Boycott Fugitive Days: Ayers deserves no profit from terrorism

If in 3 years Osama Bin Laden publishes a book about his attack on the Twin Towers, and his work with Al Quida, would you buy it?

Simple question. I think that most Americans agree that they would not. So why then would anyone buy Bill Ayers book Fugitive Days?

Bill Ayers is releasing the book again after all the media attention generated by the Presidential election.



This media attention is being capitalized on as Ayers has his old book, and a new one, coming out. And in the old book, Fugitive Days, he has added a new portion that discusses his relationship with President Obama.



Now let’s look at what the book actually discusses

“Above all this is not a book for those looking for well-considered facts. This is not a book of dispassion. Some thirty years later Ayers is still trying to justify—as he did then—the core Weatherman belief that some forms of violence are tactically useful to achieve just ends.

…Ayers takes the reader through the townhouse destruction three times in the course of his memoir. His narrative opens with the explosion—or more accurately, his hearing about the explosion in a telephone call placed to a phone booth in a desert location. The second time he relates the explosion in the chronological context of his memoir. A third time he re-imagines the explosion and so reinterprets its significance. The whole point of his memoir, plausibly, is just to set the stage for that final re-imagination.”

So this book is the revisioning of fact, when fact is addressed at all. There is no remorse or apology. There is just the attempt to justify, and promote the ideals of a terrorist. And profit from that re-making of history.

The first try did not sell as well as Ayers hoped I imagine, as the book came out in 2001. It’s hard to justify bombing America when thousands of Americans are dead from a terrorist act. But Ayers is counting on the fact that the MTV generation is too busy to remember just 7 years ago.

I remember. And I understand what Ayers was trying to do in the 1970’s. He wanted to destroy the nation. And he thought his actions were not enough.

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

So I ask you, would you buy a book by an admitted terrorist who has no remorse? Would you help promote the ideals of a terrorist, and provide them profit? Because if so, you would buy a book by Bill Ayers. And that is no different than shaking Osama Bin Laden’s hand and handing him a check over the ruins of the Twin Towers.

If you disagree I’d like to hear why.

But no matter what, I suggest that all my readers, all your friends and co-workers, all Americans boycott the books of Ayers. If you support that I’d really like to hear your comments as well.

Why Theodore Roosevelt should never be quoted by current presidential candidates - 8.15.2007.1

President Theodore Roosevelt. The name evokes an image of a powerful President, and the growth of America as a serious world power. This one titular President made perhaps the most famous of Presidential quotes, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” [Actually an African proverb that he co-opted]

It is because of the image and actions of this President that Presidential candidates of both parties use his words to try to puff-up their own images. Virtually every candidate has done it, each in reference to goals they wish to promote. And in my opinion, none of them deserve or embody the legacy of the 26th President. Let me be clear.

Many candidates want to use or paraphrase the famous quote cited above, to improve their stature when speaking on issues like the Iraq war, terrorism, Afghanistan and America’s role in the world. It would be impressive if any of them actually had a solid plan for those issues. But as politics have become more MTV driven, in that there is little substance but lots of motion giving the impression something is happening, the soundbites are as close as any candidate gets to being a strong leader of our military.

Many candidates want to quote and refer to the strides President Roosevelt made against corporate corruption, implying they too can help improve the economy and preserve the 401k’s and retirement funds of the nation. Yet the plans stated to date, including taking corporate profits for redistribution or expanding/creating government programs, seem to go against that fiscal responsibility. Again the bluster fails to reach the pinnacles of the quotes and image.

Theodore Roosevelt was an important President. He was the first to have a Black man as a dinner guest in the White House. That was in 1901. Current candidates cannot compete with that, given. But they also seem incapable of doing anything comparable. Some would roll over in the face of political pressure found in polls on standing on this issue or that. Others are adamant in following only one course without a concept of what repercussions may be the result.

I don’t mind that the various candidates want to look like more of a leader than the other. I just wish one actually was more of a leader than the others. Quotes from those that have done things are never equal to those pretending to be of equal importance.

President Roosevelt had served in the military, ran state government, ran the Navy, a polymath, an author, an explorer, head of his political party, and was a boxing enthusiast. Most of the candidates today can barely stand in the shadow of his experience, before he ever became Vice-President or President. As such they should never try to use his limelight to make themselves shine. It just reminds us of how far less they offer in a time we need so much more.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Iran and the 2008 election - 7.20.2007.1

Well here is something that has me wondering. The Presidential candidates and other noted political figures have all made statements about the nuclear program in Iran. Let me correct myself, several of the candidates, not all. But the fact that any have commented is interesting.


This occurred at the press conference hosted by The Israel Project (TIP). The goal is stated as increased sanctions and pressure to cause Iran to end their nuclear efforts. Which is a pretty strong stance for several candidates, especially when the efforts to retreat from Iraq are considered.

This is important to think about because Iraq is directly connected to this. The connection is that Iran is helping to create instability in Iraq. Because of that the foreign policy of the next President may dictate how the Middle East will be over the next decade.

Consider this. If America retreats from Iraq, and pressures Iran with sanctions, Iran must try to absorb parts of Iraq (or effectively control them) to avoid the economic pain. At the same time, Iran can use the disenfranchised to bolster anti-American sentiment – promoting terrorists that would seek to attack Americans world-wide. On top of that, there is no guarantee that Iran would stop its nuclear ambitions.

That is scary, terrorists with nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, if America stays in Iraq and continues to fight Iran will still continue to support instability in the region. Not as much as without a U.S. presence, but still all the same. The economic pressure cannot be offset (or is minimized) by gaining access to Iraq. Fewer terrorists can be trained and any continued efforts of nuclear weapons can have the added fear of a pre-emptive strike by American forces. The cost of all this is American soldier lives. Not tens of thousands, but thousands per year.

Neither situation is foolproof. Nor will either make the U.S. public happy. It will cost American lives either way. And the Middle East will continue to be in turmoil for a decade at least.

Which effort is best? Which outcome is most likely? There is no answer. There is also no answer on what plan is the best from ANY of the Presidential candidates. One of the candidates must come up with a plan and let us know what is going on. Obviously any plan will not satisfy the whole of America. But a plan is better than none at all. I think everyone will agree on that.

So the question is, to prevent/persuade/deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, what do we do in Iraq?