Indeed it is, so leave aside why and how Ayers got accepted back. What was/is Ayers contribution to intellectual history? Or to put it another way how much insight can I gain from studying his writings as opposed to all other authors published from 68 to 08? I’m not sold I could gain much.

There are a lot of people in similar positions on the left who still think as he does.

Do they cite him? Study him? If he articulated ideas that make deep sense to people on the left then they should reference him quite often.

Ayers was consider ordinary and acceptable even though little about him had changed

Actually one thing did change, Ayers became ordinary and acceptable. If you had no idea of his past would you detect anything remarkable about him today? Would you even pay attention to him? Out of curiousity, what did you know of him before it became an issue for Obama?

Not enough that anyone would do anything about it. See previous.

And what would they do? Write to UBS and tell them not to sit on a board with Ayers? Write the Chicago Tribune and correct their byline? At least I can cite a few leftists who did pay attention to him and criticize him.

I don’t know if there is possible mechanism to fix the problem. Fostering a culture of objectivity once again among the media and academia would help.

I think the best thing here has been the net and bloggers. A story pops up and every bloger who hopes to make a scoop trolls archives to see if they catch something others missed. Re-setting the labels all day long won’t do half as much as google and wikipedia together.

I will not read up on their political philosophy! Why should I?

Because intellectual history is important in general. In this specific case it informs the reason why Ayers was accepted back into the fold. His methods were extreme but his intellectual rationales were not. There are a lot of people in similar positions on the left who still think as he does.

What, like Obama is the oldest guy in Chicago?

This post is not about the choices Obama made. Its the choices that people around Obama made such as when his political mentor chose to anoint Obama her successor in Ayer’s living room. Apparently, Ayers is not the outcast you would like to portray him as.

…unless you’re ascribing some type of messiah like duty of Obama to redeem all of Chicago society, politics and culture.

Again, not about the choices Obama made. I as said in the parent, the disturbing thing is that Ayers was consider ordinary and acceptable even though little about him had changed. Obama’s mentor did not see that anointing Obama to succeed her in Ayers house would cause Obama any problems. That tells us a great deal about the perception of Ayers in political community.

The left clearly did raise eyebrows at Ayers and he clearly wasn’t beloved by many on the left.

Not enough that anyone would do anything about it. See previous.

How about a single letter to the editor?

There could be one but the Tribune’s search engine is a bitch and fails to return old entries. Frankly, I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it because, honestly, nothing I could possibly find would change you mind would it?

I’m not sure you’re really giving a solution to that issue other than to demand a new set of labels be swapped out for the ones you don’t like.

I don’t know if there is possible mechanism to fix the problem. Fostering a culture of objectivity once again among the media and academia would help. A more robust solution would be to train people to be aware of the power of labels so that when they hear things like, “the peace movement” they would ask if peace is really what they thought.

Ayers would have never gotten close enough to Obama (or anyone else) to hurt him had the media done its job consistently labeled him as a “communist-terrorist” instead of “60′s radical”.

So when they do show up what usually happens? My impression is that there are plenty of areas in private enterprise that is very ‘now’ and results focused. An ‘Ayers Consulting’ firm, I suspect, could do quite well and have received less scrutiny and resistance than even Ayers as professor….especially with daddy providing start up funds and a client list.

Business forces integrity. One has to be able to consistently meet one’s obligations or people will stop voluntarily interacting with you. Given the utter wildness of Ayers 20’s I don’t see him as the kind of person who could put on a suit and show up every day.

And yet today he focuses on pushing boxes around on org charts. Besides, business casual is all the more popular nowadays…you can get quite far without owning or wearing a suit.

Well, you’re wrong. Go read up on the Weatherman’s political philosophy. Remember the Weatherman were an offshoot of a much larger movement with an extensive ideological justification.

Perhaps but this illustrates why I’m right. I will not read up on their political philosophy! Why should I? Aside from this intense little blog debate on this obscure corner of the net (and since we are over post 100 are are already overdue for it to peter out) what benefit do I have to spend my valuable reading time on their ‘philosophy’? Likewise, I don’t remember a thing about the Weatherman other than maybe I heard the term on TV long ago. There are literally millions of people just like me who don’t care, find nothing of value in the ramblings of a 40 yr old defunct radical group and will not spend time learning anything about them of interest. The side effect of that good use of valuable time is when an English professor moves in down the street and see ’60′s radical’ as how a newspaper describes his op-ed we shrug and don’t bother learning anything else about the fellow. I suspect that accounts for at least 70% of Ayers ‘return’ to the mainstream.

