Sorry, I went from memory and got the award wrong. It was "Citizen Of The Year." I don't know who specifically made the selection, but it was from the city of Chicago. I drew this information from a Wall Street Journal article (the Wall Street Journal was the publication you credited with being the lonely voice crying out in the wilderness of liberal media, right? ): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402888900234543.html
Yep, the City of Chicago is the arbitor of all that is right and decent. Because it appears in the WSJ doesn't mean that they endorse it. I'm pretty sure they covered 9/11. Did they support the terrorists?
I don't know whether your glowing praise of Chicago is accurate, but I doubt they honour human garbage with civic awards. Did they publish an article in support of the attacks? If so, it might mean that.
so a person's past doesn't matter then? it's possible that mccain is no longer the man who cheated on and divorced his wife and it's possible that obama is no longer a muslim.
That isn't what I said, so I fail to see the relevance of your question. My point is that Obama isn't responsible for Ayers' past. If the Ayers that Obama met and interacted with was someone committed to helping others and improving society, why would it be a black mark on Obama for associating with him?
i don't disagree with you about obama/ayers. though i still think my question has some relevance. you dismiss(or could potentially dismiss) ayers' past because his award in chicago indicates that he may be a different person than he was in the past.
I'm not dismissing his past. He's fully responsible for everything he did as a member of the Weather Underground and will always be. My point is entirely about what it says about Obama. And for that, I don't think Ayers' past is relevant, since Obama only interacted with the "modern day" Ayers who, from accounts, seems to be a pretty civic-minded person.
As a sidenote, I'm always struck by how good a band name "Weather Underground" would be. But, in thinking about it, that may be because of the Velvet Underground.
Obama and the Weather Underground Nico and the Velvet Underground and special guest The Jackson 5 barfo
Excellent. Love the Jackson 5 addition. I assume that's a reference to Keating Five? Or am I missing the joke?
It's amazing to me that he (er, his estate) became disgustingly wealthy doing what a 5-year-old could do equally as well. What a country.
It's clear that you don't know Chicago. It was a specific writer. If the WSJ Editorial Board wrote that opinion piece, it would be a different matter. Do you believe the NYT or the WP endorses everything written in their opinion pages by individual columnists?
Perhaps if Weather Report and the Velvet Underground toured together, that could be their name. That or they'd be Velvet Report. P.S. RIP, Jaco.
In the lower level of the East Building at the National Gallery (where modern art is kept), there is a large canvas (perhaps 6' X 10') painted simply off white. Since I don't understand much of modern art, I toured the Gallery with my friend Leah, who used to be an art critic (she's now an editor). She explained to me the impact of certain artists and got me to focus less on technical expertise and more on technique and expression. However, when we got to this particular work, she just looked at it, shook her head and said, "this piece is simply a fraud".
Perhaps. Or perhaps you are far too extreme in your dislikes. No, but I think it is hard to dismiss something that the WSJ chooses to publish as "left-wing fluff" or something that the NYT chooses to publish as "right-wing fluff." They do have philosophical worldviews that influence what they publish. I don't think the WSJ would choose to publish a nonsense propaganda piece that is to the benefit of Ayers and Obama.
A great documentary for guys like me (and it seems, Maxie) is "Who the F*** is Jackson Pollack?" It shows the world of art, of art critics, and of normal, everyday people who think things like "a 5-y/o could do that". Maybe I'm spoiled, and I admit I'm stupid when it comes to things like "Expression" and "Creativity", but I've been to the Louvre (and many of the other Parisian art museums like the Orangerie) multiple times, I've been to the Naples museum multiple times, and try to get to Seattle Art Museum when they have new roadshows (Tiffany's was pretty impressive). I look at paintings from guys like Raphael, David, Caravaggio and the like and can see symbolism, have emotion evoked, and enjoy a little of the "process" of the artist's mind. Pollack seems a little off to me, but I can respect that he was avant-garde in his day. I don't think much of "new art". I probably just don't get it.
I love Chicago. I have a strong attachment to the City, but its poltics stink. If you're going to support that system, be my guest. I'm not dismissing it, I simply disagree with it. I bet the editorial boards of those papers disagree with items published all the time.
Yes, I was referring to your dislike of Chicago politics. I don't think any action that the city of Chicago undertakes is tainted by corruption. Unless you have some evidence to show that Ayers being awarded "Citizen Of The Year" was an example of dirty politics, my default is that it is as much an honour as a civic award handed out by any other city. I'm sure they do. But they probably don't think what they publish is nonsense or propaganda. Not that you called it that...I'm simply saying that there is some significance to a fairly right-wing periodical publishing a glowing portrait of the current Bill Ayers.
