>>>>>>>>>The Wright thing got plenty of "ink," so I don't think you can claim the media ignored that. I know Ayres bothers you, but as someone else pointed out, Obama was a kid when Ayres was a radical, and Ayres seems to have since joined the mainstream. I know plenty of folks who were pretty radical in the 60's who are still liberal, but working inside the system today.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's what I can't figure out. How does someone who has admitted to participating in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972 join the mainstream? Why association with someone like that is acceptable is beyond me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because what we do when we're young isn't the whole story of our lives?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll agree with that but I also think committing acts of terrorism and NOT paying the price for those actions shouldn't put you in mainstream later in life either (especially not with presidential candidates and senators or public figures)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It wasn't just a matter of a misdeaner for Pete's sake...
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know enough about the Ayers (which is apparently the right spelling) case to make a judgment, but apparently, he wasn't prosecuted because of misbehavior by the prosecutors. And while he didn't pay the price of prison, I suspect living underground for years did exact some price.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>Still I cannot agree completely. Sure it exacted some price. But sufficient for acts of terrorism he has admitted to? You can't be serious...
>>>
>>>Tracy
>>>
>>>I'll point you again at Menachim Begin and Martin McGuiness as a couple of examples.
>>>Ultimately there are very few terrorists you don't end up talking to.
>>
>>Just to be clear, since you mentioned them twice, Begin and the Irgun and McGuiness and the IRA did not consider themselves citizens of the countries they attacked, but saw themselves as underground fighters in wars of national liberation.
>>
>>Ayers was trying to alter the policies of his own government through acts of terror. Had we officially been at war, this would have been capital treason. If you bombed Whitehall to protest the Falkland War I don't think you'd expect to be standing for office.
>
>You have a nice line in expressing the unreasonable as reasonable.
>
>My view is that over time a terrorist may become acceptable. Someone who was a terrorist 20 or 30 years ago may be a very different person now.
>
>Your view is that depending on the context terrorism is acceptable.
>
>Which one sounds more reasonable?

Actually, my point was that Begin was not considered a terrorist to Israelis, and that is where his career was 30 years later. His "crimes" were against British occupation. Ayers committed crimes against his own government and 30 years later claimed not only no remorse but regret he did not do more.

I personally don't make much of the Obama/Ayers thing. Radical chic is very common on the Left in any society. Obama is not any kind of radical, he is a rather standard hyper-ambitious politician of the liberal tradition. I find him far less threatening - or exciting - than his most virulent critics or disciples.

For all you youngsters who do not personally remember the 60s, on the issue of Radical Chic (and for pretty much anything he's ever written) I highly recommend Tom Wolfe's "Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_&_Mau-Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers