Posted: Mon 06 Oct 2008 13:20 Post subject: What about Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground?
With all due respect to Dean, the propect of pimply teenaged boys playing militia scares me less than Obama's non-denial that he got his political start at a fundraising meeting in Bill Ayers's living room. I realize that Ayers is fond of saying (with numbing repetition) that the anti-Viet Nam war Weather Underground never actually killed U.S. civilians. But the fact is that one police officer was murdered and another permanently maimed and blinded by a pipe bomb set by Ayers's goup, that three members of the terrorist group themselves were killed when their IUD detonated prematurely, and that that three people were murdered in cold blood in the Brinks robbery, to obtain funds for Ayers's group. Ayers has openly boasted that his organization set off a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974 that terrorized America. Seven years ago, Ayers told the New York Times, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Instead of denying the claim that Obama got his political start with Ayers's help, the Obama campaign is attacking Palin's motives for making it. This is deja vu all over again.
If, in the next few days, Obama comes out with an impassioned speech that he can no more disavow domestic terrorists than he can disavow his own family, his candidacy is toast. Ayers will simply go on national TV to claim that his group's bombings of civilians were not "terrorism" because they were in a good cause. Another wave of revulsion and disgust will sweep over the U.S. But this time there are not enough weeks left for Obama to extricate himself.
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 06 Oct 2008 14:22; edited 3 times in total
Posted: Mon 06 Oct 2008 13:35 Post subject: Re: What about Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground?
fwsweet wrote:
With all due respect to Dean, the propect of pimply teenaged boys playing militia scares me less than Obama's non-denial that he got his political start at a fundraising meeting in Bill Ayers's living room. I realize that Ayers is fond of saying (with numbing repetition) that the anti-Viet Nam war Weather Underground never actually killed U.S. civilians. But the fact is that one police officer was murdered and another permanently maimed and blinded by a pipe bomb set by Ayers's goup, that three members of the terrorist group themselves were killed with their IUD detonated prematurely, and that that three people were murdered in cold blood in the Brinks robbery, to obtain funds for Ayers's group. Instead of denying the claim, the Obama campaign is attacking Palin's motives for making it. This is deja vu all over again.
If, in the next few days, Obama comes out with an impassioned speech that he can no more disavow domestic terrorists than he can disavow his own family, his candidacy is toast. Ayers will simply go on national TV to claim that his group's bombings of civilians were not "terrorism" because they were in a good cause. Another wave of revulsion and disgust will sweep over the U.S. But this time there are not enough weeks left for Obama to extricate himself.
An admission of such would be political suicide and Few if anyone expects him to do so. But the Obama campaign has fired off warning shots to the McCain camp that they had better reign in their VP candidate and back off this issue because as the old saying goes: Turnabout is Fair Play
It has already started. Friend of mne received this at 1:07 this morning
Quote:
Dear {name} -
Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.
In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.
But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.
During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.
Sound familiar?
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.
So at noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th, we're releasing a 13-minute documentary about the scandal called "Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis" -- it will be available at KeatingEconomics.com, along with background information that every voter should know.
Watch a preview right now and share it with your friends.
The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.
And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.
Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:
It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.
But if we work together, we can make sure the focus stays on the economy -- and how to fix it.
Please forward this email to everyone you know.
Thanks,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
P.S. -- The documentary will be live at noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th at www.KeatingEconomics.com.
JERUSALEM – A prominent article by the New York Times this weekend purporting to investigate the connections between Sen. Barack Obama and former Weathermen radical Bill Ayers omits key associations between the two and in some cases seems to minimize their relationship.
One law professor and blogger who was interviewed for the Times piece says he provided the newspaper with key documentation showing Ayers was directly involved in the formation of the board of an education organization on which Obama served as chairman.
But the Times did not present that information and instead made the claim Ayers was not involved in the selection of Obama as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, or CAC, which was founded by Ayers.
The Times article in question was first released online under the title "Obama had met Ayers, but the two are not close." That title was soon changed to, "Obama and the '60's Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths."
The piece purports to present the scope of Obama's relationship with Ayers, an increasingly public point of contention during this campaign season, with Gov. Sarah Palin just yesterday highlighting the controversial relationship.
News reports, archived records, interviews and Ayers' own curriculum vitae document that Ayers was the founder of CAC, which bills itself as a school reform organization. Documentation shows Ayers led the application process to apply for the original grant that funded the CAC.
Ayers served as co-chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one of the two operational arms of the CAC, from its formation in 1995 until 2000. In 1995, Obama was appointed as the CAC's first chairman.
The Times, though, does not mention Ayers' role in founding the CAC, documented in several articles in 1994 and 1995 in the Chicago Tribune, which detail Ayers' extensive work to secure the original grant from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg, as well as Ayers' molding of the CAC guidelines.
Many argue it would have been unusual for Ayers not to have been involved in the selection of the chairman of the group he himself founded.
The Times claims that "according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama's appointment (to chair the CAC)."
The newspaper says Obama was suggested as a nominee to lead the CAC board by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year.
Reported the Times: "At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said."
The Times did not quote either Leff or Graham as directly stating Ayers was not involved in the selection of Obama, just that Leff originally suggested Obama. The article then continued to other matters.
Steve Diamond, a political science and law professor and a blogger who has posted on Obama, said he was interviewed for the Times piece. He said he provided Times writer Scott Shane with documentation that proves Ayers was directly involved in forming the board and leadership of the CAC.
Among the documents is a letter from November 18, 1994 in which Vartan Gregorian, president of Brown University and a member of Annenberg's selection committee, asked Ayers to "compose the governing board and the Collaborative, to engage people who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of Chicago."
A copy of the letter and Ayers' reply are available on Diamond's blog.
On December 1, 1994, Ayers and Anne Hallett, who co-chaired a CAC branch with Ayers, wrote back to Gregorian:
"Thank you for your letter of November 18, 1994. We are continuing to build a broad base of consensus and support for the main thrust of the proposal. ... We have given careful thought to the issues raised in your letter. We are working with Adele Simmons, Deborah Leff, and Pat Graham on issues of management and governance to ensure that Chicago's Annenberg Challenge initiative is successful.
"We offer the following responses: ... Board of Directors. A five-to-seven person Board of Directors of highly respected Chicagoans is being assembled. Pat Graham, president of the Spencer Foundation, has agreed to serve and is willing to work with the Board. The duties of the Board will be to approve grants, to help raising matching funds, and to hire the executive director. ... The Board and the Collaborative will reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of Chicago."
Diamond concluded that Ayers, who conceived and led the organization, submission and implementation of the CAC grant application, was viewed as responsible for composing the board on which Obama served.
But that information was not included in the Times piece, which bases its claim that Ayers was not involved in the appointment of Obama largely on Leff's statement that she first suggested Obama.
But documents from 1994 that Diamond said he provided to the Times indicate Leff viewed Ayers as in charge of the CAC:
Wrote Leff: "The Joyce Foundation strongly supports the proposal for the Annenberg Challenge Grant submitted from Chicago. At its meeting just two weeks ago, our Board of Directors approved a grant of $80,000 to Professor William Ayers at the University of Illinois at Chicago to establish the Chicago School Reform Collaborative – the working group that Ayers organized to develop and submit the CAC grant proposal and that would become an arm of the CAC once established in 1995."
Also missing from the Times is information, first exposed by WND, that Obama and Ayers used the CAC grant money to fund organizations run by radicals tied to Ayers, including Mike Klonsky, a former top communist activist who was a senior leader in the Students for a Democratic Society group, a major leftist student organization in the 1960s from which the Weathermen terror group later splintered.
National Review Online writer Stanley Kurtz pointed out the Times article also ignored individuals connected to Ayers and the CAC he said helped block his original attempts to obtain the CAC archives housed at the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago. It was Kurtz who found that along with Leff and Graham, Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board of the CAC, which hired Obama.
The documents obtained by Kurtz showed Ayers served as an ex-officio member of the board that Obama chaired through the CAC's first year. Ayers also served on the board's governance committee with Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws, according to the documents.
Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Obama. Ayers also spoke for the Chicago School Reform Collaborative before Obama's board, while Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the collaborative, the CAC documents reviewed by Kurtz show.
The Times piece goes on to document what it titles "other connections" between Obama and Ayers.
It reported that in 1997, after Obama took office, the new state senator was asked what he was reading by The Chicago Tribune. He praised a book by Ayers, "A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court," which the Times noted Obama called "a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system."
The Times, though, did not report Ayer's book could easily be characterized as anti-American, comparing the U.S. to South African apartheid and dismissing the notion the U.S. is a just nation while questioning whether America should maintain a prison system.
