Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

So, Spence, if I am egregiously annoyed by your constant rationalizing, would it be alright with you if I placed a small bomb in your bathroom vent to dramatically state my displeasure? Is that how we resolve differences? It seems to me that those who use violence as a method of discussion are not so much interested in coming to a mutual agreement, but rather want to force you through fear and intimidation to their way. And, yes, it is naïve to think that someone would not eventually be hurt or killed by the innocent blasting of bombs.

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

It was a lot more than a handful. It was more than a single organization. It was more than a single new idea. It was a gradual coalescence of various socialist ideologies which desired to speed up the transformation of American culture and governance which was already underway. The progressive movement was already long into the transformation. The various Marxist and socialist groups had already infiltrated segments of society and all together were influencing the radicalization of idealistic youths. And that has not stopped. The progressive transformation has so nearly changed the mores and system of governance that it can provide the umbrella for most leftist ideologies without the need for further physical violence. And it has been gradual enough over a "handful" of generations that it is becoming the "new norm."

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

All subjects can be taught from a point of view, whether blatant or subtle. And can be interwoven with various comments along the pedagogic way that trend the learning toward that point of view. Almost subliminal at times, in your face at others. But always with intention. An intention that is informed nearly unconsciously and effortlessly by years of thought and experience. You can be in the presence of two different people, one from the "right" and one from the "left," both discussing the same subject in an effort to be objective and strictly subject oriented, but given enough time, you will be able to see a difference in what is "taught" by their discussions.

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.

It is no longer necessary to have "sleeper cells." Especially in large, progressive, urban areas. Progressive politics dominate them. Progressivism is the home of various "leftist" movements here, and the progress is ongoing. There is no longer the urgency for instant reform. They know it will take time and patience and continuous effort. They will, eventually totally transform this society, and eventually, they hope, the world. They are persistent and finding power in unity under the umbrella of progressivism.

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.

It is not as impressive when they are welcomed back into a world they helped to change. They have shed violence because it is no longer needed. Being productive is easier for them now since they have been given the levers of persuasion. They can "produce" their world view peacefully. That is their place.

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

That is THE question. The question deserves a discussion, not an inference.

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.

The "center" right has shifted dramatically over time, toward the progressive and progressive "right."

You're stereotyping.

Just making an observation based on the limited and well-couched views you post. Is it any more stereotyping than how you accused Jim in CT of being "played."

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?

How has something that has been changed been conserved. How is a fabric that is constantly changing conserved rather than being replaced.

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

Yes, I realize that your reference frame is relative. That you observe from a constantly shifting frame of reference. You have several times stated contradictions to previous views. If called on it, you justify it by saying its a matter of context. It does move the conversation on without having to explain.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, Spence, if I am egregiously annoyed by your constant rationalizing, would it be alright with you if I placed a small bomb in your bathroom vent to dramatically state my displeasure? Is that how we resolve differences? It seems to me that those who use violence as a method of discussion are not so much interested in coming to a mutual agreement, but rather want to force you through fear and intimidation to their way. And, yes, it is naïve to think that someone would not eventually be hurt or killed by the innocent blasting of bombs.

I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.

It was a lot more than a handful. It was more than a single organization. It was more than a single new idea. It was a gradual coalescence of various socialist ideologies which desired to speed up the transformation of American culture and governance which was already underway. The progressive movement was already long into the transformation. The various Marxist and socialist groups had already infiltrated segments of society and all together were influencing the radicalization of idealistic youths. And that has not stopped. The progressive transformation has so nearly changed the mores and system of governance that it can provide the umbrella for most leftist ideologies without the need for further physical violence. And it has been gradual enough over a "handful" of generations that it is becoming the "new norm."

Well, it seems like the need for physical violence has trended down in direct relation to the end of the Vietnam war and the generational shift that immediately followed.

I do see more social progressive influence today (also generational shifts) but in other areas the dynamics appear to be more influenced by day to day politics than macro trends.

