
Dangerous, Dirty, Violent, and Young: A Fugitive Family in the Revolutionary Underground. By Zayd Ayers Dohrn; W. W.Norton & Company, 2026
By Jonah Raskin / The Rag Blog / February 26, 2026
On July 26, 1982, the 23rd anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, a young mother wrote to her young son to tell him, “When you meet new people, grown ups, you must say hello and look at them.” She added — as though to say it wasn’t only a matter of good manners — “it is a way of respecting people and being part of the human community.” That letter might not seem unusual. My own mother expressed the same sentiments to me when I was a boy. But the July 26th letter was unusual.
It was written by Bernardine Dohrn who was behind bars, having been held in contempt of court for failing to cooperate with a grand jury investigating radicals. Bernardine wrote the letter to Zayd, the older of her two sons, who was named after Zayd Shakur, the Minister of Information for the Bronx Black Panther Party, shot and killed in 1973 by New Jersey cops.
Zayd Ayers Dohrn was then four years and already a veteran of the Weather Underground, the clandestine organization whose members mostly evaded capture by the FBI for a decade and who planted and set off bombs in the US Capitol, The Pentagon, the headquarters of ITT and police stations from coast to coast.
In case you don’t remember or perhaps never knew, Zayd’s parents had been charismatic stars of Students for A Democratic Society (SDS) who helped to forge Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) I, which morphed into Weatherman and then into the Weather Underground.
In his new profoundly personal and yet intensely political memoir, Dangerous, Dirty, Violent and Young, Zayd offers a history of what’s been called the “Long Sixties,” the era of sex, drugs, rock and rebellion that began in 1955 and that came to an end in 1975.
At the same time, Zayd presents a narrative about his own biological family, their friends and allies and that includes a complex portrait of his parents, Bernardine and Bill, who aimed to make a revolution in “Babylon,” as the Panthers called the U.S. and also to live life to the fullest, and squeeze joy from every moment.
The title for Zayd’s book, which might well be called explosive, comes from a song by the Jefferson Airplane, the rock band that Bill befriended and that their lyricist Paul Kanter reciprocated with songs like “Diana,” an anthem for weatherwoman Diana Oughton who died in a bomb blast in an Manhattan apartment building in March 1970 that also ended the lives of Teddy Gold and Terry Robbins. The full title for the song includes the words, “Hideous” and “obscenity,” which don’t exactly fit Weatherman or the Weather Underground, though some actions bordered on the obscene and the repulsive.
I don’t accept all of Zayd’s accounts of the underground, especially his account of what was called in code “The Big Top.” I lived in the Weather “safe house” on Amity Street in Brooklyn in 1971. I watched the fugitive who made the explosive devices that went off in the Capitol.
I saw him connect wires safely. I saw the team get into their red Volvo with the bomb and set off for Washington, D.C. I heard the story of what happened next — the failure of the bomb to go off and the return of the team who added a small booster bomb that triggered the first big bomb. Kathy Boudin was not involved, though Zayd suggests that she was. I won’t name names.
When Zayd asked Bernardine about The Big Top, she said, “I’m not going to tell you who put it there, And I’m not going to tell you who worked on it.” If he had asked me, I’d have explained what I just explained. I also watched a fugitive burn in the fireplace the wrappers for the sticks of dynamite used in the explosion.
But I would echo Zayd’s assertion that “the first few years in the underground would wind up being some of the weirdest, wildest, and most fun parts of my parents’ story.” They were the most fun part of my Weather underground years.
Teachers now, as in the past, often urge students to ” write what you know.” Zayd has taken that advice to heart and made it his credo. He probably knows more about the Weather Underground than anyone else alive today. His mother, now 84, was recently diagnosed with dementia and is, as she has said, “on the road to Alzheimers.”
Her memories of her years underground are frayed. Bill’s memory is selective; ditto for most of the members of the organization who have in the interest of survival intentionally erased memories. Some matters are best forgotten.
Zayd lived the underground life as a child and as a boy. He understands its machinations better than anyone I know. Bill explained to him that going underground was a “state of mind.” He added that it’s what exists “on the fringe,” and that there are right wing as well as leftwing undergrounds.
Zayd has interviewed everyone who could be interviewed, read almost all of the books and articles on the subject and thought deeply about it for more than a decade. More than 10 years ago, he wrote and produced an 11-part podcast about his parents and their comrades titled Mother Country Radicals, with the subtitle “A Family History of the Weather Underground” produced by Crooked Media.
That podcast anticipated some of the same material contained in Dangerous, Dirty, Violent and Young, though it’s not as in-depth and doesn’t have what might accurately be called the “soul searching” of the book. There isn’t an action, a gesture or a political statement by Weatherman and the Weather Underground that Zayd doesn’t interrogate. He accepts nothing at face value and always goes behind the scenes.
But if he seems eminently suited to write about mother country radicals he’s also very much an odd man for the job. “I could never quite reconcile my own resistance to a mass movement with my radical upbring,” he writes. “I’ve always prefered solitude to the crowd.” With that attitude, there would be no crowds and no revolutions.
A few pages on, Zayd expresses what might be called heresy in some radical circles: “too many revolutions have led to repressive regimes.” And he offers a quotation from Frederick Nietzsche who said, “Beware when fighting monsters, lest you become a monster.” In these pages, Terry Robbins appears as a young idealist who became a monster.
Probably the words that appear more often than any other words in the text are “contradiction” and “contradictions.” Zayd sees them, along with paradoxes and ambivalences, almost everywhere he looks: in himself, in his family and in the revolution itself.
The last 100 pages of Dangerous, Dirty, Violent and Young can be rough going. Zayd describes the implosion in the Weather Underground, the rise of an internal ideological sect that denounced Bernardine and Bill, followed by Bernardine’s denunciation of herself that included a confession about her “counterrevolutionary actions.” Her comrade, Kathy Boudin, told her, “If you go above ground you’re a racist.” Ouch. In the fall out, The Ayers- Dohrn family cracked up and was nearly destroyed.
It’s painful to read how Bernardine’s ideological foes broke her down; painful to read that she agreed to denounce herself and her friends and in writing. In hindsight she observed, “It makes me sick that I wrote that.” Her worst enemy wasn’t Hoover and the FBI but her so-called revolutionary sisters. So Zayd’s book is a cautionary tale about the dangers of movements and ideologies, though it’s also a plug for honorable family ties and legacies.
I knew Zayd before he knew me. That was in the late 1970s before his parents surfaced, and when they visited me in Sonoma County and we went swimming and sunbathing at a neighbor’s pool. When Bill changed Zayd’s diapers I asked him how he liked it. “I love it,” he said. Zayd wasn’t always sure that his father loved him unconditionally.
At times, Bill seemed to love the revolution more than he loved his own flesh and blood. That sounds like my Ukrainian-born socialist grandfather Aaron who, it was said by his own children, would rather take the shirt of his own back and give it to a stranger than clothe my mother and her sister. Ah, yes, contradictions! Can’t live with them. Can’t live without them.
Please please do read Zayd’s exciting, thoughtful book which explores the undergrounds, both Black and white, of the Long Sixties, and that explores the terrible beauty of the revolutionary movement that rose and fell and that will rise again.



























MICHAEL MEEROPOL / ECONOMICS / Are there signs of serious problems in the economy?
By Michael Meeropol / The Rag Blog / January 17, 2026
The following is a version of a commentary delivered over WAMC-FM by Michael Meeropol, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Western New England University on January 9, 2026. This version is expanded and revised for The Rag Blog as of January 17, 2026. Meeropol, Rag Blog host Thorne Dreyer and co-host Alice Embree will discuss the commentary on the air on KOOP 91.7-FM and streamed on KOOP.org Friday, Jan. 23, from 2-3 p.m.
So which is it? Is the U.S. economy doing extremely well and we are about to have a “great” year in 2026? Or are there signs of serious problems in the economy, especially for middle – class and working-class people who are not in the top ten, five or one percent of the population in terms of income and wealth?
Well, it just so happens that the substack economist, Paul Krugman, came out a few days ago with a summary of the year with a full analysis of what Trump’s economics have meant to the U.S. economy. This has given me much more important data to share than I had when I recorded this commentary and submitted a version to the WAMC-FM website. Thus, we can actually say this is exclusive to The Rag Blog.
For the full Krugman presentation, one needs a subscription but here is the link:
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/one-year-of-trumponomics
First, Krugman gives us the year-end jobs report which either was very weak or completely flat [meaning no job creation for the whole year!], depending on what kind of revisions there are to the data over the next few months. If it wasn’t flat, it was the weakest job growth in over a decade except for the year of the pandemic when there was a terrible loss of jobs.
Krugman then goes on to explain two things — why has unemployment risen so little AND why does it “feel” like the economy is in such bad shape? This probably has to do with the fact that there seems to be what Politico calls a “frozen” labor market: In this situation there are no mass layoffs and jumps in unemployment. Instead, businesses have cut back on hiring which means new entrants into the labor force (recent college graduates for example) as well as people looking to change jobs are facing few job opportunities.
[For details see “The US labor market ground to a halt in 2025. The risk in 2026 is that it “cracks.” It was a tough year to be looking for work — and the job market is not expected get much better,” available at https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-us-labor-market-ground-to-a-halt-in-2025-the-risk-in-2026-is-that-it-cracks-140026614.html]
First of all, the reason measured unemployment hasn’t jumped is because all the deportations have reduced the number of people actively looking for work. Meanwhile, those who are looking for work are having a hard time finding jobs and the result is a serious decline in consumer confidence. Krugman’s evidence of this is the fact that long-term unemployment — the number of people who have been unemployed for 15 weeks or more — has risen much more than total unemployment. And the public understands this. “The Conference Board, which conducts a monthly survey of consumers, reports a measure called the “labor market differential” — the difference between the number of people saying that jobs are “plentiful” and those saying jobs are “hard to get.” While this measure turned upwards during the last quarter of 2024, it has turned sharply downward since then.” [Krugman]
And overall Consumer Confidence has declined for most of 2025: It reached a low point in early 2025, rose a bit through July, and has been falling ever since.
Now let’s check out the stock market. So far this year, the main index (the S and P 500) has produced a 16% rate of return. That means that if you owned $1 million worth of stock on January 1 of this year, you would have an extra $160,000 of wealth after December 31. Though lots of people own some stock (I owned some in my retirement account for most of my working life) very few people own enough stock for the proceeds to be a significant part of their income: 10% of Americans own 93% of all stocks, while the bottom half owns only about 1-2%.
So, no matter how you slice it, claiming that a booming stock market means we are “all” doing well is garbage.
Krugman goes further and notes that the improvement in the stock market is based on about seven individual firms that are heavily invested in developing artificial intelligence — which may or may not turn out to be a dangerous bubble rather than evidence of real successful company growth.
In fact, the run-up in the stock market is part of what is being called a “K – shaped” economy. The top part of the letter “K” represents the tremendous successes of the billionaires and others who are heavily invested in the stock market (that top ten percent). The lower part represents the difficulty that the middle class and working class has keeping their heads above water. So, if you are claiming “the economy” is doing great because you are focused on the top ten percent, you are right. To understand what is happening for the rest of us, we need much more information about many different trends.
[For details on stock ownership see: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-93-033623827.html]
Or consider this set of facts: On Christmas Eve, MSNBC’s Ron Asana pointed out that the top 20% of the households account for 63% of consumption spending; the bottom 80% for 37%.
What about national statistics — Gross Domestic Product, Investment, Incomes of full-time workers? The growth rate in GDP was lower in 2025 than in 2024. Now it is true in moments of candor members of the Trump Administration refrain from asserting the blatant falsehood that the economy is the “hottest” it’s ever been, etc. etc. Some even spent most of 2025 assuring us that 2026 will be a “boom” year — which of course it might be — As Yogi Berra once said — “It’s difficult to make predictions, especiallyabout the future!”
But so far, there is no indication that the U.S. economy as a whole is booming. In the following diagram it is clear that the U.S. economy WAS “booming” — but that was 2024 when Joe Biden was president. In 2025, there has been a slowdown which is not surprising — the uncertainties created by Trump’s tariffs, the mass deportations which in some industries is reducing the labor force, the meat-axe approach to cutting government activities all have slowed growth. No recession — but a definite slowdown in growth
For the actual numbers in visual form, see
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual
The behavior of investment during 2025 doesn’t give us any clues. It went up in the first quarter of 2025 only to fall in the next two quarters. In other words, Trump’s rhetoric about how rotten the economy was in 2024 is false and his rhetoric that 2025 was the “hottest” economy is also false.
[The following data is presented by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — abbreviated FRED. Folks can click on the link and then restrict the data to the last five years to see the trend. Investment did not “boom” in 2025.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A006RE1Q156NBEA]
But to move from “the economy” to the people living in it, I consider the real income of full-time workers a very important measure of well-being. (“Real” income takes the actually numbers in your paycheck and relates them to the ability of that paycheck to actually buy goods and services. “Median” is the best way to judge the wage of the TYPICAL worker. If you take an average, it can be tilted because of the very small number of super-rich individuals. If Bill Gates walked into a room of 99 people all making $50,000 a year, the “average” income would suddenly shoot up but $50,000 would still be the typical income. The numbers that follow relate to a base year which is why they seem rather low — the important thing is not the absolute number but whether we can see any trend.)
The weekly real median wage averaged $370 for 2024 (reaching a high point of $375 at the end of the year.) In the first quarter of 2025 it fell back to $373 and inched upwards to $376 in the second and third quarters — virtually no growth at all. For details see:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm
What’s going on?
First, the high-tech sector has invested heavily in developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) capabilities. Many businesses believe that increased use of AI will permit the replacement of many workers.
We can actually hear that happening when we call doctors’ offices and a voice that identifies itself as a “virtual assistant” (clearly an AI system) asks how “she” can direct your call. A human being used to be the person who answered that phone call and then directed the call — now It’s a machine. With the “promise” of AI, many businesses are reluctant to increase their labor force when they might not need that many people in the not-so-distant future.
The following is from the New York Times from last October:
In one particular area that was supposed to improve as President Trump’s tariffs took hold, there is nothing good to report. If you are a voter who wanted more factory jobs, you must be disappointed. If you promised the voters that there would be many more factory positions, you failed. This year [2025] factory jobs are down by 58,000. Nothing new. In Trump’s first term they fell by about 200,000 between January of 2017 and January of 2021. Seems like there is a lesson in here somewhere.
And look at the long-term trends. Although the non-farm labor force has grown by more than 20,000,000 since January of 2014, the total number of jobs in the manufacturing sector has not moved much. In 143 months beginning in January of 2014, total jobs in the factory sector have always been between 12,000,000and 13,000,000 except for five months in the spring and summer of 2020 when they fell below 12,000,000 for a while. Overall, no long-term increases even though the economy is much bigger today.
“Amazon Plans to Replace More Than a Half Million Jobs with Robots.”
(Karen Weise, New York Times, October 21, 2025)
[For more details see https://www.dollarsandsense.org/jobs-factories-and-inequalities/?ref=dollarsandsense-newsletter]
Thus, Trump’s tariffs have not created a surge in manufacturing jobs. Instead,they have created a great deal of uncertainty within the business sector. So far, American importers have been able to “eat” the tariffs because they built up significant inventories in anticipation that these tariffs will increase their costs. However, it is unlikely that they will be able to sustain this into 2026 and therefore, the tariffs will probably start to push prices up.
On top of all this, there is a very important intangible. As I mentioned above, the uncertainties created by those Trump tariffs and the failure of the Trump Administration to knock inflation down dramatically has dealt a blow to consumer confidence — and this is despite the fact that the average rate of inflation for 2025 has fallen from 2.9 percent in 2024 to 2.7 percent.
In other words, in answer to the question I posed at the beginning of this broadcast, there remains great uncertainty. The economy could start chugging along – it could remain in a kind of stasis with slow growth and slowly rising unemployment as inflation remains the same or slows further — or it could experience a surge in prices and an increase in unemployment.
Based on the analysis by Krugman of the 2025 statistics, I think the chance of a strong 2026 is very slim. In my oral presentation a few weeks ago I was more equivocal than I am now. I think the best the economy can hope for would be to muddle along but it might be much worse. The most important take-away from the experience of 2025 is that the economy has not done what Trump predicted and it is not doing what he claims it is. In other words, public opinion that believes the economy is in lousy shape is probably correct.