Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[Nebe]

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Nebe

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

rimshot


I usually stay out of here but that just struck me funny even as heartbroken I am being upset about the bombing


It does seem like it's not very appropriate even if she "paid her debt to society" for someone like that to be given a job like that at such a higher education university


ok, go back to insulting each other now

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

It does seem like it's not very appropriate even if she "paid her debt to society" for someone like that to be given a job like that at such a higher education university

It is, actually, very appropriate. Radicals like her are a product of the universities. The sixties was a time of transition in the hallowed ivory halls of academe as well as the rest of society. But especially in academe. The sixties counter-culture demanded rapid change in what they saw as a backward immoral society that was moving too slowly, if at all, (in their eyes) toward social, racial, and gender equality and away from what they saw as imperialistic war. America, for them, was stuck in a very bad place. And the youth learned from the sociology and liberal arts instructors that we were a bad, oppressive, nation whose history was steeped in blood, slavery, and societal oppression that cried for liberation. And, though they were given examples of and instruction on more egalitarian solutions based, yes, on Marxian forms of socialism, they were told that change, revolution, could only come from within. But the schools were still halfway mired in the 1950's post war leave-it-to-Beaver-father-knows-best culture. So, the more serious students found liberation in action and expanded the radical move outside of academe into the society at large.

The radicals were, secretly by many, and openly by some, admired in academe as the darlings of a new age. They were the products of their teaching and the hopeful agents of change. And the universities liberal arts and sociology faculties grew with them and more openly approved what their radical progeny had done (with the insincere remonstrance against some violent but mostly harmless escapades). And they later welcomed them back into the fold as professors who had walked the walk to teach new generations the way to world peace and equality. To true social justice.

And now, they no longer had to resort to violence though they could proudly remember the glorious days of active revolution--and even teach methods that could still work to further transform the world. They could be more measured now, not so desperate, nor have to resort to violence, since they were now mainstream, the politically correct and righteous teachers.

Reformed and "forgiven" (as well as admired), they could devote their lives to positive public service. The progressive transformation of the educational and political institutions, which they helped to achieve, was the new melting pot that they sought which could combine various ideological notions of social justice and could co-opt, if not eradicate, the oppressive capitalistic, imperialistic mechanisms of the American past. And they could be at the vanguard of the continuing transformation--with the perks and comforts of acceptance and reward rather than the depravation (glorious none-the-less)of youthful radicals

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is, actually, very appropriate. Radicals like her are a product of the universities. The sixties was a time ......................... And they could be at the vanguard of the continuing transformation--with the perks and comforts of acceptance and reward rather than the depravation (glorious none-the-less)of youthful radicals

there's your answer Jim...........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

there's your answer Jim...........

Scott, Kathy Bowdin was planning to bomb the library at Columbia University. The same school where she now works. Had she been successful (and killed a few kids and staff), do you suppose the school still would have hired her? She tried to bomb the school, and the school makes her a professor. I don't think detbuch's post explains why the school would be so stupid as to hire someone that tried to commit mass murder on campus. You have to admit that's amazing, even for liberal academia, where anything goes.

I wonder how liberals would react, if one of these home-grown terrorists turns out to be an alumni of Columbia or University Of Chicago, and is thus inspired by the likes of Bill Ayers or Kathy Bowdin. Why is that a far-fetched scenario?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Scott, Kathy Bowdin was planning to bomb the library at Columbia University. The same school where she now works. Had she been successful (and killed a few kids and staff), do you suppose the school still would have hired her? She tried to bomb the school, and the school makes her a professor.

Is that a fact or a conjecture? Are you referring to the failed bombing plan that ended in the bombers blowing themselves up? Wasn't that supposed to be in preparation for a bombing at a U.S. Army dance at Fort Dix? I saw one article that says it might be about either the dance or Columbia U., but not definitive. The rest all pointed to the Army dance as target. And if the plan had succeeded, be it against the Army or against Columbia U., and with the botched robbery turned murder conviction, she would still be in prison. So Columbia would not be able to hire her, and your question would be moot. And, anyway, Columbia U. of 1970 was not the same as Columbia U. today. It was just beginning its travel to the present more open acceptance and admiration of radical 60's activists. Just as present day progressives don't accept the principles of America's founding and have no compunction about abandoning and disassociating from those principles, even revolting against them if necessary, so too would progressive administrators of Columbia U. not view the university's past, its founding principles, as something to uphold against hiring one who contributed to changing the culture to a more egalitarian and just one. Columbia of 1970 was still evolving toward the progressive transformation of society and the 60's radicals were children of that transformation. Why would they now be rejected when the transformation was happening apace? They would, more rationally, accept them if they believed in and aspired to the social justice promised by the progressive agenda. A promise certainly aided by the actions and continued dedication to that agenda by those very radicals?

I don't think detbuch's post explains why the school would be so stupid as to hire someone that tried to commit mass murder on campus.

No it wouldn't explain that since it was trying to explain something else. As Spence likes to say, "pay attention."

You have to admit that's amazing, even for liberal academia, where anything goes.

That's a teeny bit closer to what my post was explaining--the anything goes part, which is not really "anything" or "goes" but about why someone like Boudin would be hired by a prestigious university.

I wonder how liberals would react, if one of these home-grown terrorists turns out to be an alumni of Columbia or University Of Chicago, and is thus inspired by the likes of Bill Ayers or Kathy Bowdin. Why is that a far-fetched scenario?

This whole "liberals" and "conservative" bit is so misleading that your "wonder" cannot properly be addressed. Most present day Americans are "liberal" in one degree or another. The founding of this country was a "liberal" revolution. Yours is not a far-fetched scenario, but how liberals would react is so diverse, it would take a book to answer your question as to how they would react.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This whole "liberals" and "conservative" bit is so misleading that your "wonder" cannot properly be addressed. Most present day Americans are "liberal" in one degree or another. The founding of this country was a "liberal" revolution. Yours is not a far-fetched scenario, but how liberals would react is so diverse, it would take a book to answer your question as to how they would react.

In one of my links, I provided a link to a story...yes, I'm talking about the incident where the idiots blew themselves up (and almost killed their neighbor, Dustin Hoffman).

The police investigation indicated 2 possible targets - an army dance at Fort Dix, and the Columbia University library. Blueprints to buildings on the Columbia University campus, were found in the rubble.

"This whole "liberals" and "conservative" bit is so misleading that your "wonder" cannot properly be addressed. "

I agree that my wonder cannot be addressed. In my opinion, the reason for that has nothing to do with my labels of liberal vs conservative, but in how indefensible the liberal positions are on some issues.

There are obviously kooks on both sides. But on teh left, even the "middle of the pack" seems to surrender a huge amount of rationality and reasoning.

In this thread, Spence says the Weather Underground are not terrorists, and that Bill Ayers dedicated his life to positive public service.

Columbia University makes a professor out of a terrorist and accomplice to mass murdere.

The vast majority of liberals believe that conservatives don't care as much about the elderly and th epoor as they do...and their "evidence" is that we want to save the programs that serve the old and the poor, from bankruptcy.

That last one, is not a fringe liberal position. I hear that articulated by almost the entire group of elected Democrats in Washington, and certainly here in CT as well.

The liberals (and I mean the vast majority, not limited to the radical fringe) attack anyone who proposes cutting 3 cents from SS or Medicare. That necessarily means that they don't admit those programs need radical overhaul, which necessarily means that they are actively denying 4th grade arithmetic. I'm not talking about higher order statistics, I'm talking about addition and subtraction that can be done on a $5 calculator.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your question should be ......is anyone on the extreme right with a violent history teaching at, guest lecturing or giving commencement speeches at American Universities?

I can't think of any examples and I'm pretty sure that any self-respecting liberal universiy would never allow it....

can you give an example?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree, if you're talking about people who bomb abortion clinics, etc...

But in the liberal ranks, even your everyday, garden-variety devotees are required to surrender rational thought.

Spence claimed that Bill Ayers has dedicated his life to positive public service. He's talking about an admitted, known terrorist. How can anyone possibly believe that?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree, if you're talking about people who bomb abortion clinics, etc...

But in the liberal ranks, even your everyday, garden-variety devotees are required to surrender rational thought.

Spence claimed that Bill Ayers has dedicated his life to positive public service. He's talking about an admitted, known terrorist. How can anyone possibly believe that?

Osama bin laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan as well before 9/11. Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.
Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military.
You view a liberal as someone with a mental disorder because your mind does not work like theirs and you can't rationalize how someone can think like they do because your mind thinks a different way. It's a left brain vs right brain debate.
I am in no way saying one way of thinking is better than the other.. I'm just using my ability to think the way a liberal thinks to explain to you why you think it's a mental disorder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Osama bin laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan as well before 9/11. Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.
Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military.
You view a liberal as someone with a mental disorder because your mind does not work like theirs and you can't rationalize how someone can think like they do because your mind thinks a different way. It's a left brain vs right brain debate.
I am in no way saying one way of thinking is better than the other.. I'm just using my ability to think the way a liberal thinks to explain to you why you think it's a mental disorder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Osama bin laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan as well before 9/11."

I agree. And Hitler did a lot of good for Germany before he went a little funny in the head. But you and I both see that while those guys did dome good, they also did a lot of evil.

That's not what Spence said. He said that Ayers dedicated his life to positive public public service. He didn't say that Ayers did some good things, in adition to being a homicidal maniac.

'Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements"

In my opinion, not when it doesn't suit their ideology, they can't.

Case in point...Paul Ryan comes up with a plan to change Medicare. Not because he hates sick people, not because he wants all poor people to die, but because he concedes the irrefutable fact that Medicare is going broke.

Nebe, do you remember the liberal reaction to that? They crucified Ryan, made a commercial showing him pushing a wheelchair-bould lady off a cliff, claimed that he (and conservatives in general) didn't care about old people.

So I'm sorry, when it comes to large scale big issues, I don't see huge numbers of liberals seeing the big picture. What I see is liberals who instead of debating the merits of most issues, they go on the attack (if you are against abortion, liberals say you are waging war on women; if you are concede that Medicare is going broke, liberals say you hate sick people; if you are in favor of enforcing duly constituted immigration laws, liberals say you are anti-Mexican; if you are opposed to affirmative action, liberals say you are a racist; if you think there are limits to how much our government can spend, liberals say you don't care about poor people).

I'm not incorrect in that observation, nebe.

'Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds"

That is a ridiclulous stereotype, perpetuated by liberals who like to think of themselves as enlightened.

Most liberals are "very educated"? Take a stroll through Hartford CT or the streets of LA. There's not a lot of MENSA meetings happening in the poor urban areas, and those areas contain tons of liberals.

It's true that most highly educated, creative people are liberal. That does not mean that most liberals are highly educated and creative. Those are 2 very different hitngs.

"you can't rationalize how someone can think like they do"

That's true. I cannot fathom how Columbia University can make a professor out of someone who tried to incinerate their students. I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that a murderer has more of a right to live than an unborn baby. I cannot fathom how liberals can conclude that Paul Ryan has no concern for poor people, simply because he thyinks Medicare needs to be changed.

You're correct, I cannot rationalize those things. And apparently you can't either, because saying that liberals are educated and creative, doesn't even come close to rationalizing these things.

I have a masters degree, and I spend a lot of free time composing music. Therefore, I am highly edicated and creative. Those attributes don't do anything to help me comprehend how millions of liberals people refuse to concede that Social Security and Medicare are going to go broke, unless we do somehting drastic.

" I am in no way saying one way of thinking is better than the other"

When you say that liberals are educated and creative, and conservatives like to be told what to do by someone else...well, it sure sounds like you are saying one is better than the other.

I do not believe that you are as insulting of those with whom you disagree, as I am. I need to work on that. And i mean that.

But Nebe, come on...Columbia hires a woman who tried to murder students there? You have to admit, that's pretty weird...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process,.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So liberals are more open-minded? Are you saying that liberals are more tolerant of dissenting opinions that conservatives?

Lots of empirical evidence would refute that.