I write, therefore I am

Judging by the number of personal and written comments I have received concerning my last two columns, I assume I now have your attention. Often lost in the rants of columnists -- and mine are no exception -- is a cogent point or message. Harsh and sometimes overused rhetoric can detract from the underlying themes a writer tries to convey to his audience, be the readers in agreement or opposition to his (or her) point of view. \nBy the same token, such tactics often evoke more responses from the public and more readership -- by political friend and foe alike.\nAlthough there are other methods I have used before and will use in future columns, I chose rhetoric for my last two pieces.\nI can only assume there will be some backlash in next week's Jordan River Forum for my use of the epithet "Uncle Tom" in my last column (I, like most of you, have no access to the letters before printing), as there was considerable discontent with my usage of "activist judges" et al., in the previous JRF. Some of the phrasing I use for simplicity. For example, I can go into detail about how the Florida Supreme Court acted in the 2000 election debacle in such a grossly unconstitutional manner that they should have been thrown off the bench, or how the Massachusetts Supreme Court attempted to rewrite marriage laws for the other 49 states via ... shall we say "creative?" ... interpretation of the law. Instead, I wrote "activist judges ... trump the will of the people." It saves precious space on the page without lecturing you about court history.\nOther times, such as last week, hostile language serves two purposes: First, as I mentioned, it grabs your attention. I can rant all day long, but you won't know it if you aren't inclined somehow to read it. Putting "Uncle Tom" in the headline cures that problem immediately.\nSecond, the hostility I showed reflected the depth of my anger and disappointment I felt for Mr. Bond's comparison of the (ongoing) struggle of black Americans for equality to an elective medical procedure to alleviate the consequences of two people's irresponsible behavior. I respect Mr. Bond's personal achievements, civil rights work and credentials, but his comments were simply offensive. \nThe National Associate for the Advancement of Colored People is an organization that I was taught to hold in high esteem. It was founded in part by one of my personal heroes, W.E.B. DuBois, and led the fight against racism, segregation and unfair treatment for the better part of a century. To see it so brazenly shirk its own past and belittle the pain and suffering of our parents and grandparents for shallow political face-time is absolutely shameful, and I felt it deserved harsh rebuke.\nSo I gave it.\nTo wit, I view my writing as a catalyst of discourse. I don't expect to change very many minds or opinions, nor do I placate the IU College Republicans or other GOP organizations for the sake of partisan loyalty. I speak my mind and hope that I get people to pay more attention to the world around them -- regardless of where on the political spectrum they fall. I make no apologies for my opinions, nor do I seek some sort of capitulation from those with whom I disagree. \nDemocracy is reliant upon the people to voice their opinions and challenge the ideas of those around them. If I can get people to participate in public debate, i.e., write their opinions in a public medium or start a debate among friends, then I have accomplished what I set out to do: get people more involved.\nI don't expect (nor want) to convert everybody to conservatism or change the entire world. This is just my way of doing my small part in our democracy.\nScribo, ergo sum.