
One of the recurring complaints by his fans is that they’re shocked, shocked and appalled that I would turn my acidic, venomous writing (as they perceive it) on someone who’s not only a great writer but a colleague. As witness “Scottie’s” recent post that “I am surprised the Log lets one columist rip (slander) the other better one each week. Never seen this back in Birmingham.”
So let’s clear it up: Ron Hart is a syndicated columnist. We aren’t colleagues, we don’t work together, I’ve seen him exactly once when he stopped by the office (I think he has a place in the area). So I can’t see any reason pointing out his errors should be any more objectionable than criticizing syndicated pundits Walter Williams or Kathleen Parker, whom I’ve also written about.
Even if he was a Log columnist, I’ve argued with other columnists too: Dale, who used to work here, had diametrically opposite views from mine and neither of us had any problem arguing when we found each other’s columns wrong. Amazingly, neither of us felt any need to whine in comments about how mean and unfair we were.
Heck, in the 30 years I’ve been writing columns, and letters to various editors, I’ve been told I’m going to Hell, that I’m anti-god, that I’m treasonous, that my parentage is—well, I won’t repeat that one—and that it would benefit the world if I killed myself. That’s the price of putting my opinions out there. So frankly I don’t see there’s anything terribly offensive in saying “Ron Hart is wrong, illogical and spouts Republican talking points,” especially when I can back it up.
So sorry, Scottie and Pat, whine as much as you like but Hart’s views are fair game for my criticism as mine are for yours.
Of course, I’m assuming you really believe that I’m being unfair to Hart. I’ve never noticed you complain when I rip into other syndicated columnists or letters to the editor, so possibly you’re just hoping if you complain loudly enough, I’ll shut up.
If so, dream on.