The Times also reports that in 2001, Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama's re-election campaign.
It then recognized - as WND first exclusively reported - that Obama served on the board of the Wood's Fund, a liberal Chicago nonprofit, alongside Ayers.
But the newspaper got the dates wrong and here again seemed to minimize the pair's relationship, saying Obama and Ayers "overlapped on the seven-member board." It claimed the two served together on the Wood's Fund from 2000 to 2002, while the Fund's own website documents indicated Obama and Ayers served together beginning in 1999.
The Times ignored altogether that Obama and Ayers appeared together as speakers at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002 entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"
The Times article seemed to go to great lengths to argue Ayers, once a domestic terrorist, is currently rehabilitated.
"In Chicago, Mr. Ayers has largely been rehabilitated," the Times article stated.
"Federal riot and bombing conspiracy charges against him were dropped in 1974 because of illegal wiretaps and other prosecutorial misconduct, and he was welcomed back after years in hiding by his large and prominent family," stated the article.
Toward the end of the piece, the article acknowledges it was the New York Times which on 9/11 profiled Ayers and quoted from his just-published memoir, "Fugitive Days," in which he write: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
Ayers posed for a photograph accompanying the 9/11 piece that shows him stepping on an American flag.
In response to controversy following the Times piece and the 9/11 attacks, the Times this weekend noted Ayers wrote on his blog in 2001 that his memoir "is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism."
But unreported is that just last month, Ayers wrote on his blog he still feels not enough was done to oppose the Vietnam War, although he clarified, "I don't think violent resistance is necessarily the answer, but I do think opposition and refusal is imperative."
Posted: Mon 06 Oct 2008 13:51 Post subject: Re: What about Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground?
anonymouse wrote:
the Obama campaign has fired off warning shots to the McCain camp that they had better reign in their VP candidate and back off this issue because as the old saying goes: Turnabout is Fair Play
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBBbUf5BJKY
Um. The youtube link merely shows a person saying that McCain is on the board of a right-wing organization that is affiliated with another right-wing organization that is accused of being "racist" "anti-semites".
Are you suggesting that the U.S. public would be as disgusted with "racist anit-semites" (with whom McCain could conceivably be linked) as with terrorist bombers who murdered innocent civilians (with whom Obama has been linked)? I beg to differ.
I agree that most Americans would be unhappy to learn that a presidential candidate consorted with "racist anti-semites." But I think that most Americans would be terrified to learn that a candiate owes his career to a man who insists even now that they did not kill enough. Your equating "racist anti-semitism" with deliberate mass murder of innocent U.S. civilians is unpersuasive.
[Incidentally, after watching many important stories "spun" oppositely by Fox and the one hand, and every other U.S. TV news source on the other, Mary Lee and I now get our TV news from the BBC.]
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 06 Oct 2008 13:57; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1434 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 06 Oct 2008 13:56 Post subject:
anonymouse wrote:
It has already started. Friend of mne received this at 1:07 this morning
Quote:
Dear {name} -
Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.
In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.
But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.
During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.
Sound familiar?
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.
So at noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th, we're releasing a 13-minute documentary about the scandal called "Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis" -- it will be available at KeatingEconomics.com, along with background information that every voter should know.
Watch a preview right now and share it with your friends.
The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.
And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.
Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:
It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.
But if we work together, we can make sure the focus stays on the economy -- and how to fix it.
Please forward this email to everyone you know.
Thanks,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
P.S. -- The documentary will be live at noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th at www.KeatingEconomics.com.
This issue is fair game, the economy notwithsatnding. Ayers was involved in terrorist acts and has not repented. Obama was associated with this man and wants to be Commander-In-Chief of the military forces??? As this month moves on, a lot of people will take a hard look at this. They will also take a look at the Obama Youth movement, something we have never seen in this country. I'm not saying McCain has all or even any of the answers. At the end of the day, most voters are going to feel more secure with McCain. That's my prediction, and I could be wrong.
Posted: Mon 06 Oct 2008 14:08 Post subject: Re: What about Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground?
fwsweet wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
the Obama campaign has fired off warning shots to the McCain camp that they had better reign in their VP candidate and back off this issue because as the old saying goes: Turnabout is Fair Play
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBBbUf5BJKY
Um. The youtube link merely shows a person saying that McCain is on the board of a right-wing organization that is affiliated with another right-wing organization that is accused of being "racist" "anti-semites".
