William Ayers was a young radical in the 1960s — this is admitted, accepted, and not in question at all. Now William Ayers is a respected academic, somebody who is no longer advocating violence, who is a crusader for social justice and urban educational reform within the system, and that sounds like it ought to be an interesting and worthy story. So why is the Republican party trying to brand him as a terrorist? He’s a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago!
The latest sad twist is that he was invited to speak at a student research conference, and the craven University of Nebraska-Lincoln canceled the event under pressure from donors and politicians. The governor of the state called the invitation an “embarrassment” and said “Ayers is a well-known radical who should never have been invited to the University of Nebraska”; representatives and senators chimed in with similar sentiments; a regent called it “bad judgment”; donors to the university threatened to withhold further contributions. This is insane. Ayers hasn’t committed a crime, and he’s not a danger to society — this is a fellow who clearly has a deep commitment to improving society (perhaps, to Republican eyes, that is his crime).
Has anybody thought to look at what Bill Ayers actually promotes? He has a website, and it’s trivial to look up what he’s advocating. For instance, here is a description of his book, Teaching Toward Feedom:
In Teaching toward Freedom, William Ayers illuminates the hope as well as the conflict that characterizes the craft of education: how it can be used in authoritarian ways at the service of the state, the church, or a restrictive existing social order-or, as he envisions it, as a way for students to become more fully human, more engaged, more participatory, more free. Using examples from his own classroom experiences as well as from popular culture, film, and novels, Ayers redraws the lines concerning how we teach, why we teach, and the surprising things we uncover when we allow students to become visible, vocal authors of their own lives and stories. This lucid and inspiring book will help teachers at every level to realize that ideal.
Why, that sounds admirable. So why are these lunatics shrieking for his head, and condemning Barack Obama for simply attending meetings as a community organizer at the same time as Bill Ayers?
It’s obvious. The right-wing hate machine, desperate for a way to smear a candidate who has an unimpeachable history as an advocate for social justice, strained to find some dangerous association, and the worst they could come up with is a gentle, writerly academic who let the passions of his youth lead him into violent and illegal actions 40 years ago — actions that he considers just. They ignore his history ever since — apparently, there is no redemption unless you embrace Jesus and Republican intolerance, ala Chuck Colson — and they pretend that his words now simply don’t matter. They stir up the mob to hatred, and the mob calls in threats of violence against an educator, and UNL simply surrenders in cowardice.
Bill Ayers is a reason to vote against Republican demagoguery tomorrow.
I did like the way Redstate Update approached the Ayers ‘controversy’.
http://www.sitemason.com/newspub/fQKJvW?id=60003
Thank you PZ for calling this out. I have been wondering at the insanity of the William Ayers connection too- I wonder why no one ever talked to Professor Ayers himself- surely he was more media worthy than Joe the unlicensed plumber..
As a former Nebraskan I keep up on what goes on at the Universities. My friend posted this commentary and I thought it appropriate to share here:
This was emailed to all students and faculty today about the cancellation of Bill Ayers’ visit to UNL. I think it is extremely disturbing on multiple levels: First, the fact that Nebraskans were (I believe unsurprisingly) viciously and even violently calling for UNL to cancel Ayers visit, speaks to the almost rabid republican base here in Nebraska and fact that reasonable, intelligent discussion at this point is almost impossible.
Second, there is a question of academic and intellectual integrity that needs to be addressed: As Chancellor Pearlman notes, the University is primarily a place of education, through offering the finest scholarship opportunities available to students. By cancelling Ayers’ visit, students have been deprived of an opportunity. Universities are often the location of passionate, wide-ranging, and conflicting ideas: this is what universities DO! this is how people learn! this is what students pay for!
A sad day for UNL.
——————————–
Dear Students:
I regret that during the controversy regarding William Ayers’ visit to
campus, I was in China and thus largely absent from the discussion. I am
this morning meeting with the media.
I believe the controversy about Bill Ayers visiting this campus was
heightened by a confluence of events which no one really could influence
or predict. In February of this year, the College of Education and Human
Sciences selected a speaker for its annual student research conference.
The topic was “qualitative methodology” and the committee eventually
decided to invite William Ayers, a nationally recognized scholar in the
field. In the 1960s Ayers engaged in violent acts in protest of the
Vietnam War, for a while was a fugitive from justice, and eventually
turned himself in. Prosecution of Ayers for these crimes was
unsuccessful.
This year the research conference featuring Ayers coincided with a weekend
in which the college also scheduled some significant events in its
celebration of its centennial. Since the college expected alumni to be
visiting the college, they were also invited to the conference, although
the signature event for the centennial celebration was a dinner at which
Ayers was to play no role.
Although Ayers’ selection was widely known in the college for some time,
it came to the public’s attention only a few days ago in the midst of him
having become a central figure in a bitterly contested presidential
election. Given the national focus on his past and the appearance that
his visit to Lincoln was related to the election, many people in Nebraska
were furious. Although I do not agree with this reaction, I can understand
it and the concerns expressed. Given Ayers’ background, reasonable people
could regard him with disgust, yet our traditions permit individuals to
speak, even if their backgrounds or ideas are objectionable. Nebraskans
care deeply about their university. We cannot have a great university if
the selection of speakers, faculty, curriculum, or activities is governed
by the passions of the moment or even the views of the majority.
I want to emphasize one point as strongly as I can. I do not think the
selection of Ayers to come to Lincoln to address a student research
conference on research methodology was in any way inappropriate. He is
an acknowledged scholar, a tenured faculty member at the University of
Illinois Chicago, and a high ranking officer in the association dealing
with this type of research. He was named “Chicago Citizen of the Year”
in 1996 and has worked tirelessly to improve the Chicago public schools.
Ayers has spoken at more than 70 universities, including Iowa State, North
Dakota State, Indiana, Purdue, the University of Missouri, and Michigan State.
In the final accounting of his life, there will be very negative entries for
his conduct 40 years ago and there will be more current positive entries
as well.
Much is made of the “fact” that he has not repented for his acts of
violence. The evidence of whether he has expressly done so is uncertain,
which could lead reasonable people to think he had not. It is clear that
he currently leads a responsible life, one apparently devoted to improving
the lives of school children in Illinois and in the nation. Repentance
can come by deeds as well as by words.
The outrage by many Nebraskans was understandable but I think unfortunate
to the extent it led them to seek to prevent him from coming. Most
alarming, however, were some responses that were threatening to the
security of the campus. As many of you know, we have faculty on this
campus who specialize in assessing the level of threat in any situation
and they informed me by e-mail in China that the tone and tenor of the
e-mails, the phone calls, and the blogs, suggested that the reaction to
any Ayers’ visit would represent a significant threat to the safety of the
campus. Moreover, it could create an environment that would prohibit the
University from taking advantage of his expertise. The student research
conference would turn into a three-ring circus. After consultation
between Barbara Couture, myself and Dean Kostelnik, it was decided to
cancel his visit. There are some who are skeptical of this explanation for
the cancellation and believe we were ordered by the Board of Regents or
President Milliken to cancel the visit. I can assure you that we were not
ordered to cancel the event and that I would resign before following such
an order.
I find it difficult to accept that the actions of a few individuals can
deprive this university of its right to select speakers who can contribute
to the education of our students. Nonetheless I take seriously the
responsibility I have for the safety of members of this community,
particularly the students. It seemed cancellation was the most responsible
action.
This university has always been able to invite and to host controversial
speakers from all walks of life and all matters of persuasion. It is
unnerving that the apparent escalating passion and violence of recent
years makes the exercise of our traditional values more difficult.
Once these events came together, there appeared to be no good alternative
available. I hope you will understand. I am convinced this was an
unusual circumstance, one unlikely to repeat itself. I am a strong
believer in our students’ and faculty’s right to determine for themselves
who should be invited to campus to speak. But I also have a
responsibility for the safety of this campus. Once these events came
together, there appeared to be no good alternative available. I hope you
will understand.
Harvey
“Ayers hasn’t committed a crime” near the top of the article, vs. he “let the passions of his youth lead him into violent and illegal actions” near the bottom of the article. Ayers himself, of course, famously said “Guilty as hell, and free as a bird,” so perhaps doesn’t equate lack of conviction with lack of criminality. PZ says Ayers’ critics “pretend that his words now simply don’t matter,” but that’s not quite accurate either, because Ayers’ own recent words are ambiguous and require interpretation. PZ, this squib is a letdown from your usual standards of precision.
Strewth. Bill’s blog has trolls that make yours look like stray kittens.
Because he still clearly harbours much of the same philosophies that led to his imprisionment. Now he’s just trying to infiltrate people’s consciousness with words and simply because he is no longer, apparently, a terrorist does not mean that his cause is in any way legitimate.
It seems obvious he is advocating radicalism – although possibly not the violent sort – simply from reading the excerpt you provided.
For over a decade, one of Ayer’s biggest financial supporters was the Annenberg foundation – funded primarily by Mr. Annenberg. Who also donates huge amounts of money to many Republican campaigns.
Ayers has been both a (failed) terrorist and a teacher. Has connections to both the left and the right. Has drastically changed his views and behaviors.
The Ayers story is much too complicated for the media. They have a neat pigeon hole for everyone they write about, and they really, really hate talking about people who don’t fit those neat pigeon holes. They want the world to be as simple as the old 80’s cartoon GI Joe, where you always knew who the good guys were, who the bad guys were, and who was on what side.
Oh noes, not…radicalism! Not “relating to or affecting the basic nature or most import features of something,” or even worse, “favoring or making economic, political, or social changes of a sweeping or extreme nature.”
How would this country even have been created if we’d given in to radicalism! Oh wait, that’s exactly how it was created. Plus violence, of course. Lincoln was a radical, too. All important social change has been radical.
Oooh! You are now conspiring with a known domestic terrorist!!!
When I was a kid a domestic terrorist was a drunk father beating his wife and kids! Da dum…tsh!! Thank you! I’m here till Thursday…try the hummus!
It’s yet another example of Republican logic.
slight difference between “radical” and “convicted terrorist.” Especially when the convicted terrorist has not in any way recanted his position.
You blew it.
Again.
Exactly, Ann. And what with our LITERALLY SINKING ECONOMY, don’t you think it MIGHT be time for some good, old fasihoned radicalism? Not a violent uprising, but … we need to PUSH FORWARD, not be meek!
A lot of samples of crazy in the comments on that site. These are just from one thread:
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/emergency-suspend-the-debates/#comments
The criticism(s) against Obama and his links to (1960’s) Ayers are grounded in dubious assumptions:
1. They assume people do not change over time. They may falsely believe their deity is immutable but that does not mean homo sapiens are immutable.
2. They assume that accountability for any action entails a life sentence. Again, this may be true for sins it is not true outside of a religious context (for all actions).
The far right wingers, and I include you PR, see anything in the middle of the road or slightly to the left to radical. That is not the case, and one needs to look from a bigger prospective. Ayers is hardly a radical these days.
“I wonder why no one ever talked to Professor Ayers himself- surely he was more media worthy than Joe the unlicensed plumber..”
Reporters have tried to talk to him, but he’s not having it. He keeps getting asked whether he’s sorry for his radicalism in the 60s. There’s a clip of a Fox News reporter trying to get him to say “sorry.” Ayers then calls the cops on him.
This has gone beyond simple demagoguery. Targeting intellectuals in this way is blatantly fascist.
What’s that an answer to, Pete? What was the question here?
Let me ask you this… would you hold the same opinion of the man if he’d repented and took to the cloth? Would you be more forgiving of his 40 year old past then?
I get so sick of the hypocrisy from the right. Our higher eduction system is literally filled with people who carried radical views in the 60’s and 70’s… it was a volatile time. And whether you want to defend his actions from that time or condemn them ishardly the issue at this point in time. The only question you need ask yourself is, what has he done since? And the answer is, as PZ pointed out, he has been an educator and advocate for the freedom of education in this country. He has spent his entire life dedicated to a principal that most of us here would find admirable, were it not for the constant reminder of his past.
No, a person should not be given a “free pass” for past actions, but I’d hardly call Ayer’s life’s work since that time a “free pass”. Look for yourself at what this man has actually accomplished over the last 20 years or more and then judge for yourself how he should be perceived, and how those who have had acquaintance with him should be perceived.
Or, continue to be a victim of sensationalistic fear-mongering and slimy hate tactics.
Good gods, you mean he’s talking to people? And even writing at them?! What has the world come to when people are allowed to use words or even arguments to influence other people? A sad day indeed.
He was never punished for his crimes. In fact, as a terrorist, he should have been sentenced to life without parole. He belongs in prison.
Fascist.
Republicans seem to feel as though people cannot grow, change their minds, and be rehabilitated. I suppose that’s why they nailed Kerry so much for “flip-flopping,” and why they advocate prison sentences that aim to punish people instead of bring them out of the situations that caused their criminality in the first place (mental health treatment, life skills learning, etc.)
According to Wikipedia: “In 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award for his work on the [Woods] project.” That’s a pretty impressive honor. I think it’s safe to say the man has done his penance for the crimes he has committed, has learned from them, and has long since moved on.
Because he tried to kill people?
This is a guy, when interview in 2002, said he wished he planted more bombs.
Rehabilitation? Remorse? Repentance?
What do you expect from a bizarre group of individuals who think community organizer is an insult? The President’s letter is sad. Yeah, let’s threaten a campus full of innocent people with violence because they invited someone to speak who once threatened violence. It’s Catholic Logic!
Link to the exact words he used
They always play the “safety” card when trying to violate our rights or screw us in some way.
And why not a violent uprising? As Ann correctly pointed out, our country was founded by radicals who fought their own government. And there was never a more violent war in US history, on US soil, than the civil war, and that turned out pretty well IMHO.
Not that I’m saying that I agree with the strategy or tactics of Ayers. The Weathermen was a bunch of petty bourgeois radicals who stood no chance in hell of achieving anything meaningful.
@ Matt
Do you always just repeat little pieces of quotes out of context just cause somebody told you so? Or are you really just that lazy? Do your homework… look up the entire text. Come back when you’ve learned something that wasn’t spoon-fed to you.
Because the wingnut propaganda machine had already told them that Ayers is one of “The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America” according to The Professors by Horowitz.
Of course they simply ignore McCain’s connections to G. Gordon Liddy.
I don’t think Ayers’ past crimes can be justified, and if he hasn’t expressed remorse, that’s not justifiable, either.
But two wrongs generally don’t make a right, and that site is full of death threats against this man, which is not justifiable, either. Ayers was involved in terrorism in the past, but those who threaten him are terrorists now.
And conflating Barack Obama’s character with Ayers’ crimes of 40 years ago is just ridiculous.
“What’s wrong with William Ayers?”
Oy, PZ! I’ll be glad when this election is over so this blog can get back to discussing science.
The latest sad twist is that he was invited to speak at a student research conference, and the craven University of Nebraska-Lincoln canceled the event under pressure from donors and politicians.
Well, I don’t know whether I’d agree that this was “craven”. It appears that there is a real possibility of violence (can I use the word “terrorism”? Or does that not apply to the right?). Perhaps cancellation wasn’t the appropriate response to these threats of violence, but I wouldn’t characterize it as “craven”.
You’re only a terrorist if they disagree with why you’re bombing.
The logic used by the GOP to brand Ayers is the same used on the left to brand Israeli academics who have been prevented from speaking in countries like Britain and have been threatened with an academic boycott because they’re from a country that portion of the left doesn’t like. Ironic.
I don’t think Ayers’ past crimes can be justified, and if he hasn’t expressed remorse, that’s not justifiable, either.
Has McCain expressed remorse for engaging in military missions that killed civilians during the very same illegal war Ayers was protesting? Or is it the technicality of being against the written law that counts? Or does wearing a uniform excuse one from the moral consequences of one’s actions?
It is interesting (infuriating), and not unexpected given our tribal nature, that Barack Obama, and the “civilized world,” have been forced to repudiate Bill Ayers, who never killed anyone, while those who associate with the perpetrators ( Kissinger, for example) of one of the great crimes of the second half of the 20th century, The Vietnam War – where millions were massacred, are not forced to do the same thing. On the contrary, these criminals are extolled by much of society and are as free as birds.
oh please do link to that because your analogy just falls totally flat without anything supporting it.
That, of course, is a lie.
His own blog goes to great lengths to explain that it was a lie.
But you’re not interested in that, are you?
PZ wrote:
Looking at just that line, and taking it out of context, one could assume you are talking about Rashid Khalidi:
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/11/hbc-90003795
They did that twice it seems, smearing Khalidi and William Ayers. And Ayers will just have to take Khalidi’s advice: “I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over.”
There seem to be a lot of factual mistakes in the posts here. Ayers was never convicted of terrorism. He lived underground with his wife Bernadine Dohrn. If I remember correctly, they did this for more than 10 years. But due to misconduct by the authorities, the charges against both were dropped. Neither have denied what they were charged with and their apologies for what they did have been half-hearted at best. And a professor and an original director of the Anneberg Project, his ideas have failed to improve educational outcome. However, I don’t think it was appropriate for the University of Nebraska to cancel the event.
slight difference between “radical” and “convicted terrorist.”
Wow, how uninformed. He was never convicted. The charges were dropped, in part due to government misconduct handling the case.
Especially when the convicted terrorist has not in any way recanted his position.
This is, of course, patently false.
“Neither have denied what they were charged with and their apologies for what they did have been half-hearted at best”
I wonder when Mccain will be apologizing for what he did, since his bombs actually killed people – no doubt many people.
I think ProfMTH nailed it.
At least into the late eighties, members of the FLQ previously convicted for their involvement in the October crisis toured high-schools in Quebec lecturing to students. Their lectures were in part a history lesson in why they did what they did and why their cause still merits attention, but they also spoke on how not to pursue political aims. I think this is vastly superior to eternal condemnation – or whatever earthy approximation we can concoct.
The guy isn’t plotting a terrorist campaign now. In my books, that, if anything, merits applause. I think every potential national leader should spend some time with failed terrorists – repentant or otherwise.
Obama’s connections with Ayers are utterly meaningless, agreed. But let’s not tap-dance around the fact that Ayers was, in fact, a terrorist, and he remains unrepentent. I do not fault Obama for serving on an education board with him – not one bit – but the attempt to achieve political ends through violence is despicable, and so is Ayers’s lack of remorse. He deserves his second chance and is apparently doing good things, and is certainly no longer violent, but his past and his lack of remorse make it difficult for me to admire the guy.
slight difference between “radical” and “convicted terrorist.” Especially when the convicted terrorist has not in any way recanted his position.
You blew it.
Again. “pharyngulaphile
Ayers has never been convicted of anything.
Whatever his crimes, they pale into complete insignificance beside those of mass-murderers such as George W. Bush and Henry Kissinger, or even bomber John McCain. What? Oh, those were just gooks and rag-heads you say? I see.
the attempt to achieve political ends through violence is despicable – Hieronymus Bosch’s Poodle
So you would have opposed The American Revolution? The American Civil War? World War II?
I have not read much on William Ayers’ past, but I have seen bits and pieces about the organization Weatherman. If I am remembering correctly, didn’t they go out of their way to make sure that no civilians were harmed? Even when they bombed the Pentagon, weren’t there no injuries?
Really, if that is the extent of Ayer’s terrorism, crimes against property and the Pentagon, well then, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
Now they’re going after Rashid Khalidi, who was never convicted of any crime and who was never connected to terrorists period.
It’s a bad time to be a liberal arts professor.
Terrorist (noun): person in possession of a bomb, but without a plane to drop it from.
Actually, I would dispute the latter. And be quite unrepentant about it.
jonathon, #34: The logic used by the GOP to brand Ayers is the same used on the left to brand Israeli academics who have been prevented from speaking in countries like Britain and have been threatened with an academic boycott because they’re from a country that portion of the left doesn’t like.
And in the US the majority of the left is opposed to this sort of boycott. So unless there are significant portions of the GOP that are speaking out against the Ayers connection, your analogy sort of falls flat. As it does since no one who is running for an office is using connections to Israeli academics to smear their opponent.
You need to work on your analogies a little.
By the way…wasn’t the Irish Republican Army a REAL terrorist group? And don’t we engage with the former members of the IRA quite respectfully, on a daily basis?
Pete Rooke at #6 posted:
This happens every day among human beings that interact with other human beings through the medium of writing or speaking. It’s called “communication.” I always thought that all parties involved bore some level of responsibility in the process. If I hear some “words” trying to “infiltrate my consciousness” then at least some of the onus of responsibility lies with me in how I respond, doesn’t it? Whether the words posed to me are as simple as “That will be 75 cents” as I purchase a mug of tea, or as laden as “It is a moral imperative to vote for such-and-such a candidate in the upcoming election,” then some burden of how I receive, process, and respond to those words lies with me, no?
lewelly at #7:
Good guys shoot blue lasers, bad guys shoot red lasers. Musta been a helluva moral quagmire for the color blind kids.
No kings,
Robert
His name hath been marked by the “bar-T” brand, so that all who hear or gaze upon it shall know him as terrorist…without giving it a another friggin’ thought.
I think I’m starting to hear buzzer-sounds every time I hear somebody invoking a boogey-man buzzword.
They’re not exactly well-acquainted with the practice of making up their own minds, are they? They have their “minds” served to them by the equivalent of a fast junk-food drive-in.
Pass the ketchup.
Matt, your “This is a guy, when interview in 2002, said he wished he planted more bombs” is false. He stated “I wish we’d done more”, and when asked if that meant more bombing, replied “No, more to change people’s minds about the war and society”.
I don’t expect you’ll get it right, but you should check things first.
Well if he HAD relevant connection to a candidate I he would be on bounds. I mean if he was an advisor to the campaign or something then people with politics far from his would legitimate view this as A Bad Thing.
But he isn’t. He was moving in the same circles as Obama when the latter started his career, and that’s about. If that’s “palling around” then McCain’s special trip to meet Pinochet is certainly palling around with a tyrant.
Do you not have law enforcement in Nebraska? I remember when Colin Blakemore (then Prof of physiology at Oxford and animal loonies’ no1 target) spoke at the NIMR in outer London. The road outside the institute in both directions was coned off, there were snipers on the roof and police in flak jackets and toting machine pistols outside and inside the hall. In a science institute!
If little old England can do this why can’t Nebraska? I therefore do not buy the ‘safety’ argument. I bet the funding threats had much more effect and Chancellor Pearlman would not have had to be ordered, just made aware of the ‘consequences’. Thus the bullies win.
First they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish…
When are good Americans going to stand up and say ‘enough!’.
”I don’t regret setting bombs” From The Weather Underground documentary, 2001.
How’s that for repentance?
The whole thing about Ayers and Wright is that some bozos want to refight the 1960s all over again.
DUDES! That was 40 YEARS AGO!
Talk about living in the past….
@ Prof MTH #14
It’s not entirely an assumption, since it can be based on the anecdote of their own retarded development with an accompanying assumption that their experience holds true for everyone else (ie without consideration for the evidence or possibility that not everyone is like them but may instead be much better than them).
They even know already that it isn’t the case for some things, eg a projectile-vomiting baby doesn’t necessarily retain that characteristic as an adult. But they’re unable to reason well enough to extrapolate accurately from a wide range of related examples.
They don’t generally believe that one to be true for themselves or their fellow religionists and leaders. They forgive themselves and other members of the in-crowd all too readily for the most heinous behaviour and often regard a simple appeal to God/Jesus as fixing it all for them. They just don’t regard anyone in the out-group as being forgivable etc for even the slightest or imagined offence.
I challenge everyone to try and step outside of the partisan atmosphere today and consider:
This is supposedly a blog of open-minded people, yet many are defending a celebrated bomber, a man who uses violence to coerce a certain narrow belief system on his fellow man. Imagine the cyber-stoning he’d get on this site if he said God told him to do it?
BTW, I think the Vietnam war was criminal, Kissinger should be in jail, Pinochet in hell..I’ll likely vote Obama tomorrow in spite of his association with the terrorist Ayers. Doesnt make Ayers any less of a terrorist though.
The mind of PZ Meyers: R.I.P.
Killed by ideology, 3 November 2008
Re: my post at #53:
llewelly, I apologize for misspelling your post handle. Just now realized.
No kings,
Robert
Obamas ties to Ayers are negligible, and there’s a definite double standard when it comes to right wing associations with fringe characters. However, Ayers was a terrorist, and until he unequivocally recants, as far as I’m concerned a terrorist he will remain. Whether he thought his actions were just is irrelevant. How many people who participated in political violence didn’t think thier actions were just?
It was still wrong to block his campus appearance. I don’t like when that happens to either right or left.
Matt #58: “How’s that for repentance?”
Well, Ayers isn’t on the ticket, is he? And Obama has nothing to repent for what somebody else might have done, does he?
What I’d like to know is this: how come the McCampaign could only come up with what they themselves characterized as a “has been”? Why not go all the way and connect Obama with a CONTEMPORARY FOREIGN TERRORIST INFLUENCE? A REAL baddie? They didn’t have the balls for that, nosiree. They have the integrity to refrain from making false claims for which no evidence exists, you betcha. They just don’t make things up, doncha know.
But they’re not beneath a little playful larceny by just stoking the fear-factor flame, find a way to weasel the boogeyman buzzword “terrorist’ into it, and perfectly willing to let the conspiracy-minded wackaloon contingent among their supporters to do the rest by putting 2 and 2 together for them. You know damned well how the game is played. Or you should. Output: “Terrorist”. “Arab”. “Islam” and Muslem”. Racism. Bigotry. Hatred…
bzzzt…bzzzt…bzzzt…
Know what that is? It’s dishonorable. It’s cowardly. And it’s dispicable.
I don’t want those kinds of Americans telling me how I and all other Americans should think. No more. Tomorrow? It is finished.
I don’t get it. What’s wrong with being a radical? Isn’t that just another word for Maverick?
Aren’t people like Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson and Bill Donohue radicals?
Here is the deal. Terrorism is a crime. A Federal offense, like murder. Since Bill Ayers, as far as I know hasn’t been convicted (or even charged with) terrorism, isn’t it at best slanderous to maintain that he is?
I mean just because Palin (and probably McCain as well) are in favor of capital punishment, or its less flattering name state sanctioned murder, doesn’t mean you get to go around calling them mass murderers. On CNN. Unfortunately.
It’s not that you’re about to elect someone who believes in exorcism and The Flintstones into what (if Dick Cheney is anything to go by) is arguably the most powerful executive office in the US. It’s that she might actually win.
@ Matt –
Yes, Amtt… and what we’re asking you to do is stop regurgitating mis-quoted, out of context, or quote-mines sound bites that were spoon-fed to you by the fact-twisting right and do some freaking research yourself. And that myopic description above shows that you have no interest in being anything but lazy.
Oh, and by the way, using words like “celebrated bomber” to describe a man you had never heard of before this election is dishonest.
“Doesnt make Ayers any less of a terrorist though.”
Terrorism is now generally defined as the targeting of civilians for the purpose of achieving a political objective. Since the weathermen, from what I have read, went out of their way to avoid killing innocent people, they cannot be considered terrorists by this definition, or in the sense we understand terrorism to be today.
Those weather underground guys were pretty lousy chemists, they should have stuck with the simple stuff that doesn’t blow up in your face.
They were only famous because they self-promoted.
Fuck a bunch of Manifestos, just shut up and light the fuse, dumb-ass.
I remember the sixties, there was shit blowing up all over the place. Somebody lobbing a molotov cocktail into a selective service office at 3 am was third page news.
When I lived in Delaware County, somebody broke into the FBI headquarters, stole all their files and shit, leaked it to the press, and GOT AWAY WITH IT!!
As far as actual bloodthirsty mad bombers, none those hippies were shit compared to
THIS crazy motherfucker
The mind of PZ Meyers: R.I.P. Quark27
Who’s this P.Z. Meyers? I don’t seem to have heard of him.
I have to say, I found this whole thing really appalling because the idiot Republicans have just stuck by this notion that he was a domestic terrorist and he is unrepentant and he is a monster, and instead of defending a notable intellectual, the Obama campaign just distanced themselves from him.
Why not stand up to the McCain campaign and say “this guy is what he is, but if you are going to point out the terrorist activities he took part in forty years ago, also give him credit for his intelligence and accomplishments in academia.”
This, in my opinion, is the primary failure of the Obama campaign, and my only real misgiving. As much as I disagree with Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, it would have been nice to see their points about social equality expressed in this campaign instead of seeing them demonized by Republican rhetoric.
Most domestic terrorists these days are christofascists and belong to the Theothuglican party. The medical clinic bombers, white powder mailers, MD assassins, evolutionary biologist attackers, death threaters, skinheads, KKK’ers and on and on.
It wouldn’t bother me if they got rounded up and got life in prison. I do believe they should have fair trials first though as the constitution requires.
As a side effect, the Theothuglicans would lose their extremist wing and might even become respectable again.
Now he’s just trying to infiltrate people’s consciousness with words – Pete Rooke
You know, I remember hearing about someone else who was keen on that. He had some radical ideas too. Now what was his name? Oh yes! Jesus the Nazarene!
I just don’t like guys that are willing to kill people they don’t even know. I much prefer terrorists and democrats that specifically target victims they hate. You can better trust a terrorist that is discriminating – don’t you think?
here >>>
Because the wingnut propaganda machine had already told them that Ayers is one of “The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America” according to The Professors by Horowitz.<< Now there is a name for you a "respected name" in the "radical right" who started out his political career even though not being black as a member of the Black Panthers as I heard in an interview on the radio. I guess it must be different some how but I have no idea how?
Wow, this thread is making my killfile swell. Where did all the idiots come from? Though I suspect (hope) they will disappear come Wednesday.
Or republicans that detain people without access to a speedy trial… or a trial at all, or secretly undermine the rule of law in the country, or use signing statements to in practice give themselves the ability to bypass any and all laws signed or a multitude of other things.
Sure.
Are you referring to Nobel Prize winner Nelson Mandela, who ran the terrorism arm of the ANC, Spear of the Nation, and until 2008 was on the US terrorist watch list? A man who various presidents have “palled around with”, and of whom McCain has spoken of so warmly?
Or are you referring to Menachem Begin, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who ran the terrorist group Irgun that killed and bombed during the British Mandate in Palestine in order to force the establishment of a Jewish state?
If things are so black and white, why were these men invited the White House?
Yglesias wrote about the idea that one of the corollaries of “guilt by association” politics is that we now expect a politician to not even listen to the arguments we deem unacceptable–he must cut himself off from any part of the world connected to the T-word.
I would actually think much, much less of Obama if he had said to Ayers “No, I won’t work with you to improve Chicago public schools because 30 years ago you did terrible things, even if you’re completely reformed now.”
It shows how the republicans don’t believe in forgiveness and second chances, unlike what their preachers espouse when on public TV. I looked up synonyms for “republican” and it listed “hypocrite”, “evangelic”, “zealot”, and “greedy slime ball”.
Apparently Dustin’s dictionary contains only one word.
I voted for Obama weeks ago (literally). I’m glad I did. Nothing about the “Ayers Case” changes my mind. The link between Obama and Ayers is extremely tenuous, at best. Another right-wing smear attempting to show that we might be electing a member of the PLO to lead our country. That’s still wrong.
However, for those of you who still have questions about Ayers, I urge you to read Ayers’ entry in wikipedia. Yes, people died as a result of his bombs. While he may have ATTEMPTED to not kill civilians — I doubt that was his intended target — the fact is, his bombs did successfully kill civilians.
When Ayers says he wishes he’d done more, he meant that he wished we, as a public, had done more to end the war, not that his group should have planted more bombs.
I’m really not sure how Ayers can lead a group of bombers that, however accidentally, killed three people, and then not show enough remorse… And still get a job as a professor. I don’t care if it was 40 years ago, or 40 minutes ago, you have to show some remorse. In my mind, Ayers hasn’t done this.
And this makes no difference as to how I voted. Not one bit.
I would like to have seen Obama make a statement that he was uncomfortable serving on Woods with a known killer; that’s about the extent of it for me.
As an aside, Khalidi is NOT a terrorist. Those charges are bogus. Palin further cemented her role as McCain’s Co-Idiot when she made those claims. I support Khalidi 100% here. So did the IRI.
My objection to Ayers is that he recklessly endangered other people, and has yet to show any remorse for it.
As far as how Obama’s acquaintance with him affects my opinion of Obama as a candidate, I’d have to say it barely registers, given Obama’s vote for the bailout and his saber-rattling towards Iran and Pakistan.
republicans that detain people without access to a speedy trial… or a trial at all,
Don’t gloss over the complicity of the Democrats who voted for the PATRIOT act.
-jcr
Observer #64 says, “However, Ayers was a terrorist, and until he unequivocally recants, as far as I’m concerned a terrorist he will remain.”
Fine. The logic stands. How right you are. Dandy. Makes sense.
Except for one thing: “Was” is the operative word. And during that “was”, Obama the kid had nothing to do with him at all.
All of which makes me think: SO WHAT?
Ayers’ recantation, whether offered unequivocally or not, is completely irrelevant. It has no bearing whatsoever on a critical analysis of qualification in the CANDIDATE in question. You know, the subject of the whole thing.
The LINK is false to begin with. It is sufficient that Obama HAS “unequivocally” denounced any such activity, because the slanderous false charge was introduced, and that’s what actually counts – not what Ayers said or didn’t say. On the preeminent issue of the election (what this purported “link’ is alleged to have a bearing on) I DO NOT CARE who Ayers is or once did or whether he’s repented for whatever he’s done, beyond the responsibility of looking into it when the charges first emerged to see if there was anything to the LINK.
(That doesn’t mean that I may not be interested in ascertaining what kind of person Ayers is in another context – but any conclusion I might arrive at has no bearing on this election, because the friggin’ LINK is FALSE).
I’m deeply puzzled by the republicans resounding lack of imagination: why not just as arbitrarily make links – however “negligible” – between Obama and any other person he may have shared the planet with over his lifetime? Shook hands with? Happened to be enjoying a meal in the same restaurant with? Why, that sort of assessment could have raised a veritable ARMY of nefarious boogeymen!
They just come up with this one guy. (The venerable Rev Wright didn’t much work out as anything more than a well-aimed shot in the foot of the religious right, who want to preserve their OWN right to be as obnoxious as he).
Anybody who counts the Ayers “link” as significant is free to come up tons more that are comparably so – for the sake of completeness. Where is all that? Inquiring minds want to know. One can never tell…
Trouble is, there’s not a smidgeon of relevancy in such an effort. It’s utterly wrongheaded from the get-go…and we’re all guilty of meeting with creeps by chance. Heck, most of us have relations that are creeps.
Pass the ketchup.
Matt @ 61: This is supposedly a blog of open-minded people, yet many are defending a celebrated bomber, a man who uses violence to coerce a certain narrow belief system on his fellow man.
I must have missed something, I don’t see anyone here celebrating John McCain
The comparison, or flat-out equation, of John McCain (and,by extension, all men/women in uniform) with terrorists, because the military kill people, is stupid in the extreme. Say what you will about the people who started, ran, and lied about the war, equating the people who took part with terrorists is far beyond the realm of reason. The BEST thing that can be said about these allegations is that you are engaging in hyperbole. I will keep the honest opinion of these allegations to myself.
Some of the mind-boggling opaqueness in these comments remind me of something I saw on C-Span 3, a couple of ex-Nam-war correspondents doing an overview.
They showed a clip of MacNamara, from ’65 or so.
He was saying that US troops were able to engage and contain the enemy, win battles, hit targets, and achieve military objectives, but it was the Terrorists that were giving them so many problems.
In this case, the Stupid did more than burn
MikeM, #82: However, for those of you who still have questions about Ayers, I urge you to read Ayers’ entry in wikipedia. Yes, people died as a result of his bombs. While he may have ATTEMPTED to not kill civilians — I doubt that was his intended target — the fact is, his bombs did successfully kill civilians.
The Pentagon calls this “collateral damage”. It’s not supposed to deter us from “the good fight”. This may even be true, but I don’t know; dean in #86 thinks I’m stupid, and maybe I am.
Gee, this story does make me realise how much the USA and France are so profoundly different.
During the massive violent student manifestations of may 68, one of the key figures of the rebelion and who was emprisoned was a guy called Daniel Cohn-Bendit.
40 years later, Cohn-Bendit is one of the most respected intellectuals and politician in the country, member of the European parliament. He’s almost like a national hero for many.
Celtic, what did I misquote?
How do you know Id never heard of him before? And even if you’re right, so what? He’s a bomber, perhaps I should add the word “self-” in front of celebrated, would that be more accurate.
I watched the weather underground documentary after I heard Ayers interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now in the fall of 2001. The man loves thinking of himself as a celebrated “truth to power” type. He also was charged, though was freed on a technicality. Much like O.J.
but all of this dodges my earlier point. Why the hell do so many people defend this scum? Is it just knee jerk Obama-euphoria or are you all real terrorist sympathizers? Im gonna go out on a limb and guess the majority of posters on this site werent alive during the sixties, do you really want to align yourself with someone who wanted to blow up the country? Do you get the f’ing irony here….if the country was blown up then, there’d be no Obama now!
Yea, USA aint perfect… its still better than most. And I prefer it in one piece, thanks anyway Mr. Ayers.
Why would Bill Ayers have to repent setting bombs against a fascist government and it’s institutions? After all the misery that your piece of shit country has brought on the world, it still escapes your tiny nazi brains, that fighting against the regime is the right thing to do. The presidential elections won’t change a thing if the people will remain with the “my country no matter what” attitude. You get your panties in a knot about Williams Ayers, but what about William Calley? You know who William Calley is, what he did, and what he got for it? Nothing will change, no justice will be done, unless you demand it. And all you’re good for is juggling the “terrorist” word. I, for one, am sorry that Bill Ayers didn’t do more.
Gosh, I hope I didn’t sound angry or anything. First post and all.
Bill Ayers in his own words:
http://site2.littlegreenfootballs.com/pdf/Prairie-fire.pdf
Not that anyone here will read the shit bill wrote.
Who’s this P.Z. Meyers? I don’t seem to have heard of him.
Sssshhh. Mea culpa, but please don’t disturb the wake with typo Nazism. It’s disrespectful.
The PZmind will be lying in state for only a few more hours.
Then there will be cake.
Because he’s not scum. No he’s not mainstream, but he does good things for his community and is a respected professor.
