…and this is a 
What's wrong with William Ayers?
Category: Academics
Posted on: November 3, 2008 9:10 AM, by PZ Myers
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.
Comments
Posted by: Sigmund | November 3, 2008 9:14 AM
I did like the way Redstate Update approached the Ayers 'controversy'.
http://www.sitemason.com/newspub/fQKJvW?id=60003
Posted by: Allytude | November 3, 2008 9:16 AM
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..
Posted by: mel | November 3, 2008 9:20 AM
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
Posted by: Mike Jackson | November 3, 2008 9:20 AM
"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.
Posted by: MissPrism | November 3, 2008 9:22 AM
Strewth. Bill's blog has trolls that make yours look like stray kittens.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 3, 2008 9:23 AM
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.
Posted by: llewelly | November 3, 2008 9:26 AM
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.
Posted by: Ann | November 3, 2008 9:31 AM
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.
Posted by: Doubting Foo | November 3, 2008 9:32 AM
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!
Posted by: Zeno | November 3, 2008 9:35 AM
It's yet another example of Republican logic.
Posted by: pharynguphile | November 3, 2008 9:41 AM
slight difference between "radical" and "convicted terrorist." Especially when the convicted terrorist has not in any way recanted his position.
You blew it.
Again.
Posted by: marilove | November 3, 2008 9:42 AM
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!
Posted by: Jeanette | November 3, 2008 9:43 AM
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
Posted by: Prof MTH | November 3, 2008 9:45 AM
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).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 3, 2008 9:45 AM
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.Posted by: designsoda | November 3, 2008 9:46 AM
"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.
Posted by: Dustin | November 3, 2008 9:47 AM
This has gone beyond simple demagoguery. Targeting intellectuals in this way is blatantly fascist.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 3, 2008 9:48 AM
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.
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg | November 3, 2008 9:49 AM
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.
Posted by: Nunchuck Numnuts | November 3, 2008 9:51 AM
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.
Posted by: Dustin | November 3, 2008 9:51 AM
Fascist.Posted by: Benny the Icepick | November 3, 2008 9:53 AM
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.
Posted by: Matt | November 3, 2008 9:56 AM
Because he tried to kill people?
Posted by: Matt | November 3, 2008 9:58 AM
This is a guy, when interview in 2002, said he wished he planted more bombs.
Rehabilitation? Remorse? Repentance?
Posted by: Susan | November 3, 2008 10:02 AM
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!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 3, 2008 10:02 AM
Link to the exact words he used
Posted by: Gene | November 3, 2008 10:06 AM
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.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 3, 2008 10:06 AM
@ 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.
Posted by: Tophe | November 3, 2008 10:07 AM
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.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 3, 2008 10:11 AM
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.
Posted by: patrickhenry | November 3, 2008 10:14 AM
"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.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 3, 2008 10:14 AM
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".
Posted by: zer0 | November 3, 2008 10:17 AM
You're only a terrorist if they disagree with why you're bombing.
Posted by: jonathan | November 3, 2008 10:18 AM
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.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 3, 2008 10:20 AM
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?
Posted by: harmlesstree | November 3, 2008 10:21 AM
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.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 3, 2008 10:22 AM
oh please do link to that because your analogy just falls totally flat without anything supporting it.
Posted by: gwangung | November 3, 2008 10:22 AM
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?
Posted by: Norman Doering | November 3, 2008 10:25 AM
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."
Posted by: wombat | November 3, 2008 10:25 AM
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.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 3, 2008 10:28 AM
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.
Posted by: harmlesstree | November 3, 2008 10:30 AM
"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.
Posted by: Jams | November 3, 2008 10:31 AM
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.
Posted by: Hieronymus Bosch's Poodle | November 3, 2008 10:33 AM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 3, 2008 10:33 AM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 3, 2008 10:36 AM
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?
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 3, 2008 10:37 AM
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.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 3, 2008 10:39 AM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 3, 2008 10:39 AM
Terrorist (noun): person in possession of a bomb, but without a plane to drop it from.
Posted by: gwangung | November 3, 2008 10:50 AM
Actually, I would dispute the latter. And be quite unrepentant about it.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 3, 2008 10:51 AM
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.
Posted by: gwangung | November 3, 2008 10:52 AM
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?
Posted by: Desert Son | November 3, 2008 10:56 AM
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
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 3, 2008 10:57 AM
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.
Posted by: dean | November 3, 2008 11:00 AM
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.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 3, 2008 11:00 AM
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.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 3, 2008 11:03 AM
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!'.
Posted by: Matt | November 3, 2008 11:09 AM
''I don't regret setting bombs" From The Weather Underground documentary, 2001.
How's that for repentance?
Posted by: gwangung | November 3, 2008 11:10 AM
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....
Posted by: SEF | November 3, 2008 11:12 AM
@ 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.Posted by: Matt | November 3, 2008 11:14 AM
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.
Posted by: Quark27 | November 3, 2008 11:17 AM
The mind of PZ Meyers: R.I.P.
Killed by ideology, 3 November 2008
Posted by: Desert Son | November 3, 2008 11:26 AM
Re: my post at #53:
llewelly, I apologize for misspelling your post handle. Just now realized.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Observer | November 3, 2008 11:27 AM
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.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 3, 2008 11:36 AM
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.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 3, 2008 11:42 AM
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.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 3, 2008 11:45 AM
@ 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.
Posted by: harmlesstree | November 3, 2008 11:48 AM
"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.
Posted by: scooter | November 3, 2008 11:48 AM
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
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 3, 2008 11:52 AM
The mind of PZ Meyers: R.I.P. Quark27
Who's this P.Z. Meyers? I don't seem to have heard of him.
Posted by: JStein | November 3, 2008 12:02 PM
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.
Posted by: raven | November 3, 2008 12:08 PM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 3, 2008 12:10 PM
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!
Posted by: the subject | November 3, 2008 12:13 PM
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?
Posted by: uncle frogy | November 3, 2008 12:17 PM
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?
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg | November 3, 2008 12:18 PM
Wow, this thread is making my killfile swell. Where did all the idiots come from? Though I suspect (hope) they will disappear come Wednesday.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 3, 2008 12:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Tulse | November 3, 2008 12:26 PM
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