First, he tries to bring up the whole debacle with Pastor John. For some reason, I make one mistake and automatically, I lose all credibility. I've already explained that situation, but to reiterate, there are bigots out there. I have heard people who believe the things that Pastor John said. Is it really that big of an offense to think that one of these people would start up such a blog?
Mike Slaven then decides that my response must be because I "assumed [he] was engaged in an elaborate and tacit take-down" of myself. Funny, I thought his post was an open call to any and all Republicans. I think it is quite obvious that I am a Republican, but according to Mike, my response to his post is nothing more than a half-baked conspiracy theory. I completely disagree with what Mike has said, but I would have responded similarly to such a post if it had been at another blog that I read.
Then, he tries to say that I have a "blind man-love of President Bush". That has to be one of the most presumptious statements I have ever read. If he read my posts, he would see that I have been challenging the action (or rather, lack thereof) of the local and state governments in their response to Hurricane Katrina. And perhaps he generalizes a bit, as I have not yet authored a post that outright challenges President Bush. While I do agree with the president on many issues, there are some I feel that he has let us down on (in particular, border patrol) and some that I outright dissent on (policy regarding Israel and Palestine), but those are topics for another day and another post. I'm not going to say that the federal government takes absolutely no blame on this disaster, but local and state governments had responsibilities that they could have fulfilled that would have alleviated a lot of the pain. My defense of President Bush is solely because some like Mike refuse to put any accountability into the lower levels of government, who had all the power and resources needed to minimize the damage.
He then tries to go on and state that his post used literary devices hyperbole, humor, and the like. I'm sorry, but threats have never been humorous to me, nor do I know of any rational person who thinks so. They are serious, as I posted earlier. I do not believe that threats constitute protected speech unless in self-defense. While his new response has an obvious sarcastic tone, the first did not.
And the next person who accuses me or my dispossessed Democratic friends from New Orleans of just trying to jab the president is going to find himself jabbed in the face.Does this sound like a joke? I didn't think so.
Mike does state "I do mostly subscribe to the idea that painful bluntness is a perfectly acceptable tool in making a serious point." I have no problem with bluntness (as I'm sure you can see), but being daft is a whole different story.
He also questions my anonymity. I won't divulge on this, at least not in a public forum. If Mike wants to know more, he contact me directly and I will tell him; perhaps it will be a reasonable response for him, perhaps not, but it is not his place to question that.
Again, this was not meant to be personal; I felt that this one post (note, now two posts, but they still remain the exceptions) done by Mike was in poor taste, and I felt a response was needed. I apologize to him if he took it that way. This shall be my last post on the topic. If he prefers to respond once more, fine; if not, that is also fine. But if you really feel "this blogosphere just isn’t big enough for the two of us," then be prepared for some cramped quarters. I will link to posts I like and may question those that I don't.
And to everyone else, I apologize if this appeared personal. Again, it was not, and from time to time, I may have similar posts. The blogosphere requires a thick skin. If you'd prefer someone to stop reading to posting a response, then it may not be the place for you.