I don’t agree with your idea that Ayers sought to hide. He seems to have injected himself into public life within five years of coming in from the cold. As Foo Bar noted above, the first Chicago Tribune commentary piece dates from 1988.

I don’t disagree with you but you negelect to see how he choose to inject himself. Doing the ‘ho-hum’ do-goodery stuff that is just enough to get you noticed (say as an ‘education activist’ or ‘school reformer’)…but not enough for most people to really care. Most of the time when you hear this person sits on this or that board the assumption is they are collecting bullet points for their resume and most of the time people don’t really care. Why should they? Unless you’re a really active member or contributor to an organization it really isn’t your business who they put on their board after all.

Ayers began his return in left-wing academia. He moved in left-wing political cycles exclusively until the Annenberg challenge. For that matter, Chicago is a deep blue zone with very few people of the right at all. Seriously, its so far left that people hold Daley up as an example of a non-leftist!

What, like Obama is the oldest guy in Chicago? I’m sure some people might have long enough memories to note it would be ironic for Daley Jr. to get along with Ayers considering Daley Sr. probably did not.

In any case, I don’t grant your presumption that we have to assume that people who vigorously opposed Ayers actions and philosophy bear the same responsibility for his rehabilitation as his friends.

We aren’t even to that presumption yet! I don’t grant your presumption that there was anyone who vigerously opposed Ayers’ ‘rehabilitation’. If no one had done it by the time Obama came on the scene why assume it was Obama’s duty when the bulk of his ‘rehabilitation’ was already done….unless you’re ascribing some type of messiah like duty of Obama to redeem all of Chicago society, politics and culture.

In turn, they fit into a broad pattern of leftist extremism in the 60’s-70’s. That is a major reason why Ayers doesn’t raise eyebrows on the left.

I suggest you reread Kinsley’s piece. The left clearly did raise eyebrows at Ayers and he clearly wasn’t beloved by many on the left. Time though turns many debates into ‘the arcane’.

This may be kind of tricky to express but I’ve seen it in other arguments. One side carries the day and is victorious. They then move onto other things and forget the argument. The losing side nurses their grudge, lays low building their argument amongst fellow believers. One day you look around and here’s this fringe group with a list of arguments that sound very convincing and no one stands up to them because no one who knew the details is around anymore. Those who suspect something is fishy with the argument make guesses as to what the problem is and end up looking silly because the fringe group has all their facts down pat and can quickly pounce on any error. Only if the argument keeps going does someone appear who spends the time to do the research and write up a definitive rejection….You’ve probably seen this dynamic many times….think perhaps about conspiracy theories of 9/11, UFO, WACO and others….anyway…

I suspect what Ayers is about is something similiar except its less about an argument and more about a man. The people who really knew him have long since passed onto other things (or literally passed on). Here comes this guy not doing anything really contraversial but somewhat notable….ohhh yea on the board of the childrens fund…that’s nice….hey UBS has a guy on that board too… Now and then he ventures out of his niche field of ‘education theory’ and publishes an op ed ….”who is he again, we need something at the end of it! Ok ‘Professor Ayers teaches English at the U of I and was a notable 60′s radical’. And so it goes, who was he, ’60′s radical’…ahh yea ok this is Chicago is there anyone over 60 who wasn’t?

Perhaps it isn’t just (although Ayers making a million with ‘Ayers consulting’ wouldn’t be either) but at least there’s a limit to his rehabilitation. He will never run for office, never get appointed to something that gets scrutiny (like a cab. post). Why? Because then people will say “is there any dirt we can dig up on this guy? quick go google him and check wikipedia too!”

Well, again, you need to tell me exactly the small minority of rightist in Chicago were supposed to do about Ayers?

How about a single letter to the editor? Somehow I suspect over the past 20 years at least one ‘rightist’ managed to write a letter for something like school vouchers to the local paper. If this guy is like Tim McVeigh could none of them even do that? Or even use him as an example outside of Chicago (as in “look how bad it is in Chicago where the mayor appoints a terrorist to fix the schools!”). It seems you guys did the same thing the mainstream did. Sit around and forget until someone said something like “let’s try googling everyone we can connect with Obama and see what turns up’. If Obama had a duty to redeem so did you. Now all in the sudden the cry of injustice has become too much to bear?

Yes, this is part of the systematic bias built into media and academia. Leftist are described in far more neutral or positive terms than those on the right. For example, how often have you seen a discussion about the link between anti-war movement the democide in Cambodia? Hell, even the terms, anti-war and peace movement are prejudicial. The left gets the warm fluffy labels and the right gets the harsh pro-war. Labels like pro-communist victory versus pro-democracy are not allowed.

That’s a valid point, yet language forces us to consolidate reality. Someone publishes an opinion piece on street lights. People are reading it because they care about street lights. The “who is this person” blurb at the bottom serves only as a summary to orient the reader. In order to communicate, we lose information every day to labels. I’m not sure you’re really giving a solution to that issue other than to demand a new set of labels be swapped out for the ones you don’t like.

There’s plenty of room for nice humble people like Warren Buffet to make money and there’s also plenty of room for the sociopath, the narcissist, the annoying pig and so on

I merely repeat the best research. Sociopaths gravitate to professions in which their ability to charm and manipulate gives them an advantage. They also gravitate to professions that let an individual be a center of attention. They are over-represented in law enforcement (a constant problem in recruiting), the law (lawyers talk for living), politics, media, and entertainment. When they do show up in business they gravitate towards sales and marketing, again putting their manipulation skills to their advantage.

Business forces integrity. One has to be able to consistently meet one’s obligations or people will stop voluntarily interacting with you. Given the utter wildness of Ayers 20′s I don’t see him as the kind of person who could put on a suit and show up every day. Business people have to perform. They live in a darwinian environment. Ayers would not like being constantly tested. His ability to charm and manipulate would better serve in a field such as humanities academics where no definitive test exist for being right or wrong.

It accomodates bad people just as well as good people often transforming bad motives into actions that are more or less positive. Standard Adam Smith stuff there.

Actually, no. The free-market depends on voluntary cooperation. If you deceive and cheat people they don’t have to interact with you. This is why business has higher accounting standards than government and why the free-market drives the evolution of a neutral legal system (among many other benefits). Adam Smith did not believe that capitalism harness evil for good. Instead, he believed that individuals understood their own needs and abilities better than strangers did and that they could best look after their own interest. He noted that people interacting voluntarily would reach a higher degree of mutual benefit than they would if one person used violence to force another to make a decision they did not want to.

Maoists beliefs? The guy strikes me as more an anarchist.

Well, you’re wrong. Go read up on the Weatherman’s political philosophy. Remember the Weatherman were an offshoot of a much larger movement with an extensive ideological justification. In turn, they fit into a broad pattern of leftist extremism in the 60′s-70′s. That is a major reason why Ayers doesn’t raise eyebrows on the left. His ideas, which he holds to this day, aren’t really that unusual. He only stands out because of his willingness to use violence.

You also neglect to notice the other obvious fact about education….it is a relatively quiet niche where it’s quite easy to go unnoticed.

I don’t agree with your idea that Ayers sought to hide. He seems to have injected himself into public life within five years of coming in from the cold. As Foo Bar noted above, the first Chicago Tribune commentary piece dates from 1988. He then went on to spearhead the Annaneberg Challege which was a high profile project in Chicago. It looks to me that Ayers surfaced, escaped prosecution, went to school, somehow got a professorship and then immediately plunged back into private life.

Speaking of which, do you have any evidence at all to support your contention that leftist forced the mainstream and right to accept Ayers back?

Ayers began his return in left-wing academia. He moved in left-wing political cycles exclusively until the Annenberg challenge. For that matter, Chicago is a deep blue zone with very few people of the right at all. Seriously, its so far left that people hold Daley up as an example of a non-leftist!

Can you give me even a token protest by the mainstream or even the right?

I’ll see if I can find 20 year old pre-internet comments by the five republicans that live in Chicago. In the mean time, reread this. In any case, I don’t grant your presumption that we have to assume that people who vigorously opposed Ayers actions and philosophy bear the same responsibility for his rehabilitation as his friends. Do you seriously mean to argue that if the left shunned Ayers the right would have embraced him?

As Kinsley noted, the mainstream assisted the ‘forgetting’ by simply describing Ayers as an activist or maybe ’60’s radical’…

Yes, this is part of the systematic bias built into media and academia. Leftist are described in far more neutral or positive terms than those on the right. For example, how often have you seen a discussion about the link between anti-war movement the democide in Cambodia? Hell, even the terms, anti-war and peace movement are prejudicial. The left gets the warm fluffy labels and the right gets the harsh pro-war. Labels like pro-communist victory versus pro-democracy are not allowed.

