Will the Boston bombers be hired by Columbia University?

[donkhater]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...7PwFkbO1NheqNL

Tale of two terrorists
By JOHN M. MURTAGH

Last Updated: 12:46 AM, April 18, 2013

Posted: 11:54 PM, April 17, 2013

Somewhere near Boston early Monday morning, he packed a bomb in a bag. It was by all accounts relatively crude — a pressure cooker, explosives, some wires, ball bearings and nails . . . nails which, hours later, doctors would struggle to remove from the flesh of bleeding victims.

His motive is unclear. His intent is not: It was to maximize injury, suffering, pain, trauma and, yes, death.

Perhaps Monday’s bomber will be caught, perhaps not.

Perhaps Monday’s bomber will be offered a teaching job at Columbia University.

Forty-three years ago last month, Kathy Boudin, now a professor at Columbia but then a member of the Weather Underground, escaped an explosion at a bomb factory operated in a townhouse in Greenwich Village. The story is familiar to people of a certain age.

Three weeks earlier, Boudin’s Weathermen had firebombed a private home in Upper Manhattan with Molotov cocktails. Their target was my father, a New York state Supreme Court justice. The rest of the family, was presumably, an afterthought. I was 9 at the time, only a year older than the youngest victim in Boston.

One of Boudin’s colleagues, Cathy Wilkerson, related in her memoir that the Weathermen were disappointed with the minimal effects of the bombs at my home. They decided to use dynamite the next time and bought a large quantity along with fuses, metal pipes and, yes, nails. The group designated as its next target a dance at an Officer’s Club at Fort Dix, NJ.

Despite the misgivings of some, it is reported that Kathy Boudin urged the use of “anti-personnel bombs.” In other words, she wanted to kill people not just damage property. Before they could act, her fellows were killed in the townhouse explosion. The townhouse itself collapsed; Boudin fled.

She reappeared over a decade later driving the getaway car for the rag tag mix of Weathermen and Black Panthers who held up a Rockland County bank in 1981, murdering three in the process. Survivors of the ambush along the New York State Thruway recount how Boudin emerged from the driver’s door, arms raised in surrender, asking the police to lower their guns. When they did, her accomplices burst from the back of the van guns blazing.

As I said, people of a certain age remember this history. For those that don’t, Robert Redford is kindly about to release a movie recounting the Rockland robbery (albeit relocated to Michigan). By all accounts, the film lionizes the Weather Underground terrorists, Boudin and her accomplices.

Perhaps to bring it full circle, Professor Boudin can soon guest-lecture at a film class at Columbia when the Redford movie is screened.

Other than the passage of time, one can find no real distinction between the cowardly actions of last Monday’s Boston murderer and the terror carried out by Boudin and her accomplices. Yet today we live in a country where our leading educational institutions see fit to trust our children’s education to murderers and Hollywood sees fit to celebrate terrorists.

The Web site of Columbia’s School of Social Work sums up Boudin’s past thus: “Dr. Kathy Boudin has been an educator and counselor with experience in program development since 1964, working within communities with limited resources to solve social problems.”

“Since 1964” — that would include the bombing of my house, it would include the anti-personnel devices intended for Fort Dix and it would include the dead policeman on the side of the Thruway in 1981.

Maybe, if he is caught, Monday’s bomber can explain that, like Boudin, he was merely working within the community to solve social problems.

Perhaps Monday’s bomber will be caught, perhaps not. Perhaps, some day, Monday’s bomber will be offered tenure at Columbia University.


Read more: Tale of two terrorists - NYPOST.com http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...#ixzz2QpfEyg7r

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

I'm attacking the New York Post mainly. To be perfectly honest I didn't bother to read the OP. Why? Because I already saw this subject posted here a week ago and many ppl got it right the first time which is why that thread died. She did her time, she's allowed to be employed.

You know what speaks volumes about you? Saying she never repented WHEN SHE DID!!!

I'm sure when the FBI apprehends the Boston bombers you'll just start making shit up about them. Have a nice day making shit up.

Like I stated, upon further review she did in fact apologize... while I do have doubts about how genuine said apology was, since it took three failed parole attempts before she saw the light, she did offer it up and I acknowledged it.

And, for the umpteenth time....no one in this thread has said that Columbia did not have the right to hire a terrorist who had done her time, or that she does not have the right to be employed. All that was said was that was morally wrong (which it is), and that Columbia is not immune from the amount of heat and criticism it is taking for making this particular hiring choice.

Of course, I guess expecting a fan of 60's radicals(or terrorists, in this case) such as yourself to know how to read might be asking a bit much.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

All that was said was that was morally wrong (which it is) . . .

Why is that again?

[BigChiefTablet]

One of the comments in that essay someone linked earlier in this thread had an interesting question. Would Columbia hire a right wing, rehabilitated ex-terrorist?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

One of the comments in that essay someone linked earlier in this thread had an interesting question. Would Columbia hire a right wing, rehabilitated ex-terrorist?

