William Ayers: Actually Dangerous

If Barack Obama’s friend William Ayres was only a terrorist who attempted to overthrow the government, that would perhaps mean no more than that Barack is a trend-chasing Leftist: I know plenty of those in academia.

That Ayres is an institutionally connected member of AERA, a well respected professional and academic research association I belong to, is troubling:

Amicable Collisions: Hiding in plain sight
Ayers’s influence on what is taught in the nation’s public schools is likely to grow in the future. Last month, he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. Ayers won the election handily, and there is no doubt that his fellow education professors knew whom they were voting for. In the short biographical statement distributed to prospective voters beforehand, Ayers listed among his scholarly books Fugitive Days, an unapologetic memoir about his ten years in the Weather Underground. The book includes dramatic accounts of how he bombed the Pentagon and other public buildings.

His works are required texts in education school courses all over the country and he’s much in demand as a lecturer in many of those schools. Plus, he’s a pioneer in the progressive education publishing industry, encouraging books by many other authors that show teachers how to bring “social justice” themes — i.e. the evils of American racism and imperialism – into their public school classrooms.

While American politics is divided between conservatives and liberals, American academia is divided between liberals and Leftists. As much as it pains me to say this as a conservative: the liberals are the only hope we have that the non-profitable areas of Academia stay out of the hands of the Marxists. An Obama administration that does anything to tilt the balance in Academia away from liberals and towards Leftists would be a disaster.

For the good of the academy, vote Clinton.
For the good of the academic, vote McCain.
For the good of the academy, vote anybody but Obama.

Update: Thanks to Power Line News, for linking to this post. The discussion that follows is nice, referencing 4GW.

25 thoughts on “William Ayers: Actually Dangerous”

  1. Ayres (who has the benefit of actually being a terrorist, thus being a literal “warrior”) is a classic 4GW actor, attempting to influence a population against the State while seeking political office in a powerful institution (the AERA).

    Victory for him will come through the triumph of the Academic Left over Academic liberals. He must not succeed.

  2. “If Barack Obama’s friend William Ayres…”

    Why am I not surprised that you would take the Hannity route by asserting that Ayres actually has an essential part in his campaign, or ties beyond acquaintances for that matter.

    I mean, I could always blow McCain’s connections to Hagee out of proportion similar to how the media has (I am giving McCain the benefit of the doubt as to whether he sought Hagee‘s endorsement, though), but I have learned that it more important to love your candidate of choice more than you hate their opposition.

  3. Is it just me, or are the “Academic left” and “Academic liberals” both equally castrated non-threats? I don’t understand the imperative.

    What will they do? Make useless college students slightly dumber than they already are? Virulent ideas will spread with or without academia — Eugene Debs, Oswald Mosley, and Timothy Leary are all alive and well on the internet.

  4. I’ve been trying to figure out why you didn’t write much about this guy? Ayres is much worse than Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright isn’t bold enough to actually call for violence.

    But it always helps to compare:

    Think about if McCain hung out with a right wing radical from the 60’s? Picture McCain on a community panel George Lincoln Rockwell?

    Also:

    Would George Lincoln Rockwell even be on a community panel? I’ve often wondered why left wing radicals are given more opportunities and benefit of the doubt than right wing types?

  5. Jeffrey,

    I mean, I could always blow McCain’s connections to Hagee out of proportion similar to how the media has (I am giving McCain the benefit of the doubt as to whether he sought Hagee‘s endorsement, though),

    Hagee is not a terrorist. Ayres is.

    but I have learned that it more important to love your candidate of choice more than you hate their opposition

    Isn’t it wiser to have policy preferences that indicate your positions for and against issues & qualities, and work from there?

    Regardless, nothing hateful about recognizing that patterns persist, and a man who hangs actively admires academic Leftists may fill relevant political appointments with the same.

    Justin,

    Is your point that social policy does not impact social reality, or that social research does not impact social policy?

    Seerov,

    I am unsure of Obama’s relationship to Wright, other than Obama supporters describe Wright as his friend. [1]

    In contrast, Wright is the Obama family pastor who prayed with him the night before he announced.

    Curtis,

    How is your comment useful for me?

    [1] http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/daley_dont_tar_obama_for_ayers.html

  6. My point is that their impact is something they themselves cannot predict, and thus the subject of further “social research.” My point is that technocrats talk a good game but the human race has been growing out of everyone’s control for centuries now despite all attempts, from idealists of any persuasion, to make the monkeys behave.

    My further point is that at least Zbigniew Brzezinski has actual power, and at lest Norbert Wiener has actual numbers to back him up. People like William Ayers in the soft sciences are just writing persuasive literature.

    He will lose his tenuous grip on power when a new intellectual fad replaces him. Things move too fast in 2008 for another Karl Marx.

  7. Last month, he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. Ayers won the election handily

    Dan,

    This suggests that Obama did not single-handedly put Ayers there.

    You yourself, you have admitted, belong to AERA. Yet rather than offer an analysis of Ayers’ scholarly books, many of which are purportedly “required texts in education school courses”, you have fallen into the trap of “tdaxp nothingness” [1] of throwing purposely vague yet loaded labels like “liberal” and “leftist” around, concluding with the exhortation to “save the academies” by not voting for Obama.

    That’s not a terribly scientific way to go about it.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/15/john-mccains-obamanian-nothingness.html

  8. “I am unsure of Obama’s relationship to Wright, other than Obama supporters describe Wright as his friend.”

    Obama is a still a member of the same the same Black Liberation Theology driven church.

  9. “My further point is that at least Zbigniew Brzezinski has actual power, and at lest Norbert Wiener has actual numbers to back him up. People like William Ayers in the soft sciences are just writing persuasive literature. ” (-Justin Boland)

    Isn’t Brzezinski also in the “soft sciences?”

  10. Justin,

    People like William Ayers in the soft sciences are just writing persuasive literature.

    So you are arguing that social research does not impact social policy?

    Alternatively, are you arguing that social policy does not impact social behavior.

    In my mind, there’s a clear chain here that explains a non-trivial amount of variance. So, social research alters the direction of social policy, and social policy alters the direction of social behavior.

    It strikes me that if you want to assert that Ayres is a “castrated non-threat,” you need to attack something in that causal chain.

    Curtis,

    This suggests that Obama did not single-handedly put Ayers there.

    You yourself, you have admitted, belong to AERA. Yet rather than offer an analysis of Ayers’ scholarly books, many of which are purportedly “required texts in education school courses”, you have fallen into the trap of “tdaxp nothingness” [1] of throwing purposely vague yet loaded labels like “liberal” and “leftist” around, concluding with the exhortation to “save the academies” by not voting for Obama.

    That’s not a terribly scientific way to go about it.

    Obviously Obama did not put Ayres there. The point is that Ayres and his wing of Leftists are both powerful enough within AERA, and that Obama has enough sympathy for them, that come an Obama administration, it’d be reasonable to expect federal grant money to be directed in such a way to support those respected elements within AERA that the Administration is sympathetic towards.

    I imagine that evolutionary biologists would be equally spooked if the current President hung around creationists. And because he does, they are.

    Unlike in the rest of American society, the term “liberal” in my experienced is typically used as a term of respect within academia. Leftists often refer to themselves as “Critical Theorists,” but I decided that term was too obscure for me to use in the initial post. While liberals are often scientific researchers who share hopes & aims one would expect them to, Leftists / Critical Theorists see science as a political machine that reinforces the hegemony of white supremacy / capitalism / &c.

    The real distinction between liberals and the Left is one of the most eye opening moments in my life. As a great professor of mine once said, “I am a wine-drinking, Kerry-voting, atheist liberal Democrat, and there is research here I cannot do because of political correctness,” by which he meant the influence of the Leftists / Critical Theorists.

    Purpleslog,

    Will I ever learn to type! I meant, “I am unsure of Obama’s relationship to Ayres, other than Obama supporters describe Ayres as his friend” !

    Seerov,

    Isn’t Brzezinski also in the “soft sciences?”

    Indeed. Political science and educational theory impact publc policy in different ways, but they are both important. (Indeed, American social science was initially pushed by the Progressives of the turn of the last century because of the opportunities it provided for social control.)

  11. “I mean, I could always blow McCain’s connections to Hagee out of proportion similar to how the media has (I am giving McCain the benefit of the doubt as to whether he sought Hagee‘s endorsement, though),

    Hagee is not a terrorist. Ayres is.”

    Of course Hagee isn’t a terrorist, he is just another anti-semitic Christian Zionist that is oh so anticipating such an Armageddon scenario that involves the Jews being threatened with death if they don’t convert to Christianity, and that is probably the reason that they are the only religious minority that Hagee cuts some slack.

    Though that wasn’t my original point with the above quote. I wasn’t asserting who and who isn’t a terrorist, I was asserting that there is hardly a relationship between the two.

  12. I agree with you that Hagee is not a terrorist.

    If you can provide evidence that Hagee is antisemitic (that is, is opposed to Jews as a race) I’d love to hear it.

    I’ve noticed this trend on the left that supports a religious test for public office [1]. I do not agree with this trend. Rather, someone’s theological beliefs are important insofar as they effect public policy. Thus, if someone has end-times beliefs that lead them to support Israel (as Hagee does), good. Likewise, if someone has christological beliefs that make them believe that the United States created HIV (as Wright does), bad.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/19/should-there-be-a-religious-test-for-office.html

  13. Hagee is far from anti-semetic, he’s a huge cheerleader for Israel and the Jewish people. Take the time to actually listen to the man. I have to say, his armageddon timeline presentation is alternately compelling and hilarious at 3 am.

  14. Regaridng Hagee, Half Sigma [1] links to this piece by Shmuel Rosner [2]:

    We as Jews are supposed to judge men not by what they believe, but by what they do. For Jews, actions are what matter.

    What is far more important than how Pastor Hagee explains the past Holocaust is what he is doing to prevent a second Holocaust. Pastor Hagee has done more to defend Israel and the Jewish people than anyone else I know. He has literally devoted his adult life to the effort to combat anti-Semitism and build support for the Jewish State. Despite death threats from anti-Semites, despite protest marches from neo-Nazis, and despite the shrill complaints of suspicious Jews, Pastor Hagee has persevered in his work on our behalf.

    Do we really want to treat our friends like this? Do we really want to ignore years of devoted labor on our behalf because of a few controversial statements? I, for one, do not.

    [1] http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/05/israeli-journalist-defends-reverend-hagee.html
    [2] http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/05/israeli-journalist-defends-reverend-hagee.html

  15. Dan,

    As a race, no, but he is still anticipating a prophecy that involves “religious” Jews being forced to convert, which is just as reprehensible and bigoted.

    Justin

    “Hagee is far from anti-Semitic, he’s a huge cheerleader for Israel and the Jewish people.”

    Yes, because they are pawns in his eyes. He is trying to self-fulfill a prophecy so he can selfishly get his land of milk and honey.

  16. I find theological tests for office to be reprehensible and bigoted.

    Those like Jeffrey demand that politicians associate with those with the current theological beliefs. I on the other hand believe that theological beliefs are non-political, and so look only to how those beliefs impact policy.

  17. “Of course Hagee isn’t a terrorist, he is just another anti-semitic Christian Zionist” (-Jeffery James)

    You’re kidding right? Hagee actually believes that its a sin not to defend Israel and most Evangelicals consider Jews to the “chosen people.” Hagee also supported the bombing of Arab Christians in Lebanon by Israel. I think you can call Hagee a lot of things (Fundamentalist, close minded) but “anti-Semite” is not one of them. One of his hobbies is to constantly apologize to Jews for every and all supposed acts of anti-semitism through history by Christians.

  18. Jeffery James, I like how you admit you’re wrong, then somehow find another way to blame Hagee.

    Speaks volumes about where you’re coming from.

  19. “I find theological tests for office to be reprehensible and bigoted.

    Those like Jeffrey demand that politicians associate with those with the current theological beliefs. I on the other hand believe that theological beliefs are non-political, and so look only to how those beliefs impact policy.”

    Of all people, you would be the last that I would expect to straw man me by asserting that I am criticizing Hagee in order to put McCain in a corner. If you read my words carefully, you would know my criticism of Hagee is mutually exclusive, a completely different topic that has nothing to do with McCain, and I though I made it pretty clear that I thought there wasn’t much a relationship between Hagee and McCain to begin with.

  20. “Speaks volumes about where you’re coming from.”

    Yeah, I took the term anti-Semitism out of context and then reemphasized what I was trying to get at in the first place. So where exactly am I coming from?

  21. The most entertaining stuff with Hagee is what I call his “geopolitical-biblical-futurism.” I see it sometimes if I’m still up at 6 in the morning and its very entertaining.

    It goes like this:

    Basically, the war for Armageddon is coming, and if we don’t attack Iran, something really bad is going to happen to Israel.

    Sometimes Hagee’s son fills in. He doesn’t get to do the geopolitical-Biblical-futurism. He just does the regular sermons.

    Most Jews are actually quite distrustful of Hagee because they think he’ll turn on them one day. They’ve seen Christianity get pissed off at them a few times in history and would rather not have to deal with it.

  22. Ayers was born into a wealthy, capitalist family and has had everything handed to him on a silver platter. He’s a spoiled brat. It is disgusting how such ingrates get handed so many benefits from our society. He could never survive in a real capitalist nation so, of course he is going to espouse his marxist dribble. I only wish such scum would be deported to North Korea where he can enjoy the fruits of his idealogy and eat tree bark for food.

    Now he is a “professor” brainwashing susceptible teenagers and young adults. I saw such leftists salivating for control of the educational system in the 70s when I went to UCB. How did he get such a sought after position? From the leftists who control the institution.

    It is amazing to me how such a pig is not in jail. If he had done such things in his beloved China, who would have been sentenced to death, which deep down is what he believes he deserves. I think he hates himself and rightfully so.

  23. Seerov,

    Well said.

    The former (and now abandoned) attempt by Obama operatives to find an equivalence by Wright (whose rants Obama regularly subjected his children to) to Hagee (someone who endorsed the man) is as funny and empty as the Obama’s camp’s recent attempts to attack Palin as being inexperienced.

    Really, the more Obama says “You need experience to be President,” the happier I am! (I think zenpundit agrees [2]).

    par1,

    Marxist’s like Bill Ayres are one of the main reasons that we need to support the destruction of the ivory tower. [3]

    It’s a shame.

    [1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes_analysis
    [2] http://zenpundit.com/?p=2844
    [3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/01/28/the-quantitative-revolution.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *