Sunday, April 27, 2008

Ayers and Dohrn aren't trivial

Last week's post on Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn was in today's Best of the Blogs in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Part of my fascination with this issue - actually most of it - has little to do with Barack Obama. Ayers and Dohrn were hired into jobs that are not easy to get notwithstanding that they had less than stellar qualifications. Bernadine Dohrn was hired as a clinician at a prestigious law school notwithstanding a thin resume (she had, after all, been busy waging war against society and hiding from the police) consisting of some time as a paralegal (she can't practice law) and a few years at some liberal advocacy organizations. Although she certainly has been an active - if very political - scholar and advocate since then, I can't help but think that the folks at Northwestern enjoyed a bit of outlaw frisson in hiring a radical gangster.

As for Obama, it is one of an increasing number of data points that suggest he is what his Senate voting record suggests he is but that he steadfastly denies - a fairly traditional left liberal. It's not a huge thing, but neither is it irrelevant.

I don't think that those who believe that Ayers and Dohrn should be treated as respected and responsible members of the community endorse the type of terror that Weather Man and the Weather Underground engaged in. But it's hard not to conclude that they seem willing to forgive it because they believe that the US - whether by the war in Viet Nam, racism or its economic system - in some sense provoked it and is, therefore, at least partially complicit. This may not, in the minds of these folks, excuse these crimes, but it seems to be sufficiently extenuating to warrant that terrorists, like Dohrn and Ayers, be forgiven even if they have not paid - or even apologized - for their crimes.

If you don't believe me, imagine Northwestern or the University of Illinois hiring an unrepentant bomber of abortion clinics. Would Barack Obama sit on a board with someone who called for - and appears to have engaged in - lynchings and now refuses to apologize?

If you follow me, then accepting Ayers and Dohrn as something other than the pariahs that they ought to be suggests something about those who are willing to do so. It isn't that those who accept Ayers and Dohrn are themselves terrorists or radicals, but that they hold a view of the world (and, in particular, of the United States) in which certain types of terror, while not justified, are substantially less repugnant than others.

That world view, if it is held by Obama, is relevant to whether he ought to be President of the United States.

21 comments:

William Tyroler said...

Yes, the Ayers-Dohrn connection is relevant to Obama's candidacy (though it's given valence by Wright, without whom the Ayers-Dohrn discussion would probably have faded quickly). But the Ayers-Dohrn assumption of academic prominence is equally significant, if rarely mentioned. One of the few is Sol Stern, whose pre-Obama analysis of Ayers and the "social justice" movement in ed schools is well worth a look.

Dave Cooley said...

Ayers is a complete charlatan, brother-in-law Rick. "Education" is not even a true academic discipline, as anybody with a brain knows. Read Russell Kirk on how John Dewey ruined American public schools and culture.

Anonymous said...

Let's see, if you have been a terorists and have few credentials you can teach in some liberal Universities. However, if you are a science professor that has converted from evolution to intelligent design you are "Expelled" as shown in the movie.

Liberals are full of hyprocrisy.

Anonymous said...

This little excursion into vague guilt by association is -- alongside the dust-up over Obama's minister -- a complete pig in a poke. For anyone who disagrees, get thee to the following Glen Greenwald column at Salon.com (URL safely tiny-fied for your convenience):

http://tinyurl.com/5yfnw4

And on top of that, there was this recent editorial from that well-known bastion of lefty radicalism, the Chicago Tribune:

> ... Obama knows Ayers, a former radical and member of the Weather Underground who is now an academic in Chicago. They met years ago. They served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which provides money for antipoverty efforts.

> Ah, we know Ayers too. And his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. If you know people in Chicago academic circles, chances are you know Ayers and Dohrn. ...So we're going to side with Mayor Richard Daley on this one.

> "There are a lot of reasons that Americans are angry about Washington politics. And one more example is the way Sen. Obama's opponents are playing guilt by association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers," Daley said Thursday. "I don't condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep refighting 40-year-old battles."

> Well said. Now how about getting back to the real campaign?

So there you have it. Rail away as you like about the couple's academic qualifications, but that has zero to do with the fact that Obama once served on [shudder!] a not-for-profit board with Ayers. Oh, the humanity!

