Well, Mr Ricks, I entirely disagree. I read you often at the Post and read your books as well because, even though one could sense a bias influencing your writing, it was sufficiently hidden away, which allowed me to suspend judgment long enough to give you the benefit of the doubt and properly consider your point of view. I don't read you much anymore because your prevailing 'sentiments', as Zathras would have it, are too forward and consequently get in the way - but I suppose if you're only writing to please the people already predisposed to share your opinion then a gauze of sentiment is not an issue - in fact, for the Zathras-like out there in the mawkish blogsphere, it's no doubt a necessity.
Personally, if I read Descartes, I accept he's highly motivated to prove the existence of a God, but as an agnostic I'm not going to give his Meditations the time of day if he can't win my trust that his arguments will be fair and evenhanded. I understand you Obamaphiles are anxious to demonstrate the godliness of Dear Leader, but still I wonder how it is you expect your devotion to be taken seriously by nonbelievers when you can't even proffer a simple but legitimate criticism of the man without at the same time feeling the need to apologize for it as if you feared a fall from grace.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Ricks, and many of his readers, parried my thrust and thusly went my riposte:
