As George Bush mentioned at the beginning of his <a href="{app}view_article.php?id=1220">State of the Union</a> speech, Coretta Scott King, wife of Martin Luther King, died last week. She was almost 80 years old and had been in poor health after suffering a stroke and heart attack last summer. Throughout her life, she was a champion of civil rights for minorities---especially the poor---and was an outspoken pacifist. She was laid to rest with a six hour funeral ceremony during which <iq>almost three dozen people spoke</iq>, according to the article, <a href="http://www.columbusdispatch.com/national-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/02/08/20060208-A1-01.html" source="Columbus Dispatch">They all came to salute Mrs. King</a>. It was an extremely high-level state affair, attended by former presidents Jimmy Carter, George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton as well as current president George Bush. <h>It's All About George</h> <img attachment="stn060210.png" align="right">If you live in the United States, you've probably already been told that the funeral was <iq>heavily politicized</iq> by the liberal speakers, who took advantage of the opportunity to bash Bush. The article, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090007" title="Media accused liberals of politicizing King funeral, ignored conservatives' use of Reagan funeral" source="Media Matters">Media accused liberals of politicizing King funeral...</a>, provides in-depth analysis of the length and breadth of news network coverage from Fox, MSNBC and others. In particular, Jimmy Carter was described as <iq>rude as hell [and] completely graceless</iq>, an affliction he's had for quite some time as <iq>this happens to be Jimmy Carter's style right now. He is a cheap partisan, very petty man, picking at George Bush.</iq> Jimmy Carter's crime? He mentioned how both Martin and Coretta King's civil rights were violated by an overreaching government: <bq>It was difficult for them personally, with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the targets of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance.</bq> That the overwhelming majority of news coverage took Bush's side is not surprising---the media has kowtowed to Bush since his first day in office. Bush is breaking the law<fn> in the same way that Edgar Hoover (then head of the FBI) broke the law when surveilling the Kings. Instead of lambasting president Bush for violating civil liberties, the American media slanders Carter for daring to bring it up. George Bush expected to be lauded simply for crawling out of his information-blackout bubble. He tried to honor Mrs. King's memory by agreeing to appear before people who were not pre-selected or forced to sign loyalty oaths---and this is how he's repaid? He was doing black people a <i>favor</i> by showing up! The coverage of the funeral immediately centered on George Bush and his hurt feelings rather than whether it properly honored the memory of a woman who spent her whole life fighting for the ideas espoused by Jimmy Carter in his eulogy. Instead, the thoughts of America were quickly steered to where they belonged---to consider <iq>President Bush and how he must have felt yesterday at the Coretta Scott King funeral.</iq> Almost everything that Bush stands for and has done during his two terms runs contrary to what Mrs. King believed her whole life. That the people who loved her and wanted to honor her would espouse beliefs that "hurt his feelings" is self-evident and inevitable. He knew exactly what he was getting into when he agreed to attend. The right-wing press is upset more that he didn't get the free publicity and points for showing that he does indeed "like black people". The other major offender of Bush's delicate sensibilities (and hence those of the beleaguered minority known as white Christian Republicans) was the Reverend Lowery: <bq>We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. [Standing Ovation] But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor.</bq> The mention of the weapons of mass destruction feels like a clumsy setup for the "weapons of misdirection" pun that follows. So he's not a great public speaker; so he feels the pressure of speaking at the funeral of the widow of a man who was---a man whose rhymes Jesse Jackson spent his life trying to emulate. The ensuing comments about poverty were presumably something that Mrs. King would have wholeheartedly approved of, as it's the same message she delivered for the last 25 years of her life. Instead, Americans were carefully instructed that Lowery had only Bush in mind when delivering his eulogy, or, as they put it, his <iq>absolutely ungodly...Bush-bashing sermon</iq>. What is the likelihood that Lowery and Carter were speaking to the president directly---that they took advantage of his vulnerability outside of his bubble to embarass him for his policies? The article, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/national/05bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" source="New York Times" title="In a Change of Plans, Bush Says He Will Attend King's Funeral">...Bush Says He Will Attend King's Funeral</a>, notes that Bush only decided to attend on Saturday (the funeral was the following Tuesday). <bq>on Saturday afternoon the White House sent out an e-mail message saying that Mr. Bush would attend the funeral instead...</bq> The story we are being asked to believe is that Jimmy Carter and the Revered Lowery rewrote their eulogies in order to get their digs in at president Bush, whose attendance had, for them, become the focal point of the day. The right-wing press seems to think that, since Bush decided to attend, the only fitting thing to do would be to rewrite the eulogies so that they could in no way offend him. <ft>See <a href="{app}view_articl.php?id=1232">Speak Up ... We Can't Hear You</a> for details on the Bush administration's wiretapping program.</ft> <h>Who's It All About Then?</h> The most important question to ask about the service is not "how did Georgie feel about it?". It's "how did Coretta Scott King's family feel about it?". I haven't been able to find <i>any</i> information about whether they approved or disapproved of the ceremony. If they disapproved of the politics and they agreed that it dishonored their mother's memory, then they can demand an apology from the speakers. Instead, we are treated to the opinions of people who neither knew Mrs. King nor cared about her work. Rush Limbaugh, in his typical bombastic fashion, had no trouble slipping into Martin Luther King's shoes and speaking for him: <bq>I think Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King --- if there was to be any anger from above looking down at that --- it would be from them.</bq> He's welcome to his opinion, but far more interesting is to hear how Martin and Coretta King's family felt about the whole affair. I have a feeling they probably thought it was perfectly fitting ... and that's why we aren't seeing them all over the television. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060211/cm_huffpost/015459;_ylt=A86.I1idhu1DLDMAEAb9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA---" author="Al Franken" source="Yahoo News" title="Reflections on the Wellstone Memorial and the King Funeral">Reflections on the ... King Funeral</a> makes a similar point, saying that many of the speakers knew the deceased quite well: <bq>Would Coretta Scott King have enjoyed the moment? I don't know. You know who would have a better idea than me? Jimmy Carter. He knew Mrs. King. Those who are currently complaining---most of whom claim to be offended on her behalf---didn't know her at all ... Coretta Scott King was a political woman. Most of those complaining on her behalf are against everything she stood for.</bq> Don't be fooled by the false authority these professional spin doctors lend to their opinions. They're doing nothing but speculating and selecting data to come to the conclusiong they want, steering the subject around to one they feel comfortable with---how awesome Bush is and how people that criticize him are anti-American. No one but Coretta Scott King and her family can say whether Carter and Lowery's comments were appreciated. Mrs. King is in no position to comment and her family has not been asked. Whether Bush liked it doesn't enter into it. All else is speculation, as is the following: <bq>I think [her family was] happy the two Bush Presidents showed up and paid their respects. I think they were also happy that Carter mentioned the wiretaps and that Joseph Lowery mentioned that there had been no WMD's in Iraq. Because that's probably what their mother would have wanted. But I don't know. You'd have to ask them.</bq> At least Franken admits that, though his opinion is somewhat more informed than Limbaugh's (he actually <i>knows</i> some of the people involved and is familiar with their work), all he has is an opinion. The only ones whose opinions count are that of her family, and that of the people she held close during her life. The opinions of people who detest everything she stood for (or would, if they knew a thing about her) <i>do not matter</i>. George Bush's feelings <i>do not matter</i>. It would be nice to find some enterprising news organization had bothered to ask whether Mrs. King's family had a problem with the speeches at the funeral, or, God forbid, enjoyed it.