“Martin Luther King, Jr. was a plagiarist”

We must also guard against another temptation. When the world recently learned that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a plagiarist, those who had a vested interest in keeping him up on his pedestal immediately began talking about feet of clay, the human condition, and we all struggle, do we not? In other words, Dr. King was a scoundrel, but we will admit no evidence that supports the claim and treat as a scoundrel anyone who dares to present the evidence. When confronted, against our will, with indisputable evidence that our hero was not foremost among the saints, the automatic response is to interpret it as evidence that King had a ‘weakness’ or a ‘failing.’ But never is it called by its Biblical name — sin.
Douglas Wilson

“for anyone familiar with . . . the footnotes in our books”

Allow me to clear my throat and modestly nod at the Omnibus curriculum, which takes students through six massive volumes of hundreds of ancient, medieval and modern books and plays — Scripture, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Homer, Herodotus, Plutarch, Euclid, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Thucy . . . oh, never mind. . . . In short, for anyone familiar with the topics at ACCS conferences, the footnotes in our books, and the curricula in our schools, Michael appears to be a perpilocutionist.
Douglas Wilson