Intrepid reader BB (Blarney Bob, if I am not mistaken), has posted a lot of comments on my Keloland site. While I find BB a bit snippy now and then, he is a thoughtful and educated critic and I appreciate him. So here are some replies.
To my post Obama the Flip Flop Phemon 1, BB has this:
"Flip flopping" or "waffling" is a political necessity. Being uncompromising and adhering dogmatically to an issue is usually not good policy.
To which I reply: waffling is often necessary, but some waffle more than others, and Obama has been waffling like he's getting paid for it. At least he's not "dogmatic".
To my post on Lincoln and Darwin, BB had this:
Not a bad post Dr. Blanchard. Although Lincoln would have done anything to preserve the Union including allowing slavery (and also suspending habeus corpus). How would you rank W with him? Would he have been president of the CSA? Texas and privilege...I bet after First Bull Run he would have declared "mission accomplished!" Just think how many lives could have been saved! Anyway here is an interesting link for you: http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx Check it out and see how you do! Sorry there is no listing in the rankings for DSU but considering that Harvard seniors only got 69% it is perhaps better not to know. Enjoy and happy Independence day!
Thanks, BB. I'm not sure what you mean by "Lincoln would have done anything to preserve the Union including allowing slavery." Lincoln argued, rightly, that the Constitution protected slavery in the states where it existed, but he was steadfastly opposed to its extension into new territories. He thought that it would die if it were closed off in the South. The South agreed, and so his "adhering dogmatically" to his position brought about the war. As for Bush, it does him little disservice to say that he is no Lincoln. I took the test at the site you posted. It was pretty good. In a moment of inattention, I answered one question incorrectly.
To my post on biofuels, there is this:
Gee Ken, I thought you of all people would appreciate ethanol. Not only does it cost you less to fill up your SUV but also has the added benefit of helping to alleviate the fundamental cause of the earth's problems--overpopulation!
I think I follow BB's sarcasm here, and if so, I am in agreement.
For time's sake, I must skip his most substantial and interesting comment, to my post on Iraq. But I note this comment on my post about Enemies of Reading at Purdue:
In the Bush administration the kid would not even have gotten a job unless he passed such crucial questions as: "Who did you vote for?; and "What is your stance on Roe?" Obviously key prerequisites to getting a job reconstructing Iraq. This is past being "antithetical to freedom of thought." This is political nepotism of the worst sort resulting in negligence bordering on criminal.
I understand that BB loathes George W., but the comment is goofy. Choosing who to appoint to positions in one's administration is one of the things you get to do when you have an administration. Every administration tries to find places for its friends, and keep out people who would oppose its policies. But even if that weren't true, this issue has nothing to do with telling a university employee what books he is allowed to read during break. That is left wing authoritarianism, and BB ought to recognize it and be appalled by it. If he were in the same position as Mr. Sampson, he would be just as vulnerable, or so I conclude. BB obviously reads a lot.
Again, thanks BB. You let me know that I have at least one reader.
Recent Comments