I realize this techblog hasn't been very "tech" this week and I apologize for it.  But being the damage is already done I wanted to address this only semi-tech topic to close out the week because it really does scare me. 

Dave Winer says...

McCain is quoted in today's NY Times, asking "How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?" I had to look twice to be sure who was being quoted and who he was talking about. Yup it was McCain and he was talking about William Ayers, who in the 60s was a member of the Weather Underground.
What McCain isn't telling you, and many Americans are too young to remember, including the Democratic nominee for President, is that there were two sides to the culture war of the 60s.

He then points to a post by Jane Smiley (which I'm quoting because it succinctly finishes his thought)...

On October 26, 1967, during his 23rd air mission, McCain´s plane was shot down during a bombing run over the North Vietnamese capital of Hanoi." Let's say, given those twenty-three bombing runs, the odds are for McCain having killed some innocents. How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people, John?

But, of course, John McCain's defense is that he was performing his patriotic duty, and that's what William Ayers would have said, too. I remember the Vietnam War. It was not a war of self-defense that the U.S. had to wage or had to win. It was a war of aggression, a waste of resources, lives, manpower, global good will, and national spirit. And, many would say, it was a war crime. Those who were against it viewed their protests as essential patriotism, a way of correcting terrible choices and profound injustices.

Basically what they are saying is that Bill Ayers, who had the support of his Radical Organization of about a 100 dedicated members, is as justified in taking lives as John McCain who was a member of the United States Military. 

This is quite literally one of the most terrifying things I've ever read.  I'll explain why but first a couple caveats...

Caveat #1: This really isn't a political issue.  McCain is trying to tie Obama to Ayers based on their past associations because its good politics but the truth is Obama has already denounced Ayers publicly.  Ayers is very powerful with the left in Chicago and Obama, in his early political career, needed those votes to win.  I certainly don't admire Obama for getting in bed with Ayers but I don't think it's relevant.  A lot of politicians hold their nose and deal with bad people to get elected.

Caveat #2: I admit ignorance to a certain extent on the topics concerning the Soviet Union.   I'm actually fairly well versed in the history but as someone who grew up in a post-Cold War world I accept that I'm unable to fully grasp the perceived danger that some felt from the Soviet Union and by extension the feelings people had about the Vietnam war.

That said, here's why the quote above scares me. 

When we elect a President we are entrusting him with a solemn trust.  He's the only single person who can originate an order to our military which means he's the only single person who is justified in bringing about deaths.  That's why we make him jump through so many hoops, that's why we tear his life apart from top to bottom and that's why he has to convince millions upon millions of people that he's worthy of the above trust.

His order alone makes a soldier justified in taking a life.  That's a VERY big deal.

On the flip side, that soldier can't be held responsible for anything he does.  He is justified because his job is to take orders from the person who the people of the United States have chosen to trust.  He NEVER, EVER acts based on his own judgement and that is fundamental (if he does he's committed the most serious of military crimes).  What that means is that he can neither decide to take a life or decide not to take a life based on his own judgements.

That soldier has nothing in common with a political radical who kills based on his own opinions.

In fact, I'd argue a political philosophy that puts soldiers on the same level as radicals is a scary one.  Because it indicates a belief that a hundred or so people (aka a Radical Organization) are then justified in killing innocents based on their political agenda.  That belief is downright terrifying in an Information Age that allows people to connect with like minded people almost instantly.

If a hundred or so people can decide to bomb buildings and be justified in doing so what does that mean in a world where most people have more than a hundred friends on their MySpace page? 

I realize that Mr. Winer and Ms. Smiley are on the far, far left and I assume that neither have violent tendencies themselves.  But there are those who do and pushing a philosophy that justifies violence based on one's own political opinion is just giving them license to act on their want for violence.  As it becomes easier and easier to go online and connect with people exactly like you the danger of Radicalism becomes more and more real.  I think we all need to consider that when justifying the actions of a person like Bill Ayers.