Wednesday, February 04, 2009

William Ayers in Kings Sooper

The mainstream media ignored William Ayers during the Obama campaign. I often commented on O's deep associations with Ayers, an unrepentant American terrorist and anarchist/Marxist. Well, the rehabilitation of Ayers continues. First, was a puff piece by Ayers that ran in The NY Times just after the election. Yes, he blew up buildings, but it was only "vandalism" against an illegal war, and more of the same. That, to use Harry Frankfurt's definition is pure BS--words used with no intention to communicate truth, but rather to produce a certain effect, in this case exoneration. See Frankfurt, On Bullshit--a serious book. (Of course, Ayers does a good deal of old fashioned lying as well, but BS is not identical to lying; it is really the essence of propaganda. Please read the book if my differentiation between BS and lying is not entirely clear.)

A few days ago, I saw Ayers's book, Fugitive Days, in (of all places) Kings Soopers, a supermarket. Now, there are not many books in a supermarket, and most of them are cookbooks, diet books, or fan books on O himself. But William Ayers's chronicle of how he evaded the police for years as a wanted man--in King Soopers?! Truly, we have entered the Twilight Zone of pandemic unreality. As Isaiah said, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil" (5:20). Perhaps Ayers will now write children's books and appear on Sesame Street (along with O).


Bill said...

So is your problem that Ayers wrote a book or that King Soopers was selling the book?

Steve Schuler said...

"The mainstream media ignored William Ayers during the Obama Campaign"

I won't go to the trouble of looking up and citing any number of references that would clearly refute this entirely inaccurate statement unless you insist upon it. I know that my own subjective experience of the mainstream media's coverage of the Ayers/Obama connection left me wondering how such a non-issue could attract so much prolonged commentary in the press. Do you count Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, for example, as being outside the mainstream media? It seems you have given tacit approval to these media pundits in the past, although I don't think many in the even modestly intellectual world would grant them much stature beyond the role of polemic propangandist they are so well compensated as. They are, after all, only supplying a demand in the marketplace. It is a little disheartening to me that there is such a demand for the product they sell, but that's probably due to my own delusions about what a healthy society might value. Although I don't derive my own sense of identity from the "left" or as a Democrat, it is encouraging to me in some way that these "right wing hate-mongers" have no counterparts (should we count Keith Oberlein?) in the "liberal controlled mainstream media", whatever that is. Having no TV service, I am not as aware of what goes on there than perhaps I should.

I could go on, but is there really any point? I read somewhere that one can't expect by power of reason to move somebody from a position that was not attained by reason in the first place. I don't know how much truth there is in that, but I have remembered it and pass it along to you.

Oz Guiness said in a presentation he made, that you provided a link to a while back, that we should constantly be challenging each other in our thoughts and beliefs as Brothers in Christ. While it may be a far stretch for you to consider me a "Brother in Christ", it is not so difficult for me. In short, it troubles me how much of what you have to say here in your blog seems to be fueled by fear and loathing. My purpose in writing this is not motivated by a desire to hurt you. I am not deriving any pleasure as a "Liberal Agnostic" tormenting a "Conservative Calvinist", in fact I fear that I may be doing more harm than good. The Lord may know, but I don't.

Claudia said...

On January 19, William Ayers was scheduled to speak at the Center for Urban Schooling (University of Toronto). Canada refused him entry, and he was turned back at the Canadian border. He waited 5 hours but the guard was adamant he wouldn't get in. 90% of the comments, in newspapers, approved the decision because Ayers is unrepentant of his crimes. Many of us thought he should have been turned out at the American border too, at that precise moment.

He belongs to a No Man's Land until he recognizes his terrorist actions and says he's sorry.

Doug Groothuis said...



Doug Groothuis said...


My view is based on reason and observation. "Ignored" meant "did not take seriously the evils the man committed or his associations with Obama." Yes, the mainstream media mentioned Ayers once in while only to dismiss it and not press O's lame responses to significant charges about Ayers and his friendship and political ties to him.

Jeremy said...


You have a typo. You write, "That, to use Harry Frankfurt's definition is pure BS--words used with no in tension to communicate truth..." First,there should be no space between 'in' and 'tension.' Second, 'intension' is not the right word. Intensions are things like attributes, relations, and propositions. You want the word 'intention' since you're referring to a type of mental state as opposed to the content of that state (which would be the intension of the intention).

I know to some readers this point might seem rather minor, but oh the troubles that have been caused in the philosophy of language by that little confusion.