All subjects can be taught from a point of view, whether blatant or subtle. And can be interwoven with various comments along the pedagogic way that trend the learning toward that point of view. Almost subliminal at times, in your face at others. But always with intention. An intention that is informed nearly unconsciously and effortlessly by years of thought and experience. You can be in the presence of two different people, one from the "right" and one from the "left," both discussing the same subject in an effort to be objective and strictly subject oriented, but given enough time, you will be able to see a difference in what is "taught" by their discussions.

So have you've assessed her work or are you just making assumptions? This goes back to the initial thread, was Columbia "honoring" her violent past or recognizing the contribution she could make to the faculty? I'd note that she also got her education degree there...

It is no longer necessary to have "sleeper cells." Especially in large, progressive, urban areas. Progressive politics dominate them. Progressivism is the home of various "leftist" movements here, and the progress is ongoing. There is no longer the urgency for instant reform. They know it will take time and patience and continuous effort. They will, eventually totally transform this society, and eventually, they hope, the world. They are persistent and finding power in unity under the umbrella of progressivism.

If that was true I'd think the progressive movement would have a stronger identity. In fact I don't think the Left has a strong identity at all...There are few in this country that will even self describe themselves as "liberals."

It is not as impressive when they are welcomed back into a world they helped to change. They have shed violence because it is no longer needed. Being productive is easier for them now since they have been given the levers of persuasion. They can "produce" their world view peacefully. That is their place.

That's a stretch. I'd say that most radical groups shed violence because they could no longer get away with it.

The "center" right has shifted dramatically over time, toward the progressive and progressive "right."

Measured against what? Some abstract concept or a real baseline?

Just making an observation based on the limited and well-couched views you post. Is it any more stereotyping than how you accused Jim in CT of being "played."

My accusation of Jim being played had nothing to do with ideas, it was about his inference lacking in facts.

How has something that has been changed been conserved. How is a fabric that is constantly changing conserved rather than being replaced.

Conservatism would be illogical if it didn't accommodate for change. The nuance is in the rate of change.

Yes, I realize that your reference frame is relative. That you observe from a constantly shifting frame of reference. You have several times stated contradictions to previous views. If called on it, you justify it by saying its a matter of context. It does move the conversation on without having to explain.

"Constantly shifting" is code. It implies a lack of foundation...that I try and understand context and see things as they really are doesn't mean there's nothing solid underneath. As well, a perceived contradiction may simply be the fault of insufficient supporting detail, or perhaps a conclusion based on bias.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.


-spence

very little in their stated goals and purposes had anything to do with Vietnam...they used it as a recruiting tool....took advantage of a crisis... and their greatest interest in the war was that they shared idealogical and political orientation with our enemies....


The thesis of Weatherman theory, as expounded in its founding document, You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows, was that "the main struggle going on in the world today is between U.S. imperialism and the national liberation struggles against it",[23] based on Lenin's theory of imperialism, first expounded in 1916 in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In Weatherman theory "oppressed peoples" are the creators of the wealth of empire, "and it is to them that it belongs." "The goal of revolutionary struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interest of the oppressed peoples of the world." "The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism"[24]

The Weatherman group had long held that militancy was becoming more important than nonviolent forms of anti-war action, and that university-campus-based demonstrations needed to be punctuated with more dramatic actions, which had the potential to interfere with the US military and internal security apparatus. The belief was that these types of urban guerrilla actions would act as a catalyst for the coming revolution. Many international events indeed seemed to support the Weathermen’s overall assertion that worldwide revolution was imminent

this is impressive

List of Weatherman actions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[scottw]

hey Jim...it it becoming clearer now?.....I think you have the answer to your intital question both in theory and in practice at this point....there's also a nice little intersection to the two topics that diverged regarding ideaology and political lables that should be helpful

[Jim in CT]

During one of the president's speeches about the violence in Boston, he said about the terrorists...

"“Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?”

Maybe they were inspired by Professor Bowdin at Columbia. Maybe they heard Rev Wright speak somewhere. Maybe they attended a symposium where Bill Ayers gave a lecture.

The President is not suffering from a shortage of chutzpah.

If Obama wants people who study here to be disenfrachised with violence...then perhaps, just perhaps, we should reconsider having homicidal maniacs (as long as they are liberal homicidal maniacs) teaching our kids...

But hey, that's just me...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

very little in their stated goals and purposes had anything to do with Vietnam...they used it as a recruiting tool....took advantage of a crisis... and their greatest interest in the war was that they shared idealogical and political orientation with our enemies....

The war was the engine behind the radicalization. This wasn't a bunch of communists looking for a cause, their behavior was a by-product.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The war was the engine behind the radicalization. This wasn't a bunch of communists looking for a cause, their behavior was a by-product.

-spence

the were self-described communist revolutionaries....Ayers to this day refers to himself as a radical leftist communist....they were infact communists looking for a revolution and were in favor of violence and stated this on many occasions....the anti-war crowd was not enamoured with them....

you are digging a very deep hole

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

the were self-described communist revolutionaries....Ayers to this day refers to himself as a radical leftist communist....they were infact communists looking for a revolution and were in favor of violence and stated this on many occasions....the anti-war crowd was not enamoured with them....

you are digging a very deep hole

Seriously, you're making a mockery of yourself.

When the war started Ayers was in a prep school. I'll bet he was a real hard core commie back then...He was motivated by the war and racism in college. Hell, he's written at length about his beliefs.

Please try and pay attention to the TIMELINE OF EVENTS. I know context doesn't matter to you but in this case it does have some importance.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working.
-spence

So, Spence...do you similarly forgive those who bomb abortion clinics? Or do you selectively apply your forgiveness, applying it only to those who threaten violence in the name of liberal causes?

Have fun with that one!

What you are saying, Spence, is that that when someone (presumably a liberal) is sufficiently frustrated that they aren't getting their way, the use (or threat) of mass violence and terrorism, is acceptable to you.

Is that what you teach your kids? If so, good luck to anyone who dares to say "no" to your kids.

According to SPence, the Weather Underground's actions are considered, we need to conclude that a mitigating factor was thatthey were "angry".

Spence, don't you think Al Queda terrorists similarly feel that the peaceful way of getting their way isn't working for them, and that they have similarly reached a boiling point? Isn't that a prerequisite for their having declared a fatwah on anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe? Do you give them a pass too?

Have you no shame?



Jesus Christ...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So, Spence...do you similarly forgive those who bomb abortion clinics? Or do you selectively apply your forgiveness, applying it only to those who threaten violence in the name of liberal causes?

Have fun with that one!

How many have died or been shot in abortion clinic violence? Big difference...

What you are saying, Spence, is that that when someone (presumably a liberal) is sufficiently frustrated that they aren't getting their way, the use (or threat) of mass violence and terrorism, is acceptable to you.

I've never said that, and if that's what you think then clearly you haven't read a thing I've posted.

According to SPence, the Weather Underground's actions are considered, we need to conclude that a mitigating factor was thatthey were "angry".

Oh brother...

Spence, don't you think Al Queda terrorists similarly feel that the peaceful way of getting their way isn't working for them, and that they have similarly reached a boiling point? Isn't that a prerequisite for their having declared a fatwah on anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe? Do you give them a pass too?

Big difference, al Qaeda terrorists plot to kill massive numbers of innocent people in dramatic attacks without any warning.

That's the thing you don't seem to grasp. Lumping all these actions together under a common banner tarnishes the real threats for political purposes.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How many have died or been shot in abortion clinic violence? Big difference...


I've never said that, and if that's what you think then clearly you haven't read a thing I've posted.


Oh brother...


Big difference, al Qaeda terrorists plot to kill massive numbers of innocent people in dramatic attacks without any warning.

That's the thing you don't seem to grasp. Lumping all these actions together under a common banner tarnishes the real threats for political purposes.

-spence

"How many have died or been shot in abortion clinic violence? Big difference..."

OK. So as long as any one abortion clininc bomber killed 3 or less (the lady at Columbia killed 3), you're telling me it's OK.

"Lumping all these actions together under a common banner tarnishes the real threats for political purposes. "

So tell us Spence...what's the maximum number of murders someone can commit (in the course of terrorism), before they are unfit to teach your kids?

I say zero.

You are the one who says you need to look at how angry they happened to be at the time, or whether ot was 3 or 4 innocent people that were incinerated, or whether or not MSNBC is sympathetic to the cause.

This lady at Columbia killed 3 innocent people in attempt to galvanize a left-led violent revolution in the US. This kid in Boston killed 4 people for who-knows-what reason.

The details of their crimes will differ. Regardless, they are both, without question, bloodthirsty homicidal maniacs. None have any business teaching our kids. If they get out of jail and want to scrub toilets from midnight until 6 AM, fine. You don't let them mold the minds of the next generation, unless you want more violence...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"How many have died or been shot in abortion clinic violence? Big difference..."

OK. So as long as any one abortion clininc bomber killed 3 or less (the lady at Columbia killed 3), you're telling me it's OK.

"Lumping all these actions together under a common banner tarnishes the real threats for political purposes. "

So tell us Spence...what's the maximum number of murders someone can commit (in the course of terrorism), before they are unfit to teach your kids?

I say zero.

You are the one who says you need to look at how angry they happened to be at the time, or whether ot was 3 or 4 innocent people that were incinerated, or whether or not MSNBC is sympathetic to the cause.

A homicidial maniac is a homicidial maniac. None have any business teaching our kids. If they get out of jail and want to scrub toilets from midnight until 6 AM, fine. You don't let them mold the minds of the next generation, unless you want more violence...

Being implicated in a murder from a robbery gone bad doesn't make you a homicidal maniac...that's someone who kills for their own reasons.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

"Constantly shifting" is code. It implies a lack of foundation...that I try and understand context and see things as they really are doesn't mean there's nothing solid underneath. As well, a perceived contradiction may simply be the fault of insufficient supporting detail, or perhaps a conclusion based on bias.

-spence

psycho-babble

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

psycho-babble

Best quote evah
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.

So if I plant a bomb in your bathroom ventilation it would have to be evaluated in the context of the tension caused by my dissatisfaction in the way you responded to my complaints that you would not do what I want.

That's not to say it was right, . . .

Would you say it was wrong?

. . . but to ignore the social climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.

I have commented on that "climate," did not ignore it. But those events were not merely surrounded by a social climate, they were a driving force in the temperature of that climate. They were just as much, or more, the elements surrounding the climate. And it would be irresponsible to claim that those events and their perpetrators were the victims of a social climate.

Well, it seems like the need for physical violence has trended down in direct relation to the end of the Vietnam war and the generational shift that immediately followed.

As JohnnyD has commented more than once, correlation is not causation. If unpopular foreign wars were a cause of civil violence, we should be having young folks bombing all over the time frame of 2003 to the present. The Vietnam war, as ScottW has documented, was not the reason for Weatherman violence. There was a far greater ideological motive for their actions. The anti-war stance was a popular way to gain mass approval for their wider agenda. The generational shift was just another in a continuous shift since the so-called Progressive Era--which did not actually end but has been continually expanding its transformation of American society. Remember Woodrow Wilson's formula for societal change:

"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow citizens to want SOME change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he [the agent of change] wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way . . . Institutions which one generation regards as only a makeshift approximation to the realization of a principle, the next generation honors as the nearest possible approximation to that principle, and the next worships as the principle itself. It takes scarcely three generations for the apotheosis."

I do see more social progressive influence today (also generational shifts) but in other areas the dynamics appear to be more influenced by day to day politics than macro trends.

Yes, but those day to day politics are not separate from "social progressive influence." The politics are the legal force which has been nearly constantly shifting to greater progressive governance rather than constitutional governance. Those politics grant legality to social progressive influence.

So have you've assessed her work or are you just making assumptions? This goes back to the initial thread, was Columbia "honoring" her violent past or recognizing the contribution she could make to the faculty? I'd note that she also got her education degree there...


For one who is constantly making drive-by assumptions such as you have made throughout this thread then questioning whether I am, is beyond ironic. I haven't used the word "honoring" nor do I see her hiring as unusual. I have pointed out that it is actually appropriate that Columbia hire her because they are at this time quite similar in ideology, and that she is a product of academic progressivism which not only influenced her and her fellow travelers, but was influenced by them. They are probably a match that deserve each other. I am, personally, not comfortable with educational systems injecting political ideology into the classroom. I certainly experienced it in my student days and can only assume, from the frequent reports of it, that it has proliferated. Perhaps she is totally purified from such inclinations. I doubt it, and that is my prerogative. It is from that "perception" that I speak.


If that was true I'd think the progressive movement would have a stronger identity. In fact I don't think the Left has a strong identity at all...There are few in this country that will even self describe themselves as "liberals."

That's why perception is not reality. There are way more than a "few" who vote for "liberals," a moniker I avoid since, as I've explained above "liberals" are not liberal. I don't know what these voters who keep voting for "liberals" (progressives) perceive their personal identity is. But it doesn't seem to affect how they vote. I doubt that most voters, and even more non-voters, have a clue to what a progressive is, nor about the progressive agenda. If they did, they might vote differently. Maybe not. Maybe they identify with the government goodies bestowed on them rather than by whatever label they or their politicians are identified.

That's a stretch. I'd say that most radical groups shed violence because they could no longer get away with it.

Why is it a stretch to say they shed violence because they no longer need it because society has shifted in their direction and placed them in positions of influence to make furthering their cause easier? Are you making another assumption?

Measured against what? Some abstract concept or a real baseline?

The real baseline is the Constitution. Though not too long ago it was denied, there is no longer a denial that we have drifted far from that document and that progressives, fundamentally, wish to rule without it. That is so obvious, not only by the actual method of administrative governance through regulatory agencies, and ridiculously interpreted court cases, but the outright public assertion by influential progressives like Prof. Seidman that the Constitution should be abandoned.

The Constitution was a "real" baseline. What we have now is an arbitrary, shifting, and constantly more centralized one.

Conservatism would be illogical if it didn't accommodate for change. The nuance is in the rate of change.

Conservatism/Constitutionalism accommodates for change. It is called amendment. And it accommodates much change at local levels by will of the people. Centralized progressivism overrides all that. And often without "nuance" but with in-your-face unconstitutional power.

"Constantly shifting" is code. It implies a lack of foundation...that I try and understand context and see things as they really are doesn't mean there's nothing solid underneath. As well, a perceived contradiction may simply be the fault of insufficient supporting detail, or perhaps a conclusion based on bias.

-spence

What? Code? I have created a code? Are you making another assumption? On the one hand you want to assert that new fabrics are woven into the fabric of our society and that they become the new "conservatism." On the other, you imply that "constantly shifting implies a lack of foundation. On the one hand you praise newness, progressive change. On the other hand constant shifting implies a lack of Foundation. On the one hand you consider the Constitution as written to be outdated and of little use to succeeding generations. On the other hand you advocate a "living" Constitution that constantly changes, evolves to suit new generations. On the one hand you are a relativist who believes there are no absolutes, on the other you imply that there is a solid foundation underneath your views.

I am not familiar with what that solid-not-shifting foundation is since I don't recall your expressing it. But your last sentence above which speaks of perceived contradiction (perception is reality?), insufficient supporting detail, or "perhaps" bias, lacks enough definition for me to grasp any solid meaning.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So if I plant a bomb in your bathroom ventilation it would have to be evaluated in the context of the tension caused by my dissatisfaction in the way you responded to my complaints that you would not do what I want.

That's not to say it was right, . . .

Would you say it was wrong?

I think I've said many times their actions were wrong...and I never used the word victim...I said byproduct.

Reading Ayers own writing it's clear that the shift to violent protest the war and race issues was precisely because more conventional means weren't getting a response. Without the pressure cooker of the War it's a totally different situation...

Comparing protest today vs 40 years ago isn't exactly fair either as our society is in a very different place.

Yes, but those day to day politics are not separate from "social progressive influence." The politics are the legal force which has been nearly constantly shifting to greater progressive governance rather than constitutional governance. Those politics grant legality to social progressive influence.

I don't see a constant shift as much as a step function which can be driven by many factors. Government got bigger under Reagan but was it a product of "social progressive influence?" I guess the answer could be that conservatives weren't acting like conservatives. But to my earlier point, how long does this have to persist before you have to snap a new baseline?

That's why perception is not reality. There are way more than a "few" who vote for "liberals," a moniker I avoid since, as I've explained above "liberals" are not liberal. I don't know what these voters who keep voting for "liberals" (progressives) perceive their personal identity is. But it doesn't seem to affect how they vote. I doubt that most voters, and even more non-voters, have a clue to what a progressive is, nor about the progressive agenda. If they did, they might vote differently. Maybe not. Maybe they identify with the government goodies bestowed on them rather than by whatever label they or their politicians are identified.

Well, it's easy to claim a video of a woman dancing with her "Obama Phone" is concrete proof of chronic government dependence. I don't think most voters really care about labels or government goodies, they vote based on a level of comfort with the candidate that often transcends even policy.

The real baseline is the Constitution. Though not too long ago it was denied, there is no longer a denial that we have drifted far from that document and that progressives, fundamentally, wish to rule without it. That is so obvious, not only by the actual method of administrative governance through regulatory agencies, and ridiculously interpreted court cases, but the outright public assertion by influential progressives like Prof. Seidman that the Constitution should be abandoned.

Without intellectuals like Seidman who challenge the Constitution some may forget why they need it!

What? Code? I have created a code? Are you making another assumption? On the one hand you want to assert that new fabrics are woven into the fabric of our society and that they become the new "conservatism." On the other, you imply that "constantly shifting implies a lack of foundation. On the one hand you praise newness, progressive change. On the other hand constant shifting implies a lack of Foundation. On the one hand you consider the Constitution as written to be outdated and of little use to succeeding generations. On the other hand you advocate a "living" Constitution that constantly changes, evolves to suit new generations. On the one hand you are a relativist who believes there are no absolutes, on the other you imply that there is a solid foundation underneath your views.

Constantly shifting implies there is no foundation on which I would disagree. There are some elements of progressivism that have become even part of the conservative fabric. Wouldn't that presume that there's mutually agreed to value?

I am not familiar with what that solid-not-shifting foundation is since I don't recall your expressing it. But your last sentence above which speaks of perceived contradiction (perception is reality?), insufficient supporting detail, or "perhaps" bias, lacks enough definition for me to grasp any solid meaning.

Exactly.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think I've said many times their actions were wrong...and I never used the word victim...I said byproduct.

Saying that their actions were wrong is definitive, unequivocal. But your "not saying that it was right" is not quite so certain. It is not saying that their actions were wrong.

Reading Ayers own writing it's clear that the shift to violent protest the war and race issues was precisely because more conventional means weren't getting a response. Without the pressure cooker of the War it's a totally different situation...

That he resorted to the thing against which he protested shows a lack of clear ideological understanding. Fighting war with war is fighting your own beliefs. Which leads me to think either he was an intellectual retard or he really wasn't against war. The latter leads me to think that war, for him, was not wrong, that he was not "anti-war," but that what was evil and to fight against was a social order with which he violently disagreed--capitalism, etc. And I don't see any change in his ideology. And, I think, he has found a comfortable place where he can further his cause, without violence. Because the social order has changed sufficiently enough to welcome and accommodate his agenda.

Comparing protest today vs 40 years ago isn't exactly fair either as our society is in a very different place.

