  Once again,  I do thank Steve over at urlLink splinters for the attention to this blog,  though it does confuse me. nbsp;  Why a urlLink webmagazine of the UK,  which I assume is doing well enough,
 would spend one post ( much less two)  on& nbsp; this blog,  with a regular readership of about twelve,
 surprises me.  Don't get me wrong -  I'm happy about that. nbsp;  The readership used to be around seven,  and only increased more recently.
nbsp;  Now,  with the splinter folks,  who knows? nbsp;  Maybe it will reach fifteen,
 and life,  the universe,  and everything will be groovy.  Anyway,  to the point at hand. nbsp;
 Steve has urlLink responded to my comments,  more or less,  so I wager I will do the same. nbsp;  What the heck? nbsp;
 It beats grading exams.  Now,  one minor little thing. nbsp;  For some reason,  Steve first mentioned this blog with the spelling "
gray"  ( which,  as anyone who notices the big banner at the top can see,  is correct)  to the spelling "
grey. nbsp;  Both are correct spellings of the word,  and I'll chalk it up to his blogging early in the morning for the error in terms of this blog's title.  But now,  to substance.
nbsp;  Obviously,  Steve and I have rather different reads on Johnson,  as well as others. nbsp;  As Steve puts it:
 Well,  the main reason is because Paul Johnson is precisely an intellectual aligning himself with a reign of terror.  It is clear from that one quotation that he can't see how his own critique applies to himself above all.  For instance,  he denounces Chomsky& nbsp;
for pointing out what happens in practice as US foreign policy spreads that wonderful idea freedom.  Johnson ignores what happens to real people as a result with the urlLink insouciance of a practiced apologist of tyranny.  ( the link,  from the original text,  is from an article on the notion of empire/
imperialism Johnson wrote in urlLink The New Criterion )  & nbsp;  Well,  I wager we need to break this down. nbsp;
 The first thing I would suggest is that the reader take a look at the article linked to. nbsp;  I admit,  I'm not sure if I completely follow with Johnson's take on this,  but it is certainly reasoned,  and not as radical as Steve seems to want to portray.
nbsp;  We seem run into,  once again,  high rhetoric with little backing. nbsp;  "
an intellectual aligning himself with a reign of terror"  " a practiced apologist of tyranny"  - nbsp; big statements.
nbsp;  What tyranny,  pray tell,  is he aligning with? nbsp;  The one that puts dissidents through plastic cutters and sends the wife to a rape room before being shot?
nbsp;  Oh,  wait. guess not. nbsp;  And what of the United States?
nbsp;  Oh,  yes,  dissent has been crushed,  and the country has become silent. well,
 unless you are holding a huge ANSWER rally,  are touting the deep thinking in Moore's recent mockumentry ( which,  in great nuance,  explains how Bush is a Machiavellian boob,  an antichrist for the secular Endtime)
 or,  heck,  even& nbsp; buy books at the& nbsp;
 urlLink National Archives bookstore . nbsp;  What a velvet tyranny Johnson supports! nbsp; nbsp; Fooling the population into thinking they are free when,
 well,  exercising their freedom.