Please, G. Gordon Liddy is a buddy of McCain. Do you want to go there too?
This guilt by association game is complete bullshit.
Math, #90: Why the hell do so many people defend this scum?
Because Americans think that it’s acceptable to use violence to achieve political ends. The only disagreement, it appears, is on which political ends should be achieved, not on whether violence is an acceptable means.
@Steven(EE)
Drop dead, you bigoted sack of pig shit. Same old same old excuses for violence and murder. So what if some innocents die? You a butt buddy of Bush & Cheney or something? You wouldn’t know a real fascist from your own tiny dick. Fuck you. Fuck you hard.
StevenEE you scum, William Calley went to jail…so did G.Gordon Liddy. The coward Ayers walked. Doesnt have much of a problem with “the system” now that he’s got a fat salary on the taxpayer dollar. Nothing more hypocritical (or funny) than a double-chinned campus radical.
PZ says Ayers’ critics “pretend that his words now simply don’t matter,” but that’s not quite accurate either, because Ayers’ own recent words are ambiguous and require interpretation.
So many deeply stupid people here. The words that PZ referred to are Ayers’ words about education, not his comments about his past activities. “But he’s unrepentant!” — only cretins care.
What are the crimes commited by this man?
From I have found, his group put bombs as a form of protesting, not for terror. That was not a concept used in the 60,s.
Lets remember those times.
Around the world, students had been made demostrations against war, an in some countries, against the goverments. in 68 hundred of students were killed in Mexico for protesting against the goverment, in 70 in the university of Kent, 3 students would be killed.
What they decided to do?.. Put bombs in what they though were the simbols of represion.
Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties, the statue was rebuilt and then bombed by another Watherman.
They were not trying to kill people. But people died, Diana Oughton, his girl friend died trying to make a bomb, some other member would have the same fate.
Ayer would make more bombs por protesting.:
“Although the bomb that rocked the Pentagon was itsy-bitsy – weighing close to two pounds – it caused ‘tens of thousands of dollars’ of damage. The operation cost under $500, and no one was killed or even hurt”
And so far, no one had died in the bombings he was involved.
Federal prosecutor William C. Ibershof, commente recently that whiel he tough he could get Ayers convicted, the case went to awry, (because of wire taping the witnesses, and other anomalies) that the government decided in 1973 to drop the case in the interests of national security.
Today William C. Ibershof defends Ayers, who has done a lot to redemm any damage he could have done.
BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS.
If you’re going to make a point, try doing so without exposing what an over reaching douchebag you are.
Yes the country has been headed in the wrong direction under Bush but calling us all small minded “nazis” just makes you sound like a moron.
Gosh, I hope I didn’t sound angry or anything.
No. Just ignorant and hypocritical and hateful and willing to correct wrongs with ever more wrongs. A typical human being, in other words. Congratulations! You are utterly average and ordinary.
I wish the best of Irish (and British) luck to you guys tomorrow. The world is watching. I for one would dearly love to see a U.S. president who has a higher IQ than me. The last 8 years have been a disaster for the world, not just for the US.
If I were there, I would be working all my evenings on getting people out to vote. Almost everyone in Britain is holding their breath, supporting Obama. This is too important to just stand by. Please get out there tomorrow and take your friends and neighbours with you.
I’m looking forward to getting well drunk in celebration on Wednesday!
Ayers dedicated his book to the murderer of Robert F. Kennedy, for chrissakes.
Surely some good-hearted liberal on the website can find the stones to condemn that.
Kinda like a “Maverick” selling out to attract the base of his party… right?
What Bill Ayers is doing now is important and not at all radical.
Get over it.
How much time did Scooter Libby do for treason? Hmmm?
Bill Ayers’ Terrorist Group Discussed Genocide of Americans
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31662_Bill_Ayers_Terrorist_Group_Discussed_Genocide_of_Americans
“I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.
And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”
Twenty-five million people.
I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.
And they were dead serious.”
Negentropyeater@#89: Not to mention Cohn-Bendit’s friend and comrade Joschka Fischer rising to be a hugely popular foreign minister in Germany. Or sometime Maoist revolutionary Durão Barroso becoming a centre-right prime minister in Portugal and now head of the European commission. as a Even us reactionary Brits have sixties revolutionary Tarik Ali as a fully paid up member of the establishment (as well as ex-IRA men happily running Northern Ireland in coalition with Ian Paisley).
Written in 1974 displaying you missing the point completely.
do you really want to align yourself with someone who wanted to blow up the country? Do you get the f’ing irony here….if the country was blown up then, there’d be no Obama now!
You make stupid look like genius.
Sorry for the typos… i forget to proof reading my last post.
Just one question… in the US is a crime to be or have radical ideas?
From I have found, his group put bombs as a form of protesting, not for terror.
Oh, well, that’s OK, then!
Put bombs. Are there call bombs? :-) Some stock market humor for ya there in these times of economic goosebumps.
We’re doomed, aren’t we? You would think intelligent folk could just make a simple stand against violence without ideological caveats.
Anyway, I’m predicting 326 electoral votes for Obama tomorrow. Margin of error is one “battleground” state.
“What Bill Ayers is doing now is … not at all radical.”
Nice try Steve, but even Ayers himself would disagree with you, read his website for a few seconds. He’s using words instead of bombs, which is fine, people need to have their critical faculties tested now and then. But dont kid yourself that he’s given up his radical dreams.
The comparison, or flat-out equation, of John McCain (and,by extension, all men/women in uniform) with terrorists, because the military kill people, is stupid in the extreme. – dean
That’s an assertion. How about an argument to back it up?
Care to refute my arguements, Truthmachine, or just engage in childish ad-hominem stuff?
Matt, #111: But dont kid yourself that he’s given up his radical dreams.
And this is my earlier point. What bothers you isn’t the bombs, but the purposes for which the bombs were used.
I’ll be glad when Wednesday rolls around. All the RW trolls who are posting here, and are not changing any minds due to the stupidity of their arguments, will crawl back under rocks until the next election.
Quiet Desperation @110
It is not OK… it is vandalism, and probably he should have to pay for the statue or the other damages…
but that is not terrorism, nor a murder… as i have read, it has been claimed.
“What bothers you isn’t the bombs”
why do you bother with us simple folk, given your mindreading capabilities?
No, bombs bother me. Violence bothers me. People who believe there is only one way to live, and who are dying (or willing to kill) to show me the way, bother me. People who pose as revolutionaries bother me, especially when their bought for so cheap by the system they’d vow to destroy.
@#99: Are you fucking serious?
Ayers and the Weathermen were willing to risk human life to get their points across. I don’t care who the target was or how many heads-up they sent.
It’s a bomb. It’s designed to do damage. Chunks of the Haymarket statue landed on a freeway, for crying out loud. Someone could have been killed by this “protest” bomb.
Unreal…
Matt A
Ayers dedicated his book to the murderer of Robert F. Kennedy, for chrissakes.
No he didn’t, you stupid fucking liar. Prairie Fire, which is not “his book”, was dedicated to “all political prisoners in the U.S.” — among whom they included Sirhan Sirhan, along with many other people. Quite a number of people, probably wrongly, think that Sirhan Sirhan did not kill Kennedy. In that case, the book was not dedicated to the murderer of RFK, any more that Oedipus wanted to fuck his mother.
When people have to go so far out of their way to mislead as Eric and Matt do here, there’s obviously something wrong with their basic thesis.
You know, when Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Drudge Report, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Little Green Football, suddenly all point liberals to this specific point, we know why they’re doing it…
Have they all suddenly become Robert F. Kennedy Fans ?
What are they insinuating now, that Obama finds the murder of Kennedy a good thing ?
Is that what you are also trying to insinuate ?
Sorry, but I find this kind of politics absolutely abject.
And tomorrow, mark my words, all these assholes are gonna lose big time.
No, bombs bother me. Violence bothers me.
Tell that to the people of Iraq, you fucking hypocritical asshole. Tell that to Mr. “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”.
Sirhan Sirhan was a political prisoner??? Gimme a break.
This is a cowardly, wanna-be murderer envying the real murderers in plain print, and you all have twisted yourselves into believing you need to defend this guy.
Im beginning to understand Christopher Hitchens agonistes after Sept. 11.
Nick Gotts et. al. – Governments monopolize violence. That’s not a bad starter definition of government. You can list all the awful crimes committed by governments (including the US government) and right down the list, I’d probably agree with you. Violence committed by government is invariable less or more awful than terrorism, but it’s not terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism. Ayers was a terrorist – and, frankly, as terrorists go, not all that bad because apparently he took pains to avoid casualties. But, still, a terrorist. Comparing terrorists to governments is a pretty silly waste of time – they different things, and we treat them differently because they are different.
Care to refute my arguements, Truthmachine
What you wrote is not an “argument”, cretin. “someone who wanted to blow up the country” is an assertion that is prima facie false.
All the RW trolls who are posting here, and are not changing any minds due to the stupidity of their arguments, will crawl back under rocks until the next election.
No they won’t. Then they will be in their preferred position, beleaguered, oppressed minority, and only they will have the courage to foment the kind of racial hatred and class antagonism this country needs.
Actually governing is clearly not the strong suit of these scumbags, and it’s certainly not among their preferred uses of power. They’ve gotten a pass for the last eight years to use the civic institutions of the republic to funnel as many resources as possible to their cronies and generally be obstructionist toward progress on civil rights, environmental issues, and a rational, engaged, multilateral foreign policy. Now it’s time to setle back and cackle at the feeble and misguided efforts of decent citizens to put things right.
Sirhan Sirhan was a political prisoner??? Gimme a break.
I didn’t say he was, you stupid fucking moron.
> Terrorist (noun): person in possession of a bomb, but
> without a plane to drop it from.
# 49,
Nick Gotts
The LTTE actually has an air force…
Ayers was a terrorist – and, frankly, as terrorists go, not all that bad because apparently he took pains to avoid casualties. But, still, a terrorist.
So the fuck what? The significance of that is a function of that word having been turned into a super-duper primal button-pushing trigger to replace “Communist” and, um, “socialist”.
Thank the spaghetti monster that this election is tomorrow, I am so tired of hearing about it. I want Obama to win of course, but this B.S. about Obama serving with Ayers on a panel has just gone overboard. It is just the Republican party grasping at straws.
What a great time to visit the D.C. area, huh P.Z. Looking forward to it, hope you post more details about where you will be. My husband and I definitely want to have a beer with you.
just like to point out ive been called a Nazi, asshole, cretin, and stupid fucking moron. I will cop to calling StevenEE scum after he compared America to Nazi Germany.
all this on a blog that celebrates open-mindedness and, dare I say it, diversity.
Bwahhahaahahaaaaa.
You all make my arguments for me.
BTW, I opposed the Iraq war, still do. In fact my opposition to this war is one of the reasons I DONT want to vote for Obama tomorrow. I suspect he, like so many average establishment Democrats, will cave to the pressure and stay the course.
He’ll be defended on this site no matter what he does of course.
I don’t know why the wingnuts like Matt & EricA think they’re going to change anyones mind with this drivel, especially here. All I need to know tomorrow, when I will mark the circle next to Obama’s name, will be that he is not the republican candidate. Everything else is irrelevant.
You all make my arguments for me.
Great. You can go away now, asswipe.
OK, as others have noted, the weather underground specifically bombed EMPTY government buildings. They would completely fail to bomb a building rather than harm any human beings that might be inside it. So remember that when people ask Ayers whether he feels bad about the bombings, they’re asking him if he feels bad about bombing empty buildings belonging to a government that, from Ayers’ perspective, was spending billions of dollars on an illegal war. Would you feel bad about that?
Let’s not forget that George Washington, the first federal army, and the Continental Congress would all qualify as terrorists under any reasonable definition. They all went to war against the colonies’ sovereign ruler, King George III.
So for those of you who insist on calling Ayers a terrorist despite the fact that he didn’t actually terrorize anybody, is he better or worse than George Washington rebelling against the British crown?
I don’t think Ayers’ past crimes can be justified, and if he hasn’t expressed remorse, that’s not justifiable, either.
What about, say, Nelson Mandela’s crimes? Or those of the participants in the Boston Tea Party?
“revolution” is not inherently a dirty word.
Wrong. If caught lying, or if he does not show a good-faith effort to effect the changes he has advocated in his campaign, he will be called on it in no uncertain terms on this site.
Dan L. you ask perfectly reasonable question. G. Washington, from the persepective of England, was a terrorist. So was Ayers.
Now, on to why they did what they did… Do you believe that Ayers cause was on par with Washingtons? Why, or why not?
To answer that question requires the exercise of moral judgement, something of a precious commodity of late on this site, rather than these childish ‘equivalence’ observations clogging up the post so far. Perhaps you have some, I’ll wait and see.
“I don’t know why the wingnuts like Matt & EricA think they’re going to change anyones mind with this drivel, especially here. All I need to know tomorrow, when I will mark the circle next to Obama’s name, will be that he is not the republican candidate. Everything else is irrelevant.”
A man and his dogma.
Matt,
can you believe that people can change within a time span of 40 years, and that whatever Ayers did 40 years ago Obama didn’t know him then, but only nowadays ?
Also, it’s not because Obama knew him, or even befriended him, that he agreed with him or took advice from him.
You might be the kind of person who only befriends with people who are exactly of the same political opinion as yourself, but not everybody is the same, I for one have many friends with whom I like to disagree, what tells you that Obama is not the same ?
Why do the Republicans still treat Ayers as a terrorist even though he is a University Professor? Because in a truly conservative person’s eyes, most professors are terrorists. You’re all trying to corrupt the minds of impressionable youths with your so-called scientific ‘facts’ and liberal social agendas! You’re making God angry and you will be punished! ;-)
Keep up the good work, PZ!
Yeah, I hate the religious right who controls the republican party. If that changes, I will consider voting for a republican for president again. Hardly a dogma. But then you have never let the truth get in the way of an unfunny snark.
What about, say, Nelson Mandela’s crimes?
How about Willie Mandela’s crimes?
You all want a necktie with that?
So was Mandela. So was Begin. So, for that matter, was Washington.
Care to make some finer distinctions than just “risked lives to make a point”?
Drives ya nuts don’t it Eric. hehe. All this liberal dogma… oooo so scary.
Big baby.
Isn’t Noam Chomsky usually invoked at this juncture?
Let’s see, Chomsky equates states with terrorists when they employ violence in violation of international law as terrorists employ violence in violation of national law. This is why he characterizes the United States as a “terrorist state”. This bodes badly for McCain and Obama supporters alike, as each candidate has put his support, at least in part, behind the notion that the United States is not bound by international law (except where it aligns with national interests – how convenient).
If one is equating the militancy of nations with terrorism, then both candidates are equally terrorists. No guilt by association needed, they are the real deal.
On the other hand, Chomsky’s argument over-exaggerates how developed international institutions are, and ultimately over-exaggerates how reasonable it is to expect governments to comply. I don’t know if the equivalency holds without a robust collection of international institutions for governments to defer to. Granted, one would hope that governments would push toward a more robust international body of governance rather than against.
…almost forgot …and you’re all assholes!
As you were.
Hieronymus Bosch’s Poodle, #123: Comparing terrorists to governments is a pretty silly waste of time – they different things, and we treat them differently because they are different.
Well, that goes for every single comparison that everyone has ever made. No one makes comparisons between things that are identically the same. Categories are basically collections of things that are different things but linked by having similar characteristics.
It would be interesting to see someone try to argue a moral or ethical point without the use of analogies, which are basically comparing different things which nonetheless share essential (to the analogy maker) characteristics.
The question isn’t whether governments are different than terrorists. The mere fact that we use different words for the two points out that there is some difference that we see. The question is whether there are important similarities between the two, enough that would allow us to apply ethical judgments about one to the other.
“Yeah, I hate the religious right who controls the republican party”
Hate them.
“I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.”
>>>Matt,
can you believe that people can change within a time span of 40 years, and that whatever Ayers did 40 years ago Obama didn’t know him then, but only nowadays ?<<< Not one of my posts references Obama. Regarding Obama it shows a lack of judgement, or more probably, excellent opportunism to rise in Chicago politics. I dont think Obama is going to blow up the Pentagon so the Ayers association didnt cost him my vote. To your question, I do think people can and do change sometimes. I think Mr. Ayers wants it both ways, posing radical chic when interviewed by Amy Goodman and fellow leftists, while maintaining a facade of respectability -- "working within the system" -- when put in the spotlight of centrist America. I think the school is free to choose who speaks and when. The man bombed people and property, and reminisces, rather than repents, over it. He should be glad a speaking gig is all he lost.
Matt, #136: To answer that question requires the exercise of moral judgement….
And is there is only one clearly obviously correct moral judgment to make in this case?
–
…something of a precious commodity of late on this site….
I’m guessing yes.
Steve c.
Go play with your kill file.
EricA, your point was?….
How about Willie Mandela’s crimes?
You all want a necktie with that?
It’s Winnie and necklace, you racist piece of ignorant shit.
EricA, your point was?….
Right over you head, apparently.
Not to mention Freddie, Hilda, and Chuck Mandela.
Regarding Obama it shows a lack of judgement, or more probably, excellent opportunism to rise in Chicago politics.
So it may seem to someone incredibly stupid and ignorant. Can you say “Annenberg”, cretin?
Nah, just pointing out your pointlessness.
TruthMachine, against my better judgement, I’ll stoop down and converse with you one more time.
Just how is pointing out that Winnie Mandela endorsed putting a burning tire around ones neck, as a way of enforcing tribal justice, racist?
The man bombed people
Fucking lying piece of shit.
Part of the veiled point of makingAyers such an issue – as opposed to say, the more racially-tinged and “beat-backability” of McCain going after the Rev. Wright line of attack – is yet another dog-whistle by Republicans to their base. Ayers, beyond the terrorism in his past, commmitted his acts in the 1960s. The decade of the 60s is perhaps the most pertinent single point of animus for the modern day republican base voter. It was a time when youth were rampant, riots were common, peace was threatened, the American way was under socialist assault, universities were indoctrination centers, crime was up, war was on, flags were burned, sex was easy, music was anti-establishment, etc. as they would tell the story.
Ayers is an obvious “product” of that era, a holdover like the hippies they still revile openly today. The terrorism part is icing on their argumentative cake. So linking a black man (half or otherwise, during a time when African Americans fought for their rights hard) who is a product of the 60s with a person who is perhaps the epitome of the white young revolutionary from the 1960s is a political gold mine if you’re a Karl Rove-type. It’s the gift that can keep on giving regardless of facts such as Obama’s very relative youth when Ayers did what he did.
It doesn’t matter. Dog-whistles go beyond facts, because it’s about what is perceived as the wider environment implied by the charge. Why the media hasn’t figured out the 60s angle is beyond me. Republicans talk about those years like they were the Dark Ages…that is, unless the year is 1964 and Reagan is giving a speech…
Luckily for us indications are that McCain’s attempts vis a vis Ayers have largely failed, and only the 30%’ers running the GOP have a vaunted sense of ethical revulsion while ignoring factual evidence.
“Im beginning to understand Christopher Hitchens agonistes after Sept. 11.”
And oddly enough Mr. Hitchens still thinks Obama’s the man for the job. I guess you didn’t learn from him did you?
As for the willingness to spread the definition of what terrorism is, that is one of the slipperiest slopes there is in politics today. Technically anything can be classified as terrorism. Legally that is untenable, and if it ever became common to do so, a lot of people would be jailed and/or killed for specious reasons, and it would enable government to start monopolizing violence moreso than it usually does.
And this is an issue where, yet again, republicans are guilty of pushing the idea that terrorism can be defined to include anything bad. Everything from one’s economic policies, to their protests, to criticisms of other groups of people, have at one point or another recently had the “terrorism” label applied to a criticism in reply. That is unacceptable. And it would behoove us all to start taking such an easy yet dangerous rhetorical technique “off the table” in “debate”.
Just how is pointing out that Winnie Mandela endorsed putting a burning tire around ones neck, as a way of enforcing tribal justice, racist?
If you weren’t such a cretin you would be able to distinguish that strawman from the actual way that Eric demonstrated his racism.
“It’s Winnie and necklace, you racist piece of ignorant shit.”
Yes, I stand corrected, you quivering pool of human turdage.
If you weren’t such a cretin you ….
No answer, just as I suspected.
I don’t know why Eric Ass-kinson jumped into the conversation here, as I have him nicely killfiled, but if I had to venture a guess, I’d bet it’s to cozy up to Matt as the contrarian point of view on this thread… just stirrin’ up the pot, per usual.
Go ahead… tell me I’m right… I’m right aren’t I?
This bodes badly for McCain and Obama supporters alike
But not equally. I support American exceptionalists who are Democrats over American Exceptionalists who are Republicans.
If one is equating the militancy of nations with terrorism, then both candidates are equally terrorists.
You apparently haven’t mastered the meaning of that word “equally”. By your use of it, William Ayers, the Boston Tea partyers, Osama bin Laden, and anyone else who could be labeled a terrorist are equally terrorists.
And oddly enough Mr. Hitchens still thinks Obama’s the man for the job. I guess you didn’t learn from him did you?
Oh i learned plenty, and you’d have learned, if you read my posts, that I might well vote Obama tomorrow. But that isnt relevant to this post, which was attempting to defend Ayers as an intellectual speaker. This is a man who blew things up to get his point across. If I dont agree with his educational tactics, will he try and kill me…maybe he’ll email me first and tell me to leave my apartment and then blow it up. Oh, how humane, how merciful, how noble.
Well, if Sarah Palin thinks that Ayers is worse than abortion clinic bombers (who aren’t terrorists, in her opinion), then I can safely say she is nuts. Therefore, I’m voting for the ticket that she isn’t a part of.
First of all, “from the perspective of England” would more correctly be “from the perspective of Great Britain,” which includes the colonies (colonial governors, governments, and a great deal of the lay population). The Revolutionary War was not popular in the colonies until it was just about over.
As I recall, there were terrorist organizations in the urban centers of the colonies which would gather to discuss liberation from British rule. Then, a small tax (the stamp tax) was imposed on paper products. Boston’s local terrorist organization decided to protest this tax by throwing the modern equivalent of a few billion dollars worth of tea into the harbor. Boston was then put under martial law pending the repayment of the cost of that tea shipment. The British army subsequently performed a few “peacekeeping” operations in Boston.
As a result, some of the more wealthy and influential colonists gathered at the first Continental Congress and agreed to rebel against British authority. They authorized the formation of an army and named George Washington its supreme commander. At this point, the British army had killed only a handful of innocent civilians as a result of the problems in Boston. This is the moment at which George Washington (and really all the founding fathers) became terrorists. Please don’t ignore the fact that they were British subjects and therefore traitors.
The Weather Underground bombed empty government buildings to protest the Vietnam “War,” actually a conflict because Congress never declared war. By the time the WU bombings started, the US military had already killed thousands of civilians and had spent the modern equivalent of billions of dollars doing so. The premise upon which war was waged (in the absence of a declaration of war) is the constitutionally questionable notion that the president is allowed to engage the military in combat for some time (I believe 6 months) without a declaration. But since Congress never declared war and the war continued for 7 years, the legality of the whole thing was questionable.
So we’re comparing Washington, who rebelled against his king with a weak legal argument that had never before been used to justify such a thing (“taxation without representation”) with a 60’s radical who rebelled against his government on a sound premise (that the Vietnam war was an illegal use of taxpayer money). The first was politically motivated by a massacre of a handful of people and the second was politically motivated by massacres of thousands of people.
I would say Washington’s treason was less justified than Ayers’. But of course, no one remembers it that way mostly because Washington actually won (despite a 3-6 battle record).
No answer, just as I suspected.
I gave you an answer, idiot — the same sort of answer as “When did you stop beating your wife?” receives. Try asking me to justify something I actually claimed. Here’s a hint: Eric used the word “crime”. Who accuses Winnie Mandela herself of necklacing? Who uses that in response to statements about Nelson Mandela? Where does one find such stuff? I’ll tell you: stormfront and equivalents.
Go ahead… tell me I’m right… I’m right aren’t I?
Right delusional.
I figger that CE’s killfile looks a lot like the NY City phone book.
So what?
If I dont agree with his educational tactics, will he try and kill me
No, you intellectually dishonest moron.
negentropyeater, # 89:
Matt Heath, # 106:
But did Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Joschka Fischer set bombs?
Matt –
For what it’s worth, I do understand where you are coming from… but I think your position may be as over-simplified as you believe ours to be in the opposite direction.
The Ayers situation is simply not that simple… it covers a great span of time over many decades of political ideology and strife.
I think the point PZ tries to make, and what has been since twisted into a conversation over whether the man is a scumbag terrorist, is that in the 40 years since his involvement with weather underground, what have the man’s actions conveyed? If you were to take his actions, over the course of the past 20 years or so, and hold them up comparatively with his contemporaries, I think you would find them at least on some level, admirable… and in as much, any association that Obama or any other person has had with him has likely been in the pursuit of goals that are meant for the greater good. That Obama has come under attack for a tangential association with this man is nothing short of a complete misplaced character assassination… and a total abomination.
I won’t argue with you, Matt, any further over Ayers’ ideologies or past crimes, as it seems there is some room for interpretation and debate over his intentions and his level of remorse for the loss of life associated with his actions. My goal was simply to make the above point.
Let the wingnuts beat their heads against this wall–it will distract them from coming up with something more reasonable.
Obama once had dinner with a 60s radical–Oh Noooooo! Did they learn nothing from 2004? They had thousands of pictures and films of John Kerry, wearing camouflage gear, marching in protests, on podia with a Who’s Who of radicals, and despite the incumbent advantage, the advantage of having his party in control of both houses of congress, the stupid American wartime “Don’t switch horses in midstream” mantra, He just barely won! Even with the Swift Boat liars, it took an influx of anti-gay-marriage, Terry Schiavo case whackaloons to barely tip the election in his favor.
Anybody with two brain cells to rub together would have gotten the message: It was 40 years ago! Nobody gives a shit any more! Give it up! But not them.
(And yes, I know there’s a difference between what John Kerry did and what Bill Ayers did, but that’s just the point: they don’t!
By the way: the polls are garbage. The people who have the time to answer political surveys (or waste the minutes on a cell phone) are the new leisure class. If McLame is behind in those polls, he’s going down worse than Goldwater!
And there you have it folks
I would say Washington’s treason was less justified than Ayers’.
DanL, I dont have anything to add other than to give you props for answering and your attempted justification, however circuitous. Most on this site wouldnt bother.
This is somewhat OT, but since Chomsky’s name has been raised and since I’m trying to get the word out about this to people in the Boston area…here’s some information about a public discussion with him coming up on the 19th:
Mat #90: “Is it just knee jerk Obama-euphoria or are you all real terrorist sympathizers?”
Oh go jump in a lake. You see a majority of opinions who voice a preference – HERE, of all places – that have nothing wrong with them EXCEPT that they are at odds with yours, and you characterise it as “knee-jerk euphoria”? Or else we’re “all real terrorist sympathizers”?
Are you nuts?
You sure have a tremendously inflated estimation of your objectivity, don’t you? Very impressive. For a jerk.
You have one problem mister: you whine like a childish ass when you don’t get your way.
If I dont agree with his educational tactics, will he try and kill me…maybe he’ll email me first and tell me to leave my apartment and then blow it up. Oh, how humane, how merciful, how noble.
This moronic rhetorical question and its blatantly obvious answer pretty much sums up PZ’s point and Matt’s evident intellectual bankruptcy.
Hmm…. Some people think taking something to extremes, like your statement, is OK. It just shows a true lack of perspective, and I always find that non-persuasive. I don’t think Dr. Ayers would be getting awards if he was still threatening people or blowing things up.
If you want to convince us of anything, you have to stop with the illogical exaggerations. Stick to the facts in the proper context.
“Where does one find such stuff? I’ll tell you: stormfront and equivalents.”
How about “The Guardian” dillweed?
http://century.guardian.co.uk/1980-1989/Story/0,,110268,00.html
What’s wrong with William Ayers?
William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who was on a video praising himself of about his terrorist activity.
Who accuses Winnie Mandela herself of necklacing?
Winnie Mandela endorsed such a practice, which is the same as if she had done it herself. Since the ANC has come to power, more blacks are dying in that country than ever before. South Africa is the murder capital of the world. There is over 24,000 murders happening a year there. In contrast to the racist government, the max amount of murders per year was 8,000.
Mandela came to power through terrorist violence, though he got elected, the violence continues. He too is unrepentant of his acts because he thought it was for the greater good.
If you want to convince us of anything, you have to stop with the illogical exaggerations.
It’s not an exaggeration of anything — it actually makes PZ’s point. We all know, even Matt and Eric, that William Ayers will not try to kill Matt or anyone else or email him to leave his apartment and then blow it up. QED — Matt loses by his own hand.
Winnie Mandela endorsed such a practice, which is the same as if she had done it herself.
You’re stupid, which is the same as if you were a flatworm.
TruthMachine, Nerd, Arseinioum,
BLowing shit up is how Ayers behaved, that is fact.
Defending Ayers on the grounds that he tried oh so very, very hard, to get people out of the building before he blew them up, and that the, oops, collateral damage is what big, bad goverments do all the time anyway so whats the problem? is what you and many folks on this site continue to do.
Arse, I raise the question because I dont see why you cant criticize Ayers while simultaneously holding the position that Obama might be the best President. Nuanced, complex, subtle position, no? Shades of grey instead of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil.
Other than TruthMachine and DanL, I dont really think most people on this sight are terrorist symps, I do think the Obama-phoria has clouded people senses a bit. Obama’s going to disappoint all of us you know, no need to abase oneself now defending a know-nothing ex terrorist, to much regret later.
Michael, #179: Winnie Mandela endorsed such a practice, which is the same as if she had done it herself.
Huh. I wonder if this strange equivalence shows a lack of that “moral discernment” that Matt was going on about.
Michael –
So… just to clarify, Michael… are you advocating for the return of the pre-Mandela, racist, apartheid government to power?
Is that your position?
I dont really think …
No one really gives a fuck what such a transparently idiotic person thinks.
“No one really gives a fuck what such a transparently idiotic person thinks.”
So who died and left your sorry ass in charge of what people give a fuck about?
a public discussion with him coming up on the 19th
Darn; I don’t get to Boston until the 23rd.
Matt –
So you honestly have no room in your intellect to allow that even IF your rants about what this man was 40 years ago are spot on (as I said, not going to argue that, as it is beside the point, in truth, of this discussion), he may actually have, since that time, become an important and valued member of the higher learning and educational institution?
If that is the case, then I will simply agree to disagree with you on that stance.
Nonetheless, I must still ask you if you can agree that painting Obabma’s association with Ayers the way the Republican party has, is at the very least dis-ingenuous.
So who died and left your sorry ass in charge of what people give a fuck about?
The god of truisms.
Eric, TruthMachine is one of those types who substitute vulgarities for fact, confuse jocularity with wit, one who tries to compensate charisma with emphasis.
Though I am guilty of feeding him too, he and his ilk can be safely ignored.
Matt, you haven’t made the connection between what Ayers did forty years ago and his behavior today. I hear a lot of noise, but no proof. That is my point. I do not have all the same attitudes I had in college. I thought Ayers behavior then was stupid (and still do). But he hasn’t done anything like that for years, and became a respectable Professor. And Ayers close connection to Obama is limited to a few committees they both served on. The Chicago Tribune covered this story in depth and they didn’t find a smoking gun. I believe the Trib rather than you, since the Trib shows a better perspective of the whole matter.
Nuanced, complex, subtle position, no? Shades of grey instead of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil….abase oneself now defending a know-nothing ex terrorist
nyuk nyuk.
But of course. Just assume the lowest common denominator and that will be our ignorant acquaintance, Eric.
Darn; I don’t get to Boston until the 23rd.
Yes, well, that may be late enough for another Bostonian to have gotten past some earlier unpleasantness. ;)
@Tulse #142:
My point was that #99/Nanahautzin’s distinction that Ayers merely planted “protest” bombs was a tad stupid. Ayers could have killed somebody, regardless of intention.
A bomb is a bomb, regardless of who launches or plants it for what reason. I don’t care if it was Begin, Mandela, or Washington. People tend to get injured or cease to exist when they go off.
Matt A
he and his ilk can be safely ignored
I have no problem with trolls ignoring me as I rip them to shreds.
Yes, well, that may be late enough for another Bostonian to have gotten past some earlier unpleasantness. ;)
See, I’m not such a silly man.
SC –
I will be back in my hometown of Boston during that week… and now I have something to do on the 19th! Thanks for the heads up!
Yes Nibien, I am ignorant about a lot of things.
But for some reason, I have never heard any of the Libs here admit to their own ignorance.
>>>I must still ask you if you can agree that painting Obabma’s association with Ayers the way the Republican party has, is at the very least dis-ingenuous.
Im not really sure what Obama’s relationship with Ayers was. Even if Obama’s description of it is completely objective, which I doubt, it bothers me. Its certainly relevant. Lets not kid ourselves about how we judge people, their associations is one way. McCains association with John Hagee was unfortunate too.
I will say this, the Repubs strategy hasnt been effective. People dont care all that much about 40 years ago. McCain is, like Ayers himself, betrothed to the Vietnam mindset. Most folks care about the future.
As for why Im posting on this so much, PZ made the silly complaint that the “Republican party trying to brand him as a terrorist” haha. Ayers would find this defending all so funny, seeing as he “branded” himself a terrorist. He went out of his way to be known that way.
You all need to understand the phrase “Useful idiots”, tighten up your flabby thinking.
Mandela came to power through terrorist violence, though he got elected, the violence continues. Michael
The amount of violence involved in the ANC’s campaign for democracy was minute compared to the violence of the apartheid regime, and he won an overwhelming victory in a free election, you racist filth. He then made peace with his oppressors. Crime in South Africa is the result of continuing gross economic inequality on top of decades of deliberate social dislocation; many, including me, think the ANC was far too forgiving and conciliatory. You really are an evil and disgusting scumbag.
Matt –
You know, your post started off OK, and I even saw the glint of an actual dialog on the subject at hand being possible.
And then you went and reverted back to being a douche.
C’est la vie.
What I will say is this: You really need to think about your capacity for objectivity here. You start off saying “Im not really sure what Obama’s relationship with Ayers was.” And then you go on to formulate a pretty strong opinion concerning that relationship mere words after admitting you have no idea what it really is. Please just think about that.
it bothers me. Its certainly relevant. Lets not kid ourselves about how we judge people, their associations is one way.
Once again … can you say “Annenberg”, cretin?
McCains association with John Hagee was unfortunate too.
Obama strongly criticized Ayers’ Weatherman actions from the get go. McCain called Hagee his spiritual advisor and proudly accepted his support, only belatedly distancing himself.
I work and live in the the middle of the zombiebelt. I’m really at a loss at how to relate to these people. It’s frightening in that I almost don’t see them as human. Anyone else working through this?
See, I’m not such a silly man.
Wouldn’t have suggested that in response if I’d known that comment was intended to warn me of a future escalation. :)
Celtic_Evolution,
That’s great! You should probably get your tickets in advance. Hope to meet you there.
Eric Atkinson@105,146,
Anyone who follows your link will find that the source for the allegation that Ayres discussed the genocide of 25 million Americans is a “former FBI informant” who had infiltrated the Weathermen. Of course, informants who infiltrate political groups always tell the absolute truth, don’t they Eric?
The Ayers affair has more to do with McCain’s campaign bombing than Ayers bombing.
“I have no problem with trolls ignoring me as I rip them to shreds.”
A legend in his own mind.
Or maybe a legume in his own mind.
@ SC # 205
I’m planning on getting tickets asap… I’ll be the one wearing the yellow carnation… heheh.
Wouldn’t have suggested that in response if I’d known that comment was intended to warn me of a future escalation. :)
It didn’t warn of a future escalation, it was a concern about taking a disagreement personally (in light of the fact that I still hadn’t, and haven’t, received that email). I don’t think the later comments were “escalated” from the earlier ones, but I would have to review the conversation, whereas I’d prefer to forget about it.
Even us reactionary Brits have sixties revolutionary Tarik Ali as a fully paid up member of the establishment – Matt Heath
Tariq Ali would be outraged and mortified by this vile accusation! Seriously, he’s still an “unrepentant radical” as the right-wing morons here would have it. AFAIK, he’s never accepted any position from the state or big business, and makes a living as a writer and freelance journalist.
truth machine #181: “You’re stupid, which is the same as if you were a flatworm.”
Actually, it takes considerable brains to reach stupid.
It’s the willful missappropriation of what they’ve got that makes a stupid person so.
Not WANTING to distinguish a set of contentions about one, Mr. Ayers from those associated with Obama, Mat and EricA fit the bill.
Why? Because of a completely spurious claim of a link…by interests not very partial to Obama becoming president.
That’s all it takes. Boogeyman buzzword…bzzzt. There. Processing done. A stupid person takes an apple from here, and a turnip from there, and proceeds to yap in endless ways conflating the two, never mind that the whole exercise is ludicrous.
A flatworm can’t be much other than innocent. It cannot be anywhere near as intelligent as even Matt and EricA are, but it cannot therefore be anywhere near as stupid or as deluded as they are either. The flatworm is therefore superior to Mat or EricA in that respect, for they have no excuse.
You right-wingers have convinced me. I am definitely not going to vote for Bill Ayers for president.
Oh, wait. He’s not actually running, is he? But he was on a committee with Obama, and he hosted a coffee to introduce Obama when he started his political career, and he donated $200 to his campaign.
And that’s it. No further connection has been established.
Whereas McCain is good buddies with Gordon Liddy, an unrepentant convicted felon who once advised people how best to kill federal agents (he recommended head shots) and plotted to bomb the Brookings Institution.
And anyone who votes against McCain because he “pals around with” Liddy or Obama because he “palled around with” Ayers is a moron.
“Of course, informants who infiltrate political groups always tell the absolute truth, don’t they Eric?”
I think they call that Reductio ad absurdum.
Of course informants who infiltrate political groups always lie. Don’t they Nick?
Comparing terrorists to governments is a pretty silly waste of time H.B.’s poodle.
On the contrary, it draws attention to the hypocrisy of the powerful.
Earlier it was people in uniform it was silly to compare to governments. You still haven’t explained why, you’ve just asserted. I compared McCain specifically with Ayres because both were bombers – only McCain probably killed a lot of civilians, and Ayres didn’t. Somehow I doubt whether those screaming in agony as a result of McCain’s bombs thought to themselves “Oh, it’s OK, it’s a government-ordered bomb, quite different from terrorism.”
unknown, since violence was a common method of protest in their circles, but could rarely be traced to individuals. their movement as a whole was on occasion violent though.
anyway, it seems all those who argue that Ayers is a filthy terrorist (i.e. someone who uses violence to instill fear) and cannot see the similarity to others, whose violent tactics have succeeded seem to either not know (or not understand) the phrase “history is written by the victors”. there are only two differences between “filthy, immoral terrorist” and “revolutionary hero”: whether they won or not; and whether the current world-view has returned to/turned from their cause. so, Washington is a hero because he won, and because democracy is still valued. but had he lost, or had his experiment failed and America were reduced to the kind of anarchic, bloody infighting seen in other “headless” states, history would remember him as a traitor, nothing more.
the WU failed to achieve what they wanted. their actions are seen as nothing more but gratuitous violence against the State/the American Democracy. But what if the movements of the60’s had succeeded in transforming the Democracies in the West to more direct, participatory democracies? who knows, maybe the likes of Ayers would be heroes now, too.
personally I would prefer it if violence wasn’t ever necessary to get a point across, but it seems that with “radical” changes, that’s rarely the case. I do wonder if the Civil Rights Movement would have been successful the way it was if it hadn’t as a backdrop the violent riots of the disenfrenchized and their sympathizers. we seem to be a society that ignores injustices, until they explode in our face.
The alternative is the excruciatingly slow, arduous route of educating people to accept change, and then slowly, slowly see the changes occur, accepting the occasional backlash, and hoping for the best. Seems Ayers has decided that violence wasn’t a good vehicle of change for his cause, and has switched to education.
and no, he’s not gonna bomb you if you disagree with him. d’uh. that was a very intellectually dishonest statement.
I think they call that Reductio ad absurdum.
Uh, no, unless they are as dumb as you are.
Of course informants who infiltrate political groups always lie.
They call that a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent, moron. It doesn’t matter whether they always lie — your argument depends upon them always telling the truth.
Eric Atkinson@141,
We can gauge the depths of your sympathy for the victims of “necklacing” by your eagerness to turn them into material for one of your smart-arse remarks.
Honestly, can we get a dungeon category for “incessant arguing for arguing’s sake; habitually taking a contrary position whether you agree with that position or not”? We can even call it “Atkinson syndrome”.
It didn’t warn of a future escalation, it was a concern about taking a disagreement personally
It wasn’t the disagreement that I took personally.
I don’t think the later comments were “escalated” from the earlier ones, but I would have to review the conversation, whereas I’d prefer to forget about it.
As would I. Give me a little time. I will write.
What he meant to say Celtic is… whatever the relationship… it’s bad bad baaaad. BOO! Scary!
Eric, you asshole.
(5th time)
It wasn’t the disagreement that I took personally.
Didn’t I disappoint you? Was that condescension? But perhaps that’s not what you mean.
As would I. Give me a little time. I will write.
Ok.
Matt@173. DanL gave you a well-reasoned justification for considering Ayers terrorism more justified than Washington’s. (Additionally, of course, Ayers didn’t own any slaves, AFAIK.) Your response is “And there you have it folks”, because of course you know, without having to give any reason, that he’s wrong. That tells us all we need to know about you Matt.
Eric, TruthMachine is one of those types who substitute vulgarities for fact, confuse jocularity with wit, one who tries to compensate charisma with emphasis.
Though I am guilty of feeding him too, he and his ilk can be safely ignored. Matt
Truth Machine can be very annoying, but he has five times your intelligence than you, Matt, and infinitely more integrity.
So if I wanted PZ to explain the apparent conflict between his saying “Ayers hasn’t committed a crime” near the top of the article, and saying Ayers “let the passions of his youth lead him into violent and illegal actions” near the bottom of the article, then this forum wouldn’t be the place to ask?
And today’s award for backhanded compliment of the day goes to: Nick Gotts…
Nicely done, Nick… *chuckle*
Nick,
I do know what kind of a country was built in the wake of George Washingtons courage.
I have a strong idea of what kind of misery would be built if Ayers had his way in the 60’s.
Yea, thats enough for me to condemn DanL. I’ll take the leap of faith on that one. Or, rather, celebrate Washington over Ayers, without curiosity to what kind of hell on earth that man would produce if he were given the chance. For all you a-historical, over-educated fools to even consider the two worth mentioning in the same breath, —- I merely had the poor judgement to engage DanL in question—- I truly pity this country. And I really am no better than a flatworm for stirring up this foolishness.
“Ayers didn’t own any slaves, AFAIK” yep, Neither did Stalin.
But for some reason, I have never heard any of the Libs here admit to their own ignorance. – Eric Atkinson
That’s because any “Lib”‘s ignorance is so paltry and insignificant in comparison to your own that they’d feel ashamed to display it.
@ Mike Jckson
If your level of interest or understanding for the point of the post boils down to that quote-mined over-simplification, then, no… this forum is probably not the place for you.
then this forum wouldn’t be the place to ask?
What makes you think that? But perhaps PZ is too busy doing other things to respond to your quote mining and ignoring the obvious difference in tense. Here’s a clue: regardless of what he was 40 years ago, Ayers is not a terrorist, just as Bush is not a drunk (as far as we know).
You all need to understand the phrase “Useful idiots”, tighten up your flabby thinking. – Matt
Nah, “useless idiot” is the one we need when dealing with the likes of you and Eric Atkinson, Matt.
Patricia, you ignorant slut.
(First time)
And today’s award for backhanded compliment of the day
I dunno, infinitely is a lot. I took it as a backhanded criticism about my being annoying. :-)
Matt # 228:
The people in the Gulag?
Yes, Eric, I am.
Which is much more fun than being the blog asshole.
(6th! Ahead of Janine)
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 3, 2008
Patricia, you ignorant slut.
(First time)
Such a shame we cannot introduce Eric with Brenda von Alsem.
“Honestly, can we get a dungeon category for “incessant arguing for arguing’s sake; habitually taking a contrary position whether you agree with that position or not”? We can even call it “Atkinson syndrome”.”
In order to have an argument here I must take up a contrary position.
Or we can have the usual asinus asinum fricat.
Matt, #228: I do know what kind of a country was built in the wake of George Washingtons courage.
A slave owning country that killed Indians to steal their land? And allowed everyone the blessings of liberty if they were white and male?
But that doesn’t really matter, since you corrected me earlier when I accused you of being fine with violence and bombs as long as it was for a cause you believed in. You got huffy about my “mind-reading” and stated that you hated bombs and violence.
So, does the cause for which the violence was committed matter in its justification, or do you condemn all violence that is used for political ends?
C’mon Ka… Matt’s not gonna let a silly thing like facts get in the way of a perfectly snarky, over-the-top analogy, now is he?
But on that subject… I do feel like it’s a bit of a stretch, within the context of this discussion, to compare Washington and Ayers. Different eras, different ideologies, completely different goals and a totally different world. I’m not sure it’s even fair to debate the comparison. But I’ve been wrong before…
“Ayers didn’t own any slaves, AFAIK” yep, Neither did Stalin.
The people in the Gulag?
//whispering to Ka
Im on a roll and I just want to see if I could bait any of these fools into comparing George Washington to Stalin.
//whispering to Ka //
Obama’s grandmother just passed away.
I’m almost tempted to unkill Eric A’s last post… I just know it’s going to be some clever, intelligent, well thought out and poignant….
Pffffttt…. HAH…. woo-hooo… almost got through that one with a straight face.
You must be a great conversationalist at parties.
Eric Atkinson@214,
You really are a prize-winning moron, aren’t you Eric? The point is, the “evidence” of such an informant is worth precisely zero, because there is no way of checking it. Tell you what, I met someone in the pub yesterday who told me Eric Atkinson rapes little girls. Men you meet in pubs sometimes tell the truth, don’t they Eric?
to compare Washington and Ayers
See Chiroptera’s excellent post #145.
Chiroptera
All countries are born in blood.
Once the adults get past that nasty, but no doubt true, fact we begin to compare the ideas on which the country is founded, and the ability to hew to those ideas.
Let me write the most obvious sentence in my life, one that you need to read and understand. George Washington, and his compatriots, had better ideas about government than Bill Ayers. America has occasionally lived up to those ideas. Hence the coming Obama Presidency. We didnt have to blow it all up, George Washington and his buddies system has a mechanism for self-correction and it continues to work.
Bill Ayers hero, Karl Marx spawned many governments, many experiments in his name. There is not one Id trade for America. You?
So if I notice that PZ contradicts himself by saying “Ayers hasn’t committed a crime” but also Ayers “let the passions of his youth lead him into … illegal actions,” that’s “quote mining”? You seem to have invented a good way to avoid investigating anything you don’t like. If PZ wrote such contradictory statements in a science paper, your duty would be to fix the error, not kill the messenger. If PZ is holding himself out as a scientist, maybe you ought to hold him to the standards of a scientist — because if this is a forum where PZ’s occasional sloppy thought is defended, it’s a worthless forum.
Right, so we don’t judge the action by whether it was terrorism, but by whether we like the outcome? The ends justify the means? That’s why we can have Mandela and Begin visit the White House as distinguished, Nobel Peace Prize-winning guests, despite their terrorist activities, but at the same time label Ayers as the most viciously evil man in America?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
“Yes, Eric, I am.
Which is much more fun than being the blog asshole”
I guess you would know. But you really should get that ] Neurosyphilis looked at. Maybe some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Benzylpenicillin_.28penicillin_G.29
would help.
Don’t bother Celtic, He just called me an ignorant slut, he’s probably wet himself over thinking what a witty statement he made.
George Washington, and his compatriots, had better ideas about government than Bill Ayers.
The British probably thought the same thing about Washington at the time. Whether they or Washington or you are Ayers are correct is not relevant to the point that you’re incapable of comprehending.
Bill Ayers hero, Karl Marx spawned many governments, many experiments in his name. There is not one Id trade for America.
You’re clueless.
truth machine –
Sure, I did read that, truth machine… and it is an excellent post… but even using those criteria, as stated in that post: “The question is whether there are important similarities between the two, enough that would allow us to apply ethical judgments about one to the other”, I still find myself having a hard time finding comparison points between the two that are fair for debate within the context of this discussion. As I said, that’s merely my take, and I’m willing to accept that I may be looking at it through too narrow a lens.
Matt, #247: Let me write the most obvious sentence in my life, one that you need to read and understand. George Washington, and his compatriots, had better ideas about government than Bill Ayers.
It is obvious, which is why I keep pointing it out. It’s not the violence that bothers you. You are fine with the use of violence for political objectives as long as the objectives are those with which you agree.
People whose objectives you don’t like, they need to work within the system (or maybe they should just sit down and shut up — I haven’t read enough of your posts to determine your actual feelings on people with whom you disagree). But people with whose objectives you identify — now violence becomes acceptable.
To be honest TM I’m glad to see you too. I want to see what kind of a mess taking a sling blade to and asshole makes. ;o)
I do know what kind of a country was built in the wake of George Washingtons courage. – Matt
So do I: one that stole almost all the land it now occupies, killing many of the previous inhabitants in the process and breaking every treaty it ever made with them; for nearly a century enriched itself through slave labour; launched one of the most brazen wars of aggression in modern history (against Mexico); has a long history of racism, extreme inequality, religious insanity and brutal imperialism (along, let me say, with some very fine actions, and brave struggles by its best elements); and which many of its citizens still consider axiomatically superior to any other country.
Matt: your “rebuttal” was this:
”I don’t regret setting bombs” From The Weather Underground documentary, 2001.”
That’s not what you said in your first post – you said he wished he’d planted more bombs.
I’ve never defended him, and am not now, but your first claim is still false.
Patricia –
Really? He did? And meant it as an insult? That’s rich… and more ironically hilarious than he probably understands…
“Eric Atkinson@214,
You really are a prize-winning moron, aren’t you Eric? The point is, the “evidence” of such an informant is worth precisely zero, because there is no way of checking it. Tell you what, I met someone in the pub yesterday who told me Eric Atkinson rapes little girls. Men you meet in pubs sometimes tell the truth, don’t they Eric?”
This informant was an FBI Agent. Last time I looked cops
testimony was admissible in court.
Too bad this didn’t go to court.
Right wingers are so charming:
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/asheville-citizen-times/TIQ2GMB7K6ALKCGC5
Looks like Obama is trying to use the sucker sympathy vote. He threw grandma under the bus months ago for his own political gain and now he’s using her impending death for political gain as well.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message655400/pg1
[link to http://www.foxnews.com]
Nope, apparently true.
Well, here comes all the sympathy votes….
she’s been on ice for a week–waiting for the sympathy vote
Dammit! Queen of Typos.
truth machine@234,
No, since Matt’s integrity is zero, any positive amount attributed to you would mean you had infinitely more than him if integrity is measured on a logarithmic scale! (But this has only just occurred to me, it wasn’t intended as such faint praise as that.)
Last time I looked cops
testimony was admissible in court.
A defendant’s testimony is also admissible in court, but that doesn’t make it true, moron.
>>>The British probably thought the same thing about Washington at the time
they probably thought much worse about Washington then folks think about Ayers because Washington was actually a threat to overturn the system.
And yes, I believe Washington was justified. And more honorable seeing as he attacked the British Military. I have no problem with this judgment, when I foolishly ask others on this site, rather than answer they feign some sort of terrorist equivalence, or they want to posit that Ayers was a better person than Washington because he didnt own slaves.
Im merely giving my opinion, ridiculous as it sounds to say out loud: George Washington had better reasons to do what he did than Bill Ayers, had better ideas about government, and was a more honorable man. Im fortunate to live in his wake.
Please, amuse me some more, debase your intellects further, and tell me what you all think about it?
truth machine
In re-reading, and reading some of your and Chiroptera’s subsequent posts, I can see better the context under which the Ayers – Washington comparison is made… and I do see a valid point…
Humbly retracted…
We didnt have to blow it all up, George Washington and his buddies system has a mechanism for self-correction and it continues to work. – Matt
Don’t I recall a bit of unpleasantness sometimes called the “Civil War”?
Matt, 0 * infinity is undefined, so I can take it to be any value I want it to be. :-) (P.S. The scale on which a function is mapped doesn’t change the facts about it.)
“A defendant’s testimony is also admissible in court, but that doesn’t make it true, moron.”
It doesn’t make it false ether, nutbag.
Matt –
.
Once again, you make a cogent argument and statement worthy of debate or discussion, and then you follow it up with this garbage.
If you’d stop being such an asshole at the end of every one of your posts, it might be worth responding to.
EricA and Matt still haven’t convinced me not to mark the circle next to Obama’s name. They remind me of the creobots. Evidence against evilution is evidence for creationism. This is false, since creationism must show it is a valid theory in its own right, which it can’t.
Guys, if you want people to vote for McSame and McMILF, you have to show proof positive to do so, not proof negative against Obama. So veer your arguments around if you want us to pay attention to what you are saying, instead of how you are saying it.
A fiver on Truth Machine.
Actually, Nerd… in Matt’s defense, I think he’s stated already several times he’s planning to vote Obama… his issue here is strictly with the defense of Ayers.
And as for Eric A… my guess is he’ll wait to see who wins the election, then try to show up afterwards to argue for the other guy…
Matt, #264: George Washington had better reasons to do what he did than Bill Ayers….
Which is exactly what I was saying from the beginning. Most Americans have no problems with the use of violence for political ends. It matters to them for which ends the violence is used.
Although, once one states that violence is a legitimate tool for political change, I’m not sure how they can deny others with whom they disagree the use of that same tool. At least unless one divides the world into Good and Bad, with “us” being on the side of Good, and those in the Bad camp are Bad simply because they are Bad. I mean, either violence is a legitimate tool for political change (at least under certain conditions), or it is not.
I can’t believe you said “right wing hate machine”.
Welcome to the loony left P.Z.
Nerd, If you wan;t to vote for the magic negro then go ahead.
All I have been doing is telling you why I am not going to vote for Obama.
I must chose the “lesser of two weevils.”
Dean
you’re partly right. I went back and looked at Ayers quotes from that documentary. The interviewer asked him if he has any regrets, he responds “I dont regret setting bombs” “I wish we’d done more”
In later interviews Ayers says he was talking about how he wished he’d done more to stop the Vietnam war, not plant bombs per se. At best, its ambiguous.
People on this site seem to think he was justified for planting bombs in protest of the war, and then turn around and say no, no, he didnt say he wished he’d done more, he meant something else.
Have some courage you wimpy campus radicals! Either you wish he’d blown some more stuff up, because he couldve stopped the war that way, or he’s repentant about planting bombs. Which Is It? Was Ayers a modern George Washington subverted, or just some silly, exuberant youth, taking Marx to seriously and playing with matches?
This informant was an FBI Agent. Last time I looked cops
testimony was admissible in court.
So fucking what? a) Cases of the FBI lying in court are not, particularly uncommon (try googling “FBI lying in court”, and note that the case against Ayers was dismissed on the grounds of “national security” at federal government request because of accusations of government misconduct); b) This informant was not in court.
The “evidence” is, as has been pointed out to you more than once, absolutely worthless for the purpose of establishing the truth. Are you really too stupid to see that, or are you play-acting?
So as Chiroptera and I have pointed out, it really isn’t about terrorism, but about outcomes. It’s not about “pallin’ around with terrorists”, but about associating with people whose political views you don’t like. Mandela and Begin and Washington weren’t terrorists because the outcomes were ones you wanted, but Ayers and Che Guevara and Fidel Castro are terrorists because, even though they may have committed identical acts, they were not “justified”. There is, therefore, no absolute standard you hold (such as “attempting to achieve political ends through violence is wrong”). Instead, it’s just outcomes you like and outcomes you don’t, a soggy moral relativism.
// whispering to Matt//
So, has any of these fools compared Washington to Stalin yet?
// whispering to Matt//
In re-reading, and reading some of your and Chiroptera’s subsequent posts, I can see better the context under which the Ayers – Washington comparison is made… and I do see a valid point…
I admire people who take the initiative to seriously reevaluate their positions. Whether you end up changing it or not is small potatoes in comparison.
We heard you the first hundred times. By now, you are just background noise, to be ignored. You have always had the option of not posting here. You have been determined to play the agressor, and you hate it when you get treated appropriately. If you want me to listen to you, stop the invective and talk with the quiet voice expected in polite company. Until you do that, you will get nobody here to listen to you.
Did I mention that I’m in love with truth machine? Vulgarity and rebuttals so deliciously entertwined…
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 3, 2008
Nerd, If you wan;t to vote for the magic negro then go ahead.
Eric, you are a racist asshole.
Nick. Read http://site2.littlegreenfootballs.com/pdf/Prairie-fire.pdf
again and tell me with a stright face that these guys were just joking around about “offen” people.
Intellectual integrity my ass.
Matt: “people need to have their critical faculties tested now and then”
Maybe you should start.
I find your comment about Calley and Liddy serving time was amusing. Liddy was pardoned (for some reason) by Carter, and continues to lie about the entire Watergate escapade (see his backing of the infuriatingly stupid “Silent Coup”).
