[USS Johnston]

I'm sorry, but I think the writer of this article is seeking to make a point that is considerably less rational than he seems to believe. He is unrealistically fastidious in trying to police the perfectly legitimate use of analogy in argument. And in that makes some distinctions that really are misleading.

I agree.

But not only that, this intellectual snob (Kevin Williams) appears to be anointing himself "Keeper of All TRUTH" as he guns down the right of others (especially "FOX NEWS" and its "blond/tanned" analysts) to define the wherewithal of "Plantation."

[Ohioan]

But not only that, this intellectual snob (Kevin Williams) appears to be anointing himself "Keeper of All TRUTH"

What you describe is a common vice among some of those who have written for National Review through the years. They have some intelligent writers, but also some who suffer from an arrogant overestimation of their perception, analytic abilities, etc..

I am not really familiar with this individual, but I stopped to comment, because of what I perceive as obvious fallacies. Taking an arrogant disdain for those he criticizes, does not strengthen his argument--quite the opposite.

Cheers!

William Flax