<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Contemporary Framing of 60s Radicalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/</link>
	<description>a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 02:53:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cass flower</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-46881</link>
		<dc:creator>cass flower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 08:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-46881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To be blunt, but with the distance of time, a lot of what Ayers and Dorhn were involved in looks like black flag operation.  The collapse of their trial and their subequent career looks unreal. 

Why were the Pathers so angry with these two?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be blunt, but with the distance of time, a lot of what Ayers and Dorhn were involved in looks like black flag operation.  The collapse of their trial and their subequent career looks unreal. </p>
<p>Why were the Pathers so angry with these two?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lichen</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-45086</link>
		<dc:creator>lichen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 22:53:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-45086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Deang, I wasn&#039;t saying that was the position Ayer&#039;s took, but it is a position that some people take, and they are homophobic hypocrites.  I don&#039;t what you mean by &quot;even if you have to conform to the standards of your society while you do so&quot;  I will not &quot;conform to the standards&quot; of a homophobic, sexist-against-men, heterocentrist society, whether inside the confines of activism, or not.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deang, I wasn&#8217;t saying that was the position Ayer&#8217;s took, but it is a position that some people take, and they are homophobic hypocrites.  I don&#8217;t what you mean by &#8220;even if you have to conform to the standards of your society while you do so&#8221;  I will not &#8220;conform to the standards&#8221; of a homophobic, sexist-against-men, heterocentrist society, whether inside the confines of activism, or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: deang</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-45074</link>
		<dc:creator>deang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 19:09:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-45074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[lichen -

Maybe you missed the part where Ayers says this:

&lt;i&gt;At this point, since we do have civil marriages, everyone oughta have a right to marry anyone they want.&lt;/i&gt;

He&#039;s not saying gays should not have the right to marry, but he does say the reason it&#039;s an issue is because in the US more rights are given to married people than to unmarried people, for no logical reason. Thus, to get by in the society, even Ayers had to get married at some point in order to have certain rights that, at this point in the US, are only available to married people, a situation which is unjust and should be changed. That&#039;s what he&#039;s saying, not that gays shouldn&#039;t have a right to marry in a society that irrationally restricts certain rights only to married people. There&#039;s no hypocrisy there. And I think he&#039;s still right in saying that larger, more inclusive goals of accepting the full diversity of human behavior should still be fought for, even if you have to conform to the standards of your society while you do so.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>lichen -</p>
<p>Maybe you missed the part where Ayers says this:</p>
<p><i>At this point, since we do have civil marriages, everyone oughta have a right to marry anyone they want.</i></p>
<p>He&#8217;s not saying gays should not have the right to marry, but he does say the reason it&#8217;s an issue is because in the US more rights are given to married people than to unmarried people, for no logical reason. Thus, to get by in the society, even Ayers had to get married at some point in order to have certain rights that, at this point in the US, are only available to married people, a situation which is unjust and should be changed. That&#8217;s what he&#8217;s saying, not that gays shouldn&#8217;t have a right to marry in a society that irrationally restricts certain rights only to married people. There&#8217;s no hypocrisy there. And I think he&#8217;s still right in saying that larger, more inclusive goals of accepting the full diversity of human behavior should still be fought for, even if you have to conform to the standards of your society while you do so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tennessee-Chavizta</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-45002</link>
		<dc:creator>Tennessee-Chavizta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 00:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-45002</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another thing is that Lyndon Johnson killed John F. Kennedy and overthrew Juan Bosch in Dominican Republic.