Calley was sentenced to life in prison: Nixon released him for a review, and he received a 4.5 month sentence.
Through in Oliver North, too: convicted with the conviction overturned on a technicality (sound like someone else being discussed?)
How do you view these three unrepentant criminals? I would hope that the fact of their crimes and lies has a “pro-American” tone doesn’t mean you find them palatable.
Matt, #277: Was Ayers a modern George Washington subverted, or just some silly, exuberant youth, taking Marx to seriously and playing with matches?
And my question is: is violence a legitimate tool for political change? If so, why are some people allowed to use it and others not?
Either you wish he’d blown some more stuff up, because he couldve stopped the war that way, or he’s repentant about planting bombs.
It takes a special sort of idiocy to pose such a dichotomy that is not only false but incommensurate.
And yes, I believe Washington was justified. And more honorable seeing as he attacked the British Military. I have no problem with this judgment, when I foolishly ask others on this site, rather than answer they feign some sort of terrorist equivalence, or they want to posit that Ayers was a better person than Washington because he didnt own slaves. – Matt
You’re a liar, Matt. DanL gave you a clear answer. I don’t think any overall judgement about whether Ayers or Washington was a “better person” is possible. Both were idealists, both used violence against an oppressive government. Washington was most certainly a hypocrite in prating about “liberty” while owning slaves and entrenching slaveowning in the constitution; Ayers was certainly extremely arrogant.
Eric Atkinson,
Nerd, If you wan;t to vote for the magic negro then go ahead.
All I have been doing is telling you why I am not going to vote for Obama.
I must chose the “lesser of two weevils.”
…And I thought my opinion of you couldn’t get much lower. Bravo, you disgusting troll, for proving me wrong.
truth machine chortled:
I don’t care who you are… THAT was funny…
Did I mention that I’m in love with truth machine? Vulgarity and rebuttals so deliciously entertwined…
Thanks. I consider myself a personified rebuttal to the stupid fucking cretins who claim that the use of vulgarities proves that you have no argument.
and
the American Revolution inspired the French Revolution, which led to the Reign of Terror, does that mean that the French Revolutionaries should have never staged their fight for democracy because the result was a failiure? This is very much a parallel to the socialist revolutions leading to oppressive stalinist governments. not every revolutionary idea succeeds as the revolutionaries would have hoped. that doesn’t mean the basic ideas at the root of the revolution weren’t worth fighting for. it just means they fucked up in the reconstruction of their societies. but we see their revolutionaries as horrible persons, whereas the revolutionaries of the french revolution as heroes, because society currently values what the french revolution was about, but not what the Bolshevik revolutions were about.
on the other hand, there’s countries like Switzerland that practice more socialized and direct forms of democracy and succeed. I’d switch my current residence to Switzerland any day, if they’d take me (they have hellishly strict immigration laws exactly because of that).
or, if you like, compare the ETA terrorists with the revolutionary heroes of the USA, or any other country that fought for independence and won. or compare Kosovo with Abchazia. they’re both “separatist republics”, the difference being that one is on “our” side, the other is on Russia’s side. and yet, one is allowed to declare independence, the other is most certainly not.
it really is a matter of perspective, nothing else. violence is always a horrible way to get a point across, but there are situations where all other options are not succeeding or are no longer an option. maybe we should judge those kind of groups more on whether they resort to violence as the first or the last resort. India’s independence movement stands on a morally higher ground than America’s independence movement for exactly that reason (violent vs non-violent). And for that reason, the fact that Ayers has taken to using education to get his point across I’d call a definite improvement. Maybe he finally grew up? maybe the times have changed? as someone said, the 60’s were overall a very violent decade.
Should I walk to work or carry my lunch?
“Thanks. I consider myself a personified rebuttal to the stupid fucking cretins who claim that the use of vulgarities proves that you have no argument.”
That odd. When I looked up ” stupid fucking cretins” in Wikipedia all I found was truth machine, OM .
EricA, you still haven’t given me a reason to vote for the other guy. You are still operating on the if A is bad, B must be good principle. I learned better about the time Ayers was allegedly blowing up buildings. You are less than persuasive with your present tack. So give us a reasons positive to vote republican tomorrow. Can you even do that?
I can only assume you’re deaf-blind and/or do not have a TV or a radio.
I want some of the RW apologists on this thread to say right out that after the wingnuts lose as big as I think they are going to and start their terror campaign, that they’re going to be as careful about people getting hurt as Ayers was. Come on, I dare you!
Allowed??? anyone is allowed to use violence. And then the people on whom the violence was committed, will accept the ideas or imprison the violater. As it turns out, In an attempt to hew to our constitution, those ideas to G. Washingon and his buddies, we let Bill Ayers off the hook. We did this as a point of strength, not weakness, because we knew Ayers could never subvert the American System.
I personally despise using violence in a coercion of ideas. I despise the Iraq war. I despise much of the British Empire. I celebrate India’s independence. Begin bombed the British to loosen their grip. The Palestinians have legitimate bitch. I suffer no illusions that the Navaho and the Anasazi lived in communal bliss before the arrival of the white man. I recognize that violence has and will be used to extend political ideas as long as there are human beings. Im not going to let these conflicting ideas deter me from condemning a man who wanted to blow up the best political system in human history to date. Fuck Bill the Bomber Ayers.
There is some moral silliness that goes on in the left, regarding the birth of countries, spreading of ideas etc. Violence is horrible, but it doesnt invalidate the ideas. Bill the bomber Ayers had horrible methods AND ideas.
I’d like to add to this discussion a personal hero of mine, Katya Komisaruk:
http://web.reed.edu/reed_magazine/may2003/features/legal_righteous/index.html
Oh right, I get one asshole ahead of Janine, was sitting here gloating, and then he pops off with that.
Do shut up Eric Asshole. You are a disgusting racist.
My favorite quote in the whole Ayers debacle was a Sarah Palin line. I don’t remember it verbatim, but it was something like:
“Obama sat down with Ayers – he sits down with terrorists! He would sit down with Yasser Arafat!”
(She was also going on about how Obama would let Israel be destroyed)
Someone needs to point out to her that:
a) Yasser Arafat is dead.
b) Before he died, he was the leader of Palestine and “sat down” with lots of world leaders – including Bush.
That odd. When I looked up ” stupid fucking cretins” in Wikipedia all I found was truth machine, OM .
Whoosh!
I’ll give you a chance to explain that comment Eric, though I’m not sure you deserve it.
Nerd
Here is my last post tonight at it’s all for you to make light of.
Read this. http://www.newsherald.com/articles/obama_69275___article.html/good_percent.html
Matt, the keyword is had. Past tense. Like many of us, he moved beyond those ideas. College students can still behave badly today. Ten years later, model citizens. If you can’t let go of the past, you will never progress. Ayers progressed. Can we say the same for you in ten years?
I work with a man who has a connection with a much worse person than Ayers. This person’s name is synonymous with treason. My co-worker graduated from Norwich Free Academy, Norwich, Connecticut, class of 1986. Benedict Arnold was class of 1755.
OMG, I just realized that puts me only two degrees of separation from Benedict Arnold. And if Matt and Eric Atkinson read this, they’ll be only three degrees of separation from Benny.
Yes Eric that last link to Ron Hart is such a rational examination of the situation. I am utterly convinced.
And the winner of the award for The Commenter Whose Assclown Inanity has Prompted the Greatest Number of Killfile Applications is…
Eric Atkinson!
Congratulations – you fucking ignorant douchebag.
Good bye short pants! Asshole.
(9)
Wow… I really am thinking about unkilling Eric Ass-kinson’s posts in this thread, based on his sheer volume of concentrated stupid in one thread.
Did he really say that? Wow… I kid you not, a few days ago my 7 year told me how some kid in her class told some other kid that he looked up “stupid” in the dictionary and saw his picture. In 2nd grade.
Well, at least we have a grade-level equivalence for dipshit Eric.
As for your post concerning Obama… I hope that one does get you banished to the abyss… oh, and go fuck yourself, you miserable, hate-filled piece of shit.
EricA, I make a point of not reading anything offered by known prevaricators. This includes you. I’ll get my news from independent sources.
Celtic_Evolution – He’s worse today than usual. What a grubby like shit. Completely unworthy of every slutty remark I thought of.
hmmm… yes, I can totally see how condemning an illegal war (which, because of the draft, dragged innocents into it, and then turned them into murderers/murdered, or into criminals for taking a moral stand and not fighting), is a horrible idea, or how the idea that standing by why others are killed and violated is a form of violence in itself could be seen as reprehensible.[/sarcasm]
I’ll agree with you that violence is a horrible method to achieve a goal, but the 60’s were a violent decade. That some people have come out of it realizing that maybe educating people is more effective now
, and realizing that blowing stuff up didn’t end up being effective then either, and that you’d wish you’d done something that was more effective makes someone a person who has learned from their youth without regretting fighting for what they believe in.
and on that note… Matt, how do you feel about draft dodgers?
Read this. http://www.newsherald.com/articles/obama_69275___article.html/good_percent.html
That article and the comments are pure stupid. A typical example:
5 recommends.
Completely unworthy of every slutty remark I thought of.
But you’re depriving the rest of us. :-)
It’s no wonder Eric says the idiotic things he does. If you steep yourself in stupidity like that article is is sure to soak in.
tell me with a stright face that these guys were just joking around about “offen” people. – Eric A.
I have not said at any stage that the WU were joking about killing people. I have challenged your worthless “evidence” that they intended genocide.
My opinion of the WU as such is not a positive one: they were Leninists, and I have often expressed my loathing for Leninism on this blog. Moreover, they didn’t have a hope of achieving their revolutionary aims, so their bombings were in that sense pointless. On the other hand, the appalling mass-murders they charge to US imperialism were happening; and without determined opposition to the US government from radicals, it is likely nuclear weapons would have been used against the Vietnamese.
Im not going to let these conflicting ideas deter me from condemning a man who wanted to blow up the best political system in human history to date. – Matt
Fuck your nationalist arrogance. Give me Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Portugal… any day.
Some conservatives wouldn’t recognize a genuine Marxist if one came parading down the street waving a red flag and singing the “Internationale.”
There’s probably another important difference between Washington and Ayers (I just have to say, it feels a bit surreal making the comparison at all).
Washington was part of a movement with substantial support that eventually applied force when petitions to resolve that movement’s grievances were rejected by Great Britain. Most important, isn’t that force was applied, but that it was done in accordance with the consent of the aggrieved.
Ayers, rejected from his own relatively inconsequential movement (with others, of course), applied force in order to manufacture support for what he perceived as the next step in resolving the grievances of a larger, loosely aligned movement – against the wishes of the people who had petitioned those grievances in the first place.
That’s my contribution to the ethical difference between a terrorist and a government – revolutionary or not.
“And my question is: is violence a legitimate tool for political change? If so, why are some people allowed to use it and others not?” – Chiroptera
The above is a partial answer toward that. Legitimacy, I think, is what I’m getting at. It’s not very romantic, I have to admit.
“That’s right, America! Now you, too, can wallow in the misery you know won’t actually happen, but wish would actually happen thereby allowing you to look smug and say, “I told you so!” How much would you expect to pay for this fabulous offer? Well, don’t answer yet, because THERE’S MORE! If you subscribe now, you’ll also get the new InMyOwnMind sunglasses – simply put them on, and you automatically become the lone, renegade, rough-and-tumble hero who single-handedly rescues the former glory that was the United States from the evil doers you imagine are poised outside your compound walls right now*! And if that wasn’t enough, you’ll also get this “I’m With Nostradamus” T-Shirt, absolutely free, as well as a complementary grilling apron that says, “Kiss the Over-Reactionary!” This fine apron is 200-denier stain-resistant fabric, and has two front pockets to store oven mitts, a spatula, and ALL your self-pity! Not available in stores, the apron is valued at $49.95. Along with the T-Shirt, sunglasses, and any False Dichotomies you feel the need to lob onto the public discourse, that’s a total package value of $199.95, and it’s YOURS for the bargain basement price of $39.95 if you order NOW! That’s a savings of more than 80%! Supplies are limited and this offer won’t be around forever! Don’t be the only one on your block to miss out on misplaced paranoia about Marxists coming to take your guns and your daughters away with their radical economics and their suspicious, foreign-looking goatees! Operators are standing by! Order today!”
No kings,
Robert
*Unquestionably Loyal Object of Your Sexual Desire Granted As A Reward For Being the Lone Wolf That Fought For Freedom sold separately.
I don’t understand why PZ gets attacked when his posts are politically-motived (and obviously filled with political content). The calls of “get back to the biology” are among the stupidest in this thread, and we can all agree there’s a damn lot of stupid in this thread.
Does science education happen in a vacuum? Does science? Is PZ somehow not qualified to offer political opinion in an allegedly democratic country where his opinion matters exactly as much as anyone else’s? What the hell is wrong with people claiming PZ blew it and needs to go back to biology? I’ve never seen such self-important idiots who COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT.
Not only is this PZ’s space where he’s allowed to say whatever the fuck he wants, but considering the future of our country, the future of much of the world at the wrong end of our guns, and the future of academic freedom (ALL of which make his post specifically about Ayers completely on target and relevant) PZ would almost be lax to NOT make a post of this sort.
There are so many idiots in this thread that I wonder what has happened to the usual group of intelligent commenters. I still see them here pointing out the idiocy of the Ayers-bandwagoneers and the ridiculous Republican logic being displayed here, but it seems that the morons are taking over. And this terrifies almost as much as the fact that a large part of my country genuinely believes Ayers is AT ALL relevant to this election.
1) I didn’t need another reasons to vote (for the most part) D – I already knew the Republicans were dishonest and likely nihilist. The post referenced in #314 sounds like my wife’s best friend’s dad, though – guess redistribution of wealth is only OK when it’s from poor to rich.
I’m stuck though – RePete has said he will vote for Obama. I also know he is this site’s fool, and that you’re supposed to vote opposite to the fool. I don’t think I’m actually stupid enough (nor do I have a strong enough gag reflex) to vote for McCain and Palin, though. (“McCain/Palin ’08 – The Power of Positive Stupidity”). Hence the sticking point. I’m pretty sure I’ll just chalk my vote’s parallel to PR’s up to “a stopped clock is right twice a day”, though if he’s been right more than once I would be surprised.
2) #295 – I didn’t realize Truth Machine was a plural objects. Did somebody miswrite, or are we having serious projection issues today?
Besides, why exactly would he be the poster child for cretins? We already have Kenny, though if you show sufficient ambition, I’m sure people would nominate you to replace him. You’re too much of a renaissance loser – not offensive enough to be taken as a mere assclown (Johan’s got you beat there), and not stupid enough to be amusing for stupidity’s sake (Kenny). You’re going to have to improve your skills, I think.
#322: I think it’s pretty funny when people complaining about Prof. Myers’ politics and attempting to explain why liberals are evil can’t be bothered to read the first line below the blog title – you know, the one that says “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.” Somehow, they can’t manage to read anything below the title yet have the delusion that they actually have something intelligent to contribute.
Complaints about PZ’s political content are the online version of “Bush/Cheney ’04”, making it possible for idiots to self-identify rapidly and easily.
My undergraduate university produced a few people like Ayers. Interestingly, it was the students who came from fairly rich families that got most into the radical movement. A few things were behind it. First, many were scared of being drafted and to going to Nam. Second was to rebel against papa, who usually tended to be conservative and autocratic, and had their career path planned out. The third was to score some good weed. The fourth was to get laid.
Usually these groups were noisy, and if they included any “poor” in the group, it was their supplier. The real poor ignored them. They fought like cats and dog with each other and other groups over ideology. Most didn’t do anything but make noise. We had a group trash the ROTC building on campus, so they could be violent to a degree. The few that went any further usually had a charismatic leader like any religious cult.
Fast forward five years, and most would be model citizens, and back to voting republican like their parents. It was just a phase.
Jams@320,
Your point about Washington and not Ayers having widespread support is a valid one (and related to mine about the WU not having a hope of achieving their ends), but the distinction it makes is not between terrorists and governments. Mandela, Castro, Cabral to name but three, all had broad support, all used violence, but none were leading governments, revolutionary or not.
patrickhenry @ # 31: I’ll be glad when this election is over so this blog can get back to discussing science…
Say what? Is academic freedom irrelevant to science?
The great unpointed-to-irony in all of this is that Obama is a promoter of big state ideals, while Ayers was bombing the state because he felt aggrieved and ineffectual as a citizen to counter the massive cruelty and fascistic impulse of the state.
So now we have Obama wanting to use the state as a tool being saddled with a figure who despised the state for its overbearance…
The mind indeed boggles…
Scott from Oregon,
You really should do something about that mind of yours. All that boggling is going to drain away what precious little mental capacity you have left.
Boggling your mind is not very hard, though. After a while, it must begin to hurt – brains weren’t meant to collide with one’s skull on a regular basis.
You might want to get that looked at.
The site Patrick Henry links to is all about criticizing ID and DI. And if that is not about getting involved in politics, I do not know what is. I think Patrick Henry was joking.
Scott, would it be possible at all to stop talking in meaningless catch phrases like “big government”? It makes you seem like you have the intellect of a pollster.
Oh gawd. Just when I was about to make a slutty remark to Truth Machine, here comes Scott. Mood ruined.
Better.
Better yet.
Listen up, you condescending prick: You turned my own question of which was more justified, Washington or Ayers, back on me. Although you accused me of giving a “circuitous” answer, I simply provided a modicum of historical context for both of the players. And then rather than address my argument directly, you just go off and shit-talk as if I wasn’t capable of reading or responding to you? Or were you just afraid that you’d lose on a level playing field? And where do you get off calling anyone ahistorical? You write like you just graduated from Sean Hannity community college.
Anyway, the question of what Ayers and Washington did afterwards is irrelevant to whether the violence each engaged in was justified by the matter at hand. Washington didn’t want to pay his taxes, boo hoo, so he became the leader of a violent revolution. His army is infamous for victimizing British colonists (so-called “loyalists”) — at least if you’re not relying wholly on grade school history text books for perspective. The colonial army stole property (money, guns, cows, horses) from ordinary people just trying to live their lives. They also quartered themselves in peoples’ homes, just as the British did, which people didn’t take too kindly to.
The Revolutionary War was not terribly popular in the colonies when it began — Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland all wanted to sit it out. These states became infamous for supporting the British in that war. The Continental Congress’ decision to rebel (a decision made by the richest men in the colonies and on account of a tiny little tax) thrust all these people into a war they had never asked for or wanted.
Washington himself was a mediocre military man and was not a part of drafting either the Declaration or the Constitution. If he had any ideas about governing, he kept them to himself until elected president. It was a happy coincidence that he was a better president than he was a general or a statesman.
Remember: the constitution was written several years after the war ended, and before that (actually, after as well) a resident of New York, when asked his nationality, was more likely to say “New Yorker” than “American.” Washington didn’t know what this country or its system of government would be when he accepted (actually, postured for) command of the continental army. You should also remember that history tends to rosy up those lenses.
The founding of the federal government, as well as whatever changes Ayers was trying to effect (I believe just the end of the Vietnam war, so you’re wrong about his ends being worse than Washington’s as well), are completely besides the point. Were the acts of violence justified when the acts of violence were committed was the question.
