Having never before heard David Horowitz speak, I was told I was in for a straightforward, rabblerousing personality. And that’s what I got. He is one of the few "conservatives" I know of who has enough of a backbone to so openly and brazenly speak up against the left. And even though this happens to be the m.o. of the opposite side, he is still considered controversial by many and frequently called everything but white, as they say, by others. All of this is what I discovered made Horowitz a worthwhile speaker to hear.

I was unfortunately disappointed with the anti-Horowitz crowd. (After all, one of the chief reasons I go to events like this is to witness illogical civil unrest.) I saw no protestors beforehand, although the talk proper started out so well with the "I am that professor" lady. So what happened to that momentum? Horowitz continued the momentum, surely, but nothing really came of it from his objectors. Further, it was a long while before there was a final peep, coming from some poor, misguided bedwetter who naturally couldn't be bothered to raise her hand and wait her turn like everyone else.

By contrast, I was privy to an unsettling episode of shock-and-awe I wasn't prepared for, supplied by Horowitz and followed up by feverish support: the applause for Ashcroft in general and his 'keeping us safe' comment in particular. (Yes, and Himmler holds that same, special place in my heart. A-mazing.) See, I had beforehand assumed Mr. Horowitz was not as far right as he was often pegged. I was pleasantly surprised to find out I was correct after his talk, when he kindly took the WSPQ for Adam and scored himself a libertarian (see right). Because of my later-proved preconception, I assumed he wouldn't deeply appreciate people whose views fall just to the right of Jerry Falwell. But so it was with Ashcroft, and I honestly do not understand why.

Another issue that left a bad taste in my mouth was Mr. Horowitz's recurrent use of the word "democracy", including, "We live in a democracy [...]". His point in being there was to clearly explain his thoughts so as to educate his audience, and one of his main points was the bias of the media. The usage of this word was something I thought he should most definitely have picked up on. So either he does not understand what democracy is, or else he subscribes to the popular liberal media's misdesignation of the term. Both possibile explanations are equally sad, as well as ironic in relation to his [otherwise mostly judicious] fatwah.

But one way or another, I went to his talk to be entertained that night, and it was worth my time. At least I can still look forward to a little tumult when Mr. Boortz comes to town in October.