolonged agony to someone who is helpless and at his mercy.
Anyway. I haven't found another case quite like McCain's, but I found a lot of totally horrible stories.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 30, 2018 8:16:47 GMT -5
There are entire subreddits dedicated to posting videos of people being killed, by the likes of ISIS, the Mexican cartels, etc. Real nightmare fuel. Makes me think sometimes that entire regions of the Earth need to be depopulated.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 30, 2018 14:13:07 GMT -5
John McCain was why I voted for Obama in 2008. I. Can't. Stand. Him. I don't think he was great at all. I think most of the praise he is receiving now is a consequence of him sticking it to Trump, above all else.
But the fact that I can't stand him doesn't diminish the reality of his service to the country. Of course the same might be said of Robert Byrd, since there were plenty of people who couldn't stand him (ditto for Teddy K, Strom Thurmond, and other long-time Senators). Yet, I can't help but note that all of these guys did a disservice to the country imo by staying in office when they clearly were no longer up to the job. In my view, that's a huge mark against "greatness." And there a ton of specifics that I could get into, when it comes to policy and conduct in office, though it seems like such things are viewed so differently--based in current optics--that it would be a fool's errand.
As to his military service, he served. That's more than can be said about a lot of people, myself included. And from what I've read, he did so willingly and with some bravery (again, more than can be said about a lot of people). He's as much of a hero as any other soldier who did the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 14:49:19 GMT -5
I don't think you can chalk his decades long friendships with, say, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy up to Trump hate. You can't chalk up my admiration of the guy to Trump hate -- I can dig up blog entries from 2008 in which I discuss my admiration for him, along with my frustrations with him. And there are many others like me, some of whom, I know, are on this board. I'll also note you can find articles praising him that waaaaaaayyyyyy pre-date Trump -- and not just his war heroism. E.g., Time put him on a list of Ten Best Senators in 2006. Agree or disagree, a lot of people have admired John McCain for a very long time. I think what this comes down to, more than anything, is a person's own yardsticks of what they value most and what flaws they find tolerable vs intolerable, and in what measure. My yardstick is not Amadan's. I'd put some of his list on my own list (e.g., Nelson Mandela), but not others (J.K.Rowling and Oprah). Doesn't mean I have anything against the latter or think they're awful -- it's just that they're more on my list of "people who are very successful," which (for me) isn't the same list. I actually DO get people's problems with McCain, and to some extent, I share their view of his defects. It's just that for me, the stuff I admire goes way past it, and they happen to be qualities I put on a pedestal. Not everyone may admire those qualities, or not to the degree that I do. In turn, there may be qualities they admire that I don't admire much. Anyone besides Amadan and Nighttimer willing to put up their yardstick and some relatively current or recently deceased people who measure up? I am sincerely interested. ETA: I'll also note that I find myself feeling more strongly about the qualities I admire in McCain precisely because they are in such short supply in our current politics, and particular, our current president. YMMV, as always. ETA: I'll add this, too -- he did more than serve. The degree of sacrifice he made, and the degree of what he withstood in the name of principle, when he could have avoided it, was extraordinary, and while I think there's room to debate whether or not he was a great man, I don't actually see how you can debate that. It's actually why I asked the question above about whether people could name many others who withstood as much torture as he did over the course of years when they had the chance to go home (and indeed, withstood extra torture because he refused to go home). There may be some, but there can't be many. At any rate, I couldn't find them. (Lots of torture victims, obviously -- it's the repeatedly turning down attempts to send him home even as his arm and leg were re-broken and his teeth knocked out as punishment for it that blow me away.) If you disagree, name them and let's see how many there are. You don't have to agree he's a great man, you may think his flaws outweigh it, but IMO there's just no way to rank his heroism as a prisoner of war as anything less than extraordinary. I've posted some accounts of it in the tribute thread.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 30, 2018 15:12:42 GMT -5