This is why we need ideologically-based affirmative action for ex-terrorists.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Like I stated, upon further review she did in fact apologize... while I do have doubts about how genuine said apology was, since it took three failed parole attempts before she saw the light, she did offer it up and I acknowledged it.

And, for the umpteenth time....no one in this thread has said that Columbia did not have the right to hire a terrorist who had done her time, or that she does not have the right to be employed. All that was said was that was morally wrong (which it is), and that Columbia is not immune from the amount of heat and criticism it is taking for making this particular hiring choice.

Of course, I guess expecting a fan of 60's radicals(or terrorists, in this case) such as yourself to know how to read might be asking a bit much.

And my point in this is that it's ironic as hell that the NYP is fanning that heat and criticism on their back page, while committing slander on the front page.

Really, I could give two shits about this lady. Her place of employment has and will have no effect on me. Really, her place of employment has no effect on the writer of this OpEd. I don't fault him for harboring resentment for her, but the fact that he's trying to parlay the Boston bombings into his argument is weak sauce to me.

Again, maybe this guy's next letter to the editor should be telling them about how bad they ****ed up this week. But no, he won't because it's not part of his agenda.

What if she got a job at a 7-11 down the street from his house. Is he going to go on a crusade to get her fired and is that just?

I have a friend that stabbed someone a few years ago. Should he or his employer get shit from now until eternity for it??? He works with knives ftr.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

And my point in this is that it's ironic as hell that the NYP is fanning that heat and criticism on their back page, while committing slander on the front page.

Really, I could give two shits about this lady. Her place of employment has and will have no effect on me. Really, her place of employment has no effect on the writer of this OpEd. I don't fault him for harboring resentment for her, but the fact that he's trying to parlay the Boston bombings into his argument is weak sauce to me.

Again, maybe this guy's next letter to the editor should be telling them about how bad they ****ed up this week. But no, he won't because it's not part of his agenda.

What if she got a job at a 7-11 down the street from his house. Is he going to go on a crusade to get her fired and is that just?

I have a friend that stabbed someone a few years ago. Should he or his employer get shit from now until eternity for it??? He works with knives ftr.

So you see no difference in her having a job at 7-11, and having a job where she is in a position of authority and influence over young college students?

Fascinating.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

So you see no difference in her having a job at 7-11, and having a job where she is in a position of authority and influence over young college students?

Fascinating.

Not if she's sticking to the curriculum. Why don't we ask her students how they feel about her abilities?

One things for sure, you have no business being a teacher since you just make stuff up.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Why is that again?

I think it is morally wrong to hire someone who has done such heinous things in their life to teach and have influence over young college students. To me, it is akin to hiring a pedophile in a daycare. Whether she has served her time or not, and whether she is still an active terrorist are irrelevant. It is not worth taking the chance, in my opinion.

Columbia certainly has done its best to not acknowledge her past....it is not even in her bio. Hiding it from parents and potential students perhaps?

I think she is evil. As evil as any member of Al Qaeda. I do not think she takes full responsibility for her actions. I think her "remorse" was more for the parole board than anything else. But those are strictly my opinions.

[BigChiefTablet]

Originally Posted by La literatura

This is why we need ideologically-based affirmative action for ex-terrorists.

I get that you're poking fun here, but I think it's an interesting question. I think it's a pretty terrible idea to have a college professor of any political leaning that used to be a terrorist. But I wonder if this was a right wing ex-terrorist would some of these people that are defending Boudin change their tune?

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Not if she's sticking to the curriculum.

If you think she is strictly sticking to the curriculum and says nothing about politics, you are naive.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

If you think she is strictly sticking to the curriculum and says nothing about politics, you are naive.

Cool, go ask her students and superiors about about how she handles her classes. When they start bitching, I'll change my stance on this.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I get that you're poking fun here, but I think it's an interesting question. I think it's a pretty terrible idea to have a college professor of any political leaning that used to be a terrorist. But I wonder if this was a right wing ex-terrorist would some of these people that are defending Boudin change their tune?

Valid question. As far as I am concerned, the fact the she is a terrorist outweighs any of her political views. I would not want my child in any class taught by a terrorist, regardless of their political affiliation. I would also not want my child in a class taught by a murderer or a rapist, or any violent felon...regardless of their political affiliation. I think most parents would be that way.

[Prison Bitch]

Trent Lott had to resign as Majority leader for a joke. She was involved in murders

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Being a terrorist is like having herpes. Once you've got it it doesn't go away.

Manson hasn't murdered in decades. We cool with him now?

Her mom was a Muslim. Shocker! Also she committed the second crimes when she was a 38 year old mother. She wasn't some dumb teen.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Why is that again?

If for no other reason than she provides an example for her young students of the idea that they can act out in profoundly socially unacceptable ways and some day use it on their resume.