I suppose the body count is the main difference. And obviously there were ideological differences; McVeigh was interesting in revenge on a government that he felt had abandoned its original purpose and ideals; Ayers wanted to simply overthrow that same government and replace it with a completely different system. But both had ideologies that led them into violence, both committed acts of terror in service of their ideologies, and both are responsible for the deaths of innocents.

Only one of them got what he deserved after his crimes; McVeigh was, of course, executed. Ayers is a free man due to a mistake by law enforcement in the investigation of his case. And of course, because Ayers' crimes were conducted in the service of a leftist worldview, he is not only not ostracized, but rather welcomed into the polite intellectual circles of the left as something of a folk hero. He now spreads his vicious ideology as a Professor at the University of Illinois - Chicago.

And, apparently, mentors Democrat presidential candidates. What has happened to our society?

Well, there they went. Here's hoping we see a bit of Sarah Barracuda in the coming days.

Don't Mess With Van Palin

Leftist Academics Seem To Be Dumber Than A Sack Of Hammers: Here's a particularly stupid, arrogant, and ridiculous example:



Via Hot Air

I enjoy reading Jeff Goldstein. I have a really hard time understanding those who bash him for making no sense. Most of the time, when he's writing about meaning, I follow him perfectly. Like this little bit of schadenfreude, on the whole New Yorker cover kerfuffle:

this is a bit like taking Swift to the woodshed over “A Modest Proposal,” or Christopher Guest to the woodshed over This is Spinal Tap.

What the progressive worriers should be doing is gleefully and full-throatedly noting the satire, then preparing to laugh at anyone who sees this as an accurate depiction of Obama. What they should be doing is enjoying a wry smile at their next cocktail party over the (presumed) idiocy of the rightwingers who might take this cover at face value, so shallow is their understanding of the literary arts.

But the real irony here is they can’t do that — and that’s precisely because their worldview is predicated on being able to control “meaning” by consensus. And one of the problems with such an incoherent method for determining meaning (by way of reliance on a given interpretive community’s ability to shout down competing interpretations), is that, at least in theory, another interpretive community can come along and claim another, diametrically opposed meaning, and — if their will to power is stronger — control the narrative by way of severing any ties to original intent.

In short, the left fears being hoist by its own incoherent linguistic petard.

Is that really so hard to understand? The left, having for years battled against any sort of concept of absolute truth in favor of an interpretive scheme that allows each individual or group to determine for themselves what "truth" is, is now running up against the logical consequence of their own cultural campaign. It's delicious to watch, although sad in that the whole project has even been allowed to happen.

Well this is interesting:

On Tuesday the pontiff canceled a speech scheduled for today at Sapienza University of Rome in the wake of a threat by students and 67 faculty members to disrupt his appearance. The scholars argued that it was inappropriate for a religious figure to speak at their university...

...La Sapienza -- which means "wisdom" -- was founded by one of the pope's predecessors in 1303. Another unappreciated irony.

It's now inappropriate for the Pope to speak at a university founded by... a Pope?