HOW LYNDON JOHNSON DESTROYED THE ECONOMY, THE LIVING STANDARDS AND THE FUTURE OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, AND WHY LYNDON JOHNSON IS GUILTY OF DOMINICAN REPUBLIC&#039;S TODAY&#039;S POVERTY !!

http://macrohistory.org/h2/ch24-DR.html

Through the 1930s, &#039;40&#039;s and &#039;50s, the Dominican Republic was ruled by the former cattle rustler and now dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina - better known in the United States as simply Trujillo. He owned twenty homes, numerous businesses and one-fifth of the his nation&#039;s agricultural land. He surrounded himself with murderers who kept the public intimidated. He promoted himself to his subjects as the Son of God, Savior of Mankind, Generalissimo and Father of the Fatherland. And he ignored the tourist industry, because he did not want a lot of Americans snooping around.

With his enormous wealth, Trujillo supported a lobby effort in Washington D.C., and he had a friend as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Harold D. Coole of North Carolina, who supported Trujillo&#039;s interests in the growing of sugarcane.

The Dominican Republic had never had a plantation economy. That, with black slave labor, had been on the western side of the island, in Haiti. Most common folk in the Dominican Republic were subsistence farmers, and there had been mixing between the races. But Trujillo wanted his fellow Dominicans to think of themselves as white, in contrast to Haiti, which was predominately black. In 1937 Trujillo had whipped up anti-Haitian fears and had massacred thousands of blacks. Under his leadership history had been rewritten, describing the Haitians as villains and the Dominicans as white. Mixed Dominicans were defined as Indians (the Indians, however, having been annihilated long before.). And Trujillo purged the use of the African hand drum from merengue bands and he banned voodoo ceremonies. 

In 1959, Trujillo was blaming Fidel Castro for a rising tide of discontent within the Dominican Republic. In 1960, Venezuela produced evidence that agents of Trujillo had tried to assassinate its president - while Trujillo was playing host to Venezuela&#039;s former dictator, Pérez Jiménez. Venezuela appealed to the Organization of American States. An economic embargo was suggested, and Trujillo clamped down harder on opposition within his country.

In 1975, A committee led by Senator Frank Church of Idaho investigated the CIA and suggested CIA involvement, but the committee did not find Trujillo&#039;s death the result of CIA actions. It is also said that Trujillo had become an embarrassment to the U.S. and that the assassins had had the clandestine support of U.S. authorities.
Trujillo met his end in May 1961. He was assassinated by young army officers in his private army who, it is said, were unhappy about delays in being promoted. [note]  The assassins caught Trujillo in his car on a lonely road while on his way to meet one of his many mistresses. Nominal power shifted to Trujillo&#039;s vice president, Joaquín Balaguer, while real power remained with military men, and while Trujillo&#039;s sons maneuvered for position. Common people rallied and rioted, demanding democracy. Two of Trujillo&#039;s sons left the island on October 22 and returned on November 15 in an attempt to seize power.

The Kennedy administration intervened. Here was an opportunity to stand up for democracy - six months after the Bay of Pigs invasion and two months after the Berlin Wall had gone up. United States warships with 4000 Marines appeared just outside the three-mile limit. A jet fighter flew overhead, and all members of the Trujillo family fled the country, to live thereafter on savings from Swiss banks. 

The republic prepared itself for elections, and, in an atmosphere of freedom, political parties sprouted like mushrooms. Only the republic&#039;s small Communist Party was outlawed, in deference to the United States. In the elections that year, the pro-Castro party did poorly. The winner, with 62 percent of the vote, was Juan Bosch, who belonged to the Dominican Revolutionary Party, or PRD - described by some as Social Democrats. He had been a writer and an academic and had spent years in exile as an activist opposed to the Trujillo regime. 

Juan Bosch was an anti-Communist reformer, as was common among Social Democrats. He began a land redistribution program and encouraged strengthening the labor movement. Business men did not much like Bosch. Nor did leading members of the Catholic Church. The republic&#039;s new constitution provided for the separation of church and state. Divorces were now legal, and religious schools were obliged to be open for state inspection. Landowners were displeased with Bosch&#039;s land program. And conservatives disliked the freedom of speech enjoyed by admirers of Castro and others. They were in panic, believing that Bosch was about to turn their country into another Cuba. The U.S. ambassador, Bartlow Marin, accused Bosch of being soft on &quot;Castro Communists.&quot; Also, Bosch&#039;s reorganization of the military displeased high-ranking military officers, who believed that he was establishing his own rival military power. 