By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, please note that I recently moved to Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, that well-known Berkeley of the Midwest and the birthplace of Ms. Dohrn. Obviously, by this blog's standards, I am her fellow traveler and thus not to be taken seriously.

William Tyroler said...

Anon 7:25 might well be right that this is just a guilt-by-association claim that won't stick. The bigger scandal, I think, is that Ayers not only got off scot-free but that he's revered by the academy. (Same goes for Dohrn.) But there's another possible outcome to this evolving story, namely that Obama hasn't really come clean on his connection to Ayers. We'll see.

Anonymous said...

William Tyroler says that Ayers and Dohrn are "revered by the academy". Ridiculous generalization, much?

In a similar victory of absurd rhetoric over cogent argumentation, Mr Esenberg wrote that Ayers "is an unrepentant bomber rewarded with tenure at a state university."

Really? Rewarded for his bombings, or for his academic work -- conducted peacefully -- thereafter?

Yet one might incline to defer to Mr Esenberg on the topic of university appointments for political reliability, after all.

William Tyroler said...

William Tyroler says that Ayers and Dohrn are "revered by the academy". Ridiculous generalization, much?

I don't have time or energy to bring anonymous up to speed on what is an incontestable point. Actually, you don't have to go any farther than Ayers' exalted title: Distinguished Professor of Education. The apparently insomniac (5:52 a.m.) Anonymous might also have sauntered over to the link I noted above, where he or she would have seen further indication of the esteem in which Ayers is held ("For the methods courses, Bill Ayers’s To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher tops the bestseller list."). Or this little gem: "(Ayers) also turns up from time to time as a guest lecturer at Teachers College, where he gets a hero’s welcome."

Of course, if Anonymous means to say that Ayers is not only a hack, but that the ed school establishment sees hin for the rad-chic propagandist he is ... well, I'd certainly listen.

Anonymous said...

> Rewarded for his bombings

Now just a minute. Ayers was never convicted of bombing. He belonged for a time to the Weather Underground group, several of whose members blew themselves up making a bomb. Thus, the imagined Obama connection is, to be more precise, guilt by association TWICE removed.

And the URL's suggesting some kind of Obama coverup are lucicrous. His memberships and volunteerism are matters of public record. The "cover up" is that Obama won't admit that some of the people he brushed elbows with are, in the minds of some onlookers, unsavory. In other words, it STILL comes down to guilt by assocation. The Chicago Tribune editorial board calls openly calls the rhetorical snipers on their little gotcha game, and their response is: Well, Obama isn't playing our game. Duoh!

Anonymous said...

But beyond the "issue" of Obama knowing Ayers is the shoddy bait-and-switch methodology of a law professor who should know better. These arguments simply wouldn't hold up in court. To wit, taking just a couple examples from our host:

> If you don't believe me, imagine Northwestern or the University of Illinois hiring an unrepentant bomber of abortion clinics.

Since Ayers is neither unrepentant, or a bomber, or a bomber of abortion clinics, that's pretty much pure chub.

> Would Barack Obama sit on a board with someone who called for - and appears to have engaged in - lynchings and now refuses to apologize?

Ah, the race card once again. And again, the assumption is that Ayers refused to apologize for something it's only assumed (and not proved) that he did -- two wrong assumptions in one simple phrase. But let's dig hard and find Ayers stating his youthful belief to the effect that violence is as American as cherry pie. That might be a fiery observation, but it's still just an observation, arguably not even rising to the level of fighting words. I mean, just the other day Rush Limbaugh was openly calling on national radio for violence in Denver when the Democrats convene there. Should we quick round him up?

Beyond that, note the bait and switch here. Even stipulating that Ayers not only advocated violence but actually was once a bomber, did he ever blow up someone, or even some thing? And did he really not find fault with some of his more aggressive fellows in the underground? Ah, so many layers of nuance, so little time. So let's just cut to the chase: Obama consorts with known criminals and people who want to blow up the country or have God do it for them? That about cover it?

