Ayn Clouter alerted me

to this book review by Barbara Ehrenreich [sorry, the link was too long for the title] in the New York Times. She takes the gloves off her usual level of satire in her post. Or maybe not. You have to read both and decide.

As a Second Amendment advocate - as well as all the other nine in the Bill of Rights - I find both her attack on direct action and John Brown's actions overblown. I should emphasize that I think John Brown's actions in Pottawatomie, Kansas were, in fact, terrorism. I doubt that about his other actions. In those cases they were simply acts of war, politically besmirched by his terrorism at Pottawatomie.

On the other hand, there are points where Reynolds might have been stronger in Brown's defense. After the Fugitive Slave Act (1850) and the Dred Scott decision (1857), white people of conscience could no longer content themselves with supporting the Underground Railroad. A slave was a slave anywhere, the law declared, and for all time. Violence was beginning to look like the answer, not just to Brown, but eventually to Lincoln too.

But, Ms. Clouter says this argument also justifies the actions of Earth First. I say there's an obvious difference between the actions and arguments of the abolitionists - they were fighting a clear violation of human rights - and those of the enviro-wackos: the latter are not obviously right.

I was inculcated in environmentalism in school in the 1970s. I was raised in the country that was supposedly under assault. I've seen nothing but improvement since then. Saner heads have prevailed without violence.