Again, this would not have happened had the left not protected Ayers.

Please dont’ tell us Ayers bein head of the Annenberg Challenge ‘forced everyone’ to deal with him.

Well, again, you need to tell me exactly the small minority of rightist in Chicago were supposed to do about Ayers? You write as if the right could have just snapped its fingers and excluded him from politics. More to the point, why was it the right’s responsibility to clean up the left’s mistakes?

You underestimate the power of capitalism. There’s plenty of room for nice humble people like Warren Buffet to make money and there’s also plenty of room for the sociopath, the narcissist, the annoying pig and so on. Must we add Dilbert and The Office to the Chicago School’s required reading list? Think of where poor Donald Trump or Bill O’Reilly would be witout capitalism to provide for their welfare?

Your idealization of the private sector is misguided. It accomodates bad people just as well as good people often transforming bad motives into actions that are more or less positive. Standard Adam Smith stuff there.

This is also an example of fighting the hypothetical. Not a good habit for someone whose argument toolbox seems dominated by an endless set of hypothetical equilivances (what if Newt Gingrich had David Duke as a college dorm buddy? what if McCain had said that? what if….)

You should be asking yourself: Why did he chose education? My guess. Low academic standards. Easy for daddy to buy him a position. Field is dominated by leftist friendly to him. Most importantly, however, it gives him a mechanism for insinuating his maoist beliefs into the minds of America’s children.

Maoists beliefs? The guy strikes me as more an anarchist. I suspect he wouldn’t have made it more than two weeks in Maoist China without getting shot. You overestimate the power of the educational system (kind of hard to insinuate a complex ideology like Marxism on children if you can’t insinuate basic reading skills). You also neglect to notice the other obvious fact about education….it is a relatively quiet niche where it’s quite easy to go unnoticed. Basically a good place to go (aside from private sector work) to gradually move yourself back into the mainstream as the passage of time causes most people to forget who you were.

Speaking of which, do you have any evidence at all to support your contention that leftist forced the mainstream and right to accept Ayers back? Can you give me even a token protest by the mainstream or even the right? As Kinsley noted, the mainstream assisted the ‘forgetting’ by simply describing Ayers as an activist or maybe ’60′s radical’….which essentially says nothing to the 90% of the population that has little interest in digging up 60′s folklore.
Please dont’ tell us Ayers bein head of the Annenberg Challenge ‘forced everyone’ to deal with him. The Annenberg Challenge was only relevant if you were managing a public school or if you wanted to get a grant for some idea you have for improving one. And plenty of people you would probably describe as ‘leftists’ felt no reluctance to oppose the project when its local council idea started to challenge the power of the teachers unions on one side and the principals on the other. Right wingers don’t feel the least bit inhibited to advocate bringing down the entire public school system and replacing it with vouchers. Ayers had no position of power that would have made it even the slightest bit difficult to at least mount a token objection to his slide into the mainstream!

I notice you didn’t address my “Ayers as consultant” scenario. Any thoughts?

Ayers would never have gone into business. Its to much work and to private. He would not get to be the center of attention and his sociopathic narcissism demands that attention. Further, he would have trouble working at any serious level because no one would trust him once they learned of his past. Nobody in their right mind would bet money on someone like Ayers.

You should be asking yourself: Why did he chose education? My guess. Low academic standards. Easy for daddy to buy him a position. Field is dominated by leftist friendly to him. Most importantly, however, it gives him a mechanism for insinuating his maoist beliefs into the minds of America’s children.

Let’s be clear, segregation was a system of violence.

Emphasis on “system”. Segregation, jim crow, racially exclusive unions etc were wide scale social standards supported by the majority in many areas. That is a major difference from an individual who picks a radical cause (maoist communism in Ayers case) and personally engages in acts of violence or is in a decision making capability in an organization of such people.

If you wish to define everyone who held political office in the segregation south of corrupt big cities as being equivalent to Ayers then you’ve rather proved my original point. You don’t see anything unusual in Ayers behaviors because he has the same behavior as millions of others.

