so long ago it doesn't matter
Forty one years after three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi Edgar Ray Killen was found guilty and sentenced to three 20 prison terms. At the time he was tried but there was a hung jury. The government waited 38 years to retry him. There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder and I agree with that. I was happy that he was finally found guilty. Forty one years was too long for it to happen but better late than never. Are you telling me it was too long ago to matter? That Killen shouldn't have been retried?
At the same time Ayers was setting off his bombs other people were bombing black churches in the south. What if one of the people who bombed a black church got off on a technicality and admitted he set the bombs multiple times, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird, America is a great country." When asked if he regretted burning down black churches and killing people inside he said, "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." If I kicked off my political career in the living room of this person who bombed black churches are you seriously telling me it would not matter to you?
At the same time Ayers was setting off his bombs other people were bombing black churches in the south. What if one of the people who bombed a black church got off on a technicality and admitted he set the bombs multiple times, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird, America is a great country." When asked if he regretted burning down black churches and killing people inside he said, "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." If I kicked off my political career in the living room of this person who bombed black churches are you seriously telling me it would not matter to you?
Advertisement
So now you're implying that Ayers bombed black churches?
October 7, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're not simply trying to mislead people and confuse the issue, what is the point of your tortured hypothetical?
October 7, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't blame Obama for having a relationship with Ayers. By the time Obama met him, Ayers' reputation had been rehabilitated. I don't think it's fair to demand that a young politician be superior to the culture he's trying to fit into. On the other hand, I doubt anyone who bombed a black church and said he wished he had bombed more of them could be rehabilitated.
October 7, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recognize that the Vietnam era was one of great turbulence. People were being drafted, forced to kill or be killed and tens of thousands of Americans died, probably some hundreds of thousands of Vietnamize and Cambodians. I see why there is, among the educated left who lived through that era, an acceptance of violent resistance, or at least a tolerance of it. I'm not one of those lefties that accept violent resistance in the context of those times.
Ayers' reputation was rehabilitated because of this among the educated left and because of the money and political power of his father especially in the Chicago machine. I have seen no indication that Ayers was ever rehabilitated. He appears to be largely unrepentant.
But I do see your point. It would have been better to frame my hypothetical with an anti abortion activist who bombed abortion clinics. I could easily see how an abortion clinic bomber could have his reputation rehabilitated among the right, even the moderate right, in the same manner as Ayers' was among the left
The main issue I have with Obama choosing to ally himself with figures like Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, and several others in not that I think he subscribes to their ideals and values. My guess is he is much more conservative than they are and incidentally much more conservative than most people here believe.
The issue is what I see as a desire for immediate gratification without thoughts of the long term consequences. Obama has repeatedly allied himself with who ever he felt it was necessary to, no matter how radical or mainstream. By all reports most of them, no matter how diverse, thought he agreed with their views. Having achieved what ever position, he never seemed much interested in working hard at it or taking risky stands to progress some goal important to him. He always seemed to be more interested in moving up. This leaves me wondering what the hell he really believes or cares about. I really didn't intend to post this last paragraph, its too inflammatory to generate thoughtful dialog here. But I'm truly interested in your critique of this analysis if you care to consider it.
October 7, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he was often propelled forward by other people, maybe before he planned to move himself. I think in his own mind he believes he will wield power in a way that makes America better, no matter how he comes to power.
October 7, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to know a lot about Obama and his character/psyche.Are you his therapist?
October 18, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that Bill Ayers walks around Chicago with a big "criminal" stamped on his forehead is completely absurd. He is a full professor at a state run university. He interacts on a daily basis with people of all professions and persuasions. Politically he is very left of center, but he is treated as a serious player in a serious area of public policy. To pretend like he should have been treated like a pariah by Obama when he was not treated that way at all by the establishment of a major American city is too stupid for words.
Meanwhile, unapologetic convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy, who aided and abetted the subverting of the Constitution and years later advocated shooting federal agents, is an OK guy to hang around with? Awesome. Great country.
