Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucklion
Just getting back to the board...and careful, that's putting some words in my mouth...first, I never said "never forgive", I said it doesn't change the results or the intention of the past actions. Second, I, like most sane people, assign degrees of separation between levels of transgressions. We've all done bad things in our lives to people, many times hoping we can do something to make it right later. Lying, talking behind someone's back, stealing something...those are transgressions that can easily be forgiven, and something can be directly done to try and assuage the pain one has caused. Murder, fire bombing, riot inciting...not so much. I'm glad George Wallace learned his lesson. I'm glad the Manson lady realizes what she has wrought. I'd be glad if I believed Ayers had changed his ideals (I don't)...but that doesn't change the results of what they did before, and doesn't absolve them of the responsibility for it.
|
My post responded to your post. There, in response to being reminded that Ayers had not done anything criminal for thirty years, and had lived an otherwise productive life, and who asked doesn't 30 years of non-criminal living count for anything? Your reply indicated "no". You seem to confirm it. We were not talking about generalities, but specifics. Specifically, you cannot or will not forgive Ayers for his actions in the 60s. That is your right. But I must point out, without trying to give the asshole too much credit (because he is not my "buddy"), you are guilty of something here. You have convicted him of murder, fire bombing, and inciting riots while the courts never did. Maybe it is that legal thing, but you know, that stuff kind of matters.
Working backward, if riots erupted out of demonstrations against the war and segregation, then tough [censored]. The cops who turned fire hoses on marchers in Birmingham and the cops in Chicago who clubbed and arrested people for gathering and holding protest signs - as far as I'm concerned any riot that occurred because of the oppressive police tactics was their fault, and the only crime is that those assholes gave more than they got.
There is also a little problem of actual guilt under our criminal system. He was never convicted of anything. Certainly not murder, and certainly not fire bombing. He admits to setting bombs and blowing up statues - the same one twice I believe. Now I am not blind, and I think it certainly is possible to probable that he knew about the nail bombs that his fellow weather underground guys were making, and that he'd likely go down for conspiracy for it, even if not actually making them or setting them.
But is also possible that, like many of those loosely organized groups, that he was for some of the [censored] but not all of the [censored]. For instance, many people were not morally troubled by blowing up the statue, given the times and the emotion and the violent behavior by Daley's cops during the 68 convention. As I say, it was a tough polarizing time, and it divided the country into team status quo and team earth shattering change on many issues, segregation, women's rights, sexual practices, smoking dope, opposition to the war. Again, bad bad time that fractured many families.
So what folks today after 911 look at as terrorism was not viewed as so simple a thing as us versus them, because the "country, mom, and apple pie" group included White Citizens Leagues and criminally untruthful military and political institutions. People were confused and angry. So I guess I can see blowing up some [censored] in a different way. Blowing up [censored], not blowing up people. So one thing it boils down to is the fact that you will not forgive him for crimes 30 years ago that he was never proven to have committed nor actually convicted of. Obama, being a trained lawyer, would be even more inclinded not to hold something against someone who was never convicted of anything. Not a huge point, but not to be ignored either. You have to buy the entire Constitution, even the parts you are not found of.
That is the crux of it. And I can see your point about Ayers not being absolved, and it is not at all unreasonable. But it makes a difference on the second point, where you agree with me.
Quote:
|
In the second part, you know better than to even ask me that, so I don't know why you did. I've posted at least half a dozen times that whatever I think of Ayers, it has nothing to do with Obama's Presidency, unless he makes him Secretary of Education. I know you've read those.
|
I have read those. I was making more of a Socratic point. Sorry to use your post for it. But the question remains: is Obama guilty of essentially violating your first point, that Obama had some kind of dealings with a man who was not convicted of crimes that he may have done, despite 30 years of meeting society's standards and otherwise meeting the probation terms he never got because he never was guilty of anything?
The only way Obama is "unsuitable" as a leader because of this is if his actions in ignoring Ayers long ago past is a suspect choice. You seem to think Ayers past is something that cannot be forgiven, his actions not absolved, and yet you feel it no big deal that he did. While I tend to agree with the latter point, i am more forgiving on the first point because I am old enough to have lived the era and felt the emotional turmoil that could have led one to do acts that now seem horrible. I am not talking about murder, but the feeling that opposition to the government, even illegal opposition, was justified, much as the Founding Fathers had no problem with illegal acts when they felt the government acting improperly.
Any way, I did not mean to misrepresent your views, or insert any idea of forgiveness broader than the case at hand.
10-21-2008, 10:08 PM
Linear Mode
