In an earlier post discussing Barack Obama's political "friendship" with Bill Ayers, I maintained that people are missing a larger point.

Wright may have talked the talk, but Ayers walks the walk. This, IMO, makes it necessary for Obama to address the issue head-on, instead of issuing evasive statements about how Ayers is a neighborhood English teacher who did bad stuff in the past, but who's now become "respectable."

Unfortunately, the latter happens to be very true. I think it's a major reason Obama wants to duck the issue. Ayers and his evil wife should never have been allowed to become respectable. That they did is not an indictment of Obama, but an indictment of the left -- especially the academic, America-hating, left. These people are deeply embedded in the highest echelons of the Democratic intelligentsia, and Obama does not want to offend them.

My point is not to shock anyone, but to shed a bit of light on the nature of power. I think these unrepentant murderers in our midst are rendered respectable not in spite of their murderous actions, but because of them.

Anthropologically, the willingness to kill people is a valuable asset. Hmmm... Maybe "anthropologically" is a bad word choice. I think this is more on a gut instinct, animal level, perhaps touching on that reptilian brain which lies within each of us. Killers who get away with killing are respected as powerful people, and as sources of power.

Now, right there I've touched on another definitional issue. What is respect? What is respectable? We all respect a mob hit man, but it would hardly do to call him respectable. Yet made mobsters who have gotten away with murder are called "men of respect" are they not? But to be deemed truly respectable in the social sense, they have to legitimize their money, by making huge donations to the right politicians, and the right charities.

The unrepentant former Weather Underground, OTOH, need not go to so much trouble. They are considered inherently worthy of respect, as they are seen as having the moral authority that many people attach to the willingness to kill for a cause.

But that bothers me. Why should mob bosses (generally not traitors to their country) have to do it the hard way? Why do they have to work so hard to become legitimate, while Weather Underground terrorists are considered already legitimate? Is that fair?

(There I go, talking about fairness in the context of legitimizing murderers. You'd almost think I was on LSD....)

It's not so much the legitimizing of murderers that bothers me, it's the denial involved. If you want to respect a killer, that's one thing, but why not just come out and admit it?

Why launder the respect in layers of John Lennon "Imagine" bullshit?

Sheesh.

It's as if they're arguing that these people so loved peace that they were willing to kill for it.

Spare me.