October 7, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's your explanation for why Ayers wasn't treated as a pariah "by the establishment of a major American city?"
October 7, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This really is in essence the point I was trying to make. I don't think Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, or Ayers and Rosenberg should have their reputations rehabilitated. The left thinks Ayers, Rosenberg, and their group were treated appropriately and North et al not. The right believes the converse.
October 7, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely you can see a difference between committing hate crimes and anti-authority violence? The former is a pogrom against the weakest segments of society by the top dogs, the latter a political statement and defiance by guerillas against the all-powerful, abusive State juggernaut?
They are polar opposites in terms of ideological and political spectrum and magnitude.
Think as analogus, the "terror" inflicted by the Fascists against Jews and the "terror" inflicted by the Resistance against the Nazis, both resorted to instruments of violence, but their relative positions of power vis their targets makes all the difference between those whose deeds we condemn as nihilistic murder or applaud as heroic antics.
October 7, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine if McCain could get Obama to say something like that tonight.
October 7, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any analogy to resistance to the nazis and the weatherman. I think reminding you of Goodwins Law is appropriate here.
The weathermen sought not to just end the war in Vietnam but to over through the government and set up a communistic system. They bombed state and federal court houses, police stations and the home of a NY Supreme Court justice. A bombing of one police station used a pipe bomb filled with metal staples. One police man died and another was critically wounded. The bomb that exploded prematurely and killed 3 members of the weatherman was a nail bomb. These types of bombs are not for property damage but human damage. Several weatherman said the target was a military dance where soldiers and their wives or girlfriends would have had nails rip through their bodies.
I can't see that the context of the times in America justified the weatherman program and I would have trouble justifying some of it in Nazi Germany even though I accept violent resistance against the Nazis.
October 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
anti-authority violence?...latter a political statement and defiance by guerillas against the all-powerful, abusive State juggernaut?
Two words: Tim McVeigh. A more succesful Ayers.
Different ideology, but nearly same exact thing.
McVeigh and his fellow travelers were just as angry and just as fed up with working within "the system" as any Weatherman. Just as much "revolutionaries," angry at the government and the system, the infringment of liberty by a police state at Waco et. al.
It was terrorism, there's no two ways about it. Both knew it was terrorism they were utilizing as a tactic. Small group without large arms or powers, wants to accomplish something, terrorism is a very alluring choice.
Your argument could easily be destructed, you're in trouble here because terrorism is not the same thing as mass murder or a pogrom or ethnic cleansing, terrorism is simply a tactic that can be used or not used for any of those goals. Even an ordinary criminal can use terrorism, to obtain power of fear over others, say for example, the DC sniper team from a few years back.
So basically your argument is you think terrorism is subject to relativistic judgment depending upon the goal....I'm not arguing that's good or bad, just pointing out what you seem to be saying.
P.S. Billy Glad:
Say what?! You think it would be good for Obama to sympathizing with a McVeigh via explaining away the Ayers actions with the nobility of his goals!? Or are you being sarcastic?
October 7, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.P.S. Where I myself come in on this: politically in this country, especially since 9/11, but even before, it's really foolish to get into any kind of sophisticated apologia for terrorism, deserving as a more sophisticated apologia might be. With someone like Ayers, it's simply just better to say he was young and stupid, and saw the error of his ways, and changed. That's all that will wash politically. Despite some of the stories of the American Revolution, the majority of Americans simply don't cotton to approval of the use of terrorism, whether it is the I.R.A., Palestinians, Weathermen, al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, or the Mafia.
October 7, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it is you who is insisting that the "Method", i.e., whatever that is defined as "Terrorism", makes all movements equivalent. This is completely absurd, as absurd as Bush comparing Al Qaeda to the PLO. I have already delineated the boundaries for when the comparisons oceankat made between Ayers and the Southern States' lynch mobs are incompatible, and she has acknowledged as such.
