I assume you have a lot of people checking out your blog from the Kerry post and link.

While nothing is wrong with today’s topic on weather and bible, I don’t think it would entice many people to keep checking out your blog.

I think one is supposed to follow up a hot topic with another hot topics to get people addicted to your blog.

My response:

Three years blogging almost daily, over 4,000 visitors per day, radio and TV appearances, conference speaking opportunities, editor contacts, and a blog consulting business with clients obtained directly through my blog — but you’re right. I really ought to take your advice to keep people “addicted” to my blog.

But I’m going to try to answer those I’ve received in the past couple of weeks. If you’ve e-mailed me since the last week of September, you’ll hear from me by next week.

Last week I reached the 2 million unique visitors mark. Didn’t notice until yesterday. It’s great. I appreciate the readership, but what’s important is being a much-needed voice, one you don’t hear very often. I’m not always right, but God has given me this forum to share, learn, and grow. I’m thankful every day.

By the way, around this time last year, I gave up a steady paycheck to escape the 9-5. And I still have a roof over my head. It hasn’t always been smooth. In fact, at times it’s been rough, but I have no regrets. I highly recommend self-employment. It’s very…satisfying.

I’ve posted a couple of hate e-mails in the past, but since the good stuff outweighs the junk, I thought I’d share a few of those:

Hello La Shawn,

I just found your blog yesterday and last night I was thanking the Lord for you. I have often felt that I am all alone being a black, female, conservative christian, and political independent. Most of the blacks I know align themselves with the Democratic party even though they are conservative Christians and most of my white Christian friends align themselves with the Republicans. My non Christian or liberal Christian or Catholic friends are staunch liberal Democrats. I have a couple of close friends who say they are independent but always, always vote Democrat…I am soooooooo glad that God has given you this forum. I will be praying that He continues to bless you with wisdom, discernment, and courage and for His protection.

Thanks again for not being ashamed to speak up.

Sincerely,
Rhonda B.

Hi LaShawn:

I am one of those people who discovered your blog while researching the Duke rape case.

What a rare find! I find your writings insightful, factual and well crafted. You are an articulate voice for conservative philosophy. I also think you deserve a lot of credit for having assembled such a thoughtful and cordial group of regular commentators.

That being said, do understand that I am a moderate Democrat, and likely to remain so, in spite of my respect for conservatism. Your blog, as well as the American Conservative, are publications that I value highly
and whose opinions I look to cogent thought that deserves serious thought. Even though we don’t agree on every point, we have a great deal in common.

I just wanted to let you know that you have a “lurking” Democrat fan who admires you. I couldn’t keep it to myself any longer.

Wishing you continued success,

Laurie

I have only this to tell you. Say it! Say it loud and clear.

All I know is this. As a “white” man…no matter what I say, no matter how I say it, no matter what I do, no matter how I do it, everyone is going to bitch about it.

So I might as well say what I think, do what I want, and let them bitch.

Words cannot [express] the admiration I feel for you for expressing the exact same sentiment. You, ma’am, are an exemplar for your sex and a credit to the whole human race.

Oh, and by the way, I’m also a Romantics scholar