Tell Me Something I Don't Know
A lot of people are talking about Bill Ayers' editorial in The New York Times, but it really doesn't add anything new to the debate. It merely reminds us, in case we forgot, that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist.
It is unfortunate that so many people accept not only his claims about what happened (many of which are questionable), but his excuses. No one should be so partisan that, because they believe Ayers was being used to attack Obama, this means what he did was acceptable.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:34 AM
4 Comments:
It doesn't add anything new to the debate about his inexcusable acts. It does add something -- though not much -- to the debate about whether he's a close confidante of Obama's (or vice versa). Wasn't that the point?
Ayers actually rebelled against the country and has now been (actually has been for a while) accepted into the mainstream as just another academic with nutty ideas. This is not unknown in our history, many high-ranking Confederates (who created much more destruction & came far closer to destroying the American nation than any paltry groups since) went on to distinguish careers in the US government and military.
Have to say that fact points to the strength of an open diverse society.
No, Queensguy, that's pretty clearly not the point. (I mean not the point of the editorial. Even if it were, I could still decide to write on what interested me about the piece.) His editorial is a justification for what he did with an afterthought about Obama.
And yes, Anon, we reconciled with some Confederates after the war. We also worked with former Nazis. But if such people publish essays explaining how what they did was right, I would hope people would call them on it.
I didn't mean the point of the article. I meant the point of why anyone would be the least bit interested in what he has to say.
Post a Comment
<< Home