So... are we supporting what the professors are doing or are we just using the occasion to bash McCain? The latter seems to be missing the point.
So... are we supporting what the professors are doing or are we just using the occasion to bash McCain? The latter seems to be missing the point.
I'm offering perspective to illustrate how dumb it is to bash someone like Ayers.
I'm trying to keep a little perspective by remembering that there are people in this country who believe that American will never be safe until every last Terrorist (capitalized for a reason) in the world is lying at the bottom of a giant smoking crater, and that all normal, decent, God-fearing Americans have a patriotic/divine duty to work tirelessly toward that end. Working from that premise, it almost makes a little sense to say that anyone who has ever seen the genuine Terrorist named Mr. Ayers in person and not told him to die in a fire is either guilty by inaction or a misguided, cowardly, unpatriotic Liberal (or worse, an Atheist).
The appearance of the Flat Earth Society thread today is convenient, because it should illustrate the point that no matter what incredibly outlandish claim one imagines, there is always someone who at least claims to believe something more ridiculous.
Sure, but while I think that Ayers went "fuck the government" a little prematurely, I don't think it's bad that we have people of his ilk around.
I don't think all the illegal prosecution the government attempted against him was "ok" either, but I've forgiven the government too
Originally Posted by http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/campaign08/newsletter/la-na-ayers13-2008oct13,0,2980206.story
I'm fairly sure Ayers went to some lengths to try and bomb unoccupied buildings.
Archibald, I don't think he was premature at all. I really can't think of a worse era of American government/policy since the end of slavery (I consider the Weathermen to have acted in the tail end of the civil rights movement, so civil rights movment + vietnam era). The infamous Pentagon bombing took place in 1972... not long before the Pentagon Papers were made public.
The bombing attacks were mostly against government buildings, along with several banks. Most were preceded by communiqués that provided evacuation warnings, along with statements regarding the particular matter which motivated the attack. For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a statement saying it was "in protest of the US invasion of Laos." For the bombing of The Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was "in retaliation for the US bombing raid in Hanoi." For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the Harry S Truman Building housing the United States Department of State, they stated it was "in response to escalation in Vietnam."
I think you could make the argument that McCarthyism was an equally problematic "era" in public policy, at least for those it affected.
Killing is wrong. I treat it as a postulate that killing is wrong. Killing can be justified.
Well, McCarthyism wasn't totally dead in Ayers time of radical activity either.
The popular consensus as I understand it is that McCarthyism faded slowly sometime in the late 50s. You can certainly make the argument that it wasn't totally dead in 65-70, but at that point you have to wonder if it ever totally died at all. There sure seem to be some people who feel comfortable with using the words Socialist and Communist as insults or accusations without clarifying their meaning at all.
You could in fact make the argument that the entire cold war is one long era, and that dividing it any further obscures the overriding influence that it (as wars usually do) had over all other public matters for 50 years. But I think that's probably less than useful.
I think this can be a reasonable opinion as well. As far as I'm concerned, unless you are of the opinion that "Bill Ayers and anyone who has ever spoken to him should be condemned for as long as the live because there is absolutely no situation in which a citizen should ever rebel against the U.S. government for any reason"
-or-
"Bill Ayers is the reason that the Vietnam war ended, he should be treated like an american hero and if you were alive in 1972 and weren't blowing up buildings you're a fucking faggot"
then I think you're pretty reasonable considering the situation. Lots of ins and outs, lots of what-have-yous, etc.
Was Ayers elected citizen of the year in 1997 or something? Or was I just dreaming that was on Anderson Cooper.
Apparently that was before the word Terrorist meant a conviction of simultaneous treason and apostasy.
You make a good point, but still, the prime of McCarthyism was still a relatively calm America. If the Civil Rights movement was in full 60's swing during McCarthy's prime... I dunno, it'd probably have been really really bad, and you'd have a much stronger argument.
Just to explain where I'm coming from- look, I probably more than anyone on the board has tons of sympathy for victims of McCarthyism, and I know it was terrible persecution in the name of nationalism. But there's no way you can look past the conduct of the Federal and state governments during the civil rights movement and anti-war movements, and to me at least, no theater of US military action in history tops Vietnam/southeast Asia in terms of being morally wrong. I don't exactly approve of Korea (I suppose that's the war of McCarthyism's prime) either but I must admit it was handled better than Vietnam.
[simplejack]but we had to save them from the cuh cuh cuh communists[/simplejack]