A very biased picture. The bogeyman of communism combined with the huge
evil of adultery. He must have been such a bad man capable of anything,
surely he spat on the pavement and lied to his mother about getting home
late at night as well, why wasn't that mentioned? I wonder why you had the
need to post it here, I wonder who is it serving and in what way. Don't
tell me that this is a public service to tell the truth. It is propaganda
pure and simple - but why? And speaking of plagiarism if you are the author
of this I would be amazed. If you are going to publish such OT material at
least tell us where you got it.

As an outsider I really wonder about the American tendency to both revile
and worship their heroes. It seems that one man's saint is another's sinner
and there is little objective balance. As if discovering that MLK was not a
saint was such a surprise.

If you took all the great men and women of history who have made the world a
better place you would find many of them had serious personal flaws,
particularly if judged against the prevailing public morality of the day. A
morality that is disregarded in private more often than not. Of course those
who also went against the establishment are bound to cop it by having those
flaws exposed and exploited for political reasons. Does that mean that
their achievements didn't happen? Getting back to King, does that mean
there was no need for the lot of Negroes to be improved? A biased and
sanctimonious picture indeed.

David