OJ was tried by a jury and found not guilty. The evidence was laid out clearly and while most of us can say we disagree with the verdict we can do so by making a fair argument that the evidence and arguments from prosecution and defense was watched and fairly evaluated by most. There’s been no such trial for Ayers and as I said more people would probably peg the Weather Underground as an obscure band than terrorist group. Whether he is guilty of murder by participating in a conspiracy that backfired or not is far from clear.

Let’s be clear, segregation was a system of violence. You didn’t need to actively lynch anyone (or even hang with people who did) to participate and support that. I can name at least three politicians who vigerously supported it and nevertheless remained mainstream with political gigs a lot better than Ayers until modern times….Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmon and Robert Byrd (2 Republicans, 1 Democrat)

Proving once again that OJ really was innocent. Or not.

Who are these right wingers who once contemplated violence who are now good people with good ideas who can’t be heard because ‘the system’ is still punishing them while letting Kerry and Ayers go?

You make my point for me. They’re nowhere because they’ve been excluded from the public life. You can’t name a rightwing politician who used to belong to a violent group or who was friends with a terrorist because such association would destroy a rightwing career before it even left the ground.

It’s not that those on the right are victims. Such people do not belong in politics. Rather it reflects the differing ethical standards and competitive pressures on the right versus the left. Those on the right would accept someone who attacked the institutions of liberal democracy and those on the left would ceaselessly bring such a past into the public eye.

Again, we return to my original point. The left, especially the far left, tolerates violent extremist. Obama saw nothing wrong with Ayers because no one else around him did either.

If an assasin misses the target and kills an acomplice by mistake, thay are still just as guilty of murder.

You should talk to Shannon, she thinks that the right had no chocie but to accept Ayers! Why didn’t they just arrest him and convict him of murder!

Shannon
I was think more of Kerry in that instance. If a Republican had been an officer and spokesman for an organization that seriously discussed assassinating elected officials he would never get into office and if he did the revelation would destroy his career. With Kerry, a leftist, we just shrug and act like nothing happened.

Well nothing ever did. From what I understand some members put it out there, it was argued about and voted down because violence is wrong. If you say Kerry additionally left the organization because he didn’t even like the idea a minority of its members would consider such a thing….well what?

Again and again you sound like a leftist with a victimization kick who somehow got her politics flipped by tranversing through an alternate universe. Who are these right wingers who once contemplated violence who are now good people with good ideas who can’t be heard because ‘the system’ is still punishing them while letting Kerry and Ayers go? I asked you to name an example of some poor right winger who couldn’t do what Ayers did and you can’t because it exists only as a hypothetical in your head. There are plenty of examples of politicians who opposed desegregation and civil rights who nevertheless found it easy to remain in mainstream politics either as Democrats or conservative Republicans. Please, I’m sorry the left spent the 70′s and 80′s pounding the “I’m a victim button” so hard that it is now broken. Maybe you guys on the right didn’t get to pound it enough for yourselves but the button’s broken and no one really wants to have the guy fix it!

Try to imagine a slightly different universe where Bill had no interest in education and instead went into consulting. “Hi, I’m Bill Ayers of Ayers Change Management Consultants…we understand you just brought ABC Corp. You know aquisitions require bringing together two different sets of team players plus they generate lots of opportunities for growth but also dangers. We can design a change management program for you that identifies downsizing opportunities as well as a team building program that will help your new employees learn from each other…….you’ll see we have worked with many large companies in the Chicago area and beyond. Please feel free to contact any of these references to hear how we have helped other businesses…….”

Shannon feels hard core leftists brought Ayers into the mainstream rather than more basic cultural forgetting. I wonder if Ayers and Ayers Sr. had decided to go the totally private route does she think that mainstream world would have put up any more resistance than the academic one or the local politics one? All you folks who work in corporate settings, do you have any idea what your co-workers were doing, saying or advocating in the late 60′s (assuming you actually work with people who were adults then)?

If an assasin misses the target and kills an acomplice by mistake, thay are still just as guilty of murder.

Errr no I’m saying the mainstream community in Chicago let Ayers back in..

What all at once? Where’s your evidence? What do know about the history of leftist taking care of former radicals? Ayers father certainly deserve a lot of blame but without strong evidence to contrary I am going to assume that what it appears happened, happened. The left embraced him and the right had to deal with it.

Tsk tsk….after all the huffing and puffing over the ‘right’ to take people out of context!

I never asserted such a right. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

What career does Ayers have?