Bosch did not bend with the pressures from conservatives, and on September 3, 1963, in a bloodless coup, the military overthrew the democracy, driving Juan Bosch into exile again - to Puerto Rico. A civilian government was hastily created, while power remained with military men. 

For two years the Dominican Republic was in economic and political turmoil. In April, 1965, a group of military officers rebelled and led an attempt to restore Bosch to the presidency. The fighting spread to civilians, and, after four days, the rebels appeared to be gaining the upper hand. Alarmed by populist rhetoric, conservatives again saw a Castro-like revolution as imminent. The U.S. President, Lyndon Johnson, did not want to be seen as failing to contain Castroism. He believed that he could not win a re-election he if permitted a second Cuba. He was feeling threatened by developments in Vietnam, and he wanted to send a message to Hanoi that the U.S. was strong and willing to use its strength. Under the guise of defending U.S. citizens, President Johnson sent 42,000 Marines to the Domincan Republic, Johnson describing his move as an effort to stop a Communist rebellion. Latin members of the Organization of American States sided with Johnson and provided legitimacy of sorts for his move by creating an Inter-American Peace Force, of which the U.S. force was a part. Bosch was denied his return to power, and in 1966 new elections were held in which 300 of Bosch&#039;s supporters were killed. The new president was the former vice-president under Trujillo, Joaquín Balaguer, who was believed to have become a moderate.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another thing is that Lyndon Johnson killed John F. Kennedy and overthrew Juan Bosch in Dominican Republic.</p>
<p>HOW LYNDON JOHNSON DESTROYED THE ECONOMY, THE LIVING STANDARDS AND THE FUTURE OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, AND WHY LYNDON JOHNSON IS GUILTY OF DOMINICAN REPUBLIC&#8217;S TODAY&#8217;S POVERTY !!</p>
<p><a href="http://macrohistory.org/h2/ch24-DR.html" rel="nofollow">http://macrohistory.org/h2/ch24-DR.html</a></p>
<p>Through the 1930s, &#8217;40&#8242;s and &#8217;50s, the Dominican Republic was ruled by the former cattle rustler and now dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina &#8211; better known in the United States as simply Trujillo. He owned twenty homes, numerous businesses and one-fifth of the his nation&#8217;s agricultural land. He surrounded himself with murderers who kept the public intimidated. He promoted himself to his subjects as the Son of God, Savior of Mankind, Generalissimo and Father of the Fatherland. And he ignored the tourist industry, because he did not want a lot of Americans snooping around.</p>
<p>With his enormous wealth, Trujillo supported a lobby effort in Washington D.C., and he had a friend as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Harold D. Coole of North Carolina, who supported Trujillo&#8217;s interests in the growing of sugarcane.</p>
<p>The Dominican Republic had never had a plantation economy. That, with black slave labor, had been on the western side of the island, in Haiti. Most common folk in the Dominican Republic were subsistence farmers, and there had been mixing between the races. But Trujillo wanted his fellow Dominicans to think of themselves as white, in contrast to Haiti, which was predominately black. In 1937 Trujillo had whipped up anti-Haitian fears and had massacred thousands of blacks. Under his leadership history had been rewritten, describing the Haitians as villains and the Dominicans as white. Mixed Dominicans were defined as Indians (the Indians, however, having been annihilated long before.). And Trujillo purged the use of the African hand drum from merengue bands and he banned voodoo ceremonies. </p>
<p>In 1959, Trujillo was blaming Fidel Castro for a rising tide of discontent within the Dominican Republic. In 1960, Venezuela produced evidence that agents of Trujillo had tried to assassinate its president &#8211; while Trujillo was playing host to Venezuela&#8217;s former dictator, Pérez Jiménez. Venezuela appealed to the Organization of American States. An economic embargo was suggested, and Trujillo clamped down harder on opposition within his country.</p>
<p>In 1975, A committee led by Senator Frank Church of Idaho investigated the CIA and suggested CIA involvement, but the committee did not find Trujillo&#8217;s death the result of CIA actions. It is also said that Trujillo had become an embarrassment to the U.S. and that the assassins had had the clandestine support of U.S. authorities.<br />
Trujillo met his end in May 1961. He was assassinated by young army officers in his private army who, it is said, were unhappy about delays in being promoted. [note]  The assassins caught Trujillo in his car on a lonely road while on his way to meet one of his many mistresses. Nominal power shifted to Trujillo&#8217;s vice president, Joaquín Balaguer, while real power remained with military men, and while Trujillo&#8217;s sons maneuvered for position. Common people rallied and rioted, demanding democracy. Two of Trujillo&#8217;s sons left the island on October 22 and returned on November 15 in an attempt to seize power.</p>
