- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Editor’s note: Michael Ackley’s columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.
Poor Bill Ayers.
The University of Wyoming found his distinction as an educator insufficient to eclipse his failure to repent of terrorism. Hence, he was barred from speaking on campus. (Now a devotee of the Constitution, he’s suing for his free-speech rights.)
Ayers’ bruised feelings no doubt were salved by speaking engagements in California, where academic disrepute attaches only to Republican Party membership. He was to address a student-sponsored gathering at California State University, Fresno, Friday.
Fresno State officials mealy mouthed, “We are aware that Dr. Ayers’ past is controversial, but his topic at Fresno State will be about education, not politics.”
Word has not reached Fresno’s ivory tower that to the old Weatherman bomber, education is politics.
(We insert here a definition from the Blind Partisan’s Dictionary: controversial – adj., a euphemism for criminal when applied to persons who share one’s values.)
The Bee reported Ayers also would attend a downtown screening of the film, “The Weather Underground.” (Ah, the good old days!)
Sponsors of the latter event included the Fresno Center for Nonviolence and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. One assumes Ayers explained the nonviolent aspects of terrorist bombings.
There was no early evidence of campus protests against Ayers’ appearances, though the left is in a tizzy over Sarah Palin’s scheduled appearance up the road at California State University, Stanislaus.
Bee opinion blogger Jim Boren wrote, “Palin will appeal to the far right, and Ayers will appeal to the far left. … Maybe there could be a debate between Palin and Ayers.”
Sorry, Jim. Palin isn’t “far right” according to the Blind Partisan’s Dictionary:
Far right – compound n., the mainstream middle of the road as viewed from the far left.
Constitutional scholarship: The great legal minds at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law have yet to figure out the First Amendment’s free-exercise clause or the right of association. Thus they have sanctioned the Christian Legal Society for not allowing homosexuals and infidels to hold leadership jobs.
Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will enlighten them. That’s where the case is now and where precedent suggests the society will prevail.
Protected sex: In less danger than the Christian Legal Society is professor Kenneth Ng of California State University, Northridge. University officials have ruled that his personal website, featuring instruction in contracting for illicit sex in Thailand, is protected free speech – as long as it doesn’t employ university time or resources.
More protected sex: Meanwhile, farther north, in Sacramento: the Democratic Party majority on the state Assembly quashed a resolution honoring the Boy Scouts of America on its 100th anniversary. This is because the Democrats believe adult males who view other males as potential sex partners should be allowed to be scout leaders.
On the other hand, the Girl Scouts of America has no problem with adult women who view other females as potential sex partners, so that organization received legislative congratulations.
Punishing success: The San Francisco Chronicle reports California will be hit harder than most states by Medicare cuts. This is because the Golden State was blessed with forward-looking industrialists like Henry J. Kaiser, who pioneered the establishment of health-maintenance organizations.
Senior-citizen members of these HMOs are channeled into Medicare Advantage plans, which are targeted for cuts in the health-care “reform” bill. Thanks to Kaiser/Permanente and other outfits, California has 1.5 million of the 10 million advantage-plan members nationwide.
Senile dementia: There also are concerns about drug costs, and the Chronicle reports officials of the American Association of Retired Persons believe it’s “too early to assess the potential impact of the (health-care) law because too many details are not known.”
Those pesky details did not concern AARP leaders when they wholeheartedly endorsed the “reform.”
Postscript: It seems reasonable to ask: where’s the outrage over the Obama administration’s assaults on privacy?
Our president has left in force or extended Bush-administration spy policies that brought yelps from the left, and has sought to extend them. The latest example (that we know of) was the Justice Department’s demand for unfettered, warrantless access to Yahoo e-mails. (The Justice Department eventually decided the question was moot and withdrew the federal court motion.) The story was covered by high-tech news outlets, but it got a big ho-hum from the mainstream media.