Posted on 10/07/2008 10:50:22 AM PDT by PhilosopherStones
From the statement of educators in support of Bill Ayers:
All citizens, but particularly teachers and scholars, are called upon to challenge orthodoxy, dogma, and mindless complacency, to be skeptical of authoritative claims, to interrogate and trouble the given and the taken-for-granted. Without critical dialogue and dissent we would likely be burning witches and enslaving our fellow human beings to this day...
The current characterizations of Professor Ayers—-“unrepentant terrorist,” “lunatic leftist”—-are unrecognizable to those who know or work with him. It’s true that Professor Ayers participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Really? Hundreds of thousands of Americans plotted to kill soldiers and their dates by blowing them up at a dance? No wonder Barack's ahead in the polls.
The point is not that President-designate Obama is a "close friend" of the unrepentant Ayers, or that he was only eight when his patron was building bombs to kill the women of New Jersey. As Joe Biden would no doubt point out on his entertaining "This Day In History" segment, McCain was only six when Czogolsz killed President McKinley. But I doubt he'd let the guy host a fundraiser for him.
But, in the world in which Obama moves, it would seem absurd and provincial to object to partying with an "unrepentant terrorist." The senator advanced and prospered in a milieu in which men like Ayers are not just accepted but admired for their "passionate participation", and function as power-brokers and path-smoothers. This is a great country, and most of us (as Peter Kirsanow notes below) make it without having to kiss up to America-haters like Ayers and Wright. But not Obama.
Who is this man on course to be 44th president? Apparently, it's not just impolite but racist to ask. As notorious white supremacist Thomas Sowell puts it:
But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.
Can the industrial-strength Doris Day fuzzy filter the media are filming him through be penetrated? Time is running out, McCain seems disinclined to do it, and (as Rich says) his lack of an economic message will make the point moot.
Here's what McCain SHOULD hammer on, what I call "The Litany":
Senator Obama was given the opportunity to attend the prestigious Occidental College in Southern California, and he dropped out.
He was accepted to the prestigious Columbia University in New York, and we don't know what he accomplished because he refuses to disclose his transcripts.
He went to Chicago to become a community organizer and quit because, in his own words, "I wasn't accomplishing anything."
He was then accepted to the very prestigious Harvard Law School. We don't know what he accomplished there because he refuses to release his transcripts.
He was then named Editor-in-Chief for the Harvard Law Review, the most renowned law review in the country, and didn't write a single article.
He was then accepted to the post of Senior Lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago. There again, he didn't write a single article.
As board member of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he was responsible for disbursing over $100 million to improve Chicago's public schools. By the projects own admission, the money accomplished nothing.
As Illinois State Senator, he voted present 194 times and didn't have a single note-worthy piece of legislation to his name.
As US Senator, he hasn't once called a meeting of the one commission that he chairs.
When forced to take a postion, Senator Obama has consistantly chosen the wrong one.
When given a chance to vote to save infants born alive after an abortion, he voted against it.
When given the chance to take money from the "Bridge to Nowhere" and give it the victims of Katrina, he voted against it.
When given a chance to vote for the successful surge in Iraq, he voted against it.
When given the chance to condemn Russia's invasion of Georgia, he chose not to.
When given the chance to take a stand on the economic crisis currently facing us, he chose to "wait and see". "Call me if you need me." He said.
Never in the history of our Republic has a candidate for President been given so many opportunities and accomplished so little with them.
Do you really believe that if given the opportunity to lead this great nation he will all of the sudden start doing better?
You can vote for hope, and you can vote for change, but you can't simply hope for change.
That’s a good litany.
Great post—both Steyn’s article and your own comments.
McCain was only six when Czogolsz killed President McKinley. But I doubt he'd let the guy host a fundraiser for him.
Great line by Steyn.
Are you the author of the text in post #1? If so, hat tip to you for a very well done litany. If not, thank you for posting it. It’s excellent.
That was the line I’d copied, too.
“Are you the author of the text in post #1? If so, hat tip to you for a very well done litany. “
Aw shucks, ‘tweren’t nuthin. (scuffles feet)
“He was then accepted to the post of Senior Lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago. There again, he didn’t write a single article.”
I haven’t had the time to follow this up ... but I have wondered if the reason Barry went into politics was because he couldn’t get any academic papers accepted to journals? My husband has a Ph.D. and teaches at a university, and it is VERY MUCH “publish or perish.” Professors on the tenure track who can’t get anything published are “disinvited” to return. Is that Barry’s real problem, that he couldn’t get anything published? Is that why he won’t release those records? Was he “disinvited” to return? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.
LOL. Wish I could so “nothing” half as well as that. :-)
From what I understand of the chronology, Obambi left his community organizing job specifically in order to get elected to something or other. He said somewhere (and I don’t have the direct quote, maybe another FReeper does), probably in “Audacity of Dope” that he felt that community organizing wasn’t big enough for him. That he wanted to run for office so he could make really big changes.
That’s when he went off to Harvard Law.
I’m assuming that at UofC he was just biding his time trying to get his political ducks and sponsors in a row. I don’t think he ever had any intention of remaining an academic.
I would add the following to your excellent litany:
When given the chance to clear up any doubts about his Constitutional eligibility to be President and have a lawsuit tossed as a result, he chose instead to not reveal his birth certificate and filed to have the lawsuit dismissed for lack of standing.
Excellent... Do you mind if I copy, (quoting you of course)?
Feel free.
Well done, sir.
Thank you!
Well, as you well know, I’m sure, publish or perish, while pithy, isn’t quite the whole picture. Published papers come out of research, and research comes out of grant funding. If you’re not getting grants, you’re not getting published, and if you’re not getting published, you’re not getting grants. Grants are the lifeblood of the academic department. It’s how they pay your salary. If you don’t have grant money coming in to pay yourself and your staff, they may float you for a little while, but not long. Not long at all.
In Obama's case I think it is probably the other way around. He had no interest in publishing papers in journals because he intended from the start to go into politics. He therefore had no need to publish for academic reasons alone.
And perhaps Obama was worried that anything legal he wrote could come back to haunt him as it did with Robert Bork. Of course the senate rejection of Bork occurred before Obama graduated from Harvard Law School.
I'm not a legal scholar but when the exams from some of Obama's courses were published a few months ago I got the impression that he does indeed have a good enough legal mind to write journal articles if that is what he wanted to do. Another thing I notice is that even though he was editing hundreds of law review articles at HLS, no one seems to have ever said, "You are not qualified to be editing my law review article."
It seems obvious that if zerO had desired an academic career, he had the connections to get the specific grants. He may even have investigated that route and in so doing, met the very folks who decided he would serve the cause best as an elected official.
Burning witches is so passe. Now we burn conservatives and members of the “establishment”.
Grants, while useful, are not always required. My SIL teaches engineering at a university, and you’re right, she needs lots of grants to keep working on her projects. My husband, OTOH, teaches business (which typically has plenty of its own funding from various donors) and does not have to find any grants at all. He only needs to publish so that the School of Business can maintain its accreditation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.