Let's have the same standard applied to Eliot Spitzer (who had sex with a consenting adult) or Larry Craig (who played footsie with an adult homophobic sex narc on an entrapment prowl).

MLK is (rightfully, I think) a Liberal poster boy. The liberal press buried the story because it didn't want to piss on the 40th anniversary parade.

BUT, it is national news that Bevel - this perverted "hero'" - was a national leader, a religious leader, a serial sex abuser and was respected in his community - current LaRouche connections notwithstanding.

Bevel's crime was far more serious than Craig's or Spitzer's.

It's politically incorrect to take notice of this crime.

Now, had the "perpetrator" been a white lacrosse player, and the "victim" been a black stripper, and had not only no crime - but nothing even approximating a crime - been committed, well THEN it would be FRONT PAGE NEWS. For a full year.

the U.S. of NAACP America?

Well that's a little weird...and somewhat paranoid. pfish.

The NAACP has a lot less control than the elite white liberal media (WaPo) who have a condescending attitude toward all minorities (except closet case white male politicians).

Not weird or paranoid at all. Perhaps you have amnesia.

Newsweek (Slate's corporate sibling) ran a coverpage with the Duke lacrosse players after they'd just been indicted (by the media) in the non-rape scandal. The entire Mainstream Media (tm) participated in nearly railroading innocent men for a crime that never happened. This was a year ago. It dominated the news. Were you under a rock??

Oh yes yes, but what's hysterical about YOU is the belief that a story that's reported in a national newspaper has been "hidden away" by the "liberal" and "politically correct" press.

The Duke lacrosse players weren't indicted by the press, but rather by an abusive and now out-of-work prosecutor. On the other hand, the prosecutor who railroaded a bunch of high school kids in Jena is doing just fine. So what's your point?

It's been a long time since 1968. During that time, Bevel, who was not altogether sane back then, has gone way off into the margins, and is now a pathetic nut who abuses his children. He's probably certifiable. So in what sense is he or his current situation an indictment of Martin Luther King, Junior?

Bevel has nothing currently to do with the battles of his youth, and he certainly has nothing to do with the Duke lacrosse team, so why is it so important to you to use his case as an indictment of the press?

What you're DYING for is for someone to say that you're a racist, so you can reply that when you noble disinterested servants of truth tag the liberal press (and liberals in general) for moral bias, you're ALWAYS accused of racism. Sort of a high-tech lynching, as it were. So I won't mention your racism, though others would feel obliged to point out that rather obvious fact.

What you are, though, is a whiner. You should man up and shut up if you have this little to say. Why should Bevel's legal trouble be a big national story; big, say, as when a current and closeted senator gets caught playing footsie in a public bathroom?

I love your name-calling, ad hominems, and general overwrought emotion. How typical of a liberal. You rant and rave whenever someone points out an inconsistency. The O.P. asked for an example and I gave it. Q.E.D.

However much you'd like to think otherwise, it is not hysterical to point out an injustice that nearly cost several innocent people their lives. And despite their exoneration, to millions of people they will always be "guilty of something." Your own hysteria surely stems from the fact that nobody buys what you're selling.

Oh, and please keep ranting about Larry Craig. I couldn't care less about him either way, but I find it vastly amusing that you'd raise such an irrelevant counterpoint by way of comparison. Which part of Craig's behavior makes him the counterweight to Bevel that you rhetorically seek? Are you seriously equivocating footsie in a men's bathroom with incest and sexual abuse? Either both behaviors should be illegal or neither should be?

Tell me more, Solomon.

pfish, you are wrong and just because the Duke case happened dosen't mean that well off White kids are at some legal disadvantage vis a vis Blacks.

If Bezel was still active in the civil rights movent it would have been news but considering his time in the spotlight was over 30 years ago, and he's accused of molesting Black girls Q.E.D. not a national story (if he had molested a White girl differnt story).

I am wrong that the liberal media is primarily interested in smoking out racism when the so-called racist is white? You've GOT to be kidding me. Prove it.

That's a completely lunatic assertion and you don't get a pass on it. You don't get to just declare "you're wrong" as though by virtue of stating it you've actually proved something.

Prove it.

Really? YOU are the one who started this shitfest by making a bunch of totally unsupported statements about the "liberal press" and its implicit reverse racism.

So yo prove YOUR assertions first. You're the big shot telling everyone what to think, screaming that somehow there must be a link between the one black preacher and the other BESIDES their being...black. And that this impacts on Obama, well, that's just an accident, right?

You're up to your armpits in mud and now you demand PROOF and won't "give a pass" to those who disagree with your lunatic and, yes, racist assertions. This isn't about incest. Bevel's a nutcase who was once a hero (though even then more than a little strange) in the fight for civil rights. Now he'll suffer and his family, about whom you pretend concern, will suffer with him, and you, prissy little bastard that you are, will feed on that suffering, and try to use it for political gain.

Can you count little boy?

First of all, I'm not the O.P.

Secondly, I did not make "a bunch ... of statements" I made one statement. One is singular (just in case your grammar skills are as sharp as your math). That statement is that it is politically incorrect to take notice of Bevel's crime(s). For the record, those crimes include pedophilia, incest, and child sexual abuse - just about as shocking and disgusting as it gets.

Third, when questioned, I provided evidence in support of my assertion. It is demonstrably true that had Bevel been an innocent lacrosse player who happened to be white and had the so-called "victim" been a mentally unstable prostitute who happened to be black, then the media would have handled the case differently. It is manifestly true that the racial dynamics drove the case both in the legal process and in the media. It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that three innocent white lacrosse players were abused and slimed by the liberal press for nearly a year. That entire tragedy was of ghoulish fascination only because it was politically correct - never mind the fact that it was not true.

Fourth, so there you go William Jennings Bryan, my case has in fact, been proved.

Fifth, are you off your meds? "You're the big shot telling everyone what to think, screaming that somehow there must be a link between the one black preacher and the other BESIDES their being...black. And that this impacts on Obama, well, that's just an accident, right?" Show me anywhere I "told everyone what to think." Find anything I said vis-a-vis a link between black preachers and screaming and blackness and Obama and whatever else you're deludedly tossing out. Those are your words, my friend. Your words. Not mine.

Sixth, I continue to not give you a pass. I made my case and proved it. You made a host of nonsensical assertions and have proven nothing. (Except that you need to go back to school.)

You do run on, and you make a lot of noise when criticized. So touchy.

First of all, though the topic you insisted on was the already-old matter of the Duke Lacrosse Players (the Scottsboro Boys of white skin privilege) and its supposed link to the Bevel case, you continue to hang that assumtion on an armature of counterfactuals.

"It is demonstrably true that had Bevel been an innocent lacrosse player who happened to be white and had the so-called "victim" been a mentally unstable prostitute who happened to be black, then the media would have handled the case differently."

Demonstrably? How? "Demonstrably" is a pompous weasel word. Either you can demonstrate this elaborate counterfactual, or you can't. Since you can't, why claim you can? Because the rest of your argument is ALSO bullshit?

Oh yeah, what IF Bevel were white, and the world's oldest college lacrosse player, and his kids were mentally unstable prostitutes (oh, and BTW, "prostitute?" Do you have a LINK to justify that slander, or did you just make that one up?) who "just happened to be black" then would the media have handled the case differently?

Let me see now...seventy-some retired minister and civil rights veteran who is, by the way, white, returns to school at a privileged private university and joins the lacrosse team... after which he is accused of sexually assaulting his own underage children, who just happen to be black prostitutes, and mentally unstable... would the press cover that?

I'd say the National Enquirer would definitely give you front page.

To continue, after presenting nothing but bizarre counterfactuals, you claim that you have provided EVIDENCE. Bunky, counterfactuals are not evidence. They are rhetorical stunts; not even rational argument. To add sauce to this nonsense, you make repeated reference to "political correctness," whatever that means.

Then you call me William Jennings Bryan (in reference to what? The Scopes trial? ROTFLMAO!), tell me I'm deluded, make yet another bogus claim of having "made my case and proved it" and invite me to return to school. At Duke perhaps? And can I have a lacrosse scholarship?

Damn, this was fun.

<link>

Signed,

Opie

#1 You couldn't even make it through the third point? It figures. I'll keep this short enough for you, you're clearly slow.

#2 Demonstrably. As in, it has been demonstrated. It occurred. It actually happened. Ergo, it is demonstrably true. I proved it. All you did was make noise.

#3 Now try (and fail) again, you poor thing.

Heh. Yes, I thought he seemed a bit... bitter?

#1 You couldn't even make it through the third point? It figures. I'll keep this short enough for you, you're clearly slow.

#2 Demonstrably. As in, it has been demonstrated. It occurred. It actually happened. Ergo, it is demonstrably true. I proved it. All you did was make noise.

#3 Now try (and fail) again, you poor thing.