<p>The Kennedy administration intervened. Here was an opportunity to stand up for democracy &#8211; six months after the Bay of Pigs invasion and two months after the Berlin Wall had gone up. United States warships with 4000 Marines appeared just outside the three-mile limit. A jet fighter flew overhead, and all members of the Trujillo family fled the country, to live thereafter on savings from Swiss banks. </p>
<p>The republic prepared itself for elections, and, in an atmosphere of freedom, political parties sprouted like mushrooms. Only the republic&#8217;s small Communist Party was outlawed, in deference to the United States. In the elections that year, the pro-Castro party did poorly. The winner, with 62 percent of the vote, was Juan Bosch, who belonged to the Dominican Revolutionary Party, or PRD &#8211; described by some as Social Democrats. He had been a writer and an academic and had spent years in exile as an activist opposed to the Trujillo regime. </p>
<p>Juan Bosch was an anti-Communist reformer, as was common among Social Democrats. He began a land redistribution program and encouraged strengthening the labor movement. Business men did not much like Bosch. Nor did leading members of the Catholic Church. The republic&#8217;s new constitution provided for the separation of church and state. Divorces were now legal, and religious schools were obliged to be open for state inspection. Landowners were displeased with Bosch&#8217;s land program. And conservatives disliked the freedom of speech enjoyed by admirers of Castro and others. They were in panic, believing that Bosch was about to turn their country into another Cuba. The U.S. ambassador, Bartlow Marin, accused Bosch of being soft on &#8220;Castro Communists.&#8221; Also, Bosch&#8217;s reorganization of the military displeased high-ranking military officers, who believed that he was establishing his own rival military power. </p>
<p>Bosch did not bend with the pressures from conservatives, and on September 3, 1963, in a bloodless coup, the military overthrew the democracy, driving Juan Bosch into exile again &#8211; to Puerto Rico. A civilian government was hastily created, while power remained with military men. </p>
<p>For two years the Dominican Republic was in economic and political turmoil. In April, 1965, a group of military officers rebelled and led an attempt to restore Bosch to the presidency. The fighting spread to civilians, and, after four days, the rebels appeared to be gaining the upper hand. Alarmed by populist rhetoric, conservatives again saw a Castro-like revolution as imminent. The U.S. President, Lyndon Johnson, did not want to be seen as failing to contain Castroism. He believed that he could not win a re-election he if permitted a second Cuba. He was feeling threatened by developments in Vietnam, and he wanted to send a message to Hanoi that the U.S. was strong and willing to use its strength. Under the guise of defending U.S. citizens, President Johnson sent 42,000 Marines to the Domincan Republic, Johnson describing his move as an effort to stop a Communist rebellion. Latin members of the Organization of American States sided with Johnson and provided legitimacy of sorts for his move by creating an Inter-American Peace Force, of which the U.S. force was a part. Bosch was denied his return to power, and in 1966 new elections were held in which 300 of Bosch&#8217;s supporters were killed. The new president was the former vice-president under Trujillo, Joaquín Balaguer, who was believed to have become a moderate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mjosef</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44976</link>
		<dc:creator>mjosef</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 20:20:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44976</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Okay,  you may be bewildered, and I do think your attempts at expression in English are worthwhile.  Yet folks in Europe are in no way exempt: where are the great &quot;progressive achievements&#039; &quot; in a heaving continent of economic collapse, disregard for the rights of immigrants, complicit politicians? To say that those of us who are fed up with the incessant blather from the intoning professoriate are acting like &quot;our arrogant successive governments&quot;  - how? Where&#039;s the analogy? &quot;Smash monogamy&quot; as a kid to  40 years of marriage, and a posed baseball bat - that cannot be objected to?
