Tanenhaus on the O'Reilly Factor

Following close on the heels of his article on Slate about Bill Ayers, my friend David Tanenhaus of UNLV's law school was on the O'Reilly Factor on Tuesday.   It's a rare accomplishment for a law professor to appear there--and an even rarer accomplishment to talk so calmly and intelligently.   You'll notice that when David finished a point, O'Reilly changed the subject.  Here's a link to the transcript.

Update: Here's a link to the Las Vegas Sun's article about this.

Update 2: Mary Dudziak over at legalhistoryblog has extensive coverage of this.

Comments

[Anon]

Um, you really think Tanenhaus and Singer were making great comments? For example, in the context relevant to Ayers and the election, it is only important that he hasn't been convicted of a crime and not important that he admitted to doing so? Supporting an ill-conceived war is morally equivalent to personally killing people? O'Reilly might be more bluster than intellect, but the two professors weren't any better.

[Alfred]

Anon, I didn't say anything about Singer's arguments. All the examples you used related to what Singer said, not what Tanenhaus said.

Tanenhaus spoke about redemption--something that O'Reilly largely agreed with. And something I agree with, because I find it one of our country's great values. People can and do remake themselves, often for the better. Later, Tanenhaus countered O'Reiily's charge that he was a "secular progressive" (whatever that means) by noting his record of standing up for academic freedom of people on the left and right. As I say, I think he brought a sense of serious discussion to that show, which I've rarely seen in several years of watching it.

[Anon]

Fair enough, you were only lauding one of the professors, and not defending the other. I guess Singer stands out because of his particularly unpersuasive arguments and Tanenhaus' failure to say anything particularly insightful. I'm sure if time had permitted, he would have been able to elaborate and perhaps make more insightful comments. Alas, such is the nature of televised public discourse these days.

[Anon]

Fair enough, you were only lauding one of the professors, and not defending the other. I guess Singer stands out because of his particularly unpersuasive arguments and Tanenhaus' failure to say anything particularly insightful. I'm sure if time had permitted, he would have been able to elaborate and perhaps make more insightful comments. Alas, such is the nature of televised public discourse these days.