Now about those friends of Obama...
Oct. 29th, 2008 07:47 pmTo me, the most curious and interesting thing about William Ayers is this: how does one parlay an adult life experience that can be summed up in twenty years hiding on a demonstrably criminal and murderous cause, then a few more getting a degree in education from a very minor New York City college - how does one parlay this into a full professorship in education at The University of Chicago - probably the most prestigious American university outside the Ivy League - and a permanent place among the great and the good of America's third city? I'd really like to know. Because, you know, I rather fancy an academic career, and I don't think that my CV is any worse than that of Professor Ayers when he set out on his.
Another point: how does one get away, like his consort Bernardine Dohrn did, with completely refusing to cooperate with a criminal trial into the violent death of two policemen and a guard, in spite of serious grounds for suspicion; and why should a judge then send her free even from a measly sentence for contempt of court?
These two things cannot be explained unless the Dohrn-Ayers couple had pretty serious friends somewhere in the very "Amerikkan" establishment that they as terrorists planned to destroy. And that certainly makes Obama's friends as interesting as Obama himself.
P.S.: Obama was also an admirer of the execrable Edward Said, who was a professor at Columbia at the same time as Obama was a student. There is a photograph, I gather, of the two of them together. To anyone who remembers what I think of Edward Said, this is another interesting friendshiop.
Another point: how does one get away, like his consort Bernardine Dohrn did, with completely refusing to cooperate with a criminal trial into the violent death of two policemen and a guard, in spite of serious grounds for suspicion; and why should a judge then send her free even from a measly sentence for contempt of court?
These two things cannot be explained unless the Dohrn-Ayers couple had pretty serious friends somewhere in the very "Amerikkan" establishment that they as terrorists planned to destroy. And that certainly makes Obama's friends as interesting as Obama himself.
P.S.: Obama was also an admirer of the execrable Edward Said, who was a professor at Columbia at the same time as Obama was a student. There is a photograph, I gather, of the two of them together. To anyone who remembers what I think of Edward Said, this is another interesting friendshiop.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-01 10:14 pm (UTC)Sure, maybe Obama should have taken the opportunity to attack Said with his butter knife, but I'm willing to be generous and call that a mere venial sin... =p
no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 12:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 04:30 am (UTC)As for his college days, I found this after five seconds of Googling. I'm sure there's a lot more like it out there.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 05:32 am (UTC)The fact that the major media are unequivocally fighting for Obama - something McCain expected and acted upon - is obvious, and if you believe anything they say about him, you are allowing uncontested and unargued propaganda into your mind. As for why they do so, I would point you to my analysis of the class of "intellectual workers" in my article on "mutant Democrats", which you might remember. Altogether, you can trust the LA Times about Obama when you trust the old Pravda about the late Leonid Brezhnev.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 08:42 am (UTC)I don't think there's any use arguing on the LA Times point: if we take your view that the media is willing to deliberately lie and go through all manner of trouble to get Obama elected, any and all evidence can be fit into the narrative. If the LA Times refuses to give up the tape, it's because they're willing to immolate themselves in the service of the cause. If they do give it up and it contains no bombshell, then it just shows how eager they were to betray their source's trust in order to exonerate their Dear Leader. (One wonders, though, why the LA Times published a piece on the event in the first place if they were so desperately in the tank for Obama. But I'm sure that can all be explained as well.)
I stopped reading the link when it became clear that the author apparently thinks it's some damning revelation that Obama was involved in the divestment movement. But let me just quote the broader passage of the excerpt from Dreams From My Father the author picked out:It's clear when you read the book that Obama doesn't consider that to be exactly a positive time in his life; his actions at the time as symptomatic of the struggles he was experiencing with respect to his multiracial background—a constant theme throughout the book. On the other hand, maybe you find the passage I quoted to be just as damning, I don't know.
Anyway, I really want to know: is there any actual evidence that Obama's an admirer of Edward Said? As far as I can tell, he simply took an English class with him as an undergrad. Confusing the University of Chicago with the University of Illinois at Chicago is a totally forgivable mistake for a foreigner to make—even a foreigner with an encyclopedic knowledge of American politics and culture—but asserting that Obama is an admirer of Said without any evidence, or implying that Ayers's only postgraduate qualification was from a very minor New York City college when the true information was available from a few seconds Googling suggests that better fact-checkers are needed...
no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 09:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 04:15 pm (UTC)I don't think I ever denied the existence of media bias. In fact, I don't think—and I don't know anyone who does think—that the media has been some kind of impartial arbiter of the news during this election or any other. I think their coverage has, by and large, been more favorable to Obama, among many other pathologies. I think many in the media realize this, sparking among other things this very interesting apology (in both senses of the word) from Harris and VandeHei at Politico. I encourage you to give it a read. (Deborah Howell also had a piece acknowledging the existence of bias in the Washington Post.)
I think it's a far cry from that to believing that the media will deliberately lie and go through hell and high water to support Obama. Not that I hope to convince you, either.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 09:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 09:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 06:06 am (UTC)