  Erroll, I will look for that book. The 60s were a watershed time, but even so, the Vietnam war was so devastating, over such a long time, that it should count in no one&#039;s mind as as unalloyed antiwar victory.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay,  you may be bewildered, and I do think your attempts at expression in English are worthwhile.  Yet folks in Europe are in no way exempt: where are the great &#8220;progressive achievements&#8217; &#8221; in a heaving continent of economic collapse, disregard for the rights of immigrants, complicit politicians? To say that those of us who are fed up with the incessant blather from the intoning professoriate are acting like &#8220;our arrogant successive governments&#8221;  &#8211; how? Where&#8217;s the analogy? &#8220;Smash monogamy&#8221; as a kid to  40 years of marriage, and a posed baseball bat &#8211; that cannot be objected to?<br />
  Erroll, I will look for that book. The 60s were a watershed time, but even so, the Vietnam war was so devastating, over such a long time, that it should count in no one&#8217;s mind as as unalloyed antiwar victory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josie Michel-Brüning</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44966</link>
		<dc:creator>Josie Michel-Brüning</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 17:48:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44966</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I must confess: I&#039;m bewildered by these comments. I can&#039;t understand some short-tempered reactions on this interview.
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was authored after World War II, after painfull experiences by which human beings seemed to have learned. The need was obvious to have guidelines for all nations. The United Nations were established and international laws were signed by the US., as well. There are international agreements for protecting all of us, regardless of which colour, religion, nation  or gender etc. we are. 
But instead of  filing a suit on these laws or enforce a claim by actions of the people some of you seem to behave like your arrogant successive governments by neglecting those progressive achievements and chances for change. 
As long as you are only thinking of your own individual situation confined to your own circumstances and the right to speak out in this forum there is indeed no chance of improvement or survival of human beings at all. - Sorry, I&#039;m disappointed by this small-minded discussions about the person of the author.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must confess: I&#8217;m bewildered by these comments. I can&#8217;t understand some short-tempered reactions on this interview.<br />
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was authored after World War II, after painfull experiences by which human beings seemed to have learned. The need was obvious to have guidelines for all nations. The United Nations were established and international laws were signed by the US., as well. There are international agreements for protecting all of us, regardless of which colour, religion, nation  or gender etc. we are.<br />
But instead of  filing a suit on these laws or enforce a claim by actions of the people some of you seem to behave like your arrogant successive governments by neglecting those progressive achievements and chances for change.<br />
As long as you are only thinking of your own individual situation confined to your own circumstances and the right to speak out in this forum there is indeed no chance of improvement or survival of human beings at all. &#8211; Sorry, I&#8217;m disappointed by this small-minded discussions about the person of the author.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erroll</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44964</link>
		<dc:creator>Erroll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 17:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44964</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I find it bizarre that Ayers of all people would claim that the antiwar movement had absolutely no effect upon stopping the war in Vietnam when, as John Prados points out in his magisterial work Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945-1975, the antiwar movement, along with the GI rebellion, most certainly was instrumental in not only forcing Johnson not to run for president in 1968 but through steady pressure caused Nixon, through increasing public opinion, to keep a wary eye upon the antiwar movement which then made him eventually listen to their demands. The lamentation is that there are no visible and vocal antiwar voices being seen and heard today in response to Obama&#039;s militant actions against civilians of third world countries.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it bizarre that Ayers of all people would claim that the antiwar movement had absolutely no effect upon stopping the war in Vietnam when, as John Prados points out in his magisterial work Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945-1975, the antiwar movement, along with the GI rebellion, most certainly was instrumental in not only forcing Johnson not to run for president in 1968 but through steady pressure caused Nixon, through increasing public opinion, to keep a wary eye upon the antiwar movement which then made him eventually listen to their demands. The lamentation is that there are no visible and vocal antiwar voices being seen and heard today in response to Obama&#8217;s militant actions against civilians of third world countries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bozh</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44945</link>