The part that gets me is that in the very worst case, either Obama is a closet Muslim or he's up to his neck in Christian fundamentalism, but the neocons seem to have no trouble believing he's both at once. Which makes the guy a U.S. senator who's a Christian Muslim fundamentalist Unabomber smoker with a vaguely threatening name who occasionally has dealt with possible unsavory people -- you know, in the very sort of the way the Bush family used to hang out with the bin Laden family.

> If you follow me, then accepting Ayers and Dohrn as something other than the pariahs that they ought to be suggests something about those who are willing to do so.

Rick's powers of suggestion are mighty, indeed. Who is he speaking of? People like Mayor Daley and the editorial board of the Chicago Trib, among others.

Recall that infamous line: "He's an S.O.B., but he's OUR S.O.B." And for better or worse that's S.O.P. in these United States, not only in politics but in business and community life as well.

In the very same state where Daley, Obama, and Ayers matriculated, the late Rep. Henry Hyde -- so rampantly offended by Bill Clinton's pecadilloes, excused his own sexual affairs by terming them "youthful indiscretions." If Hyde's point was legitimate, then the millions of outraged young adults who flooded our streets in the late '60s and early '70s had a far bigger point to make, especially after the Chicago police riot and the Kent State massacre. You don't have to be in favor of violence or radical political rhetoric to respect that many Americans were outraged at this country's behavior in the Vietnam era, and that a few of them sometimes took that outrage to excess. Understanding it is not the same as endorsing it. Nor is letting go forty years later a huge leap. Some protesters of that hoary era paid a price for their outrage, going to jail or indeed becoming pariahs. Others overcame, made something of themselves, and contributed to their communities -- just like Menahem Begin became a great leader years after himself committing atrocious acts. War is hell.

Ah, but once a fervent rager, always one. So implies our host. In which case, while we're at it, why not permanently take away voting rights for anyone convicted of a felony? Sure, they did their time, but their punishment should be unending, because, hey, they're just no damn good! And they'll always be no damn good.

And since there isn't a politician on this planet who hasn't at one time or another done business with someone unsavory, maybe we should ostracize them all, as well.

> It isn't that those who accept Ayers and Dohrn are themselves terrorists or radicals, but that they hold a view of the world (and, in particular, of the United States) in which certain types of terror, while not justified, are substantially less repugnant than others.

Reasonable on its face, perhaps, but implicitly hypocritical. Otherwise, how are we to classify (much less, justify) Bush terror and torture policies? Policies, by the way, explicitly now accepted by Sen. McCain. These Republicans aren't themselves terrorists are radicals, are they? Because that would be very bad!

> That world view, if it is held by Obama, is relevant to whether he ought to be President of the United States.

"If it is held": More like, it is to laugh.

Anonymous said...

But beyond the "issue" of Obama knowing Ayers is the shoddy bait-and-switch methodology of a law professor who should know better. These arguments simply wouldn't hold up in court. To wit, taking just a couple examples from our host:

> If you don't believe me, imagine Northwestern or the University of Illinois hiring an unrepentant bomber of abortion clinics.

Since Ayers is neither unrepentant, or a bomber, or a bomber of abortion clinics, that's pretty much pure chub.

> Would Barack Obama sit on a board with someone who called for - and appears to have engaged in - lynchings and now refuses to apologize?

Ah, the race card once again. And again, the assumption is that Ayers refused to apologize for something it's only assumed (and not proved) that he did -- two wrong assumptions in one simple phrase. But let's dig hard and find Ayers stating his youthful belief to the effect that violence is as American as cherry pie. That might be a fiery observation, but it's still just an observation, arguably not even rising to the level of fighting words. I mean, just the other day Rush Limbaugh was openly calling on national radio for violence in Denver when the Democrats convene there. Should we quick round him up?

Beyond that, note the bait and switch here. Even stipulating that Ayers not only advocated violence but actually was once a bomber, did he ever blow up someone, or even some thing? And did he really not find fault with some of his more aggressive fellows in the underground? Ah, so many layers of nuance, so little time. So let's just cut to the chase: Obama consorts with known criminals and people who want to blow up the country or have God do it for them? That about cover it?

The part that gets me is that in the very worst case, either Obama is a closet Muslim or he's up to his neck in Christian fundamentalism, but the neocons seem to have no trouble believing he's both at once. Which makes the guy a U.S. senator who's a Christian Muslim fundamentalist Unabomber smoker with a vaguely threatening name who occasionally has dealt with possible unsavory people -- you know, in the very sort of the way the Bush family used to hang out with the bin Laden family.

> If you follow me, then accepting Ayers and Dohrn as something other than the pariahs that they ought to be suggests something about those who are willing to do so.

Rick's powers of suggestion are mighty, indeed. Who is he speaking of? People like Mayor Daley and the editorial board of the Chicago Trib, among others.

Recall that infamous line: "He's an S.O.B., but he's OUR S.O.B." And for better or worse that's S.O.P. in these United States, not only in politics but in business and community life as well.

In the very same state where Daley, Obama, and Ayers matriculated, the late Rep. Henry Hyde -- so rampantly offended by Bill Clinton's pecadilloes, excused his own sexual affairs by terming them "youthful indiscretions." If Hyde's point was legitimate, then the millions of outraged young adults who flooded our streets in the late '60s and early '70s had a far bigger point to make, especially after the Chicago police riot and the Kent State massacre. You don't have to be in favor of violence or radical political rhetoric to respect that many Americans were outraged at this country's behavior in the Vietnam era, and that a few of them sometimes took that outrage to excess. Understanding it is not the same as endorsing it. Nor is letting go forty years later a huge leap. Some protesters of that hoary era paid a price for their outrage, going to jail or indeed becoming pariahs. Others overcame, made something of themselves, and contributed to their communities -- just like Menahem Begin became a great leader years after himself committing atrocious acts. War is hell.

Ah, but once a fervent rager, always one. So implies our host. In which case, while we're at it, why not permanently take away voting rights for anyone convicted of a felony? Sure, they did their time, but their punishment should be unending, because, hey, they're just no damn good! And they'll always be no damn good.

And since there isn't a politician on this planet who hasn't at one time or another done business with someone unsavory, maybe we should ostracize them all, as well.

> It isn't that those who accept Ayers and Dohrn are themselves terrorists or radicals, but that they hold a view of the world (and, in particular, of the United States) in which certain types of terror, while not justified, are substantially less repugnant than others.

Reasonable on its face, perhaps, but implicitly hypocritical. Otherwise, how are we to classify (much less, justify) Bush terror and torture policies? Policies, by the way, explicitly now accepted by Sen. McCain. These Republicans aren't themselves terrorists are radicals, are they? Because that would be very bad!

> That world view, if it is held by Obama, is relevant to whether he ought to be President of the United States.

"If it is held": More like, it is to laugh.

Anonymous said...

William Tyroler doesn't have "time or energy to bring anonymous up to speed on what is an incontestable point." Instead he links to a disastrously ill-argued web screed, one that quotes Ayers saying such outlandish things as:

“be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.”

...while describing Ayers' teaching in such terms as a "political commissar’s indoctrination session in one of his favorite communist tyrannies."

Oh, and Holy Cow! Ayers wears an earring!11!!

I have reason to believe that Tyroler is better than this. But it would be unsurprising that one would find it rational to say that Ayers is "revered by the academy", if one were also confused enough to find that article a powerful source of evidence rather than a gold mine for examples of guilt by association fallacies and foolish non-sequiturs.

Mr Tyroler, if you want to say that he's been honored by the University of Chicago and is influential in some educational theory circles -- fair enough. But silly rhetoric comprising vast over-generalizations only plays along with both anti-intellectualism and the most dishonest of the pin-the-label-on-Obama crowd.

William Tyroler said...

Mr Tyroler, if you want to say that he's been honored by the University of Chicago and is influential in some educational theory circles -- fair enough.

Well, yeah, that was my basic point. (Not to quibble -- it's the U of I - Chicago, not U of C.) Whether Anon 5:05 has "reason to believe that Tyroler is better than this" is beyond my ken, Anon declining to identify him or herself. Nonetheless, I appreciate his or her confidence that I can be "better"; I'm usually pretty doubtful about that myself, this being no exception.

