Thursday, November 7, 2013

Why, exactly, is Bill Ayers invited to speak to teachers?

Two teachers raise quite obvious questions as to why commie serial bomber Bill Ayers was invited to speak to teachers about education at a conference.

Ayers is an unconvicted murderer and terrorist bomber who for reasons obscure is still sucking free air.

The teachers ask a good question. Perhaps next year the speaker at the convention can be Ted Kaczynski (speaking on environmental awareness, of course) or perhaps Kim Jung Un, who can provide a sequel to Ayers keynote speech, describing in detail what actually happens when communists take over a nation. If that's too controversial, Un could discuss the socialist approach to the prevention of childhood obesity.

Or perhaps the conference organizers could ask Columbia/NYU professor Kathy Boudin (a convicted terrorist murderer) to talk about fundraising or something.


  1. "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matthew 6:14-15

    See you in hell haters.


    1. You don't want us to forgive his sins. You want us to endorse his sins.

      Nice try, KW. You're so transparent.

      Now, if some NRA convention invited the late Timothy McVeigh, would you think that they were simply doing the Christian thing and forgiving him? Or would you think that they were endorsing a murderous terrorist attack?


    2. Joey,

      If the NRA invited the LATE Timothy McVeigh, I'd laugh out loud...

  2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 7:05 AM

    Bill Ayers is as full of shit as he was in 1970.

    However, with an acolyte in the White House, he has more influence now. Here are some examples of the 5th Grade Common Core Curriculum the Jeebus McLIghtworker Administration wants to promote in public schools:

    Teaching materials aligned with the controversial national educational standards ask fifth-graders to edit such sentences as “(The president) makes sure the laws of the country are fair,” “The wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation” and “the commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.”
    --- FoxNews

    The Soviets would be proud to see their indoctrination at work in the Department of Education. And if you're in the market for agitprop aimed at the young, Bill Ayers is your man.

    Homeschool your children, folks. Or send them to a private school that repudiates such ideological propaganda.

    1. Homeschool your children, folks.

      Coming from the "Admiral" that's like advice on a healthy sex life by a Catholic priest.

    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 8:04 AM

      [A national] study included almost 12,000 home-school students from all 50 states who took three well-known standardized achievements tests — the California Achievement Test, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Stanford Achievement Test — for the 2007-08 academic year. The students were drawn from 15 independent testing services, making it the most comprehensive home-school academic study to date...

      Five areas of academic pursuit were measured. In reading, the average home-schooler scored at the 89th percentile; language, 84th percentile; math, 84th percentile; science, 86th percentile; and social studies, 84th percentile. In the core studies (reading, language and math), the average home-schooler scored at the 88th percentile.

      --- Washington Times

      Homeschool your children, folks.

    3. Since home-schooling parents are not a random sample from the population of parents at large, how that does that study disentangle the parent-effect from the homeschooling effect (and the interaction between them)? A positive parental effect could even mask a negative homeschooling effect without proper controls.

    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 8:33 AM

      No, they are not a random sample. According to Joanna Burns (author of an earlier large-scale study that also found higher performance),

      [H]omeschoolers are more likely to come from homes with educated parents and higher incomes. Homeschooling parents are less likely to divorce (which is true of higher income couples in general). Homeschooled kids watch less television. All of this results in higher academic achievement.

      Troi: "A positive parental effect could even mask a negative homeschooling effect without proper controls"

      First off, I doubt you will find many crack whores who homeschool. So you have a sampling problem right off the bat.

      But of more interest to me, what "negative homeschooling effect" are you worried about from parents who are more educated, have good jobs, and interact with their children more? I'm really curious.

    5. Who says I'm worried about a negative homeschooling effect? I can think of some negative effects. Some of the fundy yokels that comment here probably shouldn't homeschool their kids for lack of competence.

      Who has the time to homeschool their kids anyway? Not many people can afford to take the time off from work, even if well educated and with a good job.

    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 9:17 AM

      Troi: "Who says I'm worried about a negative homeschooling effect?"

