Being two weeks away from receiving a hard-earned PhD, it is a little offensive to hear that someone like Martin Luther King (who, it is well established, plagiarized about half of his doctoral dissertation as well as parts of several among his other, mediocre writings) is still referred to as "Dr." Indeed, that this small detail is left out of your comparison of King to today's self-styled "civil rights leaders" is quite emblematic of the media's typical caricaturization of King. Setting aside the fact that King himself often spoke in much the same terms as Jeremiah Wright does today, he also had quite the track record of the very same opportunism you so stridently denounce in your column. To be sure, he is not the first politician/activist/leader whose virginity was restored in tragic, violent death. But I didn't quite expect that you, Mr. Hitchens, would traffic in the same mindless deification that so many of your lesser colleagues have blithely engaged in.

Methinks they're handing out those PhDs to anyone who can remember a slew of latin phrases, even if their meanings zoom by way above their heads. Your title ought to have been "Et tu quoque, King" -- except King is not accusing Wright, and Hitchens is not doing that which he accuses Wright of doing, so your title, in any event, is meaningless.

Here endeth the latin lesson. Stick to being pretentious in English.

I don't know exactly what you are talking about, sir. "Et tu quoque, Hitchens" is the appropriate title. The post was not meant as a tirade against Mr. King, but rather as the expression of my disappointment in Mr. Hitchens, who is generally a lot more irreverent than this. Maybe I should have said "you too, Hitchens?" Pardon me for using an expression you do not understand, sir. As for the criteria employed to hand out PhDs, what I can say for sure is that they don't award them to people who are found to plagiarize half their dissertations.

had a problem with the way that protestant sect religious institutions issue Doctorates of Religion to people completing four year courses, nonetheless it is generally recognized that within the less exacting sphere of protestant doctrinal issues religious doctorates are legitimate.

On the other hand one can be certain that if a Catholic Priests has Doctor tacked onto his name it is a full and rigorous PhD earned after many years of brain-bleeding effort.

As for the plagiarism issue, all great speech makers are to some extent plagiarists. It's knowing how to stitch disparate speech segments into a whole that differentiates the speech hack/thief from the brilliant orator.

Just as JFK is only gradually being turned back into a fallible human being by historians young enough to have no personal memories of the man, MLK, Jr. will eventually be turned back into a mere human being as well. Once one is safe from being automatically labeled a racist by his knee-jerk defenders, that is.

The think about MLK, Jr. is that he was the one, uniquely right, individual for the time that did what his equally knowledgeable brethren in the cause could not do. Aside from his brilliance and the fact that he was a well structured and handsome man with a fantastic voice and great oratory skills [sounds familiar in regards to a certain person running for the presidency?] he had an innate charisma [that intangible something extra] that allowed him to lead where others simply could not.

Obama probably does not have a similar charisma, but it is difficult to tell simply because the press is all but making love to the man. As of yet, he is not able to draw HR Clinton supporters away from their candidate, and thus this argues against his possessing MLK, Jr.'s level of charisma.

Hitchens told us up front that his love of MLK, jr. was formed during his early years when it was foam-flecked spittle against foam-flecked spittle in free thinkers against racists. Such youthful exposure is a formative experience indeed. It is rather obvious that Hitchens still worships MLK rather than, more realistically, respects and honors him as an exceptional human being.

This worship blinds him to certain truths and realities, but still it does not make him a bad man . . . just a rather limited writer on this subject matter.

In a similar manner, his blind hatred of all things Clinton makes him incoherent when that subject arises. Hitchens needs to take a few years break from writing and perhaps go back to college for some refresher courses on history and logic and journalism.

"But I didn't quite expect that you, Mr. Hitchens, would traffic in the same mindless deification that so many of your lesser colleagues have blithely engaged in."

So how do you say "suck up" in Latin?

Obama 08!

Et tu quoque is a retort made to a hypocrite for attacking the very practice he espouses. In his article, Mr. Hitchens attacked the practice of trafficking in "racial guilt". Since Mr. Hitchens does not himself traffic in racial guilt, et tu quoque is an inappropriate retort.

If, on the other hand, I am to assume you meant that Hitchens attacked those who revere guilt hustlers like Wright and Sharpton, but then himself reveres King (equally a hustler in your mind), I did not detect a tone of reverence in Hitchens’ writing, but merely the logical assertion that King, regardless of his personal motives and as compared to his ideological “scions”, actually did some good.

Thus your title falls on both points.

Rantus interruptus