Politicians working for themselves or for their constituency

When Vice-president Joe Biden was a candidate he said that "as a Roman Catholic he was against abortion, but most of his constituencies in Delaware were Pro-choice. So as their senator he supported and voted for Pro-choice legislation" which is the way I think it should be. The right wingers use to make a big deal out of the fact the Bush didn't listen to polls and they say that President Clinton did listen to the polls. Our Government is a representative Democracy Politician are elected to represent their Constituents not themselves. We saw with President Bush not listening lead to one disaster after another not that the people are always right, but as the public becomes more educated and it is up to each person to be as knowledgeable as they can be so they are informed voters. Now the other side of that is should you vote for politicians that changes their positions of issues to please their constituents. I guess it comes down to what their voting record is in congress if you agree with the legislation that they support you vote for them, but you have to understand the issues and now they effect you.

US Stress Test for Banks

The Test results which is more of a report on the finances' of the biggest banks to see if they can stand an even worst down turn of the nation's economy and to the surprise of no one some need more money. The report says they are strong, but need about $75 Billion more dollars of taxpayers' money (most to Bank of America 34.9 Billion). Some investors say the report was too easy and some say it is too hard on the banks and just showed what the inspectors wanted to see, but I think that is true of most if not all business and government reports tend to show what we want them to show. The real question is whether the businesses such as Banks or Auto Companies should be bailed out by taxpayers or allowed to fail or nationalized. Those are the options now bailing them out maybe only a temporary solution and add to the national debt. Allowing business to fail or what is called "Free" market would result in only one company surviving in any one industry and having no comparison. Nationalization which most Americans have a fear of because they are contently being told the government would mean a big bureaucracy which is true in any case of course, but they fail to tell you that your choice is between government bureaucracy and private business bureaucracy. One working for the people and the other for profit (the bottom line) which one do you think has your best interest in mind? If we are going to put our money into banks we might as well run them and keep the credit flowing to our country's business that create jobs here.     

Who is panicking the public?

The talking heads on the TV News were all over Vice-President Biden this week for his comment about Swine Flu the on the Today Show When he said "I wouldn't go on the Subway or on an airplane" . The talking heads who are were talking on and on about how bad the Swine flu is for about week already making it out to be worst than it is as they always do were all over Joe Biden says that he is telling people to stay off Mass transit, but that is not what he said he only said that he wouldn't if he were sick. Joe Biden is the one that took the Trains to and from Delaware – Washington DC for the 30 plus years he was in Congress. I guess they have to have someone to pick on now that Bush is gone and Joe Biden has been elected.

Obama covers up Bush’s Crimes

Barrack Obama says if crimes happen in the pass we should forgive them and move on which proves what I have been saying all along that only a international court can investigate and punish any government leaders for crimes against humanity. The only time the upper class is punished for their crimes is when they lose their power. The cover up of Bush's crimes is nothing new they didn't punish Nixon for his crimes or Johnson for his crimes or for that matter any of the forty-four Presidents. This country talks big about freedom and democracy, but when it comes down to it they are all to willing to give up their freedom for a little safety or to go against all their principles for their 30 pieces of gold. The real question is will Society ever change and I think little by little it is and the mass commutations like the internet hopefully means the world can someday change for the better.

Sacrificing for Democracy

We are always unfortunately hearing about soldiers sacrificing their lives for Democracy and most people are proud of their sacrifice. Yet when it comes time for them to just change (Not Sacrifice) their lives they don't want to and even fight the change. Secretary of Defense Gates in his new budget wants to cut weapon systems designed to fight enemies that no longer exist and change to weapons for today's enemies. Now I think they should make even deeper cuts, but there are whose that want for us to continue to waste money on useless weapons because their state makes a lot of money off them which is what Eisenhower warned us about. Now they could try to change over to what they call now a Green industry, but they are against change even if it would help them and their nation. Where is their sacrifice for Democracy?

Talking about green industry there are people in the Coal and Oil industries that are trying to stop our democracy from moving on to Green energy like wind, solar and hydroelectric because their state (like West Virginia) main industry is mining and they are afraid to change over the wind farms with a little retraining they can make more money in a cleaner and safer industry, but they would have to change. Where is their sacrifice for Democracy?