		<dc:creator>bozh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 13:29:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44945</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[mjosef,
we are echoing one another,
ayers skirts the issues of great import; dwelling solely on peripheral matters. I have observed over decennia that that is standart msm fair.
my observations of ayers &#039;teachings&#039;  are not influenced by what he did or does now or whether he advised or helped O get [s]elected.
but let the free speech freely flow; i don&#039;t think i wld read anything he contributes. tnx]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mjosef,<br />
we are echoing one another,<br />
ayers skirts the issues of great import; dwelling solely on peripheral matters. I have observed over decennia that that is standart msm fair.<br />
my observations of ayers &#8216;teachings&#8217;  are not influenced by what he did or does now or whether he advised or helped O get [s]elected.<br />
but let the free speech freely flow; i don&#8217;t think i wld read anything he contributes. tnx</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elena</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44928</link>
		<dc:creator>Elena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 04:14:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can somebody explain to me what the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights actually accomplishes? Is it just a pretty idea? Which countries abide by it? US certainly does not.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can somebody explain to me what the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights actually accomplishes? Is it just a pretty idea? Which countries abide by it? US certainly does not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lichen</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44925</link>
		<dc:creator>lichen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 02:23:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44925</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But you are a hypocrite if you are a straight married person but are using the &#039;fairness for all&#039; trash as an argument against gay marriage; you should be single in that case, because it will be decades and decades untill that fringe idea has a movement strong enough to get legislation passed, while gay marriage is enactable right fucking now, and some of us don&#039;t want to continue to be excluded from that institution for decades more if we need to take advantage of it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But you are a hypocrite if you are a straight married person but are using the &#8216;fairness for all&#8217; trash as an argument against gay marriage; you should be single in that case, because it will be decades and decades untill that fringe idea has a movement strong enough to get legislation passed, while gay marriage is enactable right fucking now, and some of us don&#8217;t want to continue to be excluded from that institution for decades more if we need to take advantage of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lichen</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44924</link>
		<dc:creator>lichen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 02:18:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t think the article was that bad - and I don&#039;t really give a damn who was supposedly a &quot;true revolutionary&quot; forty years ago or what some people still obsessed with sixties-era identity politics think (but of course I know that martha has by now been shot down in an epic battle with the white male imperialists...er, condoleeza rice and obama).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think the article was that bad &#8211; and I don&#8217;t really give a damn who was supposedly a &#8220;true revolutionary&#8221; forty years ago or what some people still obsessed with sixties-era identity politics think (but of course I know that martha has by now been shot down in an epic battle with the white male imperialists&#8230;er, condoleeza rice and obama).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: deang</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44922</link>