Yes, there is a greater expectation today that collectivist demands will be accommodated. The something blowing in the wind that Dillon sang about has settled and paved a peaceful path to progressive socialism.

I don't see a constant shift as much as a step function which can be driven by many factors. Government got bigger under Reagan but was it a product of "social progressive influence?"

Absolutely. He never had the House. And for some of the time he didn't have the Senate. Crafty Tip O'neal thwarted spending cuts and Reagan had to fight the Cold War as well as a progressive Congress which included leftist, centrist Republicans. He slowed the growth, and showed a path to further a "Conservative" agenda, but Bush senior wimped and strayed from the path and the momentum was lost.

I guess the answer could be that conservatives weren't acting like conservatives.

There were far more progressives (including Republicans) than actual conservatives of a Reagan stripe. Remember that the Republican elites did not want Reagan. He won election because he and his truly conservative agenda appealed to the electorate. He won in spite of Republican establishment. It was that establishment, not conservatives, that wasn't acting like conservatives

But to my earlier point, how long does this have to persist before you have to snap a new baseline?

A fairer question might be whether there is any longer a baseline. I mentioned that the Constitution was a real baseline. Unless you consider whim, personal opinion, differing and undefined notions of "social justice" as "solid" and "real," what do you consider a "new" baseline rather than a constantly leftward shifting "line?"

Well, it's easy to claim a video of a woman dancing with her "Obama Phone" is concrete proof of chronic government dependence. I don't think most voters really care about labels or government goodies, they vote based on a level of comfort with the candidate that often transcends even policy.

So is a personal level of comfort with candidates the new baseline? And are you denying that the level of comfort is divorced from what government will do for them, and that "labels" have no influence either positive or negative?

Without intellectuals like Seidman who challenge the Constitution some may forget why they need it!

No, he doesn't challenge the Constitution, he advocates abandoning it. And he does so not only because he believes, as good progressives do, that it impedes efficient governance, especially from a central power where guys get together and decide what is good for us and then have to figure out how get around a 200-year-old parchment in order to make good stuff happen, but because we don't follow it anyway. And that is a main reason why some have forgotten why they need it.

Constantly shifting implies there is no foundation on which I would disagree. There are some elements of progressivism that have become even part of the conservative fabric. Wouldn't that presume that there's mutually agreed to value?

That may be what it implies to you. But I mean no implication. I mean "constantly shifting." That is not code. That is meant to be taken as "constantly shifting," not a code to mean something other or to imply something else. And progressive elements becoming part of the "conservative fabric" is also part of the constant shift leftward. The progressive elements, those that are truly "progressive" elements that favor central administrative government rather than constitutional government have not been woven into the true "conservative" fabric. Republican and "conservative" are not the same animal. The Republican party, not conservatives, have been shifting leftward, progressively, and abandoning conservatism for a long time. There is a resurgence in the party toward the "conservative fabric" by a new breed. Whether they will be co-opted by the establishment or not, may influence the leftward shift in another direction.

Exactly.

-spence

Absolutely.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think I've said many times their actions were wrong...and I never used the word victim...I said byproduct.

...you've justified their actions repeatedly...go back and read...."that's not to say their actions were not wrong" reminds me of my favorite David Ciccilini quote " it was never my intention to mislead anyone intentionally"

Reading Ayers own writing it's clear that the shift to violent protest the war and race issues was precisely because more conventional means weren't getting a response. Without the pressure cooker of the War it's a totally different situation... precisely when did Ayers engage in conventional means that failed to get a response?

Comparing protest today vs 40 years ago isn't exactly fair either as our society is in a very different place. that's correct...today, peaceful protest by pro-American Tea Party type organizations are ridiculed by people like you and protesters are referred to as terrorists, radicals and extremists by like-minded while violent, messy protests by OCCUPY or Union types are applauded and justified and deemed "understandable"....... "which is not to say they're not wrong" .....when they break things or injure but given the circumstances .....probably their only alternative or something like that........there's a pattern


Well, it's easy to claim a video of a woman dancing with her "Obama Phone" is concrete proof of chronic government dependence. the current levels of chronic government dependence are concrete proof of chronic government dependence

Without intellectuals like Seidman who challenge the Constitution some may forget why they need it!
searchng very hard for redeeming value...you are getting good at this

Constantly shifting implies there is no foundation on which I would disagree. There are some elements of progressivism that have become even part of the conservative fabric. Wouldn't that presume that there's mutually agreed to value?





