Schizophrenia

[howeird]

So on catsittingstill's journal I replied to an entry about the Obama-Ayres issue with this question:

Would you sit on a charity board with OJ Simpson?

I was baiting her a bit, because I figured (apparently correctly) that she believes OJ is guilty of murder. If you believe that he did it, you would not want to be in the same room as him. I happen to believe in innocent till convicted in court, and OJ was acquitted. I don't accept the civil case as a conviction, primarily because it violates the spirit of double jeopardy, and partly because the rules of evidence in a civil case are not stringent enough.

I would serve on a board with OJ.

Ayres, on the other hand, was let go on a technicality. A very serious one - illegal wiretaps were used to collect the evidence against him - but he certainly was involved in helping build the bomb which killed his girlfriend and two others, and was intended to be set off among people at a military dance. Even if he stopped trying to kill people after that, and only intended to blow things up, he's criminally insane to think there could not be another accident.

Now for the punch line. All I think it shows about Obama is a lack of common sense. Common sense says if you serve on a board with someone, you find out a little bit about them. I don't mean hire an investigator, I mean put the guy's name in an Internet search engine. We're talking about the year 2000, not 40 years ago. It would have taken Barak all of 30 seconds to find Ayres's past incendiary activities.

It wouldn't keep me from voting for the guy, but that's mostly because the Senate will have to approve any major appointees, and someone with Ayres' history wouldn't make it to the short list anyway.

After he was let go, he went back to school, got a Ph.D., taught and did work which supported education. That's good.

Comments

[bovil.livejournal.com]

It's more likely that McCain would nominate someone like Ayers, knowing nothing about him, for a high-level position.

Oh.

Wait.

In a way, he did.

[howeird]

You mean he nominated an Ayre-head?

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

I take it you've never served on a board?

Yeah. If you have, and haven't investigated and run criminal background checks on everyone you've served on that board with you're guilty just like Obama is - even if no one one the board ever did anything. Because you of course are responsible for everything anyone did that's ever been a member of the same organization as you.

I find that whole argument of guilt by association hokum. It's like saying "pedophiles go to Thailand, therefore anyone who goes to Thailand...." [or "Pedophiles have been in the military, therefore John McCain..."]. It's pure nonsense.

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

'Are you or have you ever been a member..."

[howeird]

I've served on several boards. I have resigned from boards twice. Once because a NorCal group decided to force its members to join a newly-formed national group at a cost of three times the annual dues, and once because the president of the group misrepresented his qualifications. It was a kind of W situation where the president's term was only a few months from ending, so a majority decided not to kick him out. Four of us left, six are now counting the hours till he's gone.

And yes, I always find out what I can about the people I'm serving with. It's not hard to do. Any board which handles the kind of $$ Annenberg does will run background checks.

BTW, you are so right about Thailand and pedophiles. It's like heaven over there because a 21-year old Thai with that smoothe complexion and cute bubble butt looks just like a child by American standards. And they really rewspect their elders over there.
:-)

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

I never got around to responding to you when you asked me the same question. Yes, I'd serve on a board with OJ Simpson for the same reason you listed (he was acquitted). However, I'd also consider serving on the board with him even if he had been found guilty if time had passed and he had changed his ways/sought redemption.

The point I was trying to make at the time wasn't whether Keating Five was greater or worse than associating with Ayres... yes, I do think that the Keating Five matters a bit more (taking Palin into account, it's another sign of poor judgment).

But no, that's not what I was trying to get at... it's more the argument that McCain/Palin were trying to make that Keating shouldn't matter because that was 20 years ago when what Ayres did was almost 40 years ago.

But yes, I will concede that the Obama campaign should have looked into both Ayres and Wright and had responses ready when they came up... in a sense they did have a response for Ayres, since they didn't roll out the Keating ads until McCain went negative with Ayres... but that's not the sort of response I mean.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

You naughty baiter, you.

Mixed feelings on this one, partly because I don't see any reason why one would make a point of not being in the same room as someone because they had killed. If the person was a serial killer, and was likely to rip out the throats of random passers-by, then yes, I can see a common sense reason, but as I understand it the murder Simpson was alleged to have committed was a one-off "what are you doing with my wife" sort of thing, and even if he did it he's unlikely to do it again. And if, having done it, he were to sit on a charity board, the possibilities are two: one, he's changed and is a good guy; two, he hasn't changed and is a bad guy. In the first case, I'd have no problem sitting with him on the board; in the second case, I'd feel there was a definite need for someone like me there.

I abominate murder and all kinds of violence, but it's something people do and there are degrees. Shunning a killer (or anyone, really) is pretending that you're made of something different from him, that there's a difference of kind between him and you, and there really isn't.

[lemmozine.livejournal.com]

I doubt anyone will be serving on a board with OJ anytime soon, since he's currently in solitary, convicted of kidnapping and robbery.

Which indicates to me that those who chose not to associate with him may have been wise, but I don't see what any of this has to do with the other question.

I think it is remarkably wise of Obama that he hasn't bitten into the bait, and mentioned that (1) Palin may be married to a domestic terrorist, and (2) McCain spent years of his life associating with our country's enemies and may have been brainwashed by them. Sounds kind of like The Manchurian Candidate to me.