      Well, you did bring it up as a possible "masking effect" (I think you meant sampling error or confound) with the study.

      "Some of the fundy yokels that comment here probably shouldn't homeschool their kids for lack of competence."


      "Who has the time to homeschool their kids anyway?"

      People who care more about their children's education than the next dollar, I suppose. It's a matter of priorities for the homeschoolers I know. But you're absolutely right... it is a sacrifice.

    7. People who care more about their children's education than the next dollar, I suppose. It's a matter of priorities for the homeschoolers I know. But you're absolutely right... it is a sacrifice.

      That's easy to say if you don't have to worry about the next dollar or the kids' college fund. Not too many have this luxury. To suggest - as you clearly do - a lack of willingness to make a sacrifice for their children's sake...

    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 9:54 AM

      You're right, not everyone does have that ability. But calling it a "luxury" denies the reality of the sacrifice that most homeschooling families - or at least the ones I know enough about to comment - make.

      Are the homeschooling families you know rich enough to not be making a sacrifice? Given the legal difficulties involved in exercising one's right to educate their own children in the Netherlands (according to, I'd imagine it's pretty rare there, so you may not know many, or any.

    9. Some of the brightest and most capable students at the RMC come from home schooled environments.
      My only real issue with home schooling is the lack of the socializing that is present at a school (clubs, sports teams etc). This, of course, can be remedied by alternate means of getting the kids into activities and social groups. I am sure that as numbers of homeschooled kids increase, the availability of these programs will grow in relation.
      There is no doubt this effort is a sacrifice on the part of the parents, but more and more people see it as necessary to avoid the blatant political indoctrination taking place in the public systems.
      If you love your kids, you want the best for them. In my own case it has been to find a reputable private school with an acceptable and accessible curriculum. That too is a sacrifice, as it is not 'free', as are the public schools. For us it is not so much a matter of indoctrination (much less - but present), but rather standards.
      If that means taking a cut in pay or a tuition fee, so be it.
      Children should not be seen as a burden, rather a happy duty. Sacrifice of material wealth for one's children is just par for the course.
      If you're not willing to do so you should not be having sex and the babies that come along with it.
      Just play with your toys, travel, indulge or whatever.

    10. On the related quality of education and speakers:

      Forget history, philosophy, and the humanities... what we need are some more lunatics teaching kids about 'fisting' and gorilla sex. It's what every graduate needs!

    11. Are the homeschooling families you know rich enough to not be making a sacrifice? Given the legal difficulties involved in exercising one's right to educate their own children in the Netherlands (according to, I'd imagine it's pretty rare there, so you may not know many, or any.

      I don't know any. The school system here is pretty good, judging by international comparisons. If you want your kids indoctrinated with creationist anti-evolution nonsense on a daily basis, you're free to send your kids to a religious school of any desired denomination (Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever), entirely at the taxpayer's dime. So almost everybody's happy and <0.1% homeschool.

    12. I absolutely believe that many people are unwilling to make a sacrifice to their standard of living in order to home school their children.

      We live in a society that has built an artificial standard of living based on credit. I was born in 1954 and graduated from high school in 1972, so I'll tell you what I remember. Our homes were much, much smaller. A one car a garage was a luxury; two and three car garages were unheard of. That had something to do with the fact that most families only had one car. People didn't have pools in their backyards unless they were Hollywood producers, nor marble countertops. Every child didn't have his own room. Kids bunked together.

      We haven't seen much homebuilding in this country since about 2007, but the last time we did, it was all McMansions. That's what people want. They don't even think of it as luxurious anymore, it's just the way it should be.

      Now, could those people sacrifice for their kids' education? Sure they could.


    13. I bet you didn't have a TV in every room either, JQ


  3. Why worry about left-wing terrorists when right-wing terrorists are a far greater threat? I mean, how many people in the US were killed by left-wing terrorists vs. right-wing terrorists, during, say, the last 50 years?

    Nearly all terrorism is committed by right-wing religious zealots like yourself.

    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM

      Who's worried?

      After the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion in 1970, in which Weatherman member Ted Gold, Ayers' close friend Terry Robbins, and Ayers' girlfriend, Diana Oughton were killed when a nail bomb being assembled in the house exploded, Ayers and several associates evaded pursuit [i..e., ran away and hid] by US law enforcement officials.
      --- Wiki: Bill Ayers

      That was, I think, first American case of a Paleostinian Work Accident. :-)

      These are very smart people. Just ask President Jeebus McLightworker, CEO of

    2. @troy:

      "I mean, how many people in the US were killed by left-wing terrorists vs. right-wing terrorists, during, say, the last 50 years?"

      "Right wing" terrorists, like the Christian-loving-Reagan-voting Islamists who flew planes on 9-11?

      And I'd definitely oppose asking Timothy McVeigh to give the keynote speech at a teacher's convention.

      An atheist ("Science is my religion") like McVeigh should never be asked to speak to teachers.

    3. Adm:

      [That was, I think, first American case of a Paleostinian Work Accident. :-)]

      OHSA issued new rules following the explosion-- goggles, dental records on file, earplugs...

    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 8:36 AM

      Doc: Another keyboard bites the dust. :-)

    5. Hmmm, Tomthy McVeigh.

      Catholic upbringing? Check
      Registered Republican? Check
      NRA member? Check
      Anti-government? Check

      Yup, typical leftist.

    6. @troy:

      I said he was an atheist. I never said he was a leftist-- after all, if he had been a leftist, he'd be teaching at Columbia instead of pushing up daisies.

    7. What right wing terrorism? It’s been almost a whole week since a Glenn Beck / Alex Jones wacko murdered a Government employee. Ancient history.


    8. What kind of atheist would take a Catholic sacrament before his execution? An example of Pascal's wager?

    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 9:10 AM

      Sometimes former atheists have conversion experiences in prison. You wouldn't know anything about that, of course, but it happens. I've personally brought a number of Federal incarcerees through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. I've also worked with International Kairos, an ecumenical organization based on Catholic Cursillo, to do the same thing in a nondenominational context.

      It's very rewarding to see these men turn their lives around, and it is never too late.

      [The thief said] indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man [Jesus] has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
      --- Luke 23: 41-43

    10. And I’m sure you were happy to put in a good word for them with the parole board, because criminals would never lie to get out of trouble. Dupe.


    11. Let's have a look at terrorism as a whole, instead of playing some silly partisan game. Terror, in this context, is a tactic. A tactic employed in warfare; usually in a highly asymmetrical conflict.
      Terrorism is this tactic used as the main forceful effort of a given movement. Individuals may employ it, groups may employ it, and governments may employ it.
      The intent of the terrorist mindset is to force change(s) on the populace at large by bypassing normal means through the use of terror tactics. That is, to terrorize the larger population into acceptance by these acts.
      If terrorism is to be countered the tactic itself is the issue, not the driving ideology of the terrorist.
      So, by giving this man a pass and inviting him to deliberate at educational functions is to concede the tactic is a valid one and to encourage further actions of the kind he employed.
      Evidence for this is how Ayers has become a kind of folk hero to his fellow travellers.
      While they condemn and deride 'right wing' terrorism (such as McVeigh and co) while quoting the bible (hypocritically) on forgiveness for Ayers is a prime example.
      The same mindset thinks it is okay for federal agents to burn down compounds full of children in Texas, but have a fit when a lunatic spouting libertarian talking points kills security workers at an airport.
      Draw your own conclusions from these observations, people.
      Mine are not very flattering.

    12. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM

      Federal prisoners are not eligible for parole. Probation and supervised release are imposed by the judge at sentencing. That's unfortunate in my opinion, but true. It was ended by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, originally sponsored by Sen Ted Kennedy but ultimately passed under the umbrella of the Crime Control Act of the same year. It is a cruel and stupid law. But then, what would you expect given the sponsor.