There's a certain amount of nonsense in the comments, to the effect that Ayers wasn't ever convicted therefore he can't be termed a bomber. Problem is, he's admitted it. He never got convicted because, as the NYT recently reported, he was "indicted in 1970 for inciting to riot and conspiracy to bomb government buildings, but charges were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance." (Don't know if the link will work for non-subscribers, but it's in the 4/17/08 edition; besides, the info should be easily found elsewhere.) He got off, then, on some basis other than lack of proof.

If anyone needs help with this, there is Ayers' famous line on 9/11: ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

And, yes, when you get right down to it I am a bit queasy about an unreconstructed terrorist -- for that is what he is -- rising to a position of academic prominence. I would perhaps be less queasy if I thought there was genuine diversity of opinion in the academy. But there isn't, or at least not much, and Rick Esenberg has it right on that score.

Rick Esenberg said...

Ayers is a complete charlatan, brother-in-law Rick. "Education" is not even a true academic discipline, as anybody with a brain knows. Read Russell Kirk on how John Dewey ruined American public schools and culture.

Nice to hear from you, Dave. It doesn't have to be that way, but I am afraid that you are right. And, of course, you are in a better position to know than I am, having actually attended one of those places.

Brother Tyroler corrects the notion that Ayers is anything other than what he admits to be. Mayor Daley's belief that the advocacy of - and admission to at least an attempt at - murder - is excused by difficult times makes his father look good.

Anonymous said...

So here's Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, offering up prescient and now mainstream thoughts from a 2003 Milwaukee newspaper interview:

"Saddam is a bad guy and doesn't represent anything good in this world, (but) one could predict that no good will come of this war and be accurate," she said. "I think the consequences for our children's future are not good, and we'll make enemies of millions of children who will grow up hating us."

The government has an obligation "to defend itself and protect its people" following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "and there's nothing good to say about al-Qaida or the people who attacked us here," she said. But, she added, "nothing about this war is going to make us safer."

A more appropriate response to terrorism, she said, would be "not an endless war without borders" but acting under "the banner of the international law and crimes against humanity."

The news story continues with her look at the radical politics of the late '60s, an era where political theater was big all around and people like Abby Hoffmann and other people like Lester Maddox said all sorts of crazy things, half of them B.S. Anyway, listen in:

Despite their bombings, the Weather Underground was not a terrorist group, Dohrn insisted.

"We rejected terrorism. We were careful not to hurt anybody," she said. "We were in the middle of a very violent time. The U.S. was killing 2,000 people a day in three countries in Indochina, and throwing American lives into the breach. So our acts of resistance were tiny and symbolic."

So was the Weather Underground out of bounds? Perhaps. Did it commit crimes? Some members in its name certainly did. Did they pay a price? Some went to jail and others died by their own hand. Did they kill anyone? Unlike abortion murderer Randolph over on the right wing, the plain and simple answer is: No.

I'm a peaceful guy who doesn't like violent protest, but I'd defend my home with a gun and there are all sorts of Americans on the left and right who feel the same way, rightly or wrongly, about their homeland.

This issue, legitimate though it may be in another context, has nothing to do with Obama; rather, it has to do with the continuing, slow-motion civil war we find ourselves in. Over 150 years and counting, and blacks are still getting the shaft. I've been supporting other candidates, but the one huge plus Obama would bring to the White House is a determination to bring that war to an end. And perhaps a few others, as well.

Anonymous said...

"Mr Tyroler, if you want to say that he's been honored by [UI-C; thanks for the correction] and is influential in some educational theory circles -- fair enough."

Well, yeah, that was my basic point.


Since that's a profoundly different statement than that Ayers is "revered by the academy", it's unclear why you thought the latter worth such an absolute, nearly bombastic defense.

Whether Anon 5:05 has "reason to believe that Tyroler is better than this" is beyond my ken, Anon declining to identify him or herself.

I merely allude to other comments of yours that I've read.

I would perhaps be less queasy if I thought there was genuine diversity of opinion in the academy. But there isn't, or at least not much, and Rick Esenberg has it right on that score.

Then less-quease away, since this too is an errantly nonsensical generalization that you should be happy to let go.

A lack of people who agree with you on one particular point or very small set of points is not the same as a lack of diversity. Biological scientists are accustomed now to the baffling experience of emerging from their research environments, frequently punctuated with sharp, spirited, intellectually fertile disagreements between diverse theories and methods, only to encounter Ben Stein-style critics who insist that the academy is a bastion of closed-minded groupthink. Political science and economics departments are astonishingly diverse, too.

If you mean only to say "some Education departments" rather than "the academy", then (yet again) such a relatively modest claim is hard to dispute. But this trend of moving from bold, compelling, false claims to modest, insipid, true claims is largely the sign of overblown rhetoric encountering an evidential challenge. Again, I suspect you're better than that. But it's less obvious than it was.

William Tyroler said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William Tyroler said...

Since that's a profoundly different statement than that Ayers is "revered by the academy", it's unclear why you thought the latter worth such an absolute, nearly bombastic defense.

My on-line dictionary defines "honor" with reference to "high respect" and "revere" with reference to "deep respect." I'm not sure the terms are as "profoundly different" as Mr./Ms. Anon seemingly does. Nor am I sure that the difference, if any, is worth discussing. Maybe we can, instead, simply derive a consensus that the academy regards him as "distinguished" -- after all, that's the honorific the U of I sees fit to give him.

Those concerned about the effort to taint Obama with Ayers need to sharpen their argument against guilt by association, not that Ayers should be whitewashed (as some commenters seem inclined to do).

Anonymous said...

Maybe we can, instead, simply derive a consensus that the academy regards him as "distinguished" -- after all, that's the honorific the U of I sees fit to give him.

Well, whatever. If you believe the academy = UI-C, then you can at least say this with confidence. (By this standard, "the academy" recently released its Draft Report of the 2010 Strategic Thinking Committee...)

Those concerned about the effort to taint Obama with Ayers need to sharpen their argument against guilt by association

Why? Did something happen to make the screaming about Obama-acquaintances like Wright and Ayers and the silence about the McCain-courted nutbars like John Hagee something other than an obviously disgraceful hypocrisy?

How freaking "sharp" would you like it, for pete's sake?

William Tyroler said...

Did something happen to make the screaming about Obama-acquaintances like Wright and Ayers and the silence about the McCain-courted nutbars like John Hagee something other than an obviously disgraceful hypocrisy?

How freaking "sharp" would you like it, for pete's sake?

I doubt anyone else is paying attention at this point, but ... my first post above very clearly asserted that without Wright, we probably wouldn't be having much if any discussion about Ayers. Take that for whatever it's worth. Personally, as abhorrent as I find Ayers, I don't think a convincing case has been made (to this point; but I'll keep an open mind) that Obama had more than relatively innocuous contacts with him. Obama supporters might want to stress that, unlike Wright, the Ayers file is merely guilt by association and thus inadmissible. That's about all I meant.

Why my seemingly obvious (and, I would think) benign observation induces heat about "nutbars" and "disgraceful hyprocisy" is beyond me. I suspect it has something to do with anonymity in posting, but ultimately it doesn't matter. Unless one thinks that McCain's glancing connection to Hagee (repulsive though the latter might be) is even remotely similar to Obama's intimate, formative, and deacdes'-long association with Wright, then there simply is no analogy to be made. (Interesting recently compiled collection of Obama's own descriptions of the bond between the two here, by the way.)

Anonymous said...

Why my seemingly obvious (and, I would think) benign observation induces heat about "nutbars" and "disgraceful hyprocisy" is beyond me. I suspect it has something to do with anonymity in posting, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

Please be clear that I was not attributing said hypocrisy to you -- who have neither screamed about Wright, particularly, nor (more correctly) been silent about Hagee -- only to the public discourse in which, I presumed, you thought that Obama supporters yet had argumentation to perform.

As for the terms "nutbars" and "disgraceful hypocrisy", I chose them on the quite defensible grounds that they are accurate of that discourse.

parton said...

システムキッチン 東京競馬場 アンドロペニス まつげエクステンション 夫浮気 妻 浮気 ストーカー 体験入店 銀座 結婚式 二次会 大人のおもちゃ エステ 表参道 英会話 教材 税理士 東京 電報 結婚式 まつげエクステ カップリングパーティー 浮気調査 興信所 興信所 高収入 アルバイト 高収入 アルバイト 競馬 電話占い カップリングパーティー ウェルカムボード 株式情報