Are you suggesting that the U.S. public would be as disgusted with "racist anit-semites" (with whom McCain could conceivably be linked) as with terrorist bombers who murdered innocent civilians (with whom Obama has been linked)? I beg to differ.
I agree that most Americans would be unhappy to learn that a presidential candidate consorted with "racist anti-semites." But I think that most Americans would be terrified to learn that a candiate owes his career to a man who insists even now that they did not kill enough. Your equating "racist anti-semitism" with deliberate mass murder of innocent U.S. civilians is unpersuasive.
I'm saying that just about anyone who has been in politics, particularly in Washington has associated with unsavory people and as a result has had to disavow or downplay their involvement. McCain has been in Washington for 26 years. Guess who probably has more "dirt"?
It is my opinion that Obama camp refuses to o down like John Kerry has a mountain of information of McCain on standby just in case the smear tactics were brought out by their opposition. By showing that McCain was a central figure in the savings & loan scandals and drawing parallels to the current economic woes in the US may prove to be very effective.
And all Obama has to highlight is this: The Obama campaign raised $454 million so far this year. Ayers donated $200 17 yers ago, hardly the contributions of a close and avid supporter.
fwsweet wrote:
[Incidentally, after watching many important stories "spun" oppositely by Fox and the one hand, and every other U.S. TV news source on the other, Mary Lee and I now get our TV news from the BBC.]
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 353 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Mon 06 Oct 2008 16:35 Post subject:
Quote:
With all due respect to Dean, the propect of pimply teenaged boys playing militia scares me less than Obama's non-denial that he got his political start at a fundraising meeting in Bill Ayers's living room.
Why does this scare you? What does it make you scared of? Just curious.
Why does this scare you? What does it make you scared of? Just curious.
It scares me because I do not want my loved ones to die in a bomb explosion. It makes me scared of bombs intended to murder civilians. Look at it this way: Law enforcement has a good track record of stopping uniformed wanna-be militias from killing people. Law enforcement has a bad track record of stopping domestic bombers from killing people.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 353 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Mon 06 Oct 2008 18:08 Post subject:
Quote:
It scares me because I do not want my loved ones to die in a bomb explosion. It makes me scared of bombs intended to murder civilians. Look at it this way: Law enforcement has a good track record of stopping uniformed wanna-be militias from killing people. Law enforcement has a bad track record of stopping domestic bombers from killing people.
Sorry, I think my question wasn't clear enough. I would think it would be obvious why anyone would be afraid of terrorism, and I can understand why you would be more afraid of lone or small groups of terrorists than militias. However, I was asking specifically about being scared by:
Quote:
Obama's non-denial that he got his political start at a fundraising meeting in Bill Ayers's living room.
I am curious what specifically about this scares you. Maybe nothing about it does, and I misunderstood your original post. But if I didn't, is it that you think that because of:
Quote:
Obama's non-denial that he got his political start at a fundraising meeting in Bill Ayers's living room.
Your loved ones are more likely to die by a bomb explosion if he gets elected? If so, why?
I am curious because while I completely understand the fear of terrorism, my fear of terrorism is not at all increased by:
Quote:
Obama's non-denial that he got his political start at a fundraising meeting in Bill Ayers's living room.
That is what I'm getting at, perhaps in an overly round about way.
I am curious because while I completely understand the fear of terrorism, my fear of terrorism is not at all increased by:
Quote:
Obama's non-denial that he got his political start at a fundraising meeting in Bill Ayers's living room.
That is what I'm getting at, perhaps in an overly round about way.
I see. I misunderstood. You are asking about the connection between Obama and Ayers, not about Ayers's activities.
The connection between Obama and Dean's marching youngsters is tenuous. It is unlikely that their enthusiasm would represent a serious threat to my well-being if Obama were to become president. Even in the worst-case scenario, if his election were to spur them to attempt armed insurrection, I doubt that they could cause much damage.
The connection between Obama and the Weather Underground is equally tenuous. It is unlikely that Obama's election would spur would-be bombers to emulate the domestic terrorism of the 1970s. Nevertheless, and here is the crucial difference, in the worst-case scenario, if enthusiasm over his election were to spur them to another wave of bombings across the nation, they would cause a great deal of damage.
The difference lies not in the credibility of the threat nor in Obama's advocacy or support of the threat. The difference lies in the consequences if the threat were to be carried out.
Obama's support of Wright, even after the nut claimed that Whites had invented Aids as germ-warfare against Blacks, even after the nut claimed that Whites in the U.S. government were responsible for 911, can be shrugged off. So what if Obama's support encouraged the nut to spout his nuttiness on national TV? The only people hurt by Wright are ignorant fools, and the damage they suffered was purely intellectual--it deepened their ignorance.
Obama's implied support of youth militia, even if it were accurate, can also be shrugged off. An armed insurrection by the likes of the plump kids on that video would be crushed within hours. Although the Army or National Guard might take a few casualties, the only people killed or seriously injured in an armed insurrection by such as them would be themselves.
But Obama's implied alliance with a man whose only regret is that he did not kill more, if accurate, cannot be shrugged off. Politically inspired bombings kill innocent civilians. They have killed innocent civilians in the past in the U.S. (at the hands of Ayers's organization). They are killing innocent civilians today in other countries (at the hands of similar organizations). And they will kill innocent civilians in the U.S. in the future. (Surely, after the Oklahoma City event, you do not think that the U.S. is immune?)
Obama cannot pussyfoot around this issue. There are many millions of Americans my age who were in their 20s or 30s, trying to raise their children, when Ayers's wave of bombings struck the country. That he is not in prison is frustrating. The allegation that he is a friend of a presidential candidate is scary. The suggestion that the candidate is in political debt to him is scarier yet. Finally, the candidate's not denying the allegation is scariest of all.
Whining that Palin isn't playing fair will not alleviate the fear in anyone who lived through that period. Accusing McCain of causing the economic crisis is silly. Claiming that Ayers, who recently posed for the camera wiping his feet on a U.S. flag, is rehabilitated is a lie too obvious even for a politician. Attacking McCain is pointless; even if McCain were proven to be a drunkard or worse would be irrelevant. We are talking about bombs. You know. Bombs. Like Lebanon, Iraq, Madrid, London. Bombs.
Your fear of terrorism is not increased by Obama's non-denial of his indebtedness to a terrorist. Mine is. Either you do not believe that his implied support of Ayers would encourage domestic terrorists. Or you do not believe that, being encouraged, they would actually carry out a new wave of bombings. I believe in both. It appears unlikely that I will persuade you to become fearful. And you will not convince me to accept the risk of sudden death with unconcern. Perhaps it is a difference in our ages. Perhaps it is a difference in our life's histories.
I think that Obama, like too many people, takes things at face value. The people around him seemed to respect Ayers as a "Distinguished" Professor of Education. The Mayor of Chicago seemed to respect him. I doubt that Obama gave a thought about Ayers' criminal past.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1434 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 07 Oct 2008 14:57 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Obama cannot pussyfoot around this issue. There are many millions of Americans my age who were in their 20s or 30s, trying to raise their children, when Ayers's wave of bombings struck the country. That he is not in prison is frustrating. The allegation that he is a friend of a presidential candidate is scary. The suggestion that the candidate is in political debt to him is scarier yet. Finally, the candidate's not denying the allegation is scariest of all.
I think the most scary of all is the scant attention by the traditional media regarding Ayers and Obama. The alternative media has been all over this the entire year. If this was 25 or 30 years ago, we would know absolutely nothing about the Ayers/Obama connection. I do remember when the Pentagon was bombed and the "Weather Underground". I certainly remember the Armored Car heist, because that was local for me. This guy should be rotting in a prison cell. Obama needs to answer why he was associated with him. If McCain was associated with someone in the Klan earlier on, he would not even be a candidate. This must be a point on through the end of the campaign. If the people are ok with this, then we get what we deserve.
Posted: Tue 07 Oct 2008 15:11 Post subject: Re: Obama and Ayers
Powell wrote:
The people around him seemed to respect Ayers as a "Distinguished" Professor of Education.
To me the very designation "distinguished professor" is a red flag.
All the teachers in the hard sciences that I have met are intellectually honest. And many teachers of my acquaintance in the humanities and social sciences are also honest. But there is a core of influential teachers who have corrupted U.S. academia perhaps beyond redemption.
