I'm writing in response to Professor B.J. Paschal's recent guest column. I cannot remember when I have enjoyed a letter to the editor more. I read it once and thought, “What in the world is he talking about?” Then I read it again. Apparently, Mr. Rinearson struck a nerve. Paschal accuses Rinearson of being old-fashioned and strongly critical (stodgy and polemic). He also accuses Mr. Rinearson of not having magical powers.
The professor denies being a conservative like H. L. Mencken, whom I remember once saying he was profoundly grateful he was not a Republican. Although Mencken said many cynical, sarcastic and occasionally amusing things about society, what Paschal seems to really admire is Mencken's fight against provincialism, which Paschal calls buffoonery.
This statement comes after assuring us that he doesn't engage in ad hominem attacks because of the danger posed to calm “collective” conversation. Does he mean collected? At this point I kind of gave up my pursuit of a cohesive theme.
He ended his tirade by criticizing Mitch McConnell's approach to politics.
This was all very entertaining, and I am grateful to you for printing it. I can only imagine what Paschal's position is on a lot of things, but he is definitely not a fan of Mr. Rinearson. It would be interesting to know the connection between Harry Potter's muggles and political theory. Maybe he'll write again.