Karl Rove and reading comprehension

I'll never cease to be amazed at the lack of reading comprehension by some of the public. Not all, but a lot.

Many times people read what they think they see, and not is what's really there. Over the years, I've lost count on those who take issue with something I've written that has nothing to do with what I wrote, or in fact, is opposite of what I wrote.

Case in point this morning. My Friday column backed West Texas A&M's decision to bring Karl Rove in as a speaker on commencement weekend tonight. My point is that's what universities should do -- bring in people of diverse opinion and background.

Here was a voice mail that greeted me this morning, and I'll leave the gentlemen's name out even though to this credit he gave it:

"I was very disappointed in your column this morning in your support of Karl Rove. From time to time you've certainly expressed you might be a Christian. Karl Rove is a man of no morals whatsoever. I can't believe that you would actually support him, back him, encourage people to see him which is what you did in essence in your column."

Oh, brother.

How perceptive. What gave it away that I supported Rove? Was it "Look, I'm no admirer of Rove's, but so what?" Or was it "Rove, there's no denying, is a little bit oily, if not more than that." Or was it detailing many of the accusations against Rove that have people so critical of him?

And somehow I supported him, backed him and even encouraged people to see him. Really? Might want to reread it again but there's no evidence of supporting or back Rove, just supporting WT's decision to bring him in.

And as for encouraging people to attend? Didn't gather that either. As a matter of fact, I'd equally encourage right now people to protest his visit as Amarillo Democrats are doing as much as attending his speech.

Take issue with something I write, hey, that's great. That's part of the process of discussion. But try to make sure it's over something I might have actually written. That would be helpful.