I have got to stop being such a liberal girly man

The Star ^ | July 30, 2006 | Michael Bowers

[OkeyDokeyOkie]

Samuel Colt invented the revolver in 1836 in Hartford, Conn., and now he's remembered by the saying: "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Colt made them equal."

Today, we have a new equalizer, the Internet. You might say: "God made all writers, but the Web made them equal."

No matter if you are an obscure writer at a small newspaper in suburban Chicago. In the cyberworld, if you have a good column, sometimes you can attract almost as much attention as a writer at one of the big papers.

Consequently, I get a pretty good amount of reader response. As most writers will tell you, it's one of the best things about the job. And as you might expect, the messages are a mix of positive and negative.

But here is something you might not expect, especially those of you who, for some reason, believe that I am a right-wing nut. That is: A lot of my criticism comes from conservatives. In fact, some of them say I am unbearably wimpy.

[OkeyDokeyOkie]

As a long-time reader of the Newsroom Iconoclast column by Michael Bowers, I know his viewpoints are almost always conservative. But there are varying degrees of conservative thought and even among those who agree on most issues, sometimes columnist's viewpoints strike a chord--or a dischord, depending on the comment. I enjoyed reading some of the backlash from today's Bowers column. Obviously, the columnist, himself, enjoys stirring up a little controversy, which makes reading his and other sometimes controversial columns especially interesting.

[Chi-townChief]

Not much to work with here - I would rather Mike take on another controversial topic than indulge himself with this stuff.

[OkeyDokeyOkie]

Not much to work with here - I would rather Mike take on another controversial topic than indulge himself with this stuff.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, sure. I like the issues columns, too, but I didn't view this column as a self-indulging column at all...introspective, maybe, but not self-indulging. I am fascinated by others' perceptions. That is a major draw of sites like Free Republic and the Bowers column simply reinforced that.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Obviously, the columnist, himself, enjoys stirring up a little controversy, which makes reading his and other sometimes controversial columns especially interesting.

If you like columnists that stir up controversy then you must love reading Ann Coulter. She's the Babe Ruth of controversy.

[Madame Dufarge]

For example, on April 9, I wrote that David Horowitz hurt his own cause by flipping out at a debate at Saint Xavier University. He was nearly hollering as he told the audience: "There's never been a culture in the history of the world that puts its 14-year-old children on the front lines while the men stay back, and they do it because of people like you, who are suckered into thinking that the Palestinians, who are a genocidal people .... ''

In his anger, Horowitz never wrapped up his point. But he did manage a complete sentence as he bid farewell to the audience: "Thank you, barbarians."

I attended a David Horowitz speech at the University of Maine last year.

The Question and Answer period began with sophomoric rantings from the liberal-brainwashed students and one particular professor.

Horowitz was forced into shouting down the "questions" in order to present a counterpoint and he had to fight to complete a sentence.

[therut]

Horowitz is an excellent writer. I love his books espically Radical Son which I think is his best. He is not an excellent speaker. He needs more time than a few seconds to get his intellectual point across.

[Madame Dufarge]

He needs more time than a few seconds to get his intellectual point across.

I agree that many writers are not glib speakers, but I felt that he was up to the task this particular night.

His problem was trying to combat the usual lib tactic of talking over and shouting down heretics.

Radical Son was a terrific book, wasn't it?

[therut]

Radical Son was THE book that taught me the evil of liberalism as known today. It was a remarkable journey of someone who had lived and loved the radical agenda of the 1960's and raised a Communist and then who was intellectual enough to admit his fanatic beliefs were all wrong. Very wrong. He saw the enemy and the enemy was him.

[SmithL]

Maybe he should redeem himself with another red-meat column.