The same people that want a larger than needed military budget are the same one that don't want to pay for it or even the medical care for the wounded soldiers coming home from the their war. A lot of people who complain about taxes complain most about the income tax, yet the income tax is the fairest of all the taxes people pay because it is based on your ability to pay. Yes! The rich and powerful get away with paying little or nothing at all, but that is because they write the laws and get away with paying little or nothing of any of the taxes. Where is their Sacrifice?

Brown Fat is it the Holy Grail?

We are always looking for a way to eat as much as we want and still have a healthy body. Well sciences may have found that we had it all along in our bodies in what they call Brown fat that burns calories instead of storing them. Scientists say Brown Fat is activated by cold rooms or by injecting epinephrine or adrenaline and ephedra an herbal supplement containing epinephrine can stimulate brown fat said Dr. Rubdolph Leibel, co-director of the Naomi Berrie Diabetes Center. But as Dr Leibel says "It fits the fantasy – I eat what I want and burn it off however that fantasy is still far off". Just our luck born too early yet again.

Zero Tolerance makes Zero sense.

    Ben Franklin once said "whose that gives up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither". Well in a case that has reached the Supreme Court a school in Safford Ariz. Savana Redding then only 13 years old was Strip Searched by two female school employees because she was suspected of having ibuprofen on her. This would be against the School's anti-drug policies. She didn't have any on her and her mother was furious so she got a lawyer and took the school to court.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco ruled the school officials had violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said "It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13 year old child is an invasion of constitutional rights". The argument for the school was that they had the good intensions of the health and safety of their students. They would not only not make their students safe from drugs, but they would put them in danger of authority figures going overboard..

Who Can you Trust?

Right now everyone is angry over the bonuses given out by AIG to their top Executives. AIG CEO Liddy says the bonuses were given under contacts that cannot be broken, but when it comes to contacts with workers well it is alright to brake them. They can try to save the big three auto makers by breaking the Auto Union Contact and cut the Auto workers pay to one third on what is was. Now there are people that want to break the teacher's contacts on how they get paid and fired. Merit pay may sound like the right way to go, but that would mean that teachers would have to teach only what their local school board (who are nothing, but Politicos) no mare science that goes against the bible with this country already so far behind in science merit pay for teachers will insure us falling even farther behind.

    These AIG executives are getting their bonuses for selling insurance contacts that their company had no money to back up in other words they were already taken money under false pretenses. Now I know they sole their money legally, but there should be a law against to protect the consumer. It come down to the old saying that if you have a lot of money already you can steal a lot more and if you are poor can't even keep the money you earn honestly.

Throwing money at financial institutions

The taxpayers of the United States are up in arms about the government giving their money to financial institutions like the Big Banks and investment firms on “Wall Street”. These institutions seem to the operating like the Mafia only less honest about the way they handle our money. The government tries to handle the Mafia by making them obey the rule of law, while setting up rules for financial institutions is considered to be Socialism (Which of course is one of America’s fear words).
What previous administrations went wrong with the “Free Market” is they made it too free everyone has to have rules to live by and all our freedoms are measured. We are all free to drive a car, but we also must obey to rules of the road. Socialism to me just means that Institutions that affects everyone in Society should be managed by that society for the benefit of the whole nation.
What the Obama did wrong was not to have set up rules before throwing money. Maybe they are trying to the thing too fast, but if he get half of what he is trying to do we will be a better society.

Obama weighing his options

Obama seems to be the most thinking president we have ever had, listening to both sides of an issue, and then weighting them to see what the right way to go. He tries to go with facts over Ideology, but need the votes of Congressman and Senators that do give in the Ideology, The issue of hiring and firing Teachers on the bases of merit sounds like the right thing to do and it may even work in some areas, but not in others. If you leave it up to the local School Boards then the Teacher's job becomes a political job and you will have fights over religion and Science, Obama maybe doing the best thing by trying to do everything at once for his time is limited and as we have seen in the past Presidents when we get new president it may be back to nothing getting done. I don't know how he can deal with all he has on his desk and still think things through,but he is our best chance to improve things for all the people of this world.

The International Court of Justice

The Obama administration is afraid to bring Bush and his cronies to Justice because he needs the Republican support for his programs, so we will probably get neither. The international court of Justice is the only place where both sides can be heard and judged correctly. That is the reason America will not recognize an international court too many of our actions would be judged Criminal

Meet the Press 2-1-2009

Meet the press had a round table discussion with all pro-Banking people; there was Steve Forbes, Mark Zandi, and Erin Burnett. No one representing the middle class working person or even small businesses which are generally called “Main Street”, YES Erin there is a Main Street the world does not begin and end with Wall Street. Workers are asked to cut their pay to a quarter of what it once was, but Bankers can get a hundred Million dollars for making the bank one million or in a lot of cases losing the bank money. If the workers have to cut their standard of living so should the bankers. Building low income housing for people with bad mortgages would be a good start. If the Tax payer is going the pay for the loans anyway why do we need a middle man if the Government loans the money to small businesses they will start hiring again and we can get started rebuilding America all of it not just Wall Street

Obama's Stimulus Plan

Obama wanted to be Bipartisan so he watered down his Stimulus Plan with Republican so called “Tax Cuts” that at one time had limited success, but now that we have a Global economy Corporate cut tax cuts would go to China and India or in their pockets as Bonuses. The Republicans are just interested in getting a campaign issue on the Democrats, by making sure the Stimulus Plan does not work. So why don’t the Democrats fix the Stimulus Plan by putting things in that will put people back to work and have the added bonuses of fixing things like the electrical network, roads, bridges, Mass transit and Health care with some tax breaks for small businesses that will spend the money here in the USA

Sen Gillibrand

Sen. Chuck Schurmer says that Gillibrand’s views will change as she gets out into the real world just as his did, but the fact that she thinks Gun-control has something to do with hunting means she is starting a lot further back than he was when he started.

Caroline Kennedy wanted to go into the senate because someone has to pick up the Healthcare torch from her Uncle Ted and she didn’t see anyone else really into it as her uncle is, but she is more like her mother than her father, Jackie was a good person, but not a public one.

The Labor Agenda

The Labor Agenda
Published: December 28, 2008
There is no doubt that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen a labor secretary who could be a transformative force in a long-neglected arena. The question is whether he will let her.Hilda Solis, a United States representative from Southern California, is the daughter of immigrant parents with union jobs. She has been an unfailing advocate of workers’ rights during eight years in Congress and before that, in California politics.
Ms. Solis has been a leader on traditional workplace issues, like a higher minimum wage and an enhanced right to form unions. She also has helped to expand the labor agenda by sponsoring legislation to create jobs in green technology, and in her support for community health workers and immigration reform.
Her record in Congress dovetails with the mission of the Labor Department, to protect and further the rights and opportunities of working people. It also dovetails with many of the promises Mr. Obama made during the campaign, both in its specifics and in its focus on the needs of America’s working families.
The main issue is whether the Obama administration will assert a forceful labor agenda in the face of certain protests from business that now — during a recession — is not the time to move forward.
The first and biggest test of Mr. Obama’s commitment to labor, and to Ms. Solis, will be his decision on whether or not to push the Employee Free Choice Act in 2009. Corporate America is determined to derail the bill, which would make it easier than it has been for workers to form unions by requiring that employers recognize a union if a majority of employees at a workplace sign cards indicating they wish to organize.
Ms. Solis voted for the bill when it passed the House in 2007. Senate Republicans prevented the bill from coming to a vote that same year. Mr. Obama voted in favor of bringing the bill to the Senate floor and supported it during the campaign.
The measure is vital legislation and should not be postponed. Even modest increases in the share of the unionized labor force push wages upward, because nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones that collectively bargain for increases. By giving employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities between executive pay and rank-and-file pay.
The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.
There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.
Another question clouding the labor agenda is whether Mr. Obama will give equal weight to worker concerns — from reforming health care to raising the minimum wage — while the financial crisis is still playing out. Most members of his economic team are veterans of the Clinton administration who tilt toward Wall Street. In the Clinton era, financial issues routinely trumped labor concerns. If Mr. Obama’s campaign promises are to be kept, that mindset cannot prevail again. Mr. Obama’s creation of a task force on middle-class issues, to be led by Vice President-elect Joseph Biden and including Ms. Solis and other high-ranking officials, is an encouraging sign that labor issues will not be given short shrift.
There are many nonlegislative issues on the agenda for Ms. Solis. Safety standards must be updated: in the last eight years, the Labor Department has issued only one new safety rule of its own accord; it issued a few others only after being compelled by Congress or the courts. Overtime rules that were weakened in 2004 need to be restored. To enforce labor standards, the Labor Department will need more staff and more money, both of which have been cut deeply by President Bush.
Only the president can give the new labor secretary the clout she will need to do well at a job that has been done so badly for so long, at such great cost to the quality of

They met in Brooklyn

They met in Brooklyn

In 1929 Jeanette Wilkes Greenwood came to New York from her native Scotland at the time she was just 20 years of age. She came with her two cousins Isabella Nolan who was 18 years of age nicknamed Isa and Margaret Nolan who was 21 years of age nicknamed Maggie. They were sponsored by their Aunt Elizabeth Wilkes (Richards) who they called Aunt Lizzie. She gave them each fifty dollars so they didn’t have to go though Elis Island. They all got jobs as Maids living with rich families in Brooklyn. Jeanette’s friend Betty who also just came from Scotland herself arranged a blind date for Jeanette at Brooklyn’s Coney Island. Jeanette brought herself a new dress with the first wages she earned in America. Once she met this guy who’s name was Hugh Wallace Boyle (he called himself Wallace Boyle) She fell in love a first or maybe second site with the guy. So when her cousin got home sick and went back to Scotland, Jeanette stayed and after dating just a short while marred Wallace in June of 1931. They went on to have three children Wallace Jr, Jeanette Wilkes and finally me, Richard. My mother said if she hadn’t met my father she would have gone back to Scotland with her cousins. So if it wasn’t for that date I would have been born in Scotland and had a very different life.

If Jesus was Just a Man

The message that Jesus and others tried to get across is the same even if he was a man and not a god or a son of god. The existences of god can not the proven or disproved that is up to each person to decide for themselves. Jesus did more than be born then died his message is in what he said in between. The Bible is full of errors both accidental and on purpose, the Bible as we know it comes the 15th century with the coming of the printing press. You can read about this subject in the many books by authors a lot more learned than myself. The thing is what would you change about yourself if there was no God and Jesus was just a very good man. What I hear from a lot of so called Christians is “Jesus is the way to Salvation” which Jesus (if he is a god) would hear as “Me, Me, and Me” The central Message sent down from Generations that came before us is to look after each other no matter how poor or rich or what race or ethic group they may come from. (Do on the others as you would like them to do on to you)

Ancient Mythic Origins of the Christmas Story

Ancient Mythic Origins of the Christmas Story

Valerie Tarico interviews Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He taught at Seattle University for fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is an ordained Presbyterian minister.

Most Americans know how Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25: The Emperor Constantine chose the date because it was winter solstice in the Julian Calendar, the birthday of dying and rising gods like Mithra and Sol. Some people also know that our delightful mélange of Christmas festivities originated in ancient Norse, Sumerian, Roman and Druid traditions - or, in the case of Rudolph, on Madison Avenue.

But where does the Christmas story itself come from: Jesus in the manger, the angels and wise men?

The familiar Christmas story, including the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, is found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Scholars have pointed out that these stories are somewhat disconnected from other parts of these Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. In fact, by the time he is a young boy in the temple, Jesus's parents seem to have forgotten the virgin birth. They act surprised by his odd behavior. There is never any other mention in the New Testament of these incredible events! These stories seem to be an afterthought, written later than the rest of the gospels that contain them.

To make matters more interesting, the stories themselves have inconsistencies and ambiguities - contradictory genealogies, for example. Our Christmas story (singular) is actually a composite.

Or consider the idea that Mary is a virgin. The Greek writer of Matthew quotes Isaiah as saying: "a parthenos shall conceive and bear a child." The Hebrew word in Isaiah is "almah," which means simply "young woman." But the Greek word parthenos can mean either a virgin or a young woman, and it got translated as "virgin." Modern Bible translations have corrected this, but it is a central part of the Christmas story.

That's a lot of added complications. If the rest of the New Testament doesn't refer to these stories or need them, then how did we end up with them? Where do they come from?

One part of the answer comes from Hellenistic culture. (It is no accident all New Testament books written in Greek.) In this tradition, when a man did something extraordinary there was the assumption that he did this because he was different, either divine or semi-divine. They would make up a story about how he came to be divine. Almost all Greek heroes were said to be born of a human woman and a god--even Alexander the Great, Augustus and Pythagoras.
The father typically was Zeus or Apollo. The god would come and sleep with the woman, pretending to be the husband or as a bolt of lightning, or some such. Greek mythology also shows up in the book of Genesis: the gods lusting after the women and coming down and mating with them.

Why were they added to the Christian story?

Jewish Christians - the first Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth. They believed that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Part of their Christology was "adoptionism"--they thought Jesus was adopted as the unique son of God at some time later in life. There were disagreements about when - Mark suggests the baptism, Paul suggests the resurrection.

Over time, gentile Christianity replaced Jewish Christianity. There were Jewish-Roman Wars. The Jewish Christians were marginalized and oppressed. The Gentile branch became dominant. Eventually we get the gospel of John which pushes the sonship of Jesus back to the beginning of time. This writer is at the other end of the spectrum from the Jewish Christians.
But Matthew and Luke think that the Sonship of Jesus began at birth. And they want to tell a story that reinforces this point. Matthew and Luke are the source of the Christmas story as most of us learned it.

Why didn't the writers do a better job of cleaning the contradictions? They did, some. This is called the "orthodox corruption of scripture." (Bart Ehrman article , book) . But it appears that these birth stories were added toward the end, so scripture got frozen before they could get integrated.

I was raised that the bible was the literally perfect, "inerrant" word of God, essentially dictated by God to the writers. What you are saying about the Christmas story sure calls into question this point of view.

Which Bible?! There are thousands of manuscript variations.
Most biblical stories are probably fiction, not non-fiction. They are mythology in the deepest sense of the word. But we need to get beyond issue of whether biblical reports happened in the historical, physical sense to understand what they mean spiritually and mythically.

Ok. Back to Christmas. Of all the images from the Christmas story, the one that people fall in love with most is angels. The Christmas story is full of angels, beings of light. Is this because of the solstice tradition?

Actually it comes from the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish scriptures that were eventually adopted into the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. It also comes from the Jewish literature written between the Old and New Testaments that didn't get into the biblical canon. Some of these are even quoted in the New Testament, for example Enoch, from the 2nd Century BC. It's all about angels.

What are angels in these stories? Who are they?

The Bible calls them the sons of God, the Divine Council. The word used for God in parts of the Hebrew Bible, Elohim, is plural implying a family of deities. Angels are the lesser gods of the deposed pantheon of ancient Israel. They are under the rulership of Yahweh. Together with Yahweh they are part of Elohim, a plural word that we translate "God" in the book of Genesis. Elohim/God says "Let us make humans in our image." Christians understand this to refer to the trinity, but that is a later interpretation. These angels came from the ancient pantheons of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Many of these gods come from stars. There is a strong astral dimension. "Heavenly Hosts" are stars.

The Luke story focuses on one angel specifically: Gabriel. Is he the archangel?
Gabriel is the Angel of the Lord. He is one of two angels who are named in the Jewish canon and the Christian canon outside of the apocrypha: Gabriel and Michael. They are the angels of mercy and judgment. Gabriel means "Strong One of El." He is first named in Daniel.

If you go into an Eastern Orthodox church you have two icons on the north and south. Michael is on the North to fight with Satan who lives there. Gabriel is on the south. He is more like what the angels originally were, which is messengers of the gods. That is what angel means. The idea that God has a special messenger is exactly what we read about in the Middle Eastern mythologies. Each of the earlier gods has his own special messenger. Enki, who becomes Yaweh, has Isimud. The goddess Inana has Ninshubur. Each high god will have an envoy or assistant, who is a lesser god. The angel of the lord is the same thing. The distinction between angels and gods came later.

Is he a star person? Or one of those semi-divine descendents of gods and women?

He is one of the gods who would come down to earth.

Why do you say that?

The offspring of the gods mating with women are called Gaborim--from the same root as Gabriel. In the second century, Gabriel appears in the Epistula Apostolorum. It talks about Jesus and these secret teachings that he gave to his apostles after the resurrection. One of the secrets is that he is actually Gabriel. After Gabriel took on flesh and united with Mary, then he becomes Jesus. The idea that Christ was an angel was extremely popular in the early church. Later we find this really strict separation between humans and angels; between gods and angels. (more)

We have time for just one more favorite Christmas story: The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi.

The Magi are astrologers. They are Zoroastrian priests. Just to the east of the Roman Empire was the Persian Empire, which was Zoroastrian. They see this star at its rising (the better translations don't say in the East). The astrologers paid a lot of attention to this. It is likely that what this refers to was a heliacal rising, which is the first time that a star appears over the horizon during the course of a year. They thought this was a sign of the Jewish messiah. Scholars speculate that they would have been living in Babylon, where there were lots of Jewish merchants. The Jews had been there from the time of the Jewish exile from Babylonia. We have cuneiform records from them.

Are you assuming that this story is historical?

Think of it as a frog and pond. The pond is real, the frog is not. They are fictional stories in a real setting. They don't always get the details of the setting right, but they are fictional characters in real places. The Magi follow their star from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. The author has in mind a real star that would be in front of you in this situation. It would have to be a star in the far southern sky. Remember what I said about the Heavenly Host being stars? The star in Matthew and the angel in Luke are two variants of the same mythology.

My former fundamentalist head is spinning. Is there anything else you'd like to say in closing?

We need to be able to appreciate these stories as myths, rather than literal histories. When you understand where they come from, then you can understand their spiritual significance for the writers and for us.

John McCain a Hero?

In contrast to Ayers, whose acts were at worst tactically misguided, John McCain did engage in terrorist acts, war crimes that in all likelihood killed hundreds if not thousands of poor people in Vietnam. He committed these atrocities in the most cowardly fashion, dropping bombs from a plane thousands of feet above the ground, using the most advanced military technology to slaughter people in an impoverished peasant country. To those who would offer some banality about McCain just being a soldier or serving his country, such defenses are neither true nor legally relevant. McCain volunteered enthusiastically to commit these atrocities, and even if he hadn't the Nuremberg principles had decades before put to rest the excuse that one was just following orders. Indeed, as Robert Richter has reported, General Telford Taylor, American prosecutor at Nuremberg, even offered to help prosecute McCain and other captured pilots for war crimes.

Mr. Ayers would be quite justified in being disappointed with Barack Obama for his cowardice in this whole affair. In keeping with his characteristic unprincipled opportunism, Obama repeatedly called a friend who had helped him in the past "despicable" while characterizing McCain as a "hero" for the infinitely more monstrous crimes he committed. If his old friend, or just acquaintance if that's what he really is, had any sense of decency, Ayers would not be in this position of having to defend himself now.

It's also hard not to see a connection between all of this and the Iraq War. The media and McCain campaign attack Ayers and hold up McCain as a hero in order to further try to rehabilitate the Vietnam War and the American government's murder of several million people in Southeast Asia while also discrediting and ridiculing anti-war opposition. It is greatly to his credit that Ayers defends the anti-war movement in such strong terms in this piece. That Obama went along with trashing Ayers and glorifying McCain is a dark sign about his real position on the Iraq War, a subject on which he has already flip-flopped and proven totally insincere and uncommitted to the anti-war position that won him such enthusiasm among millions of American young people.

There was an unrepentant terrorist in this presidential campaign. Indeed, one who has built an entire career, and a lucrative one at that, solely on the basis of boasting about his terrorist acts. His name is John McCain, and it is time the media stopped treating him as a hero.

— DA, Cambridge, MA

The Real Bill Ayers

The Real Bill 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.”