As many people have pointed out, you don’t seem to care — you just care about the end results. If you agree with the ends, then the violence is justified. If you don’t, then the violence is not justified. But when people don’t see the results of their actions when they start to engage in violence. If the violence was not morally justified by events at the outset of the violence, then the violence was wrong. The results have nothing to do with it.
On top of all this, you have the nerve to call us ahistorical. Judging by your performance on this thread, I know more about American history now than you will know your entire life.
When I read Scott’s posts, I imagine him like Frank Grimes after he goes insane and starts imitating Homer. Maybe all the “weee” comments he makes gives off the air of insanity.
#5 – Miss Prism, Please do explain who this Bill is. Don’t slap us with a challenge like that and not provide a link.
Do you mean Bill Donahue?
I assumed she referred to Bill Ayers.
…and to see what she’s talking about, check the first few comments on this thread. Yow!
Legitimacy is obviously the way to argue against the Ayers/Washington analogy, but consider:
-Force was not applied with the consent of the aggrieved in the Revolutionary War. It’s not a secret that the war was unpopular among the colonies, and as I mention in the post above, almost half the colonies threw their full support to Great Britain (until victories in upstate New York and Virginia). The Continental Congress wasn’t elected by popular consent and consisted entirely of American aristocracy. The continental army appropriated (read: stole) the property of colonial residents. This was necessary because of a lack of support from the states — in other words, the states did not fully support the efforts of the continental army. State legislatures were hedging their bets against what was perceived to be an almost certain British victory.
-Ayers was not rejected from the Weathermen — the Weather Underground were the few founding Weathermen who decided to become more radical after it became obvious that most people just joined the Weathermen to get laid. And his goal was to end the Vietnam War, which as I understand, was actually a fairly popular sentiment at the time.
Just to be clear, I think Ayers’ approach to ending the Vietnam War was stupid, and I’m terribly glad Washington was a terrorist whether or not he was justified. But they’re both still terrorists. If you disagree, try to imagine what you’d think of Washington if you, a loyal British subject, just had his ragtag bunch of soldiers hold you at gunpoint, sleep in your bed, and steal all your livestock.
Thanks!
They are pretty bad, but we’ve had some nasty ones too. PZ just doesn’t stand for that crap, and the regulars here would slice them up in pretty small chunks. Maybe Ayers doesn’t have any regulars.
It would really be funny if there is a troll blog, and they discuss us.
Posted by: Patricia | November 3, 2008 7:46 PM
It would really be funny if there is a troll blog, and they discuss us.
That is just crazy talk.
“Mandela, Castro, Cabral to name but three, all had broad support, all used violence, but none were leading governments, revolutionary or not.” – Nick Gotts
I guess that depends on how we define government. You’re right, of course, in the strictest sense of a government as a ruling body, but I would contend that opposition is part of the ruling body – no matter how radical. And yeah, it’s a grey nebulous border into legitimacy, but it certainly exists, somewhere between me throwing beer bottles off my front porch (which, just for the record, I don’t do), and the government that directs the affairs of my nation (like arresting me for throwing beer bottles off my porch).
I think this is what’s being indicated when terrorism is defined as something done by non-government bodies. It’s not an exact science, so, ya know, there are a lot of disputes over which side of the divide marginal groups may fall – generally dominated by differing ideas of what, exactly, determines legitimacy.
I suppose, there are two central questions:
1) What determines legitimacy?
2) Is violence ever legitimate?
…1) only matters if 2) is yes.
Of course it is Janine! What else did you expect from me? You’re just in a snit because I got 9 assholes pinned on Eric before he scuttled off to get his mom to change him.
but I would contend that opposition is part of the ruling body – no matter how radical. – Jams
I would contend that that’s complete bilge. How on Earth was Mandela “part of the ruling body” when in prison on Robben Island? Or Castro when hiding out in the mountains?
As a current student of the University of Nebraska, I am disappointed and deeply disturbed by the cancellation of Ayers’ talk. I would have loved to hear what he had to say and now I will not get that chance. I am disgusted that the university donors have taken it in their own hands to filter what the students are allowed to hear on our campuses. However, we are not all that narrow-minded and I hope that not all Nebraskans will be depicted badly because of this act.
‘How on Earth was Mandela “part of the ruling body” when in prison on Robben Island? Or Castro when hiding out in the mountains?’ – Nick Gotts
I don’t see how that’s a relevant question. My point was that “opposition” is part of the ruling body. These individuals were members of oppositions – not the whole movement. Are you asking me what role opposition plays in government? Or are you really so deluded as to think that Mandela and Castro spent the whole of their lives twiddling their thumbs in dark corners?
My thoughts exactly. I don’t understand what’s supposed to be so horrible about this guy.
Sadie Morrison, #349:
Indeed. If it’d been abortion clinics he’d bombed the Republicans and the religulous alike would be calling him a hero who was ‘doing god’s work’.
Nerd of Redhead: “The fourth was to get laid.” I would say first one, no?
Patricia, back off truth machine, he’s mine, I tell you, mine! (Unless he’s a she, in which case, never mind!)
No, they needed the weed to get laid. Everything in the proper order.
You’re gonna have to get mighty slutty ildi. Careful too, he likes to bite.
Hey everybody, ol’ Nick Gott’s has hooked Vox Day!
She’s Baaack….thread
Professor,
How does Ayers intend to redraw the lines where education is concerned? The bit you quoted from his site does not say. Keep in mind that what sounds good in the proposal can turn out badly in the implementation.
Oh, I’ve seen those teeth in action here! (shiver)
On that happy note, off to beddy-bye, and voting first thing tomorrow morning. Go blue Ohio!
Patricia, back off truth machine, he’s mine, I tell you, mine!
Well, I may not be anyone’s for long … I just read (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/the_obamamercial.php#comment-1181782) that I may be sent to the dungeon because I detest this site. Honestly, I had no idea that I do … did you?
It gets a little tiring when the non PZ members of this group threatens to toss regulars in the dungeon.
Truth Machine can be very annoying
Apparentlyyyyy!
but he has five times your intelligence than you, Matt, and infinitely more integrity.
To the dungeon with him!
It gets a little tiring when the non PZ members of this group threatens to toss regulars in the dungeon.
Hmmm … unintentional irony or over my head.
DanL,
dunno if your still around. Yes, I mocked your circuitous logic regarding Washington and Ayers, particularly the outcome it brought you to. And, though legitimacy is relevant when discussing the effectiveness of popular movements, it gives me no aid in discussing the value of actions. I can think of many ‘legitmate’ popular movements in the world, movements that get rightly mocked on this website, whose popularity dont speak a thing about their value.
And this is my point. George Washington’s actions had value. The cause was just, in my opinion. Yes, Terrorism is a just a word, whose meaning can change with perspective. We can and should define it. What we should not do, though, is get bogged down in semantics at the expense of morality.
Bill Ayers used violence to, what, bring down, protest against, obstruct, a regime he deemed unworthy because…they were violent. I wont bother with the Marxist twaddle that passed for respectable intellectual thought in the 60’s.
G. Washington spoke his demands honorably, was rejected and started a war. Bill Ayers blew up his girlfriend because he couldnt read the instructions in The Anarchist Cookbook. I dont need your tortured logic to know at GW is my man and Ayers belongs in the dustbin of history.
>>>Fuck your nationalist arrogance. Give me Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Portugal… any day.
Nick, im gonna break it to you gently. These countries are proud of their governments and their traditions too. I think we’re better, sure, mainly because we strive to define ourselves not as a nation, but as a republic. Ideas are supposed to trump blood in America, President Barack Hussein Obama, etc, etc.
It is interesting to me, with all your talk of Che’, Fidel, and Mandela, that Cuba and South Africa aint on your list. Oversight on your part?
What is keeping you from moving anyway? In free countries like America we dont shoot you in the back for wanting to leave, we just say goodbye. Careful though if you immigrate to Cuba, I hear Castro doesn’t take dissenting opinions kindly.
Who says Nick lives in the US?
TM? Who being ironic?
Translation: “Terrorists are who I don’t like.”
?
Somewhere on this post, Nick whined about Switzerland having a strict immigration policy. From that I assumed 1) Nick wanted to leave the country he currently lived in for a 2) more socialist country. From that I guessed he lived in the U.S. Perhaps im wrong.
His choice of Switzerland is funny though, I wonder if he knows they dont have national health care.
Poor Truth Machine, his new sweetie goes off to bed without biting him, and now he is left to the clutches of the real blog sluts, under a ban threat.
That just sucks.
Somewhere on this post, Nick whined about Switzerland having a strict immigration policy.
Somewhere? God gave us a search function to help us keep from confusing one poster with another.
Perhaps im wrong.
What a shocking thought.
That just sucks.
Promises promises.
just me and you, Truthmachine.
Yea, so I confused Jadehawk with Nick. Their posts blend together in the mind. Sue me. Mighty Moral Nick still listed Switzerland, the country that lifted not a finger, other than to laundry Nazi gold during WWII, as a place he’d rather live than America. Oh wait, that was a long time ago. Best not discuss it.
TM, I now understand why you asked if I was being ironic.
DanL @336
Uh, DanL et al., MAtt and Eric A haven’t graduated yet. Isn’t that apparent?
Really, I followed this thread through the morass of 200+ comments and then jumped ahead for a few more, and I can honestly say that the “discussion” has degenerated into name-calling and ad hominem attacks. That anyone would engage Matt or Eric is beyond me, especially since most people here have advanced degrees or the wisdom of age on their side. Why argue with the infantile?
As to NU’s cancelling Ayer’s visit . . . Oklahoma drubbed us 62-28 on Saturday (scoring 28 points in 6 minutes and thus defying the laws of both physics AND football. We’re in a state of denial about everything).
Furthermore this actually occurred on campus today, so there just may be some heightened security concerns.
Nebraskans represent a wide range of crazy. (Batshit being the preferred.)
Matt: FAIL
TM, I now understand why you asked if I was being ironic.
Actually, I stated that it was either unintentional irony or was over my head. Of course I suspected the former.
But of course. How could I go over your head?
I said I suspected; that’s not “of course”; if I thought it was “of course”, I wouldn’t have offered the possibility of something going over my head. Things do go over my head, and I have no reason to think you couldn’t be their source.
In fact, there’s a case right there … I said “of course” two posts back and then immediately forgot that I had.
This place is weird tonight.
Sven.
No shit. But, hey, it’s unofficially the end of the Bush-era, which may explain something. Uh, the election is still on for tomorrow, isn’t it?
It is tomorrow in some places … Dixville Notch has voted, 15 for Obama, 6 for McCain … first Dem win since Humphrey in 1968.
Keep the momentum going … vote!
You should never trust me on what sucks Truth Machine.
I bite too.
Matt, I indeed currently live in the U.S., mostly because I’m a sentimental idiot and don’t feel like abandoning my BF to this place. Switzerland is a far more civilized place than the U.S. yes, they’ve had a looooong-ass tradition of neutrality (which brought them 500 years of peace, for what it’s worth), which you can like or not.
I’d move to any of the countries Nick mentioned, as well, if it didn’t mean abandoning the boyfriend. I’m not so desperate yet.
Please answer my question about draft dodgers though. i’m curious.
Points for etiquette, I guess. George Washington: like Doctor Doom, but with slightly less advanced cyber-enhancements.
Bill Ayers built the Greenwich Village bomb?
“I remember reading in Taine’s Origines de la France Contemporaine of how, shortly before the Revolution, a party of affluent liberal intellectuals were discussing over their after-dinner cognac all the wonderful things that were going to happen when the Bourbon regime was abolished and freedom à la Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau reigned supreme. One of the guests, hitherto silent, suddenly spoke up. Yes, he said, the Bourbon regime would indeed be overthrown, and in the process — pointing round — you and you and you will be carried screaming to the guillotine; you and you and you go into penurious exile, and — now pointing in the direction of some of the elegant ladies present — you and you and you will hawk your bodies round from sansculotte to sansculotte. There was a moment of silence while this, as it turned out, all too exact prophecy sank in, and then the previous conversation was resumed. I know several fashionable and affluent households in London and Washington and Paris where similar conversations take place, and where similarly exact prophecies might be made, without, as on the occasion Taine so appositely described, having the slightest impact.”
– Malcolm Muggeridge, “The Great Liberal Death Wish”
“¡Abajo la inteligencia! ¡Viva la muerte!”
Matt@370,
You have very limited reading comprehension skills, as well, apparently, as a degree of dementia. I listed Switzerland as a place with a superior political system to the USA, in response to your stupid boast about that of the USA. I like their degree of direct democracy, and I like it that the representative part of their system uses proportional representation – so that you can’t actually win an election by getting fewer votes than your opponent, and more than two parties can be viable at one time. I live in Scotland, and despite being English by birth, support Scottish independence, in considerable part because we have a fair electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, and there seems no prospect of getting the UK one reformed. Moreover there are, believe it or not, reasons other than the political system for preferring to live in one country rather than another – such as ties to family and friends, health and welfare systems, cultural familiarity and climateN. Clear now?
I think you have this wrong, PZ. Bill Ayers did some pretty serious stuff in his youth. You don’t get to live that down completely. Come on, the man was a violent criminal.
Bill Ayers should be an example of what happens when someone believes in a cause so much that reason falls away and the ends start to justify the means – there are religious AND political dogmas.
In my lifetime, the pentagon has been attacked twice that I know of – once by some young radical Muslims who believed the cause was worth it, and once by some radical leftist weathermen who believed the cause was worth it.
My point was that “opposition” is part of the ruling body. – Jams
Are you really ignorant enough to think the ANC in apartheid South Africa, or Castro’s 26th July movement, were part of the “ruling body”? I mean, really? If so, you ought to preserve that pristine ignorance carefully – it’s a rarity. Whatever you do, don’t read any history!
It is interesting to me, with all your talk of Che’, Fidel, and Mandela, that Cuba and South Africa aint on your list. Oversight on your part?
What is keeping you from moving anyway? In free countries like America we dont shoot you in the back for wanting to leave, we just say goodbye. Careful though if you immigrate to Cuba, I hear Castro doesn’t take dissenting opinions kindly. Matt
Bloody hellfire, what a moron. I used Mandela and Castro as examples of people who used violence but had (unlike Ayers) wide popular support – I said nothing about whether I approved of them or their countries’ political systems. Not good on distinguishing threads of a complex discussion, are you? I have noted elsewhere my detestation of Leninism, and in addition I’ve never forgiven Castro for trying to get me killed in 1962. I admire Mandela personally, disagreed with his pro-corporate policies in power, and do in fact consider South Africa’s political system superior to that of the USA, as it is far more democratic – I wasn’t trying for a complete list of countries with political systems superior to that of the USA.
As I’ve noted before, I don’t live in the USA so I can’t leave it to go elsewhere, and in any case there are reasons other than the political system for residential preferences.
As well as being completely otiose in this case, this “Amurrika, love it or leave it” crap is just about the most contemptible piece of nationalist stupidity conceivable. In other words, exactly what I’d expect of you.
Jason B
I think just comparing the two is ridiculous :
1. On September 11, 2001, a team of five al-Qaeda affiliated hijackers took control of American Airlines Flight 77, and deliberately crashed it into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. EDT as part of the September 11 attacks. All 64 people on the airliner were killed as well as 125 people who were in the building. The impact of the plane severely damaged the structure of the building and caused its partial collapse.
2. Ayers writes in his book Fugitive days, on the 1972 Pentagon attack : Although the bomb that rocked the Pentagon was itsy-bitsy – weighing close to two pounds – it caused ‘tens of thousands of dollars’ of damage. The operation cost under $500, and no one was killed or even hurt.
Jadehawk,
I think the draft is the most liberty depriving big-government program in existence. Above all else I praise Milton Friedman for pushing to bringing it to a close in the Vietnam era.
Regarding Draft dodgers, I dont blame them for not wanting to participate in Vietnam and I dont blame them for leaving the country. Civil disobedience, not penty-anty bombs, are what got peoples attention during the 60’s.
“Are you really ignorant enough to think the ANC in apartheid South Africa, or Castro’s 26th July movement, were part of the “ruling body”? I mean, really? If so, you ought to preserve that pristine ignorance carefully – it’s a rarity. Whatever you do, don’t read any history!” – Nick Gotts
Is that your argument? “I mean, really?”
Nick, you’re confusion, I suspect, stems from your particular definition of what determines legitimacy. You have your preferred mechanisms for determining legitimacy, and you’re imbuing the term “ruling body” with those definitions. We’re all part of a ruling body, it’s just a matter of degree and legitimacy.
Look, the 26th and the ANC both generated policy that great swaths of individuals conducted themselves in accordance with. That they were ruling bodies is not controversial. They were. If you don’t like the phrase “ruling body”, insert whichever term you’re least neurotic about. If you want to argue that oppositional ruling bodies do not effect the political environment they exist within, feel free to take a shot at it. So far you’ve offered up a big zero.
Much of politics, and history too, will make more sense to you if you keep in mind that it’s a matter of legitimacy that separates the official ruling body from the illegitimate ruling body. The factors that determine legitimacy change according to environment, and are unique for each instance.
If you want to argue that the actions of the 26th and the ANC were illegitimate, that’s fine. As I indicated previously, there’s much dispute over where exactly the boundary for legitimacy exists.
As for my alleged ignorance, well, put up, or shut up. So far, I’ve been doing the heavy lifting alone.
I meant to refute Truth Machines lies from post #119 a long time ago. In post #119 Truth Machine says Prarie fire is not Bill Ayers book. In post #119 Truth Machine says the book is not dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan.
http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/pfdedicationbig.jpg
That link is a scanned dedication page, listing the dedication to the murderer, Sirhan Sirhan.
This link is the signature page, listing Bill Ayers name
http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/pfintrobig.jpg
Truth Machine is a liar who lies to defend a cowardly bomber, a bomber who admires a President-murderer so much he dedicates his manifesto to him. That is the Truth.
I’m surprised that truth machine still hasn’t called you a stupid fucking moron over that. Because… it would be pretty well justified. Ignorance alone won’t prevent you from knowing about the Czech and the Slovak republic, Macedonia, and Montenegro and Serbia, to mention just the most recent examples that are closest to home.
Deliberately killing people is more honorable than blowing up stuff and trying (though not hard enough) not to hurt anyone in the process?
Haven’t you learned anything in the last fucking thousand years?
I lack the time to break it to you gently: you are wrong. Fifty years ago you would have been right, but not nowadays. In the First World, only Americans are patriots anymore unless you count the Balkans. I am proud of my own achievements, not of my ancestors’.
That’s the big culture shock between the USA and Europe. Over here, we don’t confuse ourselves with our own grandfathers. You brought up how “the Swiss” didn’t do much good in WWII — but you didn’t even think to ask the question of what today’s Swiss think about that fact!
(And regarding national healthcare in Switzerland… I bet that’s simply a cantonal and not a federal affair.)
Ah, the vortex of illogic and time-wastage that is Jams. Swim away, Nick, with all your strength!
Thanks for the scans. Nice to see the primary evidence. Seriously, that’s what you’ve got?
“Billy Ayers” is the third of four names that undersigned the preface (in 1974!). The dedication is “To Harriet Tubman and John Brown, To All who Continue to Fight, and To All Political Prisoners in the U.S.” and then there is a list of maybe two hundred names (presumably those the WU considered political prisoners). Sirhan Sirhan’s name is embedded in there at about #60.
And from this you deduce the quote above? You’re a nut.
(p.s. Robert Kennedy was a Senator, not (yet) President)
I’m not going to address the issue of George Washington (seeing as I’m British), but I do think the premise of this thread – apologia for a known and unrepentant criminal and bomber – is, frankly, absurd and offensive.
The use of criminal violence is never justified, even to make a political point (assuming there are available avenues of democratic participation and peaceful protest). I don’t like the Labour government here in the UK, for instance – but I would never consider going and blowing something up, risking serious harm to persons and property, to make a political point. People who do so are simply criminals, and are no different from any street thug or vandal; having a political ideology does not excuse criminal behaviour.
This applies regardless of someone’s ideology, whether left or right. I have no hesitation in calling Timothy McVeigh, for instance, a murderer.
And it is incredibly offensive to draw some sort of moral equivalence between acts of political terrorism, and those who have fought and died in wars against tyranny. A war against tyranny, such as WWII, is justified when there is no other choice; when there are no peaceful, democratic means of removing a leader, and where he abandons legitimacy in favour of the power of coercive force, it is absolutely legitimate – and, indeed, a moral duty – to fight violence with violence. But in a democratic state, it is never acceptable to use violence because you don’t like the direction of government policy.
I will say that I have never criticised Obama for his association with William Ayers; being an acquaintance or even a friend of someone does not in any sense equate to sharing their views. The Ayers issue is a very weak line of attack against Obama. But I don’t think Ayers’ activities were in any way morally defensible, and it’s frankly insane to pretend that they were.
Healthcare insurance in Switzerland, while mandatory, is largely consumer driven and not a function of the employer. Let me scare the American Socialists on this site: American Republicans admire Switzerland Healthcare.
I was in France a few years back and a wonderfully proud French woman guided me through the Normandy beaches and cemeteries. We had some good natured political conversation and she scolded me about American Television taking over France. She preferred French television, you see, she was proud of her culture. My Australian buddies are always traveling half the globe to visit the Tripoli battlefields, more national pride in the first world. Canadians I know are quite proud of their abundant natural resources and their National Healthcare system, prizing as they do equal access to said resources. More anecdotal evidence of first world pride.
I agree that pride in country easily turns to Nationalism, just as opposing pride in one’s country can turn to nihilism. Balance in all things.
Dave, Im sorry for you if you arent proud of your country. It doesnt mean you have to be a boor about it. Beware nihilsim, tis a vacuum waiting to be filled.
regarding your first point, So some countries can come into existence without violence. Those would be, largely, where a pre-existing country/Nation decided peacefully to split into smaller parts. If we go back in time far enough in any land, Im sure we’ll find violence as peoples, proud peoples, found something worth fighting for and did.
Id very much like to believe that the political lines are drawn, now. That we dont need to fight anymore. But Id be shorting the Palestinians, the Kashmiris, the Tibetans, Taiwanese, Quebecois, Basque, and on and on that want to fight. So fight we will, and judge we must.
Finland IS defined as a republic, dumbass, not by “blood”. Switzerland is a federal republic.
And America not defining itself as a nation? They have a “national anthem”, they are variously defined as “(not) a Christian nation”, “nation of immigrants”, “nation of whiners” and so on.
David:
Not so fast… have you been to Finland? ;) Of course, being too patriotic is like being too religious.
Yes, Sven, thats what Ive got. Bill Ayers signed off on that book, calling for the destruction of America in 1974, then had the gall to compare Sirhan Sirhan with Harriet Tubman.
Yes, that offends me. In 1974 Bill Ayers was 30 years old, well into adulthood. Yes, thats enough for me not to want to hear anything else from Mr. Ayers.
Do you believe Sirhan Sirhan was a political prisoner, a man whose actions are on par with Harriet Tubman, as does Mr. Ayers?
See what you did there?
(And I suppose you’d say the same thing about Begin and Mandela?)
? But, see, that’s the thing. There are three dedications on that page: 1. Tubman and Brown, 2. Those who continue to fight, and 3. Political prisoners. No comparison is made, no assertion that anyone’s actions are “on a par” with anyone else’s. All we can conclude from that dedication page is that whoever composed it thought* Sirhan qualified as a “political prisoner.” We don’t even know that Ayers thought that, even though he “signed off on the manifesto.” You’re reaching.
*My opinion is irrelevant (but I see no reason not to consider him a murderer).
And I suppose you’d say the same thing about Begin and Mandela?
No. Mandela was fighting against an oppressive regime in which he was disenfranchised. He had no choice but to fight. But even so, I don’t condone everything that he did.
In contrast, William Ayers was living in a democratic country, dedicated to values of freedom. He had every right to vote how he wished; stand for election; participate in protests; and speak and write in favour of his cause. But, of course, these things would have been ineffective – because most American voters, like their counterparts in most of the world, would not have listened to him, because they’d rather have individual freedom than communism. (Just ask an Estonian whether capitalism is better than socialism…) So, having failed to make a point through legitimate means, he and his ilk destroyed property and endangered people’s safety in order to make a point.
“Ah, the vortex of illogic and time-wastage that is Jams. Swim away, Nick, with all your strength! ” – SC
You need to be more gracious about your failures SC. Abusing me isn’t going to compensate for your inability to articulate a coherant argument.
Jams,
I think we may be at cross-purposes, because I don’t understand what you mean by “the ruling body”. Let’s recap.
@320 you talked about “the ethical difference between a terrorist and a government – revolutionary or not” – the example of a member of a revolutionary government being Washington. So at that point, you were talking about governments specifically, and their violence being considered “legitimate”, while that of “terrorists” is not.
I raised the issue of revolutionary movements with broad support:
“Mandela, Castro, Cabral to name but three, all had broad support, all used violence, but none were leading governments, revolutionary or not.”.
You said:
“I guess that depends on how we define government. You’re right, of course, in the strictest sense of a government as a ruling body, but I would contend that opposition is part of the ruling body – no matter how radical.”
At this point I began to lose you. Clearly, before they came to power, Mandela and Castro were not leading governments. Agreed?
Now at this point I could not understand what you meant by “the ruling body”, that was different from “the government”.
I therefore said:
“How on Earth was Mandela “part of the ruling body” when in prison on Robben Island? Or Castro when hiding out in the mountains?”
You replied:
“I don’t see how that’s a relevant question. My point was that “opposition” is part of the ruling body. These individuals were members of oppositions – not the whole movement. Are you asking me what role opposition plays in government? Or are you really so deluded as to think that Mandela and Castro spent the whole of their lives twiddling their thumbs in dark corners?”
It was a relevant question, of course, because we’d been discussing Mandela and Castro. Note that here you’re still talking about “theruling body” – implying, I understood, that a society has a single ruling body, as indeed it generally does. In a democratic system you might reasonably say that the opposition is part of “the ruling body”, since they may sit in elected assemblies, have a say in legislation, run regions or localities, etc. But a group of outlawed revolutionaries such as the ANC or 26th July Movement is clearly not part of the ruling body in this sense. In what sense is such a revolutionary movement part of “the ruling body”, and what, therefore, do you mean by “the ruling body”?
Mandela was fighting against an oppressive regime in which he was disenfranchised. He had no choice but to fight. But even so, I don’t condone everything that he did.
I’m sure he’d be devastated to hear that.
Sven, however you want to pretzel yourself defending this thing is fine with me. But it clearly dedicates to Sirhan and others.
So because he includes some others with more noble qualities it is supposed to somehow dilute the offensiveness about Sirhan?
At 30 years old, six years after RFK was assassinated, Ayers believes that Sirhan and Tubman both rate a dedication in his manifesto. You would have me believe this is not true, even though he signed the book himself. You say its “we dont even know” what Ayers believed.
Tell me, what is his signature supposed to signify, if not that he believed in the contents of this book?
“I do think the premise of this thread – apologia for a known and unrepentant criminal and bomber – is, frankly, absurd and offensive.” – Walton
I think I can live with the mortifying shame of falling under your displeasure, Walton, particularly as I find most of your views absurd, and many of them offensive.
*shrug* I’m not pretzelling myself, and nor am I defending “this thing.” I’m only pointing out that your conclusions do not follow from the evidence you’ve presented.
You wouldn’t know a coherent argument if it smacked you on the nose. The only responses to your incoherent comments are to point out their incoherence or to go to great pains to try to get you to reveal what the fuck your point is. I’ll stick with the former. Nick’s giving the latter a valiant effort.
By your definition I guess Osama bin Laden is part of the ruling body of the United States, since he effects change in the political environment.
I’m only pointing out that your conclusions do not follow from the evidence you’ve presented
Sven, what conclusions? Sirhan is a murderer, Ayers dedicated his book to him. These are facts, whats left to conclude?
I judge Ayers to be unworthy of serious consideration based on these and other facts. Im curious about your opinion of the man, you’ve been rather coy about it saying it isnt relevant. I think your opinion is relevant to this discussion, what do you think about him?
“At this point I began to lose you. Clearly, before they came to power, Mandela and Castro were not leading governments. Agreed?” – Nick
I didn’t say they were leading, only that they were part of the ruling body. Phrases like “came to power” are misleading because they seem to imply that a movement has no power one second, then all the power the next. That isn’t the case. The ANC, the 26th, and the Continental Congress were all functioning as governments before they “came to power”, and still had to spend a lot of time consolidating power afterward. They had their own economies, their own policies, diplomatic relations with foreign actors, and so on. For all intensive purposes, they were governments from the start… but for legitimacy… depending on what you think grants legitimacy.
“Now at this point I could not understand what you meant by ‘the ruling body’, that was different from ‘the government’.” – Nick
I perhaps could have chosen different language. But here’s the problem. To Castro, the 26th WAS the ruling body. To him, and his group, the only legitimate claim was theirs. Same with Washington, same with Mandela. That their oppositional parties didn’t want to grant them that legitimacy doesn’t change that.
You see the problem?
I would say that all parties had enough influence over their respective populations to constitute a ruling body that encompassed both the revolutionary and the non-revolutionary forces (though in a highly confrontational mode). The issue is only with whom resides the legitimacy to use the power that each claims.
So… violence. Who can legitimately employ violence? Those who have the legitimacy will be called governments, and those who do not will be called terrorists. That’s all I was saying. Whether or not there is a moral difference between governments employing force and terrorists employing force, depends on what you think about legitimacy.
I would say that all parties had enough influence over their respective populations to constitute a ruling body that encompassed both the revolutionary and the non-revolutionary forces (though in a highly confrontational mode). – Jams
Well, that’s a bizarre use of terminology, but I now understand.
Those who have the legitimacy will be called governments, and those who do not will be called terrorists. That’s all I was saying.
No, neither the ANC not the 26th July Movement was called a government, even by itself, before it ruled the country concerned. Whether this was true of the Continental Congress, I don’t know. Both the ANC and the 26th etc. regarded themselves as liberation movements, and their own violence as legitimate, as did their supporters. Their enemies, including the regimes in power in South Africa and Cuba while they were practising this violence, regarded it as illegitimate.
However, if there’s a substantive point at issue here, I’ve no idea what it might be, so I’ll leave the discussion there.
In post #119 Truth Machine says the book is not dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan.
I said no such thing, cretin. Your inability to read or comprehend leads you into many errors.
And let me explicitly point out the fallacy that Matt employs:
a) Prairie Fire is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan.
b) Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK.
c) Therefore Prairie Fire is dedicated to RFK’s murderer.
FAIL. One cannot necessarily substitute equivalents in intensional contexts. I alluded to that by mentioning Oedipus, but I foolishly counted on enough intelligence and education to grasp the point:
a) Oedipus wanted to fuck Jocasta
b) Jocasta was Oedipus’s mother
c) Therefore Oedipus wanted to fuck his mother.
FAIL
Slimeballs like Matt and the people who craft guilt-by-association political attack ads intentionally employ this fallacy.
Sirhan is a murderer, Ayers dedicated his book to him. These are facts, whats left to conclude?
Wel, that’s just it — there’s nothing left to conclude; the book is not dedicated to “a murderer”, it is dedicated to “Sirhan Sirhan”; those are not logically equivalent, any more than “I’m voting for RFK!” and “I’m voting for the guy who is going to be murdered!” are logically equivalent, even though anyone who voted for RFK voted for the guy who was going to be murdered.
From False Machine’s post #119
>>>Ayers dedicated his book to the murderer of Robert F. Kennedy, for chrissakes.
No he didn’t, you stupid fucking liar. Prairie Fire, which is not “his book”, was dedicated to “all political prisoners in the U.S.” — among whom they included Sirhan Sirhan, along with many other people. <<< emphasis mine. False Machine contradicts himself in his own post. I shouldve left it there. Prarie Fire, Bill Ayers book, was dedicated to RFK's murderer, Sirhan Sirhan. The evidence is provided. Okay False Machine, you win, I shouldve added the phrase "among others". Please tell me how that makes it any less offensive. Ayers clearly admirers a Senator-Murderer. You pretzel yourself to no end trying to distort this fact.
Perhaps if tm put his point in the form of a film short or an interpretive dance…
negentropyeater,
I think comparing the two makes sense as an example of what steps a person can take when they subscribe to any dogma to the point of committing violence and believing its the right thing to do. Don’t like my reference, what about an abortion doctor attack (I’m saving babies) or maybe the Oklahoma City Bombing – all dogmatically driven individuals who proudly committed violence.
Who among them would you wipe the slate clean on? If success in the act is your ruler, then sure, Ayers wasn’t that bad; but then by that logic, the recently apprehended Obama assassination conspirators weren’t successful either – maybe they too will someday become professors and be a close advisor to a presidential candidate.
BTW, False Machine, I think your psuedo intellectual analogy fails you.
its been a while since I read the story, if I remember right
Oedipus didnt know Jocasta was his mother.
Unless you mean to suggest Ayers didnt know Sirhan was RFK’s murderer.
Its possible I guess. This is a man who couldnt read the instructions in his Anarchist cookbook.
Matt,
As has been pointed out in this thread before now, many people don’t believe Sirhan Sirhan did murder Robert Kennedy – they think he was framed, and that the real murderers were CIA agents determined to stop a man who was a dangerous radical. I don’t know whether there is real substance to these claims (google “Robert Kennedy assassination” if you’re interested), but it does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that Ayers and other members of the WU would have believed them – and hence that Sirhan was a political prisoner – does it? Hence it is quite possible that the dedication to Sirhan was not intended as a dedication to the murderer of RFK. Have you managed to grasp the point now?
Another leap in logic is from “X dedicated the book to Y” to “X admired Y.” In this case, the dedication to “all political prisoners” looks more like a clenched-fist salute of solidarity than an expression of admiration.
“However, if there’s a substantive point at issue here, I’ve no idea what it might be, so I’ll leave the discussion there.” – Nick Gotts
People wanted to know what the difference between a government and a terrorist group is, and I gave them the answer: It depends how you define legitimacy.
That’s it.
Gimme that old-time “Republican demagoguery” every time. It never gets old, does it?
Bastards.
By the way, DoorMatt, if you’re going to twist someone’s name, at least do it right: That should be “Falsehood Machine”, not “False Machine”. “False Machine” would be the negation of “True Machine”, which is not the handle being employed by Truth Machine.
Thank you for your attention. Carry on.
if I remember right
Oedipus didnt know Jocasta was his mother.
OMG, something actually penetrated his thick skull!
Unless you mean to suggest Ayers didnt know Sirhan was RFK’s murderer.
Lookee here, cretin: “Quite a number of people, probably wrongly, think that Sirhan Sirhan did not kill Kennedy. ”
Its possible I guess. This is a man who couldnt read the instructions in his Anarchist cookbook.
That would be a different failing — a failing of competence – from the one you are charging him with — a failing of morality. Not to mention the fact that it was decades ago and he may well feel differently now.
Another leap in logic is from “X dedicated the book to Y” to “X admired Y.” In this case, the dedication to “all political prisoners” looks more like a clenched-fist salute of solidarity than an expression of admiration.
Yup. But Matt’s tiny mind is stuffed full with these sorts of conflations.
False Machine contradicts himself in his own post.
It’s not a contradiction because, for the nth time, equivalents cannot be substituted in intensional contexts. Being the sort of intellectually lazy slug that you are, you have simply ignored my point rather than trying to understand it, by maybe googling “intensional context” and finding such things as
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illisubs.html
“dedicated to X” is all about attitudes and beliefs.
I guess I’m the minority here, because I think Ayers’s past crimes can be justified. At the time, the US government was sending tens of thousands of Americans to die in an unnecessary war, and using the police and FBI at home to suppress opposition to that war. Sometimes I wish he and his colleagues had planted more bombs too.
Another leap in logic is from “X dedicated the book to Y” to “X admired Y.”
Another one is that “X admired Y (who has characteristic C)” does not imply that X admired Y because of C. For instance, one could admire Robert Stroud and know he was a murderer without admiring him for being a murderer. And certainly Ayers did not admire Sirhan Sirhan for being RFK’s murderer, yet that’s the slander that Matt is promoting.
Nick @ 407- Does this mean you won’t be contributing to the fund to hire a hooker to remove that poker Walton has so far up his ass? $20.00 raised so far.
Patricia,
That he is sorely in need of poker removal is not in doubt, and a good fuck might well change his silly views for the better, but susbscribe $20 to help him get his end away? Not likely! In these times of impending recession, I have to reserve any surplus cash to cater to my own vices!
On another matter, I’ll have to try the seductive effect of sequins and glitter in the beard (mine I mean – my wife doesn’t have one).
So your wife is not a Dwarf then…
What’s wrong with Ayers? Perhaps that he and his little group the Weather Underground were planning to round up an exterminate 25 million people in “reeducation camps” if they got into power. Know them by their fantasies.
“It is clear that he currently leads a responsible life, one apparently devoted to improving the lives of school children in Illinois and in the nation.”
No he just runs failed programs like the Annenberg Challenge trying to indoctrinate children into being little Marxist revolutionaries.
Lie Machine,
“Quite a number of people, probably wrongly, think that Sirhan Sirhan did not kill Kennedy.”
What people? Who challenges this?
Sirhan walked up to RFK in a hotel and shot him. He was subsequently tackled by some football player (Rosie Greer maybe?) Do you challenge this, dont weasel behind an anonymous phrase like “some people”. What do you think?
Im quite comfortable in calling Sirhan RFK’s murderer. Im quite comfortable in my judgement that Ayers believed, and believes, that Sirhan murdered RFK. I think that Ayers dedicated his book to Sirhan and others because Sirhan took a violent whack at the establishment, and thats what Ayers himself says he wanted to do in his many writings.
I find Ayers despicable because of this. You struggle to defend decreasingly smaller ground, now calling fringe conspiracy theories around RFK’s murder to your aid. I dont know your politics, but to think so many compare Obama’s idealism to RFK’s, and somehow you want to criticise me, on the day of Obama’s election, because I condemn a man who dedicates his book to RFK’s killer, because I assume a man who dedicates his book to someone therefore admires him. You low, pathetic, stunning semantic weasel. You are not the Change I can believe in. Lie Machine, No You Cant.
Matt = dimwitted fail
Stick a fork in this thread — it’s done.
Really grasping at straws here…