My yardstick is not Amadan's. I'd put some of his list on my own list (e.g., Nelson Mandela), but not others (J.K.Rowling and Oprah). Doesn't mean I have anything against the latter or think they're awful -- it's just that they're more on my list of "people who are very successful," which (for me) isn't the same list. That was off the top of my head and you specifically asked for "out there" suggestions. If I really had to defend the proposition that Oprah Winfrey and JK Rowling deserve to be catagorized alongside the likes of Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela, I'd put a lot more thought into it, and into clarifying what I mean by "greatness," before sticking with those nominees. I am not going to give casual answers to hypothetical questions in the future if my answers are taken to be serious statements of principle that I need to stand by or repudiate every time the subject comes up afterwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 15:26:38 GMT -5
I hadn't intended to mock you or stick it to you in any way, and my remark was in any case a passing one. I definitely think there can be different measures of greatness, and different qualities and accomplishments people admire. Unless the thing someone admires is, say, cruelty or mendacity or some other ugly trait, I'm actually not all that inclined to quibble with the yardsticks people choose. I'm just interested. And of course, I feel strongly about my own yardstick. Mine, in one line, is "Elevates principle over self, in the face of opposition, and with significant sacrifice". Like I said, there are other yardsticks I might use, too, but if I had to choose only one, that would be it, and I'm willing to forgive significant flaws where I see it, because I think it rare. YMMV. ETA: Another measure of greatness I find perfectly reasonable, for example -- one I use myself, although it's second to my other one -- is someone who accomplishes something truly rare and unusual. But for that measure to apply in my book, it can't just be success or talent -- it has to be a "shit, I'm hard-pressed to name others who accomplished something comparable to that" success, and the success has to benefit more people than, say, that person and his family. Discovering a cure to a disease, inventing something that changes people's lives, being instrumental in some social or political accomplishment would all fit in that category, IMO. I suspect that is closer to your measure. I won't quibble with it. I can also see an argument for someone who is just an extraordinarily good person and devotes their entire lives to the betterment of others. I think an argument can be made for people who perhaps weren't good people, who certainly had some downright terrible stuff to their credit, but who nonetheless left an indelible stamp on the world. That's something maybe history has to make a call on. Julius Caesar. Alexander the (heh) Great. Churchill. (And what do you do with someone downright horrible but who nonetheless left a huge stamp -- Stalin, Hitler ? They were certainly successful, famous, never-to-be forgotten. I don't want to call them great, myself. But maybe you have to consider where exactly the line gets drawn between someone like Alexander the Great or Julius Ceasar, who no doubt were responsible for a ton of grisly deaths, but who most people probably call great, and someone like Stalin, whom few of us probably want to call great. What's the ratio of evil done vs accomplishments that is acceptable? I think it likely varies by person -- some would include Churchill on their great list, while others would exclude him, for example.) Anyway, I just find it an interesting question. Since many threw rocks at my applying the label to John McCain, I wanted to hear who they'd apply the label to and why. And I was hoping to get more interesting responses than "Lincoln." (Sure, he's on my list, too. He's on everybody's list.) It's easy to throw rocks. There isn't a human being in existence who doesn't have flaws, so it is easy to point them out. Maybe it's a harder task to pick out people whom you'd elevate as being "great" despite their flaws. Similarly, it's easier to criticize policies and political compromises than it is to come up with alternative workable plans. Nowadays, in particular, politicians and people in general seem far more interested in doing the former... I think these days, it's more fashionable to tear down alleged heroes and give reasons they sucked than it is to elevate any and say why they were great. (Hey, I could do it too -- as NT and I have both noted, MLK Jr. was far from flawless. Mandela wasn't exactly uncontroversial either. But I still think they're both great men.) I will admit, I rather anticipated that there might be more hesitation to nominate great people than to criticize. But my interest is genuine. This is the kind of shit I used to sit up all night in college and law school arguing about with classmates. I kind of miss that.
|
|