October 8, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rereading your post, your own interpretation of my post is somewhat skewed - it is not *I* who is saying that a pogrom is the equivalent of an anti-state movement, but oceankat here. It is absurd to make moral equivalence based on "Method", which is defined as "Terrorism", without any consideration of scale, the context, the ideology, the history, the relative status of the perpetrators and targets, etc. Do all these make it relative? Then Yes. There is no Absolutes to judge "Terrorism". Some "Terrorists" to the State are "Freedom Fighters" to those who oppose the State. I have offered a clear example of the French Resistance. It is meaningless to paint "Terrorism" with a broadbrush of judgment without consideration of all of the contextual issues defined.
October 8, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "guilt-by-association" argument you are trying to make is inherently flawed and has been debunked so many times by now that I'm surprised at the level of desperation represented by people like you who won't let it go.
October 7, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, Obama did not "kick off his career in the living room" of Ayers. This is a bullshit smear that has been completely debunked as well. Stop trafficking in lies, oceankat, it makes you look no better than the other racists out there.
October 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
October 7, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your title so long ago it doesn't matter is now 100% correct, I have decided after watching that debate. I was pretty convinced Obama was going to win before, now I am sure.
Nobody that matters swing vote-wise is going to give a fuck about Bill Ayers. Anyone that brings it up is going to be playing to the choir.
Take Karl Rove's Oct. 5 electoral map
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/whodathunkit.php
add the results of tonight's debate,
and it's a done deal, Obama is the next president.
The only way McCain could win: Obama changes his persona, starts acting totally different than he has the last 2 years, does something really outrageous.
I don't even think a terrorist attack on American soil could change the situation now. I think all the markets around the world could rally up to record levels between now and the election and it wouldn't change the situation, Obama would still win. People would still be scared to death that it wouldn't last.
McCain had weeks to study up on the economy for this debate and he didn't do it. He can't talk on the economy convincingly, he offered more crap soundbites about corruption and fatcats and trust me, I can sit down across the aisle and fix Social Security.
It's the economy stupid, and it's too late for McCain to get an advantage on it. The economy is going to get out the vote, too. All those "bored of politics why bother to vote" people aren't going to skip voting this time. All your Bradley effect, all your "he's not a patriot" effect is totally minimized in the face of the possibility of world depression. McCain sounds too much like Bush on that and it's too late for him to fix that, he blew his last chance.
October 7, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not a partisan hack for any candidate. I'm just trying to engage is discussion on the subjects that interest me. If we're going to discuss who's most likely to win I think we can dispense with that quickly and move onto more interesting topics. Obama is by for the most likely winner of the presidential election.
October 7, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the burning of the black churches, the collusion with the authorities, the police, the legal system, the widespread lynching of blacks and terror amount to is a POGROM. You can't deny that. The power structure was on the side of the racist perpetrators.
What Ayers did was not even at McVeigh level, pipe bombs with staples?? You think he can overthrow a whole government armed with nukes with pipe bombs and molotov cocktails?
Are you guys crazy?
First, apply Godwin's Law to yourself - the analogy you're trying to pull here is preposterous, that the Weathermen is the same as the Mississippi lynch mobs who got away with murder. This defies logic, as I have pointed out - the two are not equivalent. Being at opposing poles of the society power structure already overturns any possibility of comparison, these are apples and oranges. You can compare the lynch mobs with other racist pogroms in the world that depend on the support of their societal context, you can compare the Weathermen to the Unabomber or Red Army in Germany or other small, ineffective, subversive anti-government groups, a tiny cell against the State apparatus and juggernaut, however, you CANNOT claim that the two are at all equivalent, as you're trying to do here.
One is widespread state (southern states)-sanctioned terror, the other is a tiny anti-state movement.
October 8, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, what is truly difficult for me is that those of us who consider ourselves sympathetic, progressive and educated seem unable to tell the difference, what hope is there for the rest of the electorate???
October 8, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink