Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[Jim in CT]

Kathy Bowdin was one of the Weather Underground terrorists who robbed a Brinks caro f $1.6 M, and in the process murdered 2 cops and a security guard, leaving I believe 8 kids to grow up without a Dad. What is she doing now? She is a professor at Columbia.

Her boss, terrorist Bill Ayers, is a professor of education (teaching future teachers, which is just great).

Wesleyan University honors convicted cop-killer Abu Mumia Jamal by letting him give a commencment address via video link. The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him.

Imagine for a second, if Holy Cross college honored an abortion clinic bomber by making him a professor. Can you IMAGINE the media reaction?

Spence, PaulS, someone please explain this to me, cuz I don't get it. I just don't get it.

[RIJIMMY]

free market Jimbo, parents can pull the funding and we can send our kids elsewhere

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

free market Jimbo, parents can pull the funding and we can send our kids elsewhere

Agreed. But I didn't ask whether or not these liberal schools have the right to do this. I want to know why liberals, the self-appointed gurus of peace and compassion, do this? Why do they think it's a good idea?

What was the conversation like in the faculty room, when it was discussed whether or not to hire this woman? I'd love to see a transcript of that conversation.

[Nebe]

Of course they have the right to do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Of course they have the right to do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed. But WHY do they think it's a good idea? I mean, the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to do what they do, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do...

[Nebe]

Because in this country we are free to do as we choose, are free to say what we want and free to go where we want. It's that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Because in this country we are free to do as we choose, are free to say what we want and free to go where we want. It's that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was never that simple, ever, in any country. It used to be almost that simple in this country, but things have changed over time, especially in the last few years. It's about to be that you can't even choose not to buy health insurance anymore without paying a penalty.

[scottw]

how can an American President fly around the country preaching and lecturing about "shared sacrafice" and threatening all sorts of doom and gloom over budget cuts yet continue to plan lavish vacations and Whitehouse parties at extraordinary tax payer's expense?

because- right and wrong is not measured by any moral compass but rather by which side of the idealogical fence you happen to fall or reside

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Because in this country we are free to do as we choose, are free to say what we want and free to go where we want. It's that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You certainly haven't been keeping track of the daily intrusion into Americans' privacy, people that have been arrested for talking poorly about the government or people that have been labeled at part of terrorist organizations because they are outspoken political activists, even though they've never broken a law.

We're free to do as we choose and say what we want... as long as we do not upset the government's status quo.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

free market Jimbo, parents can pull the funding and we can send our kids elsewhere

The market is not that free anymore. With Federal "investment" in all levels of education accompanied by its mandatory regulations, parents are, without their consent, funding schools their kids don't attend and to which they would not choose to have them attend. The "market" function of paying for education has mostly become a thing of the past. Private schools of higher education are few and far between.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You certainly haven't been keeping track of the daily intrusion into Americans' privacy, people that have been arrested for talking poorly about the government or people that have been labeled at part of terrorist organizations because they are outspoken political activists, even though they've never broken a law.

We're free to do as we choose and say what we want... as long as we do not upset the government's status quo.

We are only free to exercise our Constitutionally guaranteed "rights" so long as the Federal Government allows it and can regulate it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Because in this country we are free to do as we choose, are free to say what we want and free to go where we want. It's that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are dodging my original question, which was WHY do they do it. I did not ask if they have the right to do it. Miss Porters School can hire a registered sex offender to monitor the showers in the girls locker room. That there isn't a law against that, doesn't mean that it's not stupid and immoral.

[Nebe]

I can't answer that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

But yes it's immoral.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Kathy Bowdin was one of the Weather Underground terrorists who robbed a Brinks caro f $1.6 M, and in the process murdered 2 cops and a security guard, leaving I believe 8 kids to grow up without a Dad. What is she doing now? She is a professor at Columbia.

Her boss, terrorist Bill Ayers, is a professor of education (teaching future teachers, which is just great).

Wesleyan University honors convicted cop-killer Abu Mumia Jamal by letting him give a commencment address via video link. The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him.

Imagine for a second, if Holy Cross college honored an abortion clinic bomber by making him a professor. Can you IMAGINE the media reaction?

Spence, PaulS, someone please explain this to me, cuz I don't get it. I just don't get it.

The Progressive agenda, which emanated from our universities and colleges, is to change the status of the individual from a sovereign with unalienable rights granted by a higher power and guaranteed by a Constitution, to a product of the State who is functionally "free" to do what the State grants. To accomplish this, power must be centralized rather than dispersed. All elements, including religion and individualism, that would diminish the power of the State, must be marginalized and eventually eliminated. To be happy, all elements of discord must be eradicated from our collective existence. The disorder of individual competitions and conflicts can only be solved by allegiance to a unitary central power administered by experts who know best what we need and have the power to grant us those needs.

Radicals such as Ayers and Jamal, etc., are transitional tools which enable Progressives to destroy "outdated" American principles and Constitutional governance. They too will, eventually, be eliminated.

[Rockport24]

I agree with you Jim - but I think the shocking thing is that she was paroled in the first place... isn't her crime punishable by death in some states?

[FishermanTim]

Why do they do it?

Because they can, but probably more so because they know it will bring in donor money from those eqaully corrupt cronies that bought their degrees from similarly operating "tools" of higher education.

When a college begins to offer classes in subjects that will serve the student no good in the real world, and hires teachers and (so-called) professors to spew their worthless rhetoric to our children, that college has literelly sunk to the bottom of the academic food chain.

It becomes the "Jerry Springer" of academia and a laughing stock amongst those in truly legitimate schools.

Unfortunately, with the government sticking its hands into how a school is run and what the school MUST offer its students, more and more "Jerry Springers" are popping up year after year, so that eventually a college degree will be as valuable as the last roll of toilet paper and cost as much as a Mercedes!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

I agree with you Jim - but I think the shocking thing is that she was paroled in the first place... isn't her crime punishable by death in some states?

She didn't pull the trigger, she drove the getaway truck, which I believe was a U-Haul truck. That truck encountered a police roadblock. She, the driver, got out with her hands up. As the police were tellling her that they were about to open the back of the truck, the terrorists jumped out of the back of the truck. Her terrorist pals had automatic weapons, the cops had revolvers, 2 cops died as a result. The security guard, the 3rd victim, was killed earlier at the scene of the crime.

I sincerely wish she had gotten the death penalty, because (1) she deserved it, and (2) we wouldn't be having a conversation about whether or not she should be teaching at Columbia.

It's worth noting that this group was part of the Weather Underground, which Bill Ayers (political mentor of Obama) was a leader of.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

.

It becomes the "Jerry Springer" of academia and a laughing stock amongst those in truly legitimate schools.

!

I don't know. I don't see anyone claiming that Columbia is a "laughing stock", I don't see alumni donations to the endowment fund drying up...And that's precisely what I don't get. I don't get why 99% of the population isn't outraged.

This is the same school that invited the President of Iran to speak, yet they claim that Catholics like me are intolerant of homosexuals?

My Mom got her masters degree at Columbia, and she is horrified and embarassed. My Mom was not a typical Columbia alumni, spending the majority of her life as a middle-class housewife.

[detbuch]

Perhaps hiring murderers to educate will add diversity to the curriculums. After all, what has caused their anti-social behavior needs to have its say. The oppressive nature of traditional American culture is no doubt a causative factor in rebellion against it. Providing students with the fresh approach that murderers and radicals will give can be perceived as a complement to their education.

[Pete F.]

I have not done the research to see if they were convicted, served the time, etc. Perhaps you believe that anyone who commits adultery should be stoned or have an arm cut off for theft, oh wait I think that perhaps I have confused you with Islamic fundamentalists.
Perhaps we should make flagburning a crime or speaking out against the president, I will defend your right to do either and my right to shun you if I feel you deserve it or support you if I think you are correct.
Having said that and worked in a college enviorment I will admit that most of the adults there do not fit into the old adage that if you are young and conservative you have no soul, but if you are old and liberal you are a fool.

I prefer this one myself:“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I have not done the research to see if they were convicted, served the time, etc. Perhaps you believe that anyone who commits adultery should be stoned or have an arm cut off for theft, oh wait I think that perhaps I have confused you with Islamic fundamentalists.
Perhaps we should make flagburning a crime or speaking out against the president, I will defend your right to do either and my right to shun you if I feel you deserve it or support you if I think you are correct.
Having said that and worked in a college enviorment I will admit that most of the adults there do not fit into the old adage that if you are young and conservative you have no soul, but if you are old and liberal you are a fool.

I prefer this one myself:“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

You want your kids taught by someone who dedicated most of her adult life to carrying out violent acts against white people who played by the rules and succeeded and who hurt no one?

This woman was a known terrorist. She pled guilty to the charges in this case, and was granted parole after 20 years.

"Perhaps you believe that anyone who commits adultery should be stoned..."

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. Because I said adultery is the same as plotting to blow up innocent civilians, right? I said adultery is the same thing as terrorism, right? Adultery is the same murdering multiple police officers during the course of a robbery? Yes, I claimed that those are the same things, right?

You stated that you did no research on whether or not this woman is guilty of this crime. OK. What reserch did you do, to conclude that I would believe that adulterers deserve to be stoned to death? Please explan, we are all waiting for you to share that research.

Please respond to the things that I actually say. Please try and refrain from putting radical, idiotic words in my mouth.

This is what the thoughtless and brainwashed do. I say that terrorists who kill multiple police officers have no business teaching our kids at prestigious universities, and you somehow, somehow, interpret that to mean that I think adulterers should be stoned to death.

That kind of intellectual dishonesty is what thoughtless people do when they have lost the argument, but aren't adult enough to admit it. I'll give you credit, at least you didn't call me a racist.

You worked at a college? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked. Too bad while you were there, you never learned how to have an honest discussion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Kathy Bowdin was one of the Weather Underground terrorists who robbed a Brinks caro f $1.6 M, and in the process murdered 2 cops and a security guard, leaving I believe 8 kids to grow up without a Dad. What is she doing now? She is a professor at Columbia.

Her boss, terrorist Bill Ayers, is a professor of education (teaching future teachers, which is just great).

Wesleyan University honors convicted cop-killer Abu Mumia Jamal by letting him give a commencment address via video link. The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him.

Imagine for a second, if Holy Cross college honored an abortion clinic bomber by making him a professor. Can you IMAGINE the media reaction?

Spence, PaulS, someone please explain this to me, cuz I don't get it. I just don't get it.

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.

First...what's the point of this thread? How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?

Kathy Boudin was sent to prison and served her term for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?

I don't believe Bill Ayers was ever convicted of murder or terrorism. Certainly he was a radical back then, but did his actions ever actually kill anyone? I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone. Also, it's worth noting that his actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America...it was what they saw as our complicit engagement in an unconscionable war. Had he been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way.

Ayers wasn't Obama's political mentor, that's been debunked as an election year myth.

Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him", he was invited to speak at The Evergreen State College. He wasn't chosen by the college, he was chosen by the GRADUATING CLASS of 1999 no less! While I can't say if he's guilty or innocent it does appear there's a significant amount of information that contests he had a fair trial.

Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread, regardless of their history they all appear pretty intelligent and have moved forward to share their experiences and help others.

As usual Jim, you've gotten pretty much every aspect of your post wrong...worse...that you casually throw out the T word without any real regard for context or meaning speaks volumes.

-spence

[Nebe]

I'm sure Jim was listening to some right wing conservative radio program or tv show where they were using this as some sort if propaganda and Jim popped a gasket. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I prefer this one myself:“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

It's a nice quote by Heinlein--good writers are so able to express the most "basic criteria" in the simplest, most direct, and nearly indisputable way. Sooo . . . since the division being defined is political, we're assuming that we're speaking in the context of some form of government. And government, by definition, assumes some degree of control of people. So the distinction between the two types of people, those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire, is one of degree. Or else we have to assume that those who have no such desire really are absolutely against control, in which case they would be apolitical and not part of Heinlein's political division--they might be considered anarchists, but anarchists are such a small fraction of the human race that the division between anarchists and controllists would be so heavily weighted toward the latter that the distinction would have little to no relevance.

Now, the question is begged, does the group who want people to be controlled include those who want to be controlled as well as those who want to be the controllers? I think they must go together otherwise the concept of control can only work by force. Those who want to control must also, necessarily, want to be in a small minority otherwise dispersing power among a majority over a minority would create an unmanageable conflict among the controllers who would struggle to control each other as well as controlling those who want to be controlled. So a relatively small elite cadre of rulers must persuade their followers who wish to be ruled that they are capable of doing so in a beneficent way that provides the greatest good for the greatest number (those who want to be controlled).