		<dc:creator>deang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 02:14:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44922</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s discouraging that the interviewer doesn&#039;t seem to understand Ayers&#039;s thoughts on marriage. Ayers is basically saying we ought to be focusing on equality for everyone, fairness for everyone, rather than just trying to be part of institutions like marriage that are restricted to people who are able to participate in them. The interviewer&#039;s bafflement that Ayers is calling the institution of marriage into question even though Ayers himself is married is something similar to what I&#039;ve encountered when criticizing white racism as a white person. Some people just don&#039;t get it: &quot;But how can you say that?! You&#039;re white!&quot; Sometimes it&#039;s hard to get through people&#039;s limited thinking.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s discouraging that the interviewer doesn&#8217;t seem to understand Ayers&#8217;s thoughts on marriage. Ayers is basically saying we ought to be focusing on equality for everyone, fairness for everyone, rather than just trying to be part of institutions like marriage that are restricted to people who are able to participate in them. The interviewer&#8217;s bafflement that Ayers is calling the institution of marriage into question even though Ayers himself is married is something similar to what I&#8217;ve encountered when criticizing white racism as a white person. Some people just don&#8217;t get it: &#8220;But how can you say that?! You&#8217;re white!&#8221; Sometimes it&#8217;s hard to get through people&#8217;s limited thinking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martha</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44917</link>
		<dc:creator>Martha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 01:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44917</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Should be &quot;father&#039;s money.&quot; Sorry.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Should be &#8220;father&#8217;s money.&#8221; Sorry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martha</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44916</link>
		<dc:creator>Martha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 01:39:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t see the point in this article.  If there&#039;s a reason to interview Bill Ayers is to ask questions such as, &quot;Bunchy Carter,  John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark and many other true revolutionaries were shot dead. Many more were imprisoned and, in fact, former Black Panthers have been repeatedly targeted this decade. You, of course, got off thanks to your father&#039;s mother and your race.  Considering the rage and anger you elict in so many Black Panthers, why should we care what you say?  And how do you justify using race and wealth to your benefit?  Didn&#039;t you at one point reject your White privilege?&quot;  When White writers are willing to ask Bill or Bernardine Dohrn questions like those and let them stop playing like toy radicals, I&#039;ll be impressed.  Until then, they are &quot;the Man&quot; and keeping a lot of us down.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see the point in this article.  If there&#8217;s a reason to interview Bill Ayers is to ask questions such as, &#8220;Bunchy Carter,  John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark and many other true revolutionaries were shot dead. Many more were imprisoned and, in fact, former Black Panthers have been repeatedly targeted this decade. You, of course, got off thanks to your father&#8217;s mother and your race.  Considering the rage and anger you elict in so many Black Panthers, why should we care what you say?  And how do you justify using race and wealth to your benefit?  Didn&#8217;t you at one point reject your White privilege?&#8221;  When White writers are willing to ask Bill or Bernardine Dohrn questions like those and let them stop playing like toy radicals, I&#8217;ll be impressed.  Until then, they are &#8220;the Man&#8221; and keeping a lot of us down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mjosef</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44909</link>
		<dc:creator>mjosef</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 00:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dissident Voice is doing a fine service by putting these pieces out. Yet we go absolutely nowhere with them. And this one goes into the furthest reaches of nowhere...
1. Professorial Self-focus. On and on the tenured professor goes, with his Great Words a beacon to us commoners - right? I understand the man has been improperly vilified, and has suffered for moral actions, but his performance has been uninspiring. There is no American left, and whoever killed it isn&#039;t talking. If there is an American Left, why are we in more Vietnams, why did over a million Vietnamese die, why is the military budget so astronomical, why etc. on any topic you want?