I was think more of Kerry in that instance. If a Republican had been an officer and spokesman for an organization that seriously discussed assassinating elected officials he would never get into office and if he did the revelation would destroy his career. With Kerry, a leftist, we just shrug and act like nothing happened. I argue that this same mentality lead to the rehabilitation of Ayers.

Perhaps if you were not so ideologically blinkered you’d see the amusing irony in the life story of a man who begins adulthood hoping to spark a revolution and ends it moving boxes around on the org chart of the local school system…..you know a leftist wouldn’t embrace that…your sterotypical ‘68 leftist would call him a sell out which is what he essentially is.

I see nothing ironic in it. Ayers is a narcissistic sociopath who engaged in political violence because it was fun. He never cared about changing the world. In his mind, the fact that he is free, wealthy and respected means that he beat all the people who tried to catch him. Inside his mind, he is laughing at us.

So your saying that the leftist community in chicago embrace Ayers because the rightist did first? Seems unlikely. More likely, it was the other way around.

Errr no I’m saying the mainstream community in Chicago let Ayers back in (embrace is not the right word to use here). Why? Combination of him laying low, influence & all the other factors I’m talking about.

Ayers daddy bought him a professorship, the leftist rallied around him, and the Republicans who knew who he was were presented with a fati accompli. What were they supposed to do, boycott politics until someone did something about Ayers?

YOu depict this as some type of war with pro-Ayerists on one side, outraged Republicans on the other who faced certain defeat! Lot less bang and a lot more whimper. Can you show me that the mainstream or even the right did anything other than yawn as Ayers slowly re-assimiliated himself?

It’s just like Robert Byrd. An ex-grand wizard of the KKK could never survive as a Republican but since the Democrats elected repeatedly what could the Republicans do?

Strom Thurmon did pretty good. Perhaps he wasn’t a grand wizard of the KKK but somehow I don’t think the KKK considered him an enemy.

Take me out of context again and I will delete that post.

Tsk tsk….after all the huffing and puffing over the ‘right’ to take people out of context! I’m not sure why you feel taken out of context. I assume you feel McCain is running against a ‘far leftist’, your quote does seem to read that you feel a need to circle the wagons around him.

You need to understand that I see the leftist response to Ayers as part of pattern excusing leftist politician association with violent extremist elements. John Kerry, for example, left Veterans Against the Vietnam War after the executive committee held a serious debate and vote on whether to conduct a campaign of assassination against elected representatives who supported defending Indochina. This showed staggeringly bad judgement in choosing political allies yet leftist just shrugged it all off.

As I said, for some people it will always be 1968 even in 2008.

As Foo Bar as made evident, leftist can do anything short of mass murder and still be considered acceptable. Rightist on the other hand can see their careers destroyed by a poor choice of words.

What career does Ayers have? Professor? Writes books in a niche field removed from his 68 days? Published an autobiography ranked 253,726 on Amazon and with a paltry 55 reviews (35 giving him 2 stars or less)…oh yea that’s really ‘embraced’. Periodic appointment to some charitable foundations? YOu make it sound like he’s running the Senate Banking Committee. Show me a right winger who is unable to have a similiar career due to ‘poor choice of words’?

After he became head of the Annanberg project, everyone had to deal with him no matter what they though of him personally.

What are you talking about? Are you talking about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC)? This was a grant making organization for the Chicago public schools. You only ‘had to deal with them’ if you were involved with Chicago public schools or followed them with interest. Perhaps the grant application, written by Ayers, should have been rejected by the Annenberg Foundation or maybe the busineses who made up Chicago United should have refused to participate (ohhh wait, Tom Ayers, his father, was their head!) but this only goes to reinforce the fact that Ayers’s entry into mainstream public life was not meet with any serious opposition on either the left or right. In essence, the intellectual world had forgotten about Ayers and moved on and quite frankly didn’t care about his ‘school project’ whose primary goal…it seems…was to change the beauracacy around a bit adding ‘local school councils’ as a competiting power center in the pbulic schools against the teachers unions and principals. Perhaps if you were not so ideologically blinkered you’d see the amusing irony in the life story of a man who begins adulthood hoping to spark a revolution and ends it moving boxes around on the org chart of the local school system…..you know a leftist wouldn’t embrace that…your sterotypical ’68 leftist would call him a sell out which is what he essentially is.

I always wondered how their thinking could possibly have gone in that direction. Reading some of these comments about Ayers, I think I understand the dynamics of that episode a little better. There’s always an excuse that can be made.