-spence

so much constantly shifting psycho-babble.....and irony...isn't there?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. -spence

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Those in the 60's counter culture who were truly against war were the hippie types. The so-called and self-labeled flower children. They believed in "flower power" not guns and bombs. Not violence. They flashed the peace sign not fists. Their "protests" were expressed in pot, free sex, and music. The more serious formed communes or groups in which they shared their stash, their bodies, and their food (usually "natural" and home cooked). They didn't engage in political movements or agendas. Their view on violence and the war was expressed as "make love not war," or by sayings like "fighting for peace is like f--king for virginity."

The ones who resorted to violence did so for a larger purpose. They did have a political, social agenda. And yes it was a leftist-Marxist-socialist-communist agenda. Sorry, but that is the truth. Marx was on lips of all from the Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, SDS, Weatherman, Ayers, Boudin, Dohrn, etc. Marxism was a revolutionary method/philosophy they embraced, rationally or irrationally, intelligently or stupidly, to achieve racial or societal liberation from capitalist pigs, especially the white wealthy ones. And their pitiful attempts at violence were just foolish lightweight imitations of what they thought was necessary in a Marxist revolution. Their goal was not merely to end a war. It was to transform society to their liking--war or no war. And they had to convince the masses to join them. The war was actually just another grievance they could add to their lists, and one which could appeal to the greater society more than what their true agenda would. Making a big issue of the war and then tacking on, by-the-way, the inequities and injustices of capitalist, imperialist, racist America it was hoped would persuade the masses to follow their vanguard to social justice.

Though they have been "rehabilitated" from their violent ways, they also understand that the violence became counter-productive and that, now, it is not at all needed. Society has been turned. Most of the rhetorical wedge issues with which the great "middle" might sympathize have been ameliorated so it would be difficult now to persuade by radical, violent means. And it was no longer necessary. Enough of the "working class," and the unions and poor and unemployed, and the academic elites, and even of the top echelons of the political class had shifted in their direction. And the former radicals have been given the opportunity to help shape the very transformation they originally wanted--without violence. They are no longer "radicals." They are mainstream. But their philosophical, political agenda has not changed.

[scottw]

there are many more paralells than Spence is willing to acknowledge...in both cases these are young people who have embraced an ideaology that is incompatible with American culture and antithetical to the principles of it's founding.....each decided that violent means were necessary and acceptable to futher the ideaolgy that they embraced.....both were enjoying the advantages and benefits of living in a free society but decided that the oppressive, tyrannical ideaology that they happen to embrace ought be imposed on American society through violent means....both embraced and sought assistance from America's enemies and those that America is/was at war with idealogically and militarily

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.

-spence"

Sound about right?

[Nebe]

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

"Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate"

The third alternative is that he genuinely believes that she is fit to mold the minds of our kids. And that's very likely, because to do othewise, he'd have to admit that liberals in academia indeed honored a mass murderer and a terrorist. And even though that's precisely what happened, he won't/can't (take your pick) concede that.

He says she is a fit teacher of kids, because she was only "implicated", or because she served her time, or because the cost of her crimes to society was below the acceptable threshold, or because the number of innocent deaths at her hands is below the acceptable maximum, or because her crimes didn't instill widespread fear in the populace, or some other such reasoning.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady.. Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

yeah, shouldn't you offer an option where he's being honest? otherwise he's working awfully hard to sound like an idiot

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.

-spence"

Sound about right?

Hysterical.

Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.

I certainly said she was convicted of murder perhaps even more than once. The irony here is your accusation of "altering teh facts" only came about by taking my remarks out of thread context.

-spence