Given that control works best when there is agreement between controllers and the controlled, and given that there are, if the division is meaningful, almost as many or more who have little to no desire to control or be controlled, there must be methods to peacefully institute governance. There must be . . . oh, right . . . laws by which all abide. How then do we get EVERYBODY to agree between controllers and controlled?

Hmmm . . . the American Founders hashed it out a couple of times after fighting for such a concept, and came up with an accommodation among those who seek power, those who wish to be controlled, and those who have no such desire--The Constitution. It allowed those who seek power a limited scope to do so, and allowed those who wished not to be controlled a great degree of freedom to live with limited control and controls of their choice.

It worked for a while. But as time went on, those who wanted to control saw too much disorder in this form of government and that it gave away unbridled power to those who were not elected controllers. So they persuaded their counterpart, those who wished to be controlled, that the Constitution was an obstacle to their relationship, and that it allowed the good people who wished to be controlled to be oppressed by illegitimate controllers. The others, those who had no hankering after control or being controlled, became outnumbered. And, understanding that the law which enabled all to cooperate required acquiescence to the courts of that law, which had been co-opted by the controllers, they reluctantly gave way and became marginalized, ridiculed as backward, outdated. And the form of government--limited enough to allow freedom for those who did not wish to be controlled--evolved, "progressed" forward to a "new" more "modern" and scientific method of control that satisfied the growing numbers who wished to be controlled. And a system of control was instituted which allowed the good, legitimate controllers nearly unlimited power to control for the good of the majority--those who wished to be controlled. And a new cadre of controllers who no longer were hampered by a Constitution nor the obstacle of having to be elected were created as an adjunct to the growing responsibility of the elected controllers--the regulators. And the people, those who wished to be controlled, began to see the wonders of unhampered power in the hands of beneficent controllers. They were given food stamps, and medical care, and housing, and phones, and unemployment compensations that were constantly renewed, and promises of more and perpetual sustenance, and most wonderful of all, at the expense of the controllers and those who wished not to be controlled.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.



Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread, regardless of their history they all appear pretty intelligent and have moved forward to share their experiences and help others.

-spence

right...criminals sharing their criminal experiences to "help" others....ignore their history....I bet it's tough for those who had family members killed or mamed to ignore their history


William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born December 26, 1944. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group[2] that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (ncluding police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

Obama and Ayers had a very close relationship...Obama has many "mentors" and none of them seem to like America very much and all seem to share radical leftist-marxist(self-described) views which they've spent their lives "sharing"......


I'll agree that they're "pretty intelligent"...but then again....so are most serial killers and many other criminals(regardless of their history)...so I'm not sure how that matters

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It's a nice quote by Heinlein--good writers are so able to express the most "basic criteria" in the simplest, most direct, and nearly indisputable way. Sooo . . . since the division being defined is political, we're assuming that we're speaking in the context of some form of government. And government, by definition, assumes some degree of control of people. So the distinction between the two types of people, those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire, is one of degree. Or else we have to assume that those who have no such desire really are absolutely against control, in which case they would be apolitical and not part of Heinlein's political division--they might be considered anarchists, but anarchists are such a small fraction of the human race that the division between anarchists and controllists would be so heavily weighted toward the latter that the distinction would have little to no relevance.

Now, the question is begged, does the group who want people to be controlled include those who want to be controlled as well as those who want to be the controllers? I think they must go together otherwise the concept of control can only work by force. Those who want to control must also, necessarily, want to be in a small minority otherwise dispersing power among a majority over a minority would create an unmanageable conflict among the controllers who would struggle to control each other as well as controlling those who want to be controlled. So a relatively small elite cadre of rulers must persuade their followers who wish to be ruled that they are capable of doing so in a beneficent way that provides the greatest good for the greatest number (those who want to be controlled).

Given that control works best when there is agreement between controllers and the controlled, and given that there are, if the division is meaningful, almost as many or more who have little to no desire to control or be controlled, there must be methods to peacefully institute governance. There must be . . . oh, right . . . laws by which all abide. How then do we get EVERYBODY to agree between controllers and controlled?

