I think it is interesting to contemplate on the fact "between 1970 and 1980, domestic terrorist organizations committed more than 400 bombings in the United States." (Richard Posner). Ayers was active in the early 70s. The 70s saw the Church and Pike Committees, expansion of autonomy and women's rights, and so on. That is, when domestic terrorism was relatively rampant we experienced a growth in rights, and no equivalent of the Patriot Act under Reagan. The claim that the Bush Administration concocted the fear to facilitate repressive policies is supported by those facts. There is some empirical data out there saying that the normal response of people to something like a bombing is not fear, but concern and other emotions. Fortunately, it appears we will be able to move from fear mongering as a policy end.
 

More 1970s: Nixon/Agnew got 48 states and 520/537 electoral votes in 1972.
 

That is, when domestic terrorism was relatively rampant we experienced a growth in rights, and no equivalent of the Patriot Act under Reagan.

We also saw Kent State and Jackson State, and a good many of the abusive tactics which led to the Church Committee. The Ominbus Crime Control Act was two years earlier, in 1968. Along with lots of other stuff; helluva year, 1968.

By the time the Church Committee held its hearings, much of the domestic violence was in the past.
 

I was wondering if academia would raise the question of its association and indeed embrace of the unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

Can someone please tell me how on Earth our universities extended these unrepentant terrorists jobs as professors nevertheless tenure?

The excuses offered on the O'Reilly segment are lame to say the least:

1) Ayers has been redeemed. Redemption is the admission of sin and the request for forgiveness. Ayers is an utterly unrepentant terrorist. Rather than admitting wrongdoing, Ayers famously told the NYT just before 9/11 ”I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Then this scum had the hutzpah to run a cartoon on his blog dismissing his murderous bombing campaign as "a dramatic form of armed propaganda." In an April 11, 2002 interview on college radio, Ayers expressly stated that he regretted nothing from his years as a Weather Underground terrorist.

2) Bill Ayers was not convicted of anything. Please. And OJ was also not convicted of gutting his ex-wife like a pig in a slaughter house. Ayers admitted to participating in at least three bombings. The fact that the exclusionary rule saved him from a well deserved stint in prison hardly means that this proud terrorist is innocent.

3) Ayers condemned the 9/11 attacks. Nonsense. In the radio interview to which I linked above, Ayers "despaired" seeing the patriotism that arose from the nation's "suffocating narrow view of what September 11 represents."

4) Ayers is an advocate for school reform. The Manhattan Institute's City Journal had a rather pithy response to this excuse:

Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer. (If you find the metaphor strained, consider that Walter Duranty, the infamous New York Times reporter covering the Soviet Union in the 1930s, did, in fact, depict Stalin as a great land reformer who created happy, productive collective farms.) For instance, at a November 2006 education forum in Caracas, Venezuela, with President Hugo Chávez at his side, Ayers proclaimed his support for “the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chávez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” Ayers concluded his speech by declaring that “Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation,” and then, as in days of old, raised his fist and chanted: “Viva Presidente Chávez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”

As I have shown in previous articles in City Journal, Ayers’s school reform agenda focuses almost exclusively on the idea of teaching for “social justice” in the classroom. This has nothing to do with the social-justice ideals of the Sermon on the Mount or Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Rather, Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children with the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive. As a leader of this growing “reform” movement, Ayers was recently elected vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the nation’s largest organization of ed school professors and researchers.

Both of Ayers' colleagues on the O'Reilly show had never once even broached the subject of Weather Underground terrorism with Ayers. Not once. How can that possibly be?

Let us conduct a thought experiment. Imagine if you will that Timothy McVeigh managed to get the evidence of the Oklahoma bombing suppressed and the charges against him dismissed. Imagine further that McVeigh openly told that NYT that he wished he had conducted more bombings. Finally, imagine that McVeigh was otherwise academically qualified to teach as a professor of law.

Would any professor here urge their school of law not to extend a position as a fellow professor to McVeigh? Why?

If McVeigh became your colleague, would you remain silent about his terrorism or confront and condemn him for it?

If you would oppose your university making McVeigh a professor and would confront and condemn McVeigh for is terrorism, why were Ayers and Dohrn not similarly opposed, confronted and condemned?
 

If you would oppose your university making McVeigh a professor and would confront and condemn McVeigh for is terrorism, why were Ayers and Dohrn not similarly opposed, confronted and condemned?

One might perhaps start with 168 reasons. That is, if one possessed some facility with reason.
 

In a sense, aren't some defendants charged with DUI, especially repeat offenders, actual or potential domestic terrorists? If so, applying little Lisa's bro's GBA standards, might the attorneys representing such defendants be tainted by such representation?

And did John McCain review with G. Gordon Liddy his role in Watergate? Did John McCain condemn Liddy? Who came closer to closing down our government, Ayers or Liddy?

Another Pinocchio for Backpack!
 

I've said it before, I'll say it again and again and again: Liberals do themselves no favor to grapple with the likes of Hannity or Limbaugh or O'Reilly. It is an act of truly pathetic naïvité to think anything resembling reasoned discourse can prevail with these thugs. However right Professor Tanenhaus is about Ayers, he came across as an effete intllectual...because that's how O'Reilly set him up. The other speaker made a nice contrast, with his bellicosity, and Bill gets to look manlier than the quiet milquetoast and more urbane than the shouter, and ad sales for the show stay stable.

The single greatest failing of liberals today is mistaking a sucker punch and a kick in the groin for a friendly round of pugilism. The sooner y'all figure it out the sooner we can stop wasting time with trolls and other heels.

Peace,

rl
 

Nixon/Mitchell/Rehnquist used warrantless domestic national security wiretapping (leading to FISA), abused grand juries, imposed "limited martial law" to sweep demonstrators off the street, offed much of the leadership of the Black Panther Party, planted agents provocateurs in anti-war organizations -- oh yes, it was such a flowering of civil liberties.
 

"Liberals do themselves no favor to grapple with the likes of Hannity or Limbaugh or O'Reilly. It is an act of truly pathetic naïvité to think anything resembling reasoned discourse can prevail with these thugs..."

Hannity's a thug, yes. Limbaugh's bright but kind of bigoted. O'Reilly though, at least in my view, has done some of the best interviews of the presidential candidates I've seen this whole election cycle. His show's crap, for the most part, but if his guest is important enough he's capable of being a decent guy and a thoughtful interviewer. Watch his interviews of Hillary and Obama.
 

O'Reilly though, at least in my view, has done some of the best interviews of the presidential candidates I've seen this whole election cycle.

Look folks, it's all show biz to O'Reilly. He puts on whatever face best suits his agenda.

Nonetheless, you could have predicted that O'Reilly would try to mop the floor with the guy, like he did with Krugman. Tananhaus is just too tempting a target for some cheap shots.


In the case of the Democratic candidates, I suspect he was under orders from his boss to play nice for various Machiavellian reasons, like maybe avoiding post-election vendettas if the Dems win. Keep in mind that Murdock's British papers supported Labor when it was clear the Tories were on their way out.
 

Is Robert proof that conservatives have no missing Link, at least at this Blog? How about a round of friendly Repuglism?
 

tray: "...O'Reilly though..."

O'Reilly is an old school tabloid "journalist", the kind of hack who would call his show "the no spin zone" and then have one of the 20th Century's most famous spin meisters, Newt Gingrich, on as a regular "fair-and-balanced" commentator. "Hypocritical" doesn't begin to cover it. The record is equally clear that O'Reilly strategically arranges his interviews to suit his desired outcome and is more than willing to cut the mic of any guest who begins to get the better of him. (Incidentally, let me take a second here to plug this write up, by Tom Tomorrow, of the Glick incident in particular.) Point being, tray, your credibility suffers if you can, with a straight face, offer up O'Reilly as "a thoughtful interviewer", and I shouldn't need to explain why your qualification, "...when the guest is important enough..." serves my point better than yours.

He's a thug. Intelligent people everywhere should be ignoring him and his ilk in droves.

Parenthetically, have any of you, my fellow Balkinites, ever actually clicked through to read that 1996 Gingrich memo? Now is as good a time as any, and it truly is worth the effort.
 

antonio maneti: "Keep in mind that Murdock's British papers supported Labor when it was clear the Tories were on their way out."

First, pleased to meet you, as I don't think we've interacted here before.

Second, would you write a little more about the bit I've quoted?
 

Mark Field said:

" ... helluva year, 1968.

By the time the Church Committee held its hearings, much of the domestic violence was in the past."

You're right. I was focusing on the idea of terrorism and Posner's statement. However, I think my general point extends back into the 60s. We, as a society, did not militarize law enforcement institutions in response to "terrorism." Perhaps this was because the Cold War afforded a somewhat clear set of polarities - military and intel generally foreign, Hoover's FBI (1895-1972) generally domestic. The question you raise though, is one of how the historical narrative can be read. Did the "terrorism" work? (i.e., to give us more rights, or shake off the repressive pre-60s political ideology). NPR played clips yesterday of McCarthy accusing the IWW of being a terrorist organization (1952?); and Ike warming of the military-industrial complex (1960). In any event, the idea of 400 bombings is striking to me. If we had anything like that frequency of bombings now we would be living under martial law.
 

mattski said...

BD: If you would oppose your university making McVeigh a professor and would confront and condemn McVeigh for is terrorism, why were Ayers and Dohrn not similarly opposed, confronted and condemned?

One might perhaps start with 168 reasons. That is, if one possessed some facility with reason.

Are you really arguing that inept unrepentant terrorists should be tenured as professors, but the effective unrepentant terrorists should not?

That does not say much for your vetting process to hire only stupid terrorists.
 

inept unrepentant terrorists should be tenured as professors?

Like John Yoo? Perhaps not the best policy.
 

garth sullivan said...

Bart, address the fact that Ayers one a Citizen of the Year Award and hobnobs with rich republicans as well as democrats and is an acknowledged expert on education.

Go ask the Chicago organization that named an unrepentant terrorist "Citizen of the Year" to justify that travesty.

Likewise, you can ask Ayers' friends like Barack Obama why they hobnob with this unrepentant terrorist.

My question is to the professors who post here why academia extended tenured positions to Ayers and Dohrn.

Ayers did not kill anyone.

I was not for a lack of trying. Ayers is simply inept.
 

However, I think my general point extends back into the 60s. We, as a society, did not militarize law enforcement institutions in response to "terrorism." Perhaps this was because the Cold War afforded a somewhat clear set of polarities - military and intel generally foreign, Hoover's FBI (1895-1972) generally domestic. The question you raise though, is one of how the historical narrative can be read. Did the "terrorism" work? (i.e., to give us more rights, or shake off the repressive pre-60s political ideology). NPR played clips yesterday of McCarthy accusing the IWW of being a terrorist organization (1952?); and Ike warming of the military-industrial complex (1960). In any event, the idea of 400 bombings is striking to me. If we had anything like that frequency of bombings now we would be living under martial law.

The national guard got called out a lot in the 60s, which I suppose qualifies as "living under martial law". Some of that involved keeping civic order (Watts riots), some of it involved simple protests (Kent State). Sometimes it involved the left (anti-War protests), sometimes the right (integrating Ol' Miss with the 82d Airborne). To answer Garth's question, I don't have an exact count, but I feel pretty confident in saying that far more people were killed by right wing terrorists than by left wingers like Ayers.

Did all of this lead to a more open society or a more closed one? Well, that's harder to say. Certainly our society today is generally more open; FAR more so than the 50s. I suspect that lots of factors went into that and I'd hesitate to attribute any specific percentage to the extremist stuff the Weather Underground did. My inclination is that they had little to do with the opening, but lots to do with the reaction we saw under Nixon and even as late as Reagan.

What we see today is an odd mixture. Society is much more tolerant of racial and other differences than back then. Speech is a lot freer in many respects, certainly so when it comes to things like pornography, but even political speech seems more uninhibited to my subjective ears.