      A state parole board wouldn't be interested in anything I had to say. Moreover, I have never been asked by a state prison inmate, and if I were asked, I would tell them the same thing I just told you.

      Why do you bother commenting on matters about which you are utterly ignorant?

    13. Troy, could you provide some statistics please for your assertion that right-wing terrorists are a bigger threat? Seeing as how we're coming up on the 50 year anniversary of the JFK assassination, that seems a little ironic. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist-Leninist.

      How about Ted Kacisnski? The Weathermen? The Family? Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front?

      Unless you've got some kind of left versus right wing terrorism index, I think you should shut up before you make a (bigger) fool of yourself.


    14. @Troy: No one said that Timothy McVeigh was a typical leftist. Egnor said he was an atheist. That's why it's so difficult to have a conversation with you. You are forever constructing straw men.

      Timothy McVeigh did have a Catholic upbringing but stopped going to church in his teen years. He was non-religious in his twenties, remarking in his journal that he hadn't been to church in ages. That falls short of a positive affirmation that there is no God, but it hardly points to a deeply religious person.

      Unfortunately, McVeigh has become the go-to guy leftists use to demonstrate the Christian white guys are the true danger to society especially if they're veterans like me. (Homeland Security thinks I must be dangerous.) McVeigh's name came up a lot in the years following 9/11 because libs felt uncomfortable with the idea people associated terrorism with Islam and ultimately with brown-skinned people. McVeigh supposedly proved that Catholic white guys are just as bad, if not worse. He was a "Catholic terrorist."

      He did, of course, say that science was his religion. You can't deny that.

      From what I've read about McVeigh, he returned to his religious roots while in prison. That may explain why he received a Catholic sacrament immediately before being executed. That doesn't mean that he was motivated in any way by the Catholic religion. He was a very lapsed Catholic, of which there are many.

      @KW: Please name a single Glenn Beck or Alex Jones fan who has ever committed and act of terrorism.


    15. I'm also going to have to see proof that McVeigh was a Republican. Got any?

      Fred Phelps is a lifelong Democrat, so there you are.


    16. Paul Anthony Ciancia


    17. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 1:39 PM

      You're gonna have to give us a source on that, Popeye. Given your record, I for one certainly won't believe you otherwise.

    18. McVeigh was a registered Republican when he lived in Buffalo, New York in the 1980s, and had a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military,[82] but voted for Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, in the 1996 presidential elections.[83] McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[84] During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly.[85] McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.[86] In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."

      Note he professed a belief in “A God” and maintained Catholic “core beliefs” in 1996, a year after the bombing. It was only later, in 2001, he said “science is my religion”.

      What the hell Joey, is your Google broken?

    19. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

      Anon: "maintained Catholic 'core beliefs'”

      You're misrepresenting, lying, or ignorant. "Core beliefs" are not the same as "Catholic core beliefs". Ask any Protestant, moron.

      Like the Progressotards around here, you apparently cannot interpret your own sources correctly.

    20. No, my google works.

      Here's something else I found, from the Guardian, 11 June 2001. It's about his final hours on death row.

      "In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would 'improvise, adapt and overcome', if it turned out there was an afterlife. 'If I'm going to hell,' he wrote, 'I'm gonna have a lot of company.' His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location."

      So I guess he wasn't Catholic when he died. I doubt very much that he received communion or penance or any other sacrament. The priest should not have administered it to him if he was an agnostic.

      I see your Wikipedia reference. Okay, so he was once a Republican and then became a Libertarian. I think you're trying to make hay out of that.

      McVeigh was very far to the right. I sometimes hear people refer to guys like Rush Limbaugh or Tony Perkins as right-wing extremists, but that just goes to show the ignorance of the speaker. McVeigh is a real right-wing extremist, and as such, holds many of the same beliefs as left-wingers. If you want to play this game, we can do it all day.

      Also, for all his flaws, McVeigh was never invited to a teachers' convention. See the difference now?