2. No Engagement. A couple of good questions, but no follow-up, and so piles up the words from this professor of whatever in the academe that has credentialed our elite, our Bushes and Rumsfelds and your local banking capo and the torture psychologists and all the rest. Why is there never any direct engagement with these words? Didn&#039;t the 60s have some debate, whereas now it&#039;s one Big Name at a podium, us mute nobodies listening to his or her every intonement, with not a spark of contest or clash every erupting? Or if it does, it&#039;s from a sidewinding rage machine in the audience who is regarded as just some querulous nut? 
3. Apologies.The antiwar movement is dead, and the bombers are all flying today. So why is this gentleman so apologetic? Where are the apologies from the fine men who dropped the bombs, and keep dropping the bombs? 
4. Obama. And now we have this stepping lightly with this houseguest Obama.  Thanks starting him on his &quot;community activist&quot; way back then - it&#039;s obviously working miracles right now.  You were right, Professor Ayers - the guy&#039;s a champ!
5. And who do these little droplets of rage reach in 2009 America? Hinterland comment sections, where politics has gone to die. Sorry if I bummed anyone out - buy your tickets, sit at his feet, join the crowd.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dissident Voice is doing a fine service by putting these pieces out. Yet we go absolutely nowhere with them. And this one goes into the furthest reaches of nowhere&#8230;<br />
1. Professorial Self-focus. On and on the tenured professor goes, with his Great Words a beacon to us commoners &#8211; right? I understand the man has been improperly vilified, and has suffered for moral actions, but his performance has been uninspiring. There is no American left, and whoever killed it isn&#8217;t talking. If there is an American Left, why are we in more Vietnams, why did over a million Vietnamese die, why is the military budget so astronomical, why etc. on any topic you want?<br />
2. No Engagement. A couple of good questions, but no follow-up, and so piles up the words from this professor of whatever in the academe that has credentialed our elite, our Bushes and Rumsfelds and your local banking capo and the torture psychologists and all the rest. Why is there never any direct engagement with these words? Didn&#8217;t the 60s have some debate, whereas now it&#8217;s one Big Name at a podium, us mute nobodies listening to his or her every intonement, with not a spark of contest or clash every erupting? Or if it does, it&#8217;s from a sidewinding rage machine in the audience who is regarded as just some querulous nut?<br />
3. Apologies.The antiwar movement is dead, and the bombers are all flying today. So why is this gentleman so apologetic? Where are the apologies from the fine men who dropped the bombs, and keep dropping the bombs?<br />
4. Obama. And now we have this stepping lightly with this houseguest Obama.  Thanks starting him on his &#8220;community activist&#8221; way back then &#8211; it&#8217;s obviously working miracles right now.  You were right, Professor Ayers &#8211; the guy&#8217;s a champ!<br />
5. And who do these little droplets of rage reach in 2009 America? Hinterland comment sections, where politics has gone to die. Sorry if I bummed anyone out &#8211; buy your tickets, sit at his feet, join the crowd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bozh</title>
		<link>http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/a-contemporary-framing-of-60s-radicalism/#comment-44895</link>
		<dc:creator>bozh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 19:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=7995#comment-44895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[i do not put much faith in movements. I put a lot of faith in a party. after all that`s why uncle sam has is own party and working class none.
uncle has its own education, jurisprudence, fbi, cia, city police, armed services, congress, constitution,  and senate.
low and lower classes have none of that. US had its movements and look  at  US now: serial wars and killings. More people on drugs or in jail.
then there is torture; bailout for thieves; afrikanas, afrikanos, latinos, and latinas still much deprived and discriminated against.
and if blacks become secretaries of state or in position of power, they are just tad left of hitler; so eager they are to please their payers and lauders. more cld be said. tnx]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i do not put much faith in movements. I put a lot of faith in a party. after all that`s why uncle sam has is own party and working class none.<br />
uncle has its own education, jurisprudence, fbi, cia, city police, armed services, congress, constitution,  and senate.<br />
low and lower classes have none of that. US had its movements and look  at  US now: serial wars and killings. More people on drugs or in jail.<br />
then there is torture; bailout for thieves; afrikanas, afrikanos, latinos, and latinas still much deprived and discriminated against.<br />
and if blacks become secretaries of state or in position of power, they are just tad left of hitler; so eager they are to please their payers and lauders. more cld be said. tnx</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
