Bill Ayers: "What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been."
Looking back on a surreal campaign season (In These Times, thanks Ned Sublette)In a robust and sophisticated democracy, political leaders—and all of us—ought to seek ways to talk with many people who hold dissenting, or even radical, ideas. Lacking that simple and yet essential capacity to question authority, we might still be burning witches and enslaving our fellow human beings today. Maybe we could welcome our current situation—torn by another illegal war, as it was in the ’60s—as an opportunity to search for the new.
Perhaps we might think of ourselves not as passive consumers of politics but as fully mobilized political actors. Perhaps we might think of our various efforts now, as we did then, as more than a single campaign, but rather as our movement-in-the-making.
We might find hope in the growth of opposition to war and occupation worldwide. Or we might be inspired by the growing movements for reparations and prison abolition, or the rising immigrant rights movement and the stirrings of working people everywhere, or by gay and lesbian and transgender people courageously pressing for full recognition.
Yet hope—my hope, our hope—resides in a simple self-evident truth: the future is unknown, and it is also entirely unknowable.
History is always in the making. It’s up to us. It is up to me and to you. Nothing is predetermined. That makes our moment on this earth both hopeful and all the more urgent—we must find ways to become real actors, to become authentic subjects in our own history.
We may not be able to will a movement into being, but neither can we sit idly for a movement to spring full-grown, as from the head of Zeus.
We have to agitate for democracy and egalitarianism, press harder for human rights, learn to build a new society through our self-transformations and our limited everyday struggles.
At the turn of the last century, Eugene Debs, the great Socialist Party leader from Terre Haute, Ind., told a group of workers in Chicago, “If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out.”
In this time of new beginnings and rising expectations, it is even more urgent that we figure out how to become the people we have been waiting to be.
the latest
latest episodes
http://www.slate.com/id/1008323/
http://www.slate.com/id/1008160/
"Chatterbox isn't sure he's ever read a memoir quite so self-indulgent and morally clueless as Fugitive Days. (He's certainly never before read one festooned with glowing blurbs from respectable folk like Scott Turow--"a gripping personal account.") "Memory is a motherfucker," begins Ayers, establishing the book's literary tone and unreliability in one compact sentence. Throughout Fugitive Days, Ayers reminds his readers that he's had to omit or change many facts throughout his narrative because they describe actions on his part that are, well, illegal."
"Joe McCarthy in drag" -- haha, love that. Fits perfectly.
The Weather Underground were terrorists. They weren't cool. Ayers may have tried to re-invent himself as a peaceful progressive, but I don't see how that's any different from a Klansman-turned neocon like David Duke. Obama made a mistake in his rather superficial association with Ayers, probably because he was too young to know his former history.
The Weather Underground were terrorists.
So is the US government, by a factor of millions.
Hmph. Sorry, Bill; you lost me at "prison abolition." Will American progressives ever learn to stop slitting their own throats by jumping on ever anti-authoritarian bandwagon that comes their way, no matter how hairbrained (and no matter how guaranteed to pointlessly alienate potential allies?)
My question to Bill is--if it was right to build bombs in reaction to an illegal war 40 years ago, why aren't you building bombs in reaction to an illegal war today? I see the situations as analagous--but then again, I don't have tenure.
I don't think Obama's associations with Ayers, Wright, and the like were errors made in ignorance, but rather simply the sorts of things expected of a Democratic political aspirant in Chicago. To further Mr. Badger's above comparison, they're comparable in their own way to the expectation that Republican presidential candidates visit Bob Jones University -- a sort of ritual comforting to the fanatic base, however horrifying to outsiders.
No, the US government are not "terrorists", even if you think (as I do), that the Iraq and Afghan wars were a bad idea. There is an ambiguous line between "freedom fighters" like the French Resistance and terrorists (both are small powerless groups striking back at a far more powerful foe), it's true, but it isn't hard to distinguish recognized armies (even those of Nazi Germany) from terrorists.
SFCITIZEN, are you a parrot? That was great parroting.
SQUAWK! : "He said his memory was fuzzy! He said his memory was fuzzy!" SQUAWK!
Yes, yes... never heard that quote before [cough]. I suppose that means we can all discount everything the man has to say?
SFCITIZEN, I personally find it refreshing that he's at least honest about his lack of proper memory. I wish more people on the right-wing side would do the same before they started writing their utter bullshit and outright lies without such a disclaimer.
SQUAWK! : "He did things that were... [pause] ... illegal!!! ...and said he couldn't talk about them!" SQUAWK!
Hahaha... that reminds of a certain administration that's finally getting its collective ass kicked out the door soon.
SFCITIZEN, aside from parroting the right-wing agenda squawking points... do you have any original commentary on Ayers perhaps juxtaposed within the times and circumstances he lived in?
Unlike many conservatives who have actually killed scores of people through their actions, support of evil plans and likewise... Bill has come to express at least some regret for his past actions.
Personally, I'm glad someone did something back then. It was a learning experience on many transcendent levels for mankind. Who else in recent history of the world has brazenly stood up in such a way to their own world's most powerful, tyrannical killing machine? We have much to learn from the "results" of that amazing "experiment".
Did the WU make mistakes? Yes, and they readily admit that. Does mankind make mistakes when they go into unknown territory... yes, it's inevitable. Have other generations of activists learned precious wisdom from their mistakes AND accomplishments? Hell yes.
They went into a raw, brand new territory for mankind during the raw, brand new circumstances of the 60's revolutions.
If you don't understand that the Vietnam war was an illegal war that perpetrated murder on a massive scale, then you'll probably never understand Bill Ayers on any level.
I think through their actions (and mistakes), we've learned what to do and what NOT to do and through that wisdom we'll end this illegal Iraq war far quicker than it would have happened otherwise.
SFCITIZEN, could it be that Bill will have indirectly saved many, many lives in Iraq in the end? Can a parrot even wrap its head around such a possibility, I wonder?
DISCLAIMER: I do not support everything that every member or so-called member of the WU did. So you parrots can keep your squawking points (in that regard) to yourselves, thank you.
#7 POSTED BY THE BADGER:
So, are you more comfortable with the term "evil regime" over "terrorists", then?
Yay... another inane "debate" with a conservative over inane semantics that distract from any real worthy debate. [cow rolls eyes]
sigh...
Xeni, Ayers is trying to whitewash his anti-American radicalism, and if you're an Obama supporter, I don't know if it's a good idea to amplify it. It was dumb on several fronts for McCain et. al. to keep hammering on Obama's past association with Ayers, but the fact remains that Obama was never fully candid about it. (Why? Probably because doing so would put him in a no-win situation.) Giving Ayers a spotlight will only remind everyone of that-- and give Obama's opponents a cudgel.
It's awesome that Obama won, and I'd like to see him to implement his ideas. But giving prominence to his noxious past acquaintances and their stale, unreconstructed, ironically reactionary rhetoric-- *Eugene Debs*? I mean, c'mon dude-- will cost the Obama administration important political capital.
#10 POSTED BY W. JAMES AU:
James, throwing out the old, tired "anti-American" bullshit isn't going to help your point whatsoever. Lemme guess... was he also a "socialist" and a "community organizing" "terrorist" as well?
Hahaha... What are you trying to do? Get Bill Ayers elected President now? Hahar!!!
So, are you more comfortable with the term "evil regime" over "terrorists", then?
I'm comfortable with "rogue state".
So, are you more comfortable with the term "evil regime" over "terrorists", then?
While I don't think that the US is an "evil regime", that would be a more meaningful insult than "terrorist", yes. Insults should be meaningful in order to contribute to a discussion. It's just like how Gitmo isn't a "gulag" because it isn't a slave labor camp, which is what gulags were. That doesn't mean that the Gitmo can't be criticized for what it is (a camp for people who haven't been formally charged of a crime).
"The ’60s—as myth and symbol—is much abused: the downfall of civilization in one account, a time of defeat and humiliation in a second, and a perfect moment of righteous opposition, peace and love in a third."
40 years of slander and aspersions about that period -- from repeated media putdowns to rampant political and socio-economic moves so it could never happen again -- can't and haven't erased one central feature: a broad, spontaneous, enthusiastic vision-quest for an American future free of bigotry and toxins and the crap we learned in high school.
While we're taking a long breath now, we can choose to keep doing The Right Thing. Or we can settle, once again, for making do. Postpone for another century the realization of freedom and bravery our anthem promised for all, but could never deliver.
It's harder to Just Keep Shopping this time.
The PE is right: so long as we're a house divided, we're going nowhere. 60s idealists would have felt much less frustrated if more people had listened ... because the possible outcomes are much clearer now. Sadly, America always waits until the choices are few and drastic.
The Us isn't an evil regime any more than Korea or Iran are evil regimes. However the US has definitely committed evil acts.
That doesn't mean that the Gitmo can't be criticized for what it is (a camp for people who haven't been formally charged of a crime).
You sort of forgot to mention torture. Kind of an interesting omission.
#15 POSTED BY NOEN:
Noen, you forgot that "America does not torture". Oh, and "war is peace"... and all that.
from wikipedia:
"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."
Terrorism is the use of terror. It has nothing to do with the size of your army.
The US has most certainly engaged in terrorism.
How about "Terrorist State" ?
I hope you all remember that I tend to be quite progressive when you read this:
Bill Ayers should stfu about how great America is for the EXACT SAME reason that people who have had abortions should stfu about banning them.
that is all.
That doesn't mean that the Gitmo can't be criticized for what it is (a camp for people who haven't been formally charged of a crime).
You sort of forgot to mention torture. Kind of an interesting omission
Frankly I'm far more interested (and worried) in the anti-Constitutional implications of locking up people without charging them of a crime.
Terrorism is the use of terror. It has nothing to do with the size of your army
You're being disingenuous. Nearly every government has "counter-terrorism" units. It isn't at all difficult to understand what they are intended to counter. Of course, they could equally be named "counter-Partisan" units...
No, the US government are not "terrorists", even if you think (as I do), that the Iraq and Afghan wars were a bad idea.
In the past year, the US military has killed several hundred non-combatants, mostly women and children, by repeatedly bombing wedding parties. May they join you in your dreams and speak to you of their torments.
"Nearly every government has "counter-terrorism" units. It isn't at all difficult to understand what they are intended to counter."
this is an example of how the word 'terrorism' has been co-opted to serve our needs and demonize our enemies.
In the past year, the US military has killed several hundred non-combatants, mostly women and children, by repeatedly bombing wedding parties. May they join you in your dreams and speak to you of their torments.
Are you seriously proposing that the wedding parties were attacked to terrorize civilians? Or that the same military which has been known to bomb Canadian allies on occasion screwed up again and should just go home? I agree with the latter.
Jonathan, the phrase "Shock and Awe" says it best.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020116.htm
Ha! I'm surprised it took 25 comments in a discussion about Ayers for someone to post a Chomsky link (thnx Tak). Now we're rolling.
I think it's interesting that we've focused on the man's history and not what he's saying, which is spot-on. One of the greatest goals of any postmodern radical or revolutionary movement is to show people how they can live as actors in history rather than passive participants in a predetermined narrative. I think Ayers expressed this nicely.
As for prison abolition: maybe it's not the most politic phrasing of the idea, but our ever-expanding jail system is a national shame. Make that a national crime. An instrument of terror, even.
Any true political change in this country must include a radical rejiggering of the prison-industrial complex. Right now it seems only the most radical anti-authoritarians address this problem, so it comes accompanied by radical anti-authoritarian rhetoric: "abolition". Hopefully, enough other broadly progressive people don't have Jeff's "crazy commie" filter and can rebroadcast it in a way that doesn't "lose" folks like him. The penal system seems to me to be a huge and continuing threat to true democracy and social progress in this country. It's a shame the idea that it can and must be changed has become so fringe.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Begin,_Carter_and_Sadat_at_Camp_David_1978.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
#23 POSTED BY JONATHAN BADGER:
Are you seriously proposing that's an outlandish observation?
Keep in mind, the U.S. has already used many intimidation tactics on its own civilian activists (and journalists, mind you) in order to squash dissent. See both DNC and especially RNC 2008 accounts of this.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=rnc+intimidation+of+activists&btnG=Search
That also reminds of when the FBI hung a WU member outside of a window... actually, I won't even get into the 60's too much... c'mon now, you must know the USA has a stellar track record of using intimidation to get what it wants (though violence and otherwise).
Right now part of Blackwater's mission in Iraq is to intimidate the masses through violent acts with (near) immunity. I know people involved with Blackwater and they will brag of this "mission". While it is true that the insurgents do fear the Blackwater mercenaries, it also serves to keep the general Iraqi public in fear as well. Who wants to be murdered?
imagine that
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035405.html
good link Cow;
"Sheriffs arriving in unmarked cars told the group that they were looking for "bomb making materials." No weapons or materials for weapons were found. Luci, calling from inside the Convergence Space during the raid, described the scene in a whispered voice, "Right now I'm hiding in a locked bathroom stall. I just peered out the door. It's frightening-- the cops are just standing over people and yelling at them. At least a hundred people are in handcuffs. We didn't do anything, we were just in a meeting!"
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
I thought that I was the only living human being who knows verses two through four.
To bring this discussion back to the topic of the posting rather than unfalsifiable conspiracy theories (which used to be a right wing thing... )
The Republicans tried to dishonestly link the very centrist stated polices of Obama to radicals like Ayers. This failed; the public recognized that Obama believes in capitalism and the basic current social order. While there may be a few nods in the direction of European social-democracy (such as providing national health care) under Obama's watch, anyone expecting him to take moldy radicals like Ayers or Chomsky seriously will be disappointed. There isn't going to be a proletarian revolution.
Yeah but, prison abolition? WTF is that? I know much reform is needed, but abolition?
kuso nai?
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!
Chomsky's a "moldy radical"? How much easier to believe in tedious badger trolls. Just why is it that some find it so easy to hate smart people who read and think a lot? Oh wait...
#34 POSTED BY JONATHAN BADGER
Being vague and dismissive at the same time is kind of a "right wing thing" as well. Please be more specific. What "theories" are you referring to here that you believe we think are mindlessly "unfalsifiable"?
#35 POSTED BY PIPENTA
It's complex and differs from person to person and group to group, but reform seems to be a strong tenet of the movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement
Personally, I think it's got an unfortunate name and probably serves up more misconceptions than understanding through its labeling. Then again, the far left tends to not work too much with high-priced marketing agencies that can package up things nicely for them.
It just takes a mass group of critical thinkers to look beyond the squawking points. Something our current educational system seems to make sure we lack.
On that note... making critical thinking courses a standard requirement up there with Math and History would probably be one of the most positive, revolutionary things you could do in the USA. Down the road, it would solve the majority of the problems we face... everything from the entire economy down to teen pregnancy.
It'd also be nice because we wouldn't have to worry so much about the proper labeling of things and, instead, focus more on the substance of issues and get beyond trite debates about semantics and udderwise.
Yes, Chomsky *is* a moldy radical. He doesn't provide any practical constructive criticism -- the US is just evil in his opinion, and not just Dubya's America -- it's always been that way -- under Clinton, under Carter, under Kennedy.... Compare that to someone like Paul Krugman, who could actually provide useful advice to a president who would listen.
As for "hating smart people who read and think a lot" -- no. I'm one of those evil coastal eggheads with a doctorate that the Republicans hate. I just know I live in a world where the Berlin Wall fell nearly twenty years ago.
Compare that to someone like Paul Krugman
I have it on good authority (Teresa) that Paul Krugman was inspired to become an economist by Hari Seldon. Perhaps our current political nightmare is a Seldon Crisis.
Being vague and dismissive at the same time is kind of a "right wing thing" as well. Please be more specific. What "theories" are you referring to here that you believe we think are mindlessly "unfalsifiable"?
1) That "part of Blackwater's mission in Iraq is to intimidate the masses through violent acts with (near) immunity". I don't like Blackwater either -- they are basically mercenaries -- and I hope that their contracts with the government aren't renewed -- but this idea that they are there (purposely) to intimidate the masses is a conspiracy theory -- and stating that you "know" people in the organization is not particularly convincing in the abscence of names.
2) Blind belief in websites that accuse the police of making raids for no good reason without mentioning the names of any police in question. In serious journalism there would be names of the police officers in charge -- they could be interviewed to learn their side of the story, or indeed if there was a story at all.
#39 POSTED BY JONATHAN BADGER:
Oh, I see... when you were talking about the unspecified "conspiracy theories" earlier you were just offering a pre-emptive strike against your own that you just posited now. How cunning; yet self-defeating! Very dadaist.
Badger, seriously... don't you think if you dug (just a little) into some of Chomsky's writings you could find "any" practical constructive criticism whatsoever?
The US is just evil in his opinion? Great conspiracy theory, but unfortunately it's not "unfalsifiable". Chomsky has stated numerous times things he thinks are great about the USA. (BTW, If you won't bother to look this up and force me to give you the references, I'll do it... but only under the condition you offer Chomsky an apology afterwards.)
Or, in your book... is he simply "anti-American" because he would like to see America become a better country?
Should we start calling recovering alchoholics "anti-Human" because they had to be self-critical and admit they had a problem before they found their solution?
Let's scrub off some mold here and reflect on some Chomsky perhaps...
QUESTION: After releasing your book 9-11, many reporters have said that you are anti-American. Others even suggest that you should pack up and move to another country since you believe America to be a leading terrorist state. How do you respond to such remarks?
CHOMSKY: The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture.
In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.
Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah.
It's interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia, against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are quoting.
The standard description of America in Chomsky's books is "imperialist". Now, with two land wars in the Mideast, the insult seems somewhat fitting -- but when has Chomsky *not* said this was the case? What practical thing would Chomsky have the US do (besides withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan) to *not* be imperialist? Give up Hawaii and Alaska? Give the Amerinds back their land?
What practical thing would Chomsky have the US do (besides withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan) to *not* be imperialist?
Give up Puerto Rico which 'belongs to but is not part of' the US. We have colonies.
#41 POSTED BY JONATHAN BADGER:
This "idea"... haha... Right, don't take my word on it of course. So, I guess you're not familiar with "Order 17" that came out after the “trophy” video? Or perhaps, this guy? http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/An-Iraqi-s-tale-of-woe,3185
You want names? Sorry, none of the cowards I know that work for Blackwater would ever publicly admit what they've told me. But, I'll do one better... Robert Young Pelton. Read his Sadr City interviews from victims of Blackwater (and other private mercenaries).
If you don't understand that this is just outsourcing fear, then you probably think the incredibly well-documented RNC 2008 activist (and journalist) intimidation fiasco was just a "conspiracy theory"... I guess Amy Goodman just hallucinated herself in jail.
Oh, wait...
it'll take a few years, but the last of the bushies will be finally dealt with.
The U.S. government has supported and harbored terrorists whenever it's suited them as well as propped up murderous dictators. People just don't seem to understand the terminology, when they've got some common goals of the U.S. (or the mega corporations who drive the policy) they're called 'freedom fighters' or something similar. When they don't: Terrorists.
yrs, th rgnl Tmthy McVgh!
Neon @47 - when they've got some common goals of the U.S. they're called 'freedom fighters' or something similar. When they don't: Terrorists.
It get's better. When they're calm, it's "Shia Islam", when we've pissed them off they're "Shiites".
It's doubleplus ungood i tell ya.
http://www.coldbacon.com/pics/kliban/bkgenerals.gif
Good Chomsky excerpt, Cowicide.
I've not read a lot of Chomsky, but I have read enough to know that Anti-American is unfair. He just wants America to change a lot of it's policies. Someone can agree with those changes or not, but it's obvious he's trying to be the best man he can be, and wants his country be the best it can be as well.
I think that Ayers is pretty on-point with his article. I'm not even going to touch on how I would choose to accomplish the goals that he put forth differently than him, but what he is saying isn't exactly radical by any means.
While reading this, I got the impression that many here thought that the WU's past actions were bad...
You should start asking yourselves if the recent election would've even been possible without the actions of the sds and the WU in the past.
