Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[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?

[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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Stand By.....

[Nebe]

Hey. He asked. Maybe my mental disorder got me in trouble??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Here's a neat article stating why people on the far right come off as nut jobs.
Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity? | Psychology Today

Far left.. Far right. You got a screw loose.
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

Far left.. Far right. You got a screw loose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are kooks on both sides, agreed...but ket's look at what the mainstream believes on both sides...

Mainstream left = abortion for everyone who wants one, open borders, unlimited debt, leave social security and Medicare alone, no limits to borrowing and spending, discriminating against some people is OK (affirmative action), help poor people by making them addicted to welfare, give labor unions whatever they ask for

mainstream right = belief that all life is precious, believe the best defense against evil is an awesome offense capability, doing the most you can for the poor without spending yourself into oblivion, belief in the preciousness of individual liberty, belief that actions have consequences, belief in the free market

[Nebe]

I think you are confusing liberals with extreme leftist liberals. Not all liberals are nut jobs just as not all conservatives are nut jobs. As I said. Any extreme side has their nut jobs. Why Columbia hired her can only be answered by the people who hired her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.

[Nebe]

Yes. It has been my observation that normal liberals are far more open minded than conservatives. Case in point - gay marriage. Racial equality. Etc. liberals are far more open to the views of people who are not like them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go to work. A job that I would describe as being a professional artist. A job that required me to think freely, creatively, and a job that requires me to make beautiful work to improve the lives of people who choose to purchase it. I'm a social liberal, fiscal conservative believe it or not. I'm able to see what the definitions of or constitution means in regards to personal equality and freedom for all..
I could sit here on my iPad all day and go back and forth with you about this stuff but it serves no gain for either of us. When I see something that I can't understand I do t feel the need to completely figure it out. The Columbia thing..I don't need to understand it. If my son wanted to go there, I'd say no. End of story. Life's too short. I learned this over quickly seeing the lies we were being told over the war of Iraq. I'm smart enough to spot a lie faster than most and I was highly vocal about it here... Didn't solve a single problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Yes. It has been my observation that normal liberals are far more open minded than conservatives. Case in point - gay marriage. Racial equality. Etc. liberals are far more open to the views of people who are not like them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have a valid point on the gay marriage thing.

But you are doing exactly what I stated that liberals do...you are saying that liberal positions represent a more open-minded ideology than the conservative positions.

Nebe, how does abortion fit into your narrative that liberals are more open-mined and inclusive? Slaughter the voiceless baby if the mom decides they are inconvenient? yes, that just reeks of open-mindedness and inclusion, doesn't it?

I conceded (and actually stated before you did) that your side had a point on gay marriage. Perhaps yuo can show me the same courtesy here...

"liberals are far more open to the views of people who are not like them"

Like that professor at Columbia, who tried to incinerate those who disagreed with her?

Nebe, do you watch the news? Do you see what happens on college campuses when conservatives try to express their opinions? Did you read my post, where I stated the fact that liberals claim that many conservative positions (liek life and fiscal responsibility) represent hate and intolerance? That's open-minded to you?

It seems to me, your understanding of conservatives is at least as flawed as my understanding of liberals.

You say that conservatives love the military because we like being told what to do? That's ridiculous and insulting to anyone who has served. you think people like getting awakened at 5 AM and and told to go for a run, or to scrub a public toilet? No one likes that. People join the military, because they feel called to participate in a a selfless, valuable, necessary, dangerous, public service. For you to belittle that, and say vets join the military because we cannot think for ourselves, is dismissive.

Same thing on religion...catholics don't go to church because we need to be told what to do. I'm not anti-abortion because my church tells me to be. You could not be more wrong...on the contrary, I am catholic because they agree with my pro-life stance.

nebe, if your premise was true, then you must assume that if the pope said abortion was OK, that all Catholics would be pro-choice. Not even close. If and when the Catholic church supports abortion, I leave the church and find another one.

I missed that in my first read of your post. That was incredibly wrong-headed. And while I bet you didn't mean to be insulting, it was deeply offensive.

I'm a vet. I can't believe you would explicitly state that we love the military (and I did love it) because I am a simpleton who couldn't feed or dress myself unless my commanding officer told me how to do it.

I was a Marine Corps officer. I had to think on my feet, sometimes in tough situations, every single day. I've been in the military, and I've been in a competitive college. I could make a very compelling argument that the military can be better place to learn to think for yourself than college, where students are often asked simply to regurgitate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'm able to see what the definitions of or constitution means in regards to personal equality and freedom for all..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not for the 4,000 unborn who are slaughetred every day. Good luck reconciling your stated position about personal equality and freedom for all, with the social liberal stance that abortion isn't a violation of what you claim to embrace.

If you are a social liberal, are you in favor of affirmative action? If so, how does discriminating against a white person, show that you understand the constitutional rights of that person?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "I am a liberal and therefore respect everyone", and then say "people join the military becauise they couldn't figure out how to tie their shoes if their commander didn't tell them".

Can't have it both ways.

[Nebe]

Sorry if I offended you. I was just trying to point out that there are more conservatives in the military and who follow religion. Both military and religious beliefs no matter what the religion are about living and following rules. That's all I meant. I'm in a rush otherwise I'd elaborate more. I don't think you are a mindless order following drone, but those type of people are out there in the righ and the left.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

I wonder if a poll was ever taken on those who enlist,the % of those who feel an obligation to country vs those who simply consider it their best option for a steady paycheck as well as reimbursement for tuition.No shame either way.
Jim,did you see the story about the abortion clinic in Philly?Horror.The government has to regulate this mess.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

Both liberals and conservatives are nut jobs plucked from opposite sides of the same tree.

[Nebe]

Exactly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Sorry if I offended you. I was just trying to point out that there are more conservatives in the military and who follow religion. Both military and religious beliefs no matter what the religion are about living and following rules. That's all I meant. I'm in a rush otherwise I'd elaborate more. I don't think you are a mindless order following drone, but those type of people are out there in the righ and the left.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No worries, I like this debate. I didn't infer anything you said here as intentionally disrespectful. In that regard, need to follow your lead.

Have a good one.

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Nebe -

When you say conservatives like to follow rules...if you mean we are more rigid in thinking in some ways than liberals, I agree.

But I think you have misinterpreted (or been misinformed) about what that means.

Most conservatives don't believe that you have to go to mass every single Sunday, or fold your socks in a certain way, or make your bad as precisely as you have to do in the Army. We aren't lemmings.

The rules that we like to follow, have a clear moral purpose that can be seen with any honest analysis of historical facts. The rules we like to follow, include...

listening to your parents
working hard in school, getting as educated as possible
showing as much empathy for others as possible (don't put yourself first all the time)
don't do drugs
don't risk getting yourself or anyone else pregnant, until you are ready
when you have kids, dedicate your life to their development

Nebe, we aren't a bunch of lemmings. We know why we are following these rules, because every study ever done, and there have been hundreds, show that this is the blueprint for a happy, full life.

I'm not saying all conservatives follow these rules, nor am I saying that 0 liberals follow these rules. But in my opinion, liberalism is based more on a motto of "if it feels good, do it". When you convince pepole of that, you get things like a huge spike in the % of babies born to single moms, and guess what? That's EXACTLY what happened, thanks to the radical liberal revolution of the 1960's. Not a great cultural leap forward in my opinion.





Liberals, I believe, don't

[scottw]

here's the simplest explanation for you Jim because you are giving me a headache.....

modern liberalism = better person
conservative = evil

Eben described a "liberal" perfectly and how "modern liberals" would tend to reflect on themselves politically, personally....better, smarter, more tolerant, independent and posessing great judgment, of course....but apparently lacking humility

Eben cites gay marriage as an example of liberal tolerance forgetting that Obama and Hillary only recently came around on this subject no doubt for political reasons otherwise, what took these smart tolerent people so long?......and that he lives in a state the cannot get gay marriage through a legislature that is overwhelmingly dominated by "liberals" in the modern and democrat sense.....France is extrmely "liberal"...but not when it comes to gay marriage apparently....

Eben referred to himself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal which is an impressive oxymoron.....tight with your own money while supporting unsustainable government programs that bankrupt your nation is what? or as a cartoon that I recently saw stated "I'm pro-chioce.....except for -insert lenghty list of issues"

on abortion.....I believe that most "liberals" simply punt on abortion....is it wrong?..most would say yes and not something that is for them...is it killing?.....there's really not much question about that....but for most "liberals" it's easiest to not render judgment and simply allow it..wrong morally but acceptable... .and for the some, ultimately fund it through government.....because many on the left understand that it is an important dividing issue on their tripod of political power and take full avantage of this unwillingness to render judgment by people that claim to 'separate the good the from the bad and weigh their judgments' better than the rest of us....

your frustration with "liberals" and why they do this or support that, is because you fail to understand that the dividing line that they draw in terms of rendering judgment is a political one rather than being based on any moral sense of right and wrong because right and wrong for many of them is relative and relative to their stance on a political issue as opposed to the dreaded "religious" type of moral judgment....have you noticed that virtually every "issue" these days is a political issue that the government must involve itself in or solve?

if you are counted among the self-described "liberals" you are part of their "independent" group think club and not subject to the rules of political correctness and behaviour that you may heap mercilessly on others.....you point these out on a reguar basis Jim...no shortage of examples

this just happens to be yet another.....


"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. . "

still trying to make sense of this....are these the same indpendent free thought "modern liberals" that seek to tax, regulate and administer control via a massive centralized bureaucracy over every aspect of American life with their big picture good judgments which I guess is to control those Conservatives who desperately yearn to be controlled as they complain about trivial things like freedom and liberty and personal responsibility?

must be a left/right brain thing

BTW Ayers was recognized and received some sort of award for reforming education in Chicago...which I guess is like giving Ted Kennedy a Lifesaving Medal or Obama a Nobel Peace Prize....but was coincidentally denied an award by the University of Chicago because he dedicated one of his written works to Sirhan Sirhan and the Kennedy son who was on the board and did not find it amusing....Ayers denies this of course......

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

"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. . "

still trying to make sense of this....are these the same indpendent free thought liberals that seek to tax, regulate and administer control via a massive centralized bureaucracy over every aspect of American life with their big picture good judgments which I guess is to control those Conservatives who yearn controlling as they complain about trivial things like freedom and liberty and personal responsibility?

must be a left/right brain thing

It's hard to make sense of a paradox other than to accept it for what it is. Maybe understanding the origination sheds light on why it is whatever it is. The liberal/conservative paradox in which what is purported to be "liberal" is actually authoritarian, and what is considered to be "conservative" (a supposedly rigid, authoritarian complex) is a structure for individual freedom. How did this come to be?

Two nearly simultaneous revolutions both of which were to promote liberty, the American and French revolutions, started from different circumstances and ended with different results. The Americans actually had a great degree of freedom before their revolution, more, for the common man than may have existed in advanced cultures before that time. Their revolution was about keeping that freedom from being usurped by a distant ruling power and ensuring that no ruling power, domestic or foreign, could ever take away that liberty. The French were about getting a freedom that common men did not have.

The Americans created a system derived not only from the centuries of different governing models, but also from their own experience of liberty under loose British rule in the colonies. It was a system created by a people that were relatively free to make their way, and that initiative and self-responsibility engendered a vision which relied on dispersed individual and local power rather than a central authority.

The French experienced and understood, in spite of and contrary to even their own political philosophers such as Montesque, power to be distributed from a ruling class. In the case of their revolution, the ruling class, the monarchy, was to be overthrown and replaced by another ruling class supported by "the people." Their liberty would be an enforced equality.

Each was a "liberal" revolution in that there was a liberation from monarchical rule. The Americans were merely keeping and ensuring freedom, the French would administer and enforce a new freedom of "equality."

Somehow, after about a hundred years, sophisticated American students taught by an emerging class of "progressive" thinkers and scholars that, especially those who went abroad to "better" German and French universities, became more enamored of the burgeoning European idea of "equality" which was growing like a wildfire there, concocted by the likes of Marx and French social theorists, and co-opted and quelled by the ruling class with a system of bureaucratic administration which doled out new systems of welfare and pensions. After all, a founding principle was that all men were created equal, and they saw that Americans were NOT all equal. And they perceived that the wealthy were lording it over the common man. And they admired the system of German and French administration as far more efficient than the cumbersome American system and as far more capable of distributing material good in a more equitable fashion. And they believed that the European system could be "Americanized," that the control of the ruling class could be replaced by freer American governmental ways.

The so-called liberals of today are more inheritors of the French revolution and dissenters against the outcome of the American revolution. As I see it, what is called "liberal" has become an embodiment of that European centralized administration of equal distribution ENFORCED by government. What is called "conservative" is a mixed bag, the ostensible core of which is preservation of the original system of individual and local sovereignty. Hence the paradox. "Conservatism" is actually more "liberal" in the classical sense in that it conserves individual liberation from central government power. "Liberalism" is actually more like what the "liberals" refer to as "conservatism," a rigid attempt to control the distribution and redistribution of material well being in a supposedly equal outcome.

[scottw]

there's that and also look at:

"Locke's Classical Liberalism"- belonging to liberalism, advocating civil liberties and political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo, stressing the belief in free market and natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7] Classical liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government[8] .

"Burkean Conservatism"- described as "the disposition to maintain those institutions seen as central to the beliefs and practices of society'"...and specifically in America- In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to conserve the rights and liberties of Englishmen

"Fiscal conservatism" (which Eben and many "liberals "claim) is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.[34] Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, argued that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer

"liberal conservatism" has been used in quite different senses. In political science, the term is used to refer to ideologies that combine the advocacy of laissez-faire economic principles, such as respect for contracts, defense of private property and free markets[1] with the belief in natural inequality, the importance of religion, and the value of traditional morality[2] through a framework of limited, constitutional, representative government.

I'd argue that today's "liberal" considering the policies that they've embraced and continue push to even greater degrees represent none of this.....and in fact....Eben's description of a liberal is little more than a list of "superior qualities" that most liberals apparently posess either by nature or by virtue of thinking the right "liberal way" on various issues or by accident of birth and superior genetic fortune allowing them to know and understand better than the rest of us


...exactly what does today's modern American "Liberal" stand for given the political ideaology that they currently give power and enablement to through their support ?...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

To think you can set off bombs merely for protest and that eventually someone wouldn't be injured, or killed, is worse than naïve. It is, as you say, radical and violent. One can change, however, and "grow up" which is what we are supposed to assume these people did.

Change or in the case of Boudin perhaps rehabilitate.

I think emphasis must be placed though on their actual actions vs speculation...that they used small bombs hidden in out of the way locations (I've read a bathroom vent was the most common) with the threat phoned in advance...clearly shows the intent was not to kill as much as make a very dramatic statement.

The comparison is not to the immediate physical results, but to the eventual purpose.

To stop the war? Oh yes, a handful of college students were out to overthrow the US Government via violent protest.

Ayers, himself, questions the legality of what they did, convicted or not, and the "robbery at that", for which Boudin served her time, shortened through the grace of a plea bargain, involved being a willing accomplice to killing and maiming.

And Boudin has expressed her regret for her actions, served 22 years and appears to have moved on.

And what would that recent work be? Is it essentially the same work as that of their "misguided youth" but with the cover of academic respectability. Do they still want to bring down imperialist, capitalist America, and transform it into a socialist, Marxist system? Ayers still "admires" Marx.

So Boudin is subliminally populating her left wing views with social work on HIV, women in prison, kids with incarcerated parents and literacy and education in prison?

I'll bet Ayers got his "Citizen of the Year Award" from the city of Chicago for his efforts to spread the word about the Reds through education reform. Millions of adults are now sleeper radicals ready to jump at the sign.

To be honest I find it more impressive that these people shed their violent past to be productive members of society. In some regards they're more model citizens than many. Is Ayers still a hard left winger? I'd bet he certainly is...that doesn't mean he doesn't have a place.

And yes, the point of this thread is the connection of academia to the growth of progressivism. It is the original home of that movement and its greatest proponent and facilitator.

As Nebe indicated, doesn't that make some sense? Perhaps a better question is if this is a bad thing...

Is our academic system pumping out an army of hardcore progressives? Doesn't seem like it, in fact, our country is still in the same center right position it has been for quite some time...even with the generational shift on some progressive issues like gays or pot.

And you are being played by an older movement, despite your seeming dislike of oldness and infatuation of new, "smart" stuff.

You're stereotyping.

You seem to view progressivism as something new (perhaps the title mesmerizes you) when it is older now in this country than the Constitution was when the progressives began their assault on our founding. But it does evolve. It is becoming more dictatorial than the original progressives intended. Or maybe they did intend it so.

Not at all, I've questioned many times at what point do elements of progressive ideas become part of the mundane fabric and are now conservative?

The reality is that it's highly relative to the behavior of the practitioners at a certain point of time and from a certain perspective. Observations made from a static reference frame are academic, not without merit, but also potentially suspect.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

So Boudin is subliminally populating her left wing views with social work on HIV, women in prison, kids with incarcerated parents and literacy and education in prison?

I'll bet Ayers got his "Citizen of the Year Award" from the city of Chicago for his efforts to spread the word about the Reds through education reform.

Is Ayers still a hard left winger? I'd bet he certainly is...that doesn't mean he doesn't have a place. . -spence

.



[43] The members of Weatherman targeted high school and college students, assuming they would be willing to rebel against the authoritative figures who had oppressed them, including cops, principals, and bosses.[44] Weather aimed to develop roots within the class struggle, targeting white working-class youths. The younger members of the working class became the focus of the organizing effort because they felt the oppression strongly in regards to the military draft, low-wage jobs, and schooling.[45]

Schools became a common place of recruitment for the movement. In direct actions, dubbed Jailbreaks, Weather members invaded educational institutions as a means by which to recruit high school and college students. The motivation of these jailbreaks was the organization's belief that school was where the youth were oppressed by the system and where they learned to tolerate society’s faults instead of rise against them. According to “Prairie Fire”, young people are channeled, coerced, misled, miseducated, misused in the school setting. It is in schools that the youth of the nation become alienated from the authentic processes of learning about the world [46]

Factions of the Weatherman organization began recruiting members by applying their own strategies. Women's groups such as The Motor City Nine and Cell 16 took the lead in various recruitment efforts. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a member of the radical women's liberation group, Cell 16, spoke about her personal recruitment agenda saying that she wanted their group to go out in every corner of the country and tell women the truth, recruit the local people, poor and working-class people, in order to build a new society [47]


In June 1974, the Weather Underground released a 151-page volume titled Prairie Fire, which stated: "We are a guerrilla organization [...] We are communist women and men underground in the United States [...]"[57]

Larry Grathwohl, an undercover FBI agent who infiltrated The Weather Underground, claims Ayers told him where to plant bombs. He says Ayers was bent on overthrowing the government.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

[43] The members of Weatherman targeted high school and college students, assuming they would be willing to rebel against the authoritative figures who had oppressed them, including cops, principals, and bosses.[44] Weather aimed to develop roots within the class struggle, targeting white working-class youths. The younger members of the working class became the focus of the organizing effort because they felt the oppression strongly in regards to the military draft, low-wage jobs, and schooling.[45]

Schools became a common place of recruitment for the movement. In direct actions, dubbed Jailbreaks, Weather members invaded educational institutions as a means by which to recruit high school and college students. The motivation of these jailbreaks was the organization's belief that school was where the youth were oppressed by the system and where they learned to tolerate society’s faults instead of rise against them. According to “Prairie Fire”, young people are channeled, coerced, misled, miseducated, misused in the school setting. It is in schools that the youth of the nation become alienated from the authentic processes of learning about the world [46]

Factions of the Weatherman organization began recruiting members by applying their own strategies. Women's groups such as The Motor City Nine and Cell 16 took the lead in various recruitment efforts. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a member of the radical women's liberation group, Cell 16, spoke about her personal recruitment agenda saying that she wanted their group to go out in every corner of the country and tell women the truth, recruit the local people, poor and working-class people, in order to build a new society [47]

I'm just curious, but you do realize there was a pretty big counter culture movement in the 1960's don't you?

In June 1974, the Weather Underground released a 151-page volume titled Prairie Fire, which stated: "We are a guerrilla organization [...] We are communist women and men underground in the United States [...]"[57]

Larry Grathwohl, an undercover FBI agent who infiltrated The Weather Underground, claims Ayers told him where to plant bombs. He says Ayers was bent on overthrowing the government.

Yes, the jailbreak of Timothy Leary being a critical component of the grand scheme...

Hard to imagine taking over the world without some preparation



-spence

[scottw]

60's....70's....80's....when exactly did they change or rehabilitate Spence? you know...if these people were right-wingers....all of the hair on Janet Napolitano's back would be standing straight up.....


Prairie Fire 1974

With the help from Clayton Van Lydegraf, the Weather Underground sought a more Marxist-Leninist ideological approach to the post-Vietnam reality.[99]:68 The leading members of the Weather Underground (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn) collaborated on ideas and published their manifesto: Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism.[15] The name came from a quote by Mao Zedong, "a single spark can set a prairie fire." By the summer of 1974, five thousand copies had surfaced in coffee houses and bookstores across America. Leftist newspapers praised the manifesto.[100]

Abbie Hoffman publicly praised Prairie Fire and believed every American should be given a copy.[101] The manifesto’s influence initiated the formation of the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee in several American cities. Hundreds of above-ground activists helped further the new political vision of the Weather Underground.[100] Among other things, the manifesto called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as a means to achieving its social goals:


"The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.... Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit.... Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted.... It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle. Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory."[102]

Essentially, after the 1969 failure of the Days of Rage to involve thousands of youth in massive street fighting, Weather renounced most of the Left and decided to operate as an isolated underground group. Prairie Fire urged people to never "dissociate mass struggle from revolutionary violence." To do so, claimed Weather, was to do the state's work. Just as in 1969-70, Weather still refused to renounce revolutionary violence for "to leave people unprepared to fight the state is to seriously mislead them about the inevitable nature of what lies ahead." However, the decision to build only an underground group caused the Weather Underground to lose sight of its commitment to mass struggle and made future alliances with the mass movement difficult and tenuous.[99]:76–77

By 1974, Weather had recognized this shortcoming and in Prairie Fire detailed a different strategy for the 1970s which demanded both mass and clandestine organizations. The role of the clandestine organization would be to build the "consciousness of action" and prepare the way for the development of a people's militia. Concurrently, the role of the mass movement (i.e., above ground Prairie Fire collective) would include support for, and encouragement of, armed action. Such an alliance would, according to Weather, "help create the 'sea' for the guerrillas to swim in." [99]:76–77

According to Bill Ayers in the late 1970s, the Weatherman group further split into two factions — the May 19th Communist Organization and the "Prairie Fire Collective" — with Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers in the latter. The Prairie Fire Collective favored coming out of hiding and establishing an above ground revolutionary mass movement.

[spence]

I love it, you post about how weak the movement really was in an attempt to demonstrate how dangerous they were

-spence