The Real Bill Ayers

[JaneBlow]

I wish he would have done this sooner, but he is probably right that there was no chance for rational discussion during the campaign.

======================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/opinion/06ayers.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1228673273-3SH7URW+xd/NOR7C7lg4rg

The New York Times

December 6, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
The Real Bill Ayers
By WILLIAM AYERS


IN the recently concluded presidential race, I was unwillingly thrust upon the stage and asked to play a role in a profoundly dishonest drama. I refused, and here’s why.

Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: “What do we really know about this man?”

Secondary characters in the narrative included an African-American preacher with a fiery style, a Palestinian scholar and an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” Linking the candidate with these supposedly shadowy characters, and ferreting out every imagined secret tie and dark affiliation, became big news.

I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing.

With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion. Rather than step clumsily into the sound-bite culture, I turned away whenever the microphones were thrust into my face. I sat it out.

Now that the election is over, I want to say as plainly as I can that the character invented to serve this drama wasn’t me, not even close. Here are the facts:

I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.

The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.

Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.

I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. And for the past 40 years, I’ve been teaching and writing about the unique value and potential of every human life, and the need to realize that potential through education.

I have regrets, of course — including mistakes of excess and failures of imagination, posturing and posing, inflated and heated rhetoric, blind sectarianism and a lot else. No one can reach my age with their eyes even partly open and not have hundreds of regrets. The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long.

The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret.

We — the broad “we” — wrote letters, marched, talked to young men at induction centers, surrounded the Pentagon and lay down in front of troop trains. Yet we were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10-year war.

The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.

President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.

Demonization, guilt by association, and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let’s hope they never will again. And let’s hope we might now assert that in our wildly diverse society, talking and listening to the widest range of people is not a sin, but a virtue.

William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is the author of “Fugitive Days” and a co-author of the forthcoming “Race Course.”

[J.Q. Citizen]

More absolute male bovine excrement Jane.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who can try to minimize what Ayers did, who will not face the fact that Ayers and Dohrn were domestic terrorists despite his pathetic claims to the contrary is a WASTE of human protoplasm.

Anyone who can dedicate a book to Sirhan Sirhan is a waste. The ONLY difference between Ayers/Dohrn and McVeigh was the degree to which they achieved what they would consider success.

Ayers should have been shunned by all of society for what he did. Period. Paragraph. End of story.

[McKinneyRes]

JQ Citizen,

Can you atleast admit that the William Ayers, story was blown way out of perportion?
I can appreciate that a person made mistakes in their lives and can admit them.
Thankfully, commen sense won out!!

[JaneBlow]

More absolute male bovine excrement Jane.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who can try to minimize what Ayers did, who will not face the fact that Ayers and Dohrn were domestic terrorists despite his pathetic claims to the contrary is a WASTE of human protoplasm.

Anyone who can dedicate a book to Sirhan Sirhan is a waste. The ONLY difference between Ayers/Dohrn and McVeigh was the degree to which they achieved what they would consider success.

Ayers should have been shunned by all of society for what he did. Period. Paragraph. End of story.

J.Q., your hatred blinds you to rational thought.

[chipper]

With all due respect Jane and McKinneyRes, supporting the President-Elect and saying that his ties with Bill Ayers do not affect or characterize his political and social ideology is one thing, but taking this man for his word and believing Ayers to be just another American citizen is another.

Jane: what is J.Q's hatred for? I think he has made it clear that he doesn't hate President-elect Obama. Distrust--maybe. But hate? no. If his hatred is for terrorism, then perhaps this is a laudible attribute. Ayers was part of an organization that decided their ideology about a war in a part of the world they had never ventured to was more important than even the lives of those who could have been collateral damage. It is one thing to forgive such a man, but I have not been given significant evidence that he has been changed to justify forgetting his actions. A personal testimony written by a college professor (undoubtedbly well-versed in the art of rhetoric and persuasion) doesn't exactly speak volumes about the man and we would be foolish to take him at his word.

McKinneyRes: I really don't think his story was blown out of proportion. Ayers made decisions as an adult that resulted in destruction of public property and of the lives of those he worked with, and he can't just expect the public whom he willfully endangered to forget this. I understand your argument that his ties to O'bama may have been blown out of proportion, but I do not believe for one second that this man's actions should be mollified or defended. If he had done the same thing today that he did during Vietnam, would you be so eager to downplay this? If, God forbid, someone bombed the Pentagon today, would we really believe his actions to be "blown out of proportion?" William Ayers made a series of decisions forty years ago which, whether he likes it or not, he is going to have to live with for the rest of his life. The stigma which follows him is earned, not fabricated.

[JaneBlow]

Jane: what is J.Q's hatred for?

Anyone who is not "sufficiently hostile" (in his opinion) towards a man that in his youth (40 years ago) was so repulsed by a war that cost 3.5 million lives, he decided to take aggressive action to stop it (even though his actions ended up harming no one).

He finds these people to be "a WASTE of human protoplasm" and declares that their "insufficient hostility" towards Ayer's is equal to being his lover.

If he had done the same thing today that he did during Vietnam, would you be so eager to downplay this?

It is the guilt by association that I would downplay. If he did this today, I wouldn't assume that everyone he met with 40 years from now condoned his actions.

[McKinneyRes]

McKinneyRes: I really don't think his story was blown out of proportion. Ayers made decisions as an adult that resulted in destruction of public property and of the lives of those he worked with, and he can't just expect the public whom he willfully endangered to forget this. I understand your argument that his ties to O'bama may have been blown out of proportion, but I do not believe for one second that this man's actions should be mollified or defended. If he had done the same thing today that he did during Vietnam, would you be so eager to downplay this? If, God forbid, someone bombed the Pentagon today, would we really believe his actions to be "blown out of proportion?" William Ayers made a series of decisions forty years ago which, whether he likes it or not, he is going to have to live with for the rest of his life. The stigma which follows him is earned, not fabricated.

Chipper, no doubt William Ayers was a fool for his actions.. But, the fact that he sat on a Non-profit Board of Directors and had a campaign fundraisor for Obama is not a big deal.
Do you think McCain did a background check on every donor, and person envolved with his campaign. Of course they did not.. They both took the money and donations of time..

I think a bigger deal should have been made about McCain, cheating on his wife after he was imprisoned for years and his first wife was raising their children. In my eyes, his lack of moral judgement wipped away the honor of him serving his country!! He sure did not do the right thing for his family and kids!!

[chipper]

Chipper, no doubt William Ayers was a fool for his actions.. But, the fact that he sat on a Non-profit Board of Directors and had a campaign fundraisor for Obama is not a big deal.
I think you missed my point; or maybe I missed your point; either way, we're having trouble communicating! :)

Do you think McCain did a background check on every donor, and person envolved with his campaign.
No, I don't. And, since the election is over, I won't pursue this any further.

I think a bigger deal should have been made about McCain, cheating on his wife after he was imprisoned for years and his first wife was raising their children.
Again, I guess I failed at getting my intended message across. I'm not trying to dig up dirt on President-elect Obama nor am I calling into question his decision to associate with Ayers. I just fervently disagree with Jane's title of this forum as "The Real Bill Ayers."
Also, I think we would do well to let Senator McCain's private life alone until it raises a pertinent question regarding his capacity and/or merit to serve as Senator for the state of Arizona.

In my eyes, his lack of moral judgement wipped away the honor of him serving his country!!
You are right, Senator McCain made some poor decisions when he was younger, but he owns up to them and accepts full responsibility for them any time they are brought up. Personally, I think this shows strong character in the present.
Also, I sincerely hope that you have sacrificed for your country, McKinneyRes. Otherwise, I find it hard to stomach such contempt for his sacrifice. Senator McCain spent 5 years of his life in a distant, dank, and seemingly-hopeless Vietnamese P.O.W. camp. He knows sacrifice and honor the likes of which most of us will only ever dream of.

Don't let the political mudslinging of the past few months confuse you as to the nature of Senator McCain's sacrifice.

[chipper]

...a man that in his youth (40 years ago) was so repulsed by a war that cost 3.5 million lives, he decided to take aggressive action to stop it (even though his actions ended up harming no one).
Be careful, Jane, you are coming dangerously close to defending Ayers' actions.

"Agressive action." haha. You make him sound like some sort of ardent District Attorney or a politician with an ambitious legislative agenda.
Jane, the guy designed and helped plant more than 20 BOMBS. That's not agressive action, that's terrorism. What was the intent of such bombs? To frighten the government into submission.

And perhaps you would like to tell the last part of that comment to the tombstones of the three people who were killed by the nail-bomb which Ayers designed (or, better yet since these fatalities were not innocents, tell it to the people for whom the nail-bomb was intended).


It is the guilt by association that I would downplay. If he did this today, I wouldn't assume that everyone he met with 40 years from now condoned his actions.
I just hope that if someone did this today, he wouldn't be walking the streets in 40 years--nor would he be instructing students at a public university behind the title of "professor emeritus."

Again, my problem is with Ayers, not President-elect Obama, in this forum. "The Real Bill Ayers" is simply not coming through a single article in the NY times. His history is simply too dark to believe what he says at this point.

[J.Q. Citizen]

J.Q., your hatred blinds you to rational thought.

What rational thought Jane? Are you suggesting that due to the passage of time, I should be willing to negate what Ayers did? If, and it's big if, Ayers had shown some kind of remorse, I might have been willing to be tolerant of him and I definitely wouldn't have held it against Obama for consorting with him. But seriously, what rational thought are you accusing me of being incapable?

You do realize, I hope, that Ayers friends who died in the explosion of that bomb were building a pipe bomb don't you? Those are not designed to hurt buildings. They are designed to kill and maim PEOPLE. Furthermore, I don't care what the scumbucket has to say, I've heard interviews of his victims as well as informants who infiltrated the group. Ayers set firebombs at the home of a judge. He set the bombs at both doorways as well as under the family car. There were children in the house. The fact that they were fortunate enough to escape with their lives does absolutely nothing to minimize the heinous nature of the crime. When it was point out that one of his bombs, which didn't get set, was next to a restaurant and would therefore endanger people, he said something to the effect that "there are always casualties in a revolution."

You should have let this sleeping dog lie Jane. This has nothing to do with Obama. I don't believe that Ayers has modified his opinion of America, I believe he has simply changed the method by which he would go about destroying it. I have NO tolerance for terrorism Jane, even moreso in the context in which Ayers' crimes were committed. So, if is your contention that my rational thought should include justifying the inclusion of Bill Ayers in a list of Homo Sapiens then I suspect you're going to have a difficult time. In fact, only slightly less difficult than if you were say, a 40 year old male who wanted me to be understanding about why he had recently raped my teenage daughter. But more difficult than OJ would have of convincing he hadn't committed a double murder.

[JaneBlow]

Be careful, Jane, you are coming dangerously close to defending Ayers' actions.

I agree with you, Chipper. Aggressive action is not an appropriate term to use. I don't mean to downplay the wrongs Ayers committed. His actions were despicable and he was despicable.

I admit that my frustration over the millions of innocent people killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan make it difficult for me to be "sufficiently hostile" to someone who let that same frustration push them over the edge. Which may be the reason my focus, when reading the article, was more on Ayer's point about guilt by association than his excuses for his behavior.

"The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it."

I appreciate your comments, Chipper. You made me think about the article more objectively. I shouldn't have lazily used the article title for the title of the forum. I can see how that suggested that I see Ayer's in the same light he sees himself. In reality, this article which calls Ayers thuggish, Vainglorious, Egomaniacal, Staggeringly irresponsible and illogical is closer to the truth (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing/388681?rel=hp_picks).

Still, I am disgusted by the guilt by association frenzy. I think we all need to be more like scientists and require real evidence to support our beliefs.

[JaneBlow]

What rational thought Jane?

Any rational thought, J.Q.

[J.Q. Citizen]

But, the fact that he sat on a Non-profit Board of Directors and had a campaign fundraisor for Obama is not a big deal.


I think Chipper did an excellent job of responding to the rest of this but this is the part on which I would like to focus. I hold the people of Chicago just as culpable for allowing Ayers to escape the consequences of his actions, thereby rising to something resembling prominence, as I do Obama for being willing to be in the same room with the man. I seriously do not understand why this man is not living in a box under a bridge somewhere. He should have spent the remainder of his life going up to people with obviously brand new watches only to find out that when he asked for the time, the new watch was suddenly broken.

[J.Q. Citizen]

His actions were despicable and he was despicable.


So tell me Jane, exactly what has transpired that allows you to accept Ayers as "was despicable" rather than "is despicable"???

[J.Q. Citizen]

Any rational thought, J.Q.
Give me a break Jane. If you're going to accuse me of engaging in irrational thought then please provide examples of exactly what you think qualifies.

[JaneBlow]

So tell me Jane, exactly what has transpired that allows you to accept Ayers as "was despicable" rather than "is despicable"???

I think people can change. Ayers isn't a threat to anyone now and is leading a productive life.

[JaneBlow]

Give me a break Jane. If you're going to accuse me of engaging in irrational thought then please provide examples of exactly what you think qualifies.

Examples:

Anyone who doesn't pass your test of being "sufficiently hostile" is a waste of human protoplasm.

Attending the same meetings as someone is equal to being their lover.

Admitting that Bill Ayers is a human being is only slightly more possible than being indifferent about your teenage daughter's rape.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I think people can change. Ayers isn't a threat to anyone now and is leading a productive life.

Oh...so, exactly what is your personal statue of limitation on terrorism Jane? How long before you would have thought it would be ok for society to accept OJ back into its good graces? If he'd lived, how long before Hitler would have been a productive member of society? Ayers may not be a violent/physical threat any more but that doesn't mean he's changed. If he'd changed, he would have professed some kind of remorse rather than attempting to explain away his actions at the same time he said that he wasn't really violent. Oh right...he only made and detonated non-violent bombs. Where exactly do firebombs qualify in the range of non-violent to violent actions?

[J.Q. Citizen]

Examples:

Anyone who doesn't pass your test of being "sufficiently hostile" is a waste of human protoplasm.

Attending the same meetings as someone is equal to being their lover.

Admitting that Bill Ayers is a human being is only slightly more possible than being indifferent about your teenage daughter's rape.

Well excuuuuuuussssseeeee me (he said in his best Steve Martin voice) for having less than zero tolerance when it comes to terrorism.

Of course, I'm kidding...as far as appearing to ask to be excused. I make no apologies for my absolute disdain of anyone who is willing to take or risk innocent human lives in an attempt to make a point or statement and/or further a cause by deliberately spreading fear amongst civilians.

Now, for the record, you pretty much spun that and put some words in my mouth but I'm ok with that because the overall context is fairly accurate. I believe that more specifically I referenced anyone who is not "sufficiently hostile towards terrorism". Perhaps you can enlighten me as to when, where or how terrorism is acceptable in your eyes?

So yeah, I guess if you want to consider my refusal to tolerate a terrorist or terrorism as "irrational thought" on this particular subject then I guess I'll just have to concede your point. By the way, I would be equally repulsed by the bomber of an abortion clinic.

[JaneBlow]

Oh...so, exactly what is your personal statue of limitation on terrorism Jane? How long before you would have thought it would be ok for society to accept OJ back into its good graces? If he'd lived, how long before Hitler would have been a productive member of society? Ayers may not be a violent/physical threat any more but that doesn't mean he's changed. If he'd changed, he would have professed some kind of remorse rather than attempting to explain away his actions at the same time he said that he wasn't really violent. Oh right...he only made and detonated non-violent bombs. Where exactly do firebombs qualify in the range of non-violent to violent actions?

The contribution he is making to society is enough for me. I don't need revenge or an apology -- neither will do any good. Did we get an apology from those who drug us into the Vietnam war or failed to get us out earlier? -- was there sufficient remorse for the millions of people killed and wounded? No -- and had we punished them the way you would have punished Ayers, what would have changed?

"The [Vietnam] war exacted a huge human cost in terms of fatalities, including 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 U.S. soldiers." --Wikipedia

[JaneBlow]

I believe that more specifically I referenced anyone who is not "sufficiently hostile towards terrorism".

No, you criticized Obama for not being sufficiently hostile towards Ayers. He (Obama) falls into that category of humans that is a "waste of human protoplasm, in your judgment."

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to when, where or how terrorism is acceptable in your eyes?

I am hostile towards terrorists. I would have supported prosecuting Ayers to the fullest extent of the law at the time. I just see no point in trying to indict him now and even less point in punishing everyone who speaks to him now.

[J.Q. Citizen]

The contribution he is making to society is enough for me. I don't need revenge or an apology -- neither will do any good. Did we get an apology from those who drug us into the Vietnam war or failed to get us out earlier? -- was there sufficient remorse for the millions of people killed and wounded? No -- and had we punished them the way you would have punished Ayers, what would have changed?

"The [Vietnam] war exacted a huge human cost in terms of fatalities, including 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 U.S. soldiers." --Wikipedia

You think his "contribution" to society is sufficient? Exactly what contribution do you feel he is making? You don't feel he owes any debt to society at all? He owes no penance whatsoever? So, would it be fair to say that since OJ was acquitted on murder charges, that everyone knows he committed, you believe it should have been just been a matter of time and a few good deeds and we should have all just welcomed him into society with open arms? After all, he was really only a threat to his ex-wife. If someone is acquitted of conspiracy to commit murder because of some loophole and, in fact, the murder was prevented, then all should be forgiven after time because they didn't actually kill anyone?

Your question about the Vietnam war is actually quite unbelievable. There is NO moral equivalency. And apparently, you missed my post were I proposed the possibility that the Vietnam War was perhaps the most noble war that we, as a country, have ever fought. But your question is preposterous on its face. Based on your logic, we could and should prosecute all government employees involved in carrying out a death penalty sentence. I guess that would make the governor the lead conspirator? I really don't even know where to start with this. You simply cannot equate the actions of a government with those of an individual. Should we hold prison official accountable for kidnapping? What Ayers did was a crime. A serious crime. Regardless of how you may feel about that war, there is simply no equivalency. I am very curious though as to who you believe should have been held accountable.

[J.Q. Citizen]

No, you criticized Obama for not being sufficiently hostile towards Ayers. He (Obama) falls into that category of humans that is a "waste of human protoplasm, in your judgment."
No Jane, what I said was
Anyone, and I mean anyone, who can try to minimize what Ayers did, who will not face the fact that Ayers and Dohrn were domestic terrorists despite his pathetic claims to the contrary is a WASTE of human protoplasm.
You are mixing and matching my statements. So far and for the most part, I am specifically referring to Ayers himself and I guess I would include Chris Of the Tribe of Tingly Legs Matthews. I do not believe that Obama has shown sufficient hostility towards terrorism as evidenced by his willingness to associate with Ayers. However, I do not believe I have ever said that Obama attempted to minimize Ayers actions. He simply played the "I didn't know card". Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood. He thought Ayers was rehabilitated. The most I ever accused Obama of regarding Ayers was a serious lack of judgment. And it wasn't an isolated incident. Rev Wright fits into the same category although I believe that relationship goes even deeper and is even more significant. But he played the "I didn't know card" again. And now we have Illinois governor Rod Blago-soon_to_be_a_prison_Bubba's_jevich. Once again..."I didn't know". No, I'm not accusing Obama of anything. But surely Jane, even you can admit that the lengthy and growing list of questionable associations that Obama has accrued throughout his rise through the undeniably corrupt Chicago political machine raises some valid issues that need to be addressed. Can't you?


I am hostile towards terrorists. I would have supported prosecuting Ayers to the fullest extent of the law at the time. I just see no point in trying to indict him now and even less point in punishing everyone who speaks to him now.
Are you really Jane? I have seen no evidence of that to the best of my recollection. In fact, if I remember correctly, you even endorse giving either Constitutional or Geneva Conventions rights to the terrorists in Gitmo. And contrary to what you have repeatedly said that I have said, I have never tried to punish Obama for speaking to Ayers. I have repeatedly said that I don't believe the full extent of the relationship was ever revealed nor was it pursued much by the general media as was proven by the poll taken of Obama supporters immediately following the election. You read more into what I said than I ever actually said and/or merged it with comments you had read or heard elsewhere from other people.

The point in indicting him now? He never adequately paid what I consider to be a substantial debt to society for heinous crimes. I don't care what his attitude was about the war, there is no excuse for his actions. I would feel exactly the same way about an abortion clinic bomber who had gotten off on a technicality. If our system of justice happens to fail in the face of overwhelming evidence then I believe it is acceptable, in fact, almost incumbent upon us as a society, to see to it that the guilty person suffers as equivalent a punishment as is legally feasible. So, I'm not advocating that any of us as a civilian kidnap and hold Ayers in a basement but by the same token, I don't believe anyone should have ever offered him a job...or the time of day.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Apparently, the real Bill Ayers is not welcome in Canada. Should be easy enough to find a story on the web but I thought it was kinda funny.