I know several professors who require students to parrot that 911 was committed by the Jews who control the U.S. government. I know several who fail students unless they agree that there is no African blood in Whites. I know several who make students write that anyone in antebellum America with known Black blood was legally a slave. I know several who give good grades only to students who agree that Black brains work differently, so Black students must not be held to the White standards. I know a teacher whose exams test the "knowledge" that entire organized brigades of Black soldiers fought for the Confederacy. I know a teacher who grades on the basis that Seminole children get low test scores because they are impoverished. (In fact, Seminole kids get phenomenal test scores and, due to their casinos, every Seminole is wealthy beyond most folks' dreams.) I could go on and on.
The two best ways of summarizing my own experiences with college humanities and social studies teachers are: (1) The number who consider factual accuracy more important that idealogy is miniscule. (2) The surest path to promotion and tenure is to become widely known for advocating the violent destruction of America. The list of violent criminals (or wannabes) who are now "distinguished professors" on the basis of nothing more than their advocacy of anti-U.S. violence is horrifying.
I am not alone in my despair that social studies or humanities college teachers who openly respect factual accuracy over idealogy thereby ruin their own careers. See Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987) for many more examples and overall numbers.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 07 Oct 2008 15:20; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1434 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 07 Oct 2008 17:19 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
I am not alone in my despair that social studies or humanities college teachers who openly respect factual accuracy over idealogy thereby ruin their own careers.
We also see this in some physical science disciplines, for example, meteorology in regards to anthropogenic global warming. Scientists have had their careers/reputations ruined, and their grants have dried up if they do not tow the party line that global warming/climate change is anthropogenic.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 353 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Wed 08 Oct 2008 04:42 Post subject:
Quote:
Either you do not believe that his implied support of Ayers would encourage domestic terrorists. Or you do not believe that, being encouraged, they would actually carry out a new wave of bombings. I believe in both.
I don't see any implied support for Ayers. I don't believe that the fact that he attended a fundraiser for him 16 years ago at his house implies any sort of support for him. To me it implies the opposite: That Ayers supported him. Ayers is not the first unsavory character to support Obama. It is entirely possible that Obama knew nothing of his history at the time. I am sure lots of unsavory characters support McCain as well. I have a friend in his mid-forties, with a family and a career. It was only almost a year after I met him that I found out he spent 1988 to 1995 in federal prison after being caught with 4 kilos of cocaine in his trunk as he drove up I-95. I also found out that he supports legalizing cocaine. (He's unrepentant!) I don't, and I don't see him very much anymore. But I suppose if I ever run for office, you would conclude, on the basis of my friendship with this individual, that my election would encourage cocaine trafficking.
Quote:
It appears unlikely that I will persuade you to become fearful. And you will not convince me to accept the risk of sudden death with unconcern. Perhaps it is a difference in our ages. Perhaps it is a difference in our life's histories.
I think Bertrand Russel put it quite well: "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."
Of course, you could argue that the same quote applies equally to me. And with that, I'm off to ride the train to work in Europe!
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Wed 08 Oct 2008 15:11 Post subject:
What I find disgusting is the overwhelmingly left leaning press is ostracizing Palin for bringing this up, without even checking into the facts. Hey, if you say something a million times and you and all your friends can agree, you must be right.
What the screwballs on the left increasingly fail to recognize, is the mostly silent reaction of quiet middle America, who see this prejudice clearly are quite offended by it and will make their presence felt once again at the voting booth.
Last edited by chip on Wed 08 Oct 2008 15:37; edited 1 time in total
I think that Obama, like too many people, takes things at face value. The people around him seemed to respect Ayers as a "Distinguished" Professor of Education. The Mayor of Chicago seemed to respect him. I doubt that Obama gave a thought about Ayers' criminal past.
Doesn't that show a real lack of leadership? Not to mention lack of good judgement?
Heck, I'm a nobody but it wasn't long in my life before I realized to make decisions about right and wrong and who and who not to respect regardless of other people's opinions.
What I find disgusting is the overwhelmingly left leaning press is ostracizing Palin for bringing this up, without even checking into the facts. Hey, if you say something a million times and you and all your friends can agree, you must be right.
What the screwballs on the left increasingly fail to recognize, is the mostly silent reaction of quiet middle America, who see this prejudice clearly are quite offended by it and will make their presence felt once again at the voting booth.
I think they are ignoring Palin because it is old news. The subject was brought up by Clinton early on this year, was addressed and eventually discredited/disregarded as irrelevant. So for Palin to bring it up, attempt put a little more spin on it by sensationalizing the story and presenting it as a groundbreaking revelation is a bit silly
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