#53 POSTED BY FAILIX:
Well, many members of the WU regret some of their past actions. Check out the documentary on them with interviews here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6078589535743610981
I do agree with you there to a point. But, it's complex. The thing is, the SDS would have been more effective if the WU takeover didn't resort to violence and scare away/alienate the majority of the SDS membership. Maybe if the WU had taken the SDS into a better direction, we never would have even ended up being in Iraq in the first place? Or, never even seen a horrific Bush presidency?
Aside from that conjecture, I can say the WU "experiment" has tremendously helped modern day activists learn what (and certainly what not) to do today. And, through this... you're right, the WU is very well helping the USA's progress to this day.
Under the circumstances and learning experience of the times, I can't say that many activists today wouldn't be making the same mistakes if you placed them back in the 60's either.
Now, thank God, it's Revolution 2.0
(and we're just getting started)
[evil cow laugh rings out into the distance]
#54. "Maybe if the WU had taken the SDS into a better direction, we never would have even ended up being in Iraq in the first place? Or, never even seen a horrific Bush presidency?"
Neither, I think. Vietnam War activism, like SDS, got rid of the single most important reason there was a movement in the first place - the draft. The all-volunteer army was the game-changer. Imagine how a draft would have stifled, or least contained, Bush's post-9/11 military expeditions. And that's the irony. 60s activism ultimately gave Washington greater freedom to use the military, imo.
Part of what really sunk the republicans was the pompus, smarmy attitude that can be found on any far right website or the entire AM band. It's the sneering contempt that the wingnuts seem to revel in but didn't realize was turning a lot of people off. I don't even really blame the talking heads for that, after all it was SOP for the bush administration.
That's why Obama is such a breath of cool, fresh air. Even if you are ideologically opposed to everything he stands for, it's impossible to hate him. He makes you think he's actually listening and (God forbid) thinking about all options. He's seems persuadable and in turn it makes you more open to what he has to say.
So you can understand my exhausted disappointment when I read the same right-wing tone in attitude on the left.
Case in point:
"So, are you more comfortable with the term "evil regime" over "terrorists", then?
Yay... another inane "debate" with a conservative over inane semantics that distract from any real worthy debate. [cow rolls eyes]
sigh..."
Really? I mean maybe it's just me but I'm kinda sick to death of the whole condescending act. Please, leave the holier than thou schtick to the Hannitys of the world.
But putting aside tone for a moment, it's the content of this one that really got me:
"Personally, I'm glad someone did something back then. It was a learning experience on many transcendent levels for mankind. Who else in recent history of the world has brazenly stood up in such a way to their own world's most powerful, tyrannical killing machine? We have much to learn from the "results" of that amazing "experiment".
You see, the same thing can be said of Bin Laden. Or McVeigh. Blowing shit up and purposely killing innocent people is wrong. Weather it's our own government or someone you feel political kinship with or a nutcase in a cave. It. Is. Wrong.
Once we agree on that the rest is just policy.
Ok, that's my two cents. Thanks for the great website boingboing, keep it up!
#56 POSTED BY DOCTORKNOW:
It's not an act. It's not my schtick. I'm sincerely exacerbated by this crap. I really do look down upon people who distract from real issues by derailing threads into a "debate" about trite semantics. It's an old, tired tactic that needs to die. It gets none of us... anywhere and worse, causes brain rot.
I'm going to sound (and possibly be) condescending here, but you really should do a modicum of research before you open yer yapper. Name one person that was killed by Ayers? The very noteworthy aspect of Ayers' bombings was that he went to great lengths (and risks) to make sure no one was injured or killed by the bombs.
Comparing Ayers to men who rampantly killed innocent children is just plain ignorant.
Also, after you've ventured into some actual research into the content of this thread, please scroll up and read my disclaimer. Maybe read that before you align me with support of all WU actions.
-------------------
Also, here... you can watch and hear what your "Bin Laden-McVeigh-baby killer" demon has to say himself from this interview that just came out today:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/14/exclusive_in_first_joint_broadcast_interview
For those who want to educate yourselves a little bit beyond the babykiller hype... part 2 of the interview is now up here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/democracy_now_exclusive_part_2_bill