A Korean Vet Visits My Blog

I received a comment today regarding last week's post, "The Obama Smear E-Mail Campaign Continues." Mr. Bert Kortegaard didn't seem to like the title of my post, found it offensive and biased. Unfortunately, his website (links included by Mr. Kortegaard) don't contain any contact information in order for me to respond.

Here's his comment and my response. I hope he decides to come back to read my response.

Bert said...

The title of this blog site is at least as offensive as any of its posts.Senator Obama doesn't need to be smeared,he's provided quite enough information to discredit him, himself. It's much like saying criticisms of Vietnam Protesters http://www.kmike.com/VietnamProtesters.htm
or Jane Fonda http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/hanoijan.htm
are smears. The origin of this particular complaint need to be tracked down, but the blog title is too biased, imo.

BertKortegaard
http://www.kmike.com/b606.htm
http://www.kmike.com/wantuck1.htm
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/
July 9, 2008 2:18:00 PM EDT

My response:

Broadway Carl said...

Mr. Kortegaard,

You say that my post title is offensive, but you don't explain why. You say that Senator Obama has discredited himself, but you don't explain how.

I don't know if you've bothered to look up my previous posts regarding the e-mailed Obama smears that have been circulating for quite some time now, such as "Obama is a Muslim", or "Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance" or "Obama swore on the Koran" or "Obama will stand with the Muslims", ad infinitum, but if you had, you'd see that all those previous e-mails smears have been debunked.

When I received the latest of e-mails regarding Obama's alleged "dismissal" of a handicapped Vietnam Veteran and didn't immediately find a reputable source to debunk the e-mail, I decided to try and find out for myself.

As of this writing (July 9th, 2008 8:54pm EST) I have yet to receive a response to the e-mails I've sent to the supposed writer of said accusation; whether he wrote it or not or if the writer's name was used deceptively, whether the incident actually happened, specifically where and when this incident allegedly took place, and other factors to either prove or disprove the validity of the e-mail. My post has stated nothing but the fact that I am searching for the truth - the facts - of this supposed interaction.

I have tried to go about this as objectively as possible, including the e-mails that I sent to those who might be able to help with more information, being polite and respectful in my correspondence. Yet, there are those who may not agree with my political affiliation or Senator Obama (I am assuming you are one of those people) who will take offense to what I consider a very objective post, no matter how I may phrase it.

I come to this conclusion based on your inclusion of web addresses citing Vietnam War protesters and Jane Fonda as part of the reason for America's loss in the war and using that opinion in an attempt to compare what you consider to be facts regarding Obama, his background and his record. One thing has nothing to do with the other. (And on a side note, do you really believe that if there were no Jane Fonda and no war protesters that the end result in Vietnam would have been any different?)

You may be of the opinion that the title of my post is somewhat biased, but I will assume that the e-mail I am researching is a smear based on the fact that there was neither any information nor any reference material attached to the e-mail for verification. My opinion will remain that way until I can find proof otherwise. In my world, frame of mind, thought process or whatever you want to call it, one bases their accusations on facts, and the e-mail I received contained none. It was just a story.

My question to you, if you would be so kind to answer is: On what basis do you make your decision or judgement on Senator Obama? Is it something that you know about him that I don't? Or is it based on something you may have heard or read?

Granted, I'm truly upset that he chose to vote in favor of today's FISA compromise bill, in contradiction to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Is he therefore discredited, or is he being a politician trying to win an election? After all, Senator Obama did say that he would vote against telecom immunity, but if amendments in opposition to immunity failed, he would vote in favor of the FISA bill. He didn't break his word.

I thank you for visiting my blog and for leaving your comment. I hope to hear from you again.

UPDATE (7/10/08 1:25am): I just realized that Kortegaard is actually offended at the title of my "blog site"! "Broadway Carl's Blog-O-Mania" is offensive! Wow! I never knew. I just scanned his comment over again and assumed he was offended at the "biased" post title, but according to him, the blog site title is "at least as offensive as any of its posts." Well, if you can't get past the title...

Regarding the title, it was always a working title until I found something more catchy, but nothing ever popped up and now it's been more than a year and a half, and some 1,000-odd posts later, so I guess I'm keeping it. But offensive? Let's see, "Broadway Carl"... that's me. I chose the "Broadway" part because I work on Broadway and the "Carl" part because... it's part of my name. "Broadway Carl's Blog" just didn't seem to pop. "Blog-O-Mania" sounded more fun. Maybe it's the "Mania" part. Or the "O".

I suppose it's "at least as offensive" as a terrorist fist jab. I thought it was pretty tame, as opposed to... oh, I don't know... "Hanoi Jane & The Dirty Fuckin' Hippies' Psychedelic Blog-O-Roonee." But I guess I can't tell anymore - I'm too biased.