Hmmm . . . the American Founders hashed it out a couple of times after fighting for such a concept, and came up with an accommodation among those who seek power, those who wish to be controlled, and those who have no such desire--The Constitution. It allowed those who seek power a limited scope to do so, and allowed those who wished not to be controlled a great degree of freedom to live with limited control and controls of their choice.

It worked for a while. But as time went on, those who wanted to control saw too much disorder in this form of government and that it gave away unbridled power to those who were not elected controllers. So they persuaded their counterpart, those who wished to be controlled, that the Constitution was an obstacle to their relationship, and that it allowed the good people who wished to be controlled to be oppressed by illegitimate controllers. The others, those who had no hankering after control or being controlled, became outnumbered. And, understanding that the law which enabled all to cooperate required acquiescence to the courts of that law, which had been co-opted by the controllers, they reluctantly gave way and became marginalized, ridiculed as backward, outdated. And the form of government--limited enough to allow freedom for those who did not wish to be controlled--evolved, "progressed" forward to a "new" more "modern" and scientific method of control that satisfied the growing numbers who wished to be controlled. And a system of control was instituted which allowed the good, legitimate controllers nearly unlimited power to control for the good of the majority--those who wished to be controlled. And a new cadre of controllers who no longer were hampered by a Constitution nor the obstacle of having to be elected were created as an adjunct to the growing responsibility of the elected controllers--the regulators. And the people, those who wished to be controlled, began to see the wonders of unhampered power in the hands of beneficent controllers. They were given food stamps, and medical care, and housing, and phones, and unemployment compensations that were constantly renewed, and promises of more and perpetual sustenance, and most wonderful of all, at the expense of the controllers and those who wished not to be controlled.

yes....who is controlling the "controllers"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.

First...what's the point of this thread? How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?

Kathy Boudin was sent to prison and served her term for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?

I don't believe Bill Ayers was ever convicted of murder or terrorism. Certainly he was a radical back then, but did his actions ever actually kill anyone? I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone. Also, it's worth noting that his actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America...it was what they saw as our complicit engagement in an unconscionable war. Had he been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way.

Ayers wasn't Obama's political mentor, that's been debunked as an election year myth.

Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him", he was invited to speak at The Evergreen State College. He wasn't chosen by the college, he was chosen by the GRADUATING CLASS of 1999 no less! While I can't say if he's guilty or innocent it does appear there's a significant amount of information that contests he had a fair trial.

Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread, regardless of their history they all appear pretty intelligent and have moved forward to share their experiences and help others.

As usual Jim, you've gotten pretty much every aspect of your post wrong...worse...that you casually throw out the T word without any real regard for context or meaning speaks volumes.

-spence

"what's the point of this thread?"

Ah yes. When you know a conservative is correct, you respond with "so what?"

"How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?"

This news came out this past week.

"for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?"

Now THAT, Spence, is world-class spin. You neglected to point out that she assisted in the murder of 2 police officers and a security guard. Are details, shmee-tails.

I have no problem with parole and rehabilitation. But that's not the same thing as HONORING someone with a post educating children.

"I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone."

Spence, please point out where I said Bill Ayers was a murderer? I did say he was, by his own admission, a leader of the weather Underground, which did murder people.

"Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "

I said he spoke via a video feed, and that is true. Are you literally making up this stuff to refute me?

"Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread"

Yes. Violent, liberal radicals, who are still glorified by your side.

"all appear pretty intelligent "

Based on WHAT? How did you arrive at that conclusion? How do you know Abu Mumia Jamal is intelligent, did you give him an IQ test on death row?


"that you casually throw out the T word"

OK. So according to you, the Weather Underground were not terrorists? Please explain why not.

I don't use that word casually. It is you who refuses to use that word when it appropeiately applies to those who share your ideology.

One of your moset deranged diatribes ever, and that is saying something.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'm sure Jim was listening to some right wing conservative radio program or tv show where they were using this as some sort if propaganda and Jim popped a gasket. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ah, yes. You can't refute anything I said, so you hurl baseless insults. Kudos.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

And according to Spence, I am "casually" using the "t" word (terrorist). Spence doesn't feel that those who bomg public buildings to further a political cause, are terrorists.

Look the word up in the dictionary Spence.