OTOH, we imprison lots more people than we used to. I suspect the trade-off is this: the criminal acts of people like Ayers contributed to the greater imprisonment, while the more mainstream protests like MLK and a lot of the anti-War protests had more to do with the increased social equality and more general tolerance of expression.

In general, I think societies are more likely to accept open differences when they're confident that violence won't ensue. The harsh prison tactics we adopted under Republican rule may have even contributed to the victory of the left in the "culture war".
 

Garth Sullivan: "better not to lie down with pigs."

Thanks for the nod. Let me offer the possibility that it is our liberal brethren who are reality challenged: too often we see sow's ear and think silk purse. It isn't that an O'Reilly or a Hannity or a Coulter is reality challenged, it's that they are playing an entirely different game with only one rule: win in the eyes of the targeted demographic. Truth, reason, fairness have nothing to do with it; maintaining the proper image in the eyes of that chosen set of semi-literate plebes on which the Imperium's hopes rest is the only thing that counts. If the Limbaughs and Pragers were truly reality challenged they couldn't make such a good business of their nonsense nor count on the mindless parroting of that nonsense by the aforementioned plebes. Underestimating this is one of our key weaknesses.
 

Mark Field: "...the victory of the left in the "culture war"."

Perhaps that overstates matters? I might agree that the pendulum has swung in our direction on many issues for quite a while, but it certainly isn't at rest, and in a world where a Justice Roberts can be billed as "moderate" or a Sarah Palin can reach national prominence of any sort, well, I don't think that's a world where we can say we've "won".
 

philiatros:

"between 1970 and 1980, domestic terrorist organizations committed more than 400 bombings in the United States."

Any idea of the breakdown here? IIRC, a good number of these bombings were by Puerto Rican separatists (which might or might not be considered "domestic terroris[m]" depending on how you look at that).

How about fatalities?

Cheers,
 

"Won" is perhaps a slight overstatement, but not by that much. I'm comparing where we were in, say, 1964 with where we are today. It's SO much better that it seems like a win to me.
 

I have to go ahead and throw my hat in with Robert Link.

I did, however, find the title of this post comical. "A legal historian takes on Bill O'Reilly."

Takes on?

Please tell me you jest, Professor.

As correct as Tanenhaus was on the merits, the result for the average O'Reilly viewer will be something like: "All these intellectual types, supportin' unrepentant terrorists. That's what's wrong with universities today. Liberal elites. America's goin' to hell in a handbasket. Might as well just surrender now, if they had their way, those traitors."

On the other hand, the title of this post, coupled with Tanenhaus' performance, do convince me that academics really should just stay out of bare-knuckled politics, for their own good. And ours. Let the foot soldiers mix it up with the thugs on the other side, guys. Your "reason" and "analysis" and "understanding" and "research" is futile out here.
 

would you write a little more about the bit I've quoted?

Sure, see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/03/AR2005050301695.html

When it comes to preserving his "empire", Murdoch belongs to the realist school of politics.
 

Bart writes:
Can someone please tell me how on Earth our universities extended these unrepentant terrorists jobs as professors nevertheless tenure?

Same way they do sociopathic hacks like John Yoo.
 

Go ask the Chicago organization that named an unrepentant terrorist "Citizen of the Year" to justify that travesty.

If Ayers were a terrorist then the organization would be prosecuted for providing aid and comfort. That they aren't seems to indicate that you don't know what you're talking about, much like all of the people promulgating this story, providing even more reason why the Republicans deserve to lose in a landslide everywhere. Unrepentant partisanship and ahistoricity.
 

eric said...

BD: Go ask the Chicago organization that named an unrepentant terrorist "Citizen of the Year" to justify that travesty.

If Ayers were a terrorist then the organization would be prosecuted for providing aid and comfort.

Praising a domestic terrorist for something unrelated to is terrorism is not providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.

...even more reason why the Republicans deserve to lose in a landslide everywhere. Unrepentant partisanship and ahistoricity.

It is truly sad when condemnation of a terrorist is considered to be something only the GOP does.

What ever happened to you Dems?
 

Praising a domestic terrorist for something unrelated to is terrorism is not providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.

Looks like Bart isn't much for the evidence that he himself demands of others.

It is truly sad when condemnation of a terrorist is considered to be something only the GOP does.

It's in inventing terrorists where the GOP stands out, kind of like a pop-culture version of the Uighurs in Guantanamo.
 

That's what's wrong with universities today. Liberal elites. America's goin' to hell in a handbasket.

As funny as this stereotype may be to repeat, I just want to point out that it's Sean's nieces, not Sean himself, that leave the "g" off of -ing words.
 

Are you really arguing that inept unrepentant terrorists should be tenured as professors, but the effective unrepentant terrorists should not?

No, Bart, I'm not. I'm arguing that a) I am not aware of any evidence that Ayers intended to kill anyone and b) whether or not you believe he is "repentant" or not, Ayers has redeemed himself in the eyes of society by letting go of violence and embracing more constructive means of engagement.

If you would simply pay attention to the facts of Ayers life, including especially the fact that his past is past, you would see before you a person devoted to making a positive impact on his world.
 

Garth: "you can't fake that angry"

We're getting pretty deep into the psych of things, which means we're getting pretty speculative. I tend to think that kind of anger comes precisely from a repressed awareness of one's hypocrisy and the cognitive dissonance it generates. Stipulating the efficacy of polarized argumentation in some venues, over-reliance on such means a fair amount of time knowingly proffering disingenuous and even blatantly unsound arguments. That catches up with a person in time. The self-loathing builds and eventually one acts out. So too with practicing law, for there is always that percentage of clients who are in the wrong, on the losing end, but who must still be represented. It's part of why attorneys are, as a class, such jerks.

So I agree, you can't fake that kind of angry. But I disagree that it stems from complete belief in or acceptance of the rhetoric and tactics involved. Quite the contrary. Take for example O'Reilly's unwillingness to discuss Glick's statement that "six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan". This claim is easily enough supported with a quick google search for the words brzezinski afghanistan. But O'Reilly must at all costs prevent his viewers from taking the time to do such research, so the topic itself is verbotten. I do not find it credible that O'Reilly himself is ignorant of on this topic; it's just his job to keep his viewers ignorant of such simple historical facts. So I think part of O'Reilly's anger stems from knowing he's a huckster. But even more important, I think a lot of his anger stems from having developed a taste for bullying and getting away with it and a distaste for being thwarted in his favorite game, such as when a guest refuses to be cowed.

As for the anger of the consumers of Bill's swill, I think this touches on my recent trope of "Liberal is the new N-word". Folks who consume too much neo-con politi-tainment end up modeling the commentators, perhaps not intentionally or consciously, but quite effectively. And so in otherwise polite conversation, at the coffee shop, at Sunday brunch, on academic political blogs, they act out the same bullying question-begging shell games. When you hear someone say "...liberals..." in a certain tone you know conversation is finished and all that remains is the equivalent of a small child kicking and slapping people after watching too many episodes of Power Rangers.

Doin' what I love, and glad to be back.
 

I'm voting for Obama, and I don't give a crap whether he had dealings with Bill Ayers (although I think the better approach to such people is to shun them a la OJ Simpson after his murder acquittal).

That said, when it comes to academics defending Ayers with respect to his supposedly fine work as an educator, I have the following response:

As far as I am concerned, Bill Ayers can go to hell.
 

Ayers wants to have it both ways. He wants credit for his radical past but wants at the same to time to play the reformist liberal. Judging by his statements he's not doing a very good job, intellectually, of negotiating the contradictions. Talking about his own past he comes of as a confused narcissist, which is what he was in the past. But now he acts -functions- consistently as a liberal reformer. So his old dreams affect his self-image but not his actions. People should be able to see that for what it is. even if he can't.
People who only know him and worked with him in later life shouldn't have to apologize for their acquaintance. I might ask his close friends to work a little harder, if only because he seems as shallow as ever.
 

Straw men and red herrings. Ayers qua Ayers is immaterial to an Obama presidency, save that it serves the GOP to have us talking about Ayers, or talking about Powell's race, rather than keeping our eye on the meat of the matter: the abject failure of the Bush/Cheney rule over the past 7+ years and the certainty that a McCain/Palin administration would mean staying the course and worse. Anything that distracts from that message serves the GOP.

So my question: Why are liberals still so reactive, responsive, defensive? Why do they seem to utterly fail to grasp the notion of initiative, and instead let the politi-tainment industry lead them around by the nose?
 

robert:

Why are liberals defensive about their candidate's relationships with terrorists, a PLO member, a slumlord felon and whackjob racist preachers?

Perhaps some libs have consciences.

I assure you that if McCain had that resume, I would be voting libertarian.
 

@Bart,

Thank you for supporting many of my points by so consistently exemplifying the emptiness of GOP politi-tainment parrots. In particular a sentence such as, "Perhaps some libs have consciences" is exactly the usage of "Liberal" as "the new N-word" which I have mentioned a time or two recently, and I appreciate having so handy an exemplar for future reference.

Shall we go back to ignoring each other now?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"I assure you that if McCain had that resume"
He does have that resume.

His father-in-law and and financial and political Daddy is a convicted felon, and his friend G. Gordon Liddy advises people on how to shoot federal officers: "in the head." he's a supporter of Colombia's Uribe who's connected at the hip to Rightist paramilitaries. And lets not even get started on the racist preachers. The second of Obama's annoying preachers and an old friend of the first is a white Catholic, so lets forget about the racist part and just concentrate on the annoyance.

I don't expect much of people, even the authors of this site who by and large defend the expulsion of 3/4 of a million people in the name of a right to "return"

"We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"
David Ben Gurion.
Why indeed? But Brett, you'll have to do better. You're a defender of crimes against humanity on a far greater scale, and closer in time if not geography, than anyone here is willing to defend.

By the way, is Obama going to attack Iran?
 

@D. Ghirlandaio,

Israel/Palestine is but one more crucial matter the GOP echo chamber must keep out of the mix. Thus O'Reilly types focus on who brought down the WTC, and how, but fervently avoid any substantive discussion of why. "They hate us for our freedoms" sells more soap than, "We're complicit is historical injustices so colossal that there is no solution that won't wrong someone anew."

That said, how does the 3/4 million displaced by a "right to return" compare with the numbers dispossessed by Britain and France creating "the state of Israel" in the first place? And when is it too late to right that kind of wrong? I know we can't bring back the Mohicans here at home, but is it really too late to do the right thing in Palestine? My mind is still not made up on a "least evil" solution in Palestine. So far all answers suck.
 

The simple answer is in the annexation of the west bank and Gaza by a bi-national state. You could call it a multi-ethnic state but since Palestinians are Jews are still genetically almost identical, I'm not sure that's even the right term.
And Bart, I forgot to mention McCain's connections to Chalabi.
 

@D. Ghirlandaio, That certainly sounds reasonable at first blush. Do you have a preferred resource examining this or other options for Palestine?
 

This is all changing the subject so this is it for me:
However: "at first blush"
...and again.
And you might recognize Tony Judt
 

"But Brett, you'll have to do better."

I'd have to have "done" to have "done better"; Haven't commented on this thread yet. But I will comment on this:

"and his friend G. Gordon Liddy advises people on how to shoot federal officers:"

Liddy was commenting on the Waco atrocity, where federal agents went in shooting to enforce a fraudulently obtained non-violent crime warrant, in an effort to obtain some good PR at budget time after it was revealed that they'd been manning a 'nigger hunting license' booth at a racist gathering.

If I'd been there, you may be sure that I would have been shooting to kill the sons of bitches, and I have a lot of company in that regard.

It's remarkable the way the left has let their hatred of gun ownership blind them to the way the government was going around committing atrocities during the late 80's and early 90's. The militia movement wasn't a reaction to nothing, folks, and if that had gone on, we might have had a revolution.

I truly fear that, with the Democratic party's hostility to gun ownership, and willful blindness to just how ugly their favorite goon squad had gotten, one of the consequences of Obama's victory is that the BATF is once again going to be going around kicking in doors, and burning houses down.

And the militia movement will be back again, for cause.
 

I truly fear that, with the Democratic party's hostility to gun ownership, and willful blindness to just how ugly their favorite goon squad had gotten, one of the consequences of Obama's victory is that the BATF is once again going to be going around kicking in doors, and burning houses down.

Hey Brett, I'm a liberal Democrat and I was shocked when I watched 'Waco: Rules of Engagement.' I think every American should watch that documentary. One of the lessons I took from it was that the Waco raid was fundamentally a rogue operation divorced from the executive branch. It happened in spite of Janet Reno, who was deliberately held out of the loop by the bad actors in question. Truly a sordid tale. But there is no justification for calling those goons "our" goons.

And you shouldn't lump all Democrats together as anti-gun ownership. From my perspective you have trouble reigning in your paranoia and your world becomes colder and more frightening as a result.
 

Mattski, I'm well aware that not all Democrats, not even all Congressional Democrats, are anti-gun. But if we're going to generalize, (And we must at times.) it's most of them. And your party just picked one of the most fanatical anti-gunners around for it's standard bearer. Honestly, Obama makes Chuck Schumer look moderate on the subject.

The beginning of Waco was unquestionably the responsibility of the first Bush administration; Reagan reined in the BATF when he took office, (Would have dismantled the agency if Democrats in Congress would have let him.) and one of the first things Bush the Elder did on taking power was to cut them lose and say, "Sic 'em!". I mean, what WERE they supposed to take from the fact that the guys responsible for Ruby Ridge got promotions??? That restraint was the order of the day?

So, it's not like there aren't anti-gunners in the GOP, too. Hell, the current Bush ran on renewing the AWB, and other sundry gun control measures, and only shut up about it when his campaign advisers told him to stop cutting his political throat. McCain is quite a bit better on the subject, a damn shame he's so bad on the 1st amendment I can't stomach voting for him.

But you can't blame the way Waco ended on Bush. That was all Clinton administration, had Reno's bloody fingerprints all over it. She's always been a bit of a maniac when anybody says "child abuse", and as she later demonstrated in the Elian case, doesn't mind using SWAT to end peaceful situations she doesn't like.

At any rate... I'm glad YOU aren't in denial about Waco, but that's where you'll find most of your party. Do expect that stuff to start up again when Obama takes office, and the BATF's choke chain comes off again.
 

Madre de Dios.
Brett, Bart, Bart, Brett
oops
 

As to Ayers, I would ask what he is doing NOW. His actions, as shown by bipartisan support in various quarters, are useful. Some involvement with someone the city of Chicago, its mayor and various Republicans worked with or honored is not a mortal sin in my eyes.

I also don't think Waco is akin to Vietnam or the evils of racism. Not to justify violent solutions to either, including gunning for police who use extreme force. Also, interesting eliding past all the darkness in the militia movement, including the racist aspects. The "cause" is a lot more than Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[The ACLU et. al. were concerned about such incidents and a lot more "atrocies," so I'm unsure how much the "left" was less benign on such grounds that "the right" who supports the drug war etc. that led to comparable horrors, in total numbers surely.]

The "anti-gun" sentiment of the Democrats, to whom we surely can add many of the participants of this blog, include supporting an individual rights view of the 2A, hunting, having guns for self-defense (do only a tiny number of Dems have them?), and so forth. Finally, can you really serve in local office in many areas of the country and be anti-gun? Do such areas have no Democrats?

"Anti-gun" can mean support of restrictive laws in various respects. This often is regional. Rudy Giuliani was no big fan of guns until he ran for president.

As to the feds, the lack of cases (apart from felons) reflects that many of the laws touch around the edges. OTOH, when an "assault weapon" ban was at issue, a liberal judge that Republicans tried to block joined the dissents to a 9th Circuit ruling upholding it.

An honest use of "extreme" would tar a minority of the Dems, though surely (partially for regional reasons) the extreme side (that include the likes of Warren Burger) are more in that party.

Brett is selective in his concerns of individual liberty. When voting rights was up, he made it clear he was more concerned about overblown "voter fraud" than the more clear problem of voter suppression. His selective support of the concerns of the militia movement furthers the point.
 

Brett's comments here reinforce the point I've made before: there's an element on the right which simply refuses to accept the results of democracy. They cheat if they can, shoot if they must. But abide by the rules? Not a chance.
 

But you can't blame the way Waco ended on Bush. That was all Clinton administration, had Reno's bloody fingerprints all over it.

?

I didn't blame Waco on Bush (1), I blamed it on rogue elements in FBI/BATF. And I specifically exonerated Janet Reno, as I said, based upon the documentary, "Waco: Rules of Engagement" which I thought was outstanding.
 

Well, you should have blamed it on Bush. Reagan had the BATF under control, and Bush deliberately set them loose again. In mere months after he took office they were as bad as ever, or worse.

And forget "rogue elements"; The people responsible for Ruby Ridge got promoted, and went on to commit Waco. They weren't rogue elements, they were the sort of people the agency thought highly of.

"As to Ayers, I would ask what he is doing NOW."

Building the army his earlier war told him he needed, I think.
 

While Brett and the right wing generally are right about Waco, the comparison to what Reno did with Elian Gonzalez is not warranted.

What you had with Elian was a large community of people who were saying progressively outrageous statements in the media about how they were going to deny court orders, secrete away the kid, and otherwise make sure, one way or the other, that the kid could never reunite with his father no matter what the courts ruled. From a law enforcement perspective, that is something you can't capitulate to. Whatever the courts rule has to be enforced.

So, they had to figure out a way to get that kid out of that environment, and to do it in a way that wasn't going to result in bloodbath. The plan they executed (unlike Waco) did exactly that.

One can have a separate debate about the ultimate custody determination. But in terms of getting the kid out of the hands of passionate activists who were being egged on by local media to disobey the law in support of their higher, anti-Castro cause, the operation worked perfectly and no bullets were fired.
 

ABC News reports that a journalism student did what the terrorist Ayers' fellow professors will not:

Bill Ayers...told a journalism student attending a education justice symposium in New York Sunday he and other former radicals were being "demonized" by Fox News. "We're nice guys, right?"

Asked by the student, if he repudiated the actions of the Weather Underground, which carried out a series of 1960's robberies and bombings that killed at least six people, Ayers walked away without answering.
 

As I said above, it's clear Ayers wants to have it both ways. Refusing to see that leaves room for idiots like Bart. The Weathermen were self-indulgent idiots but you could make that some sort of violence was inevitable in the circumstances at the time. Fernando Gabeira ran against the candidate backed by Lula's party. And you know who Lulu is don't you Bart?

"Like the others, Gabeira says he evolved from guerrilla to politician long ago. In an interview, he said armed revolution -like the dictatorships spawned by the Cold War across Latin America - "is now behind us, in the last century".
Gabeira masterminded the 1969 kidnapping, dramatised in the 1997 film Four Days in September, starring Alan Arkin, which was based on a book Gabeira wrote.
Elbrick died in 1983. His daughter, a writer who was 26 when her father was kidnapped, said she long ago forgave Gabeira after she learned of the brutality of Brazil's military regime.
Gabeira and his group released the ambassador in exchange for 15 imprisoned leftists, but the US government still considers him "persona non grata" and he cannot get a US visa, a point the US embassy would not comment on.
Gabeira is running as the Green party candidate against Eduardo Paes of the Brazilian Democratic Movement party, which is aligned with the Workers party of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva."

The shallowness of the debate in this country, of Ayers, Bart, and I'm sorry to say the logic of this post, is just depressing. Tannenhaus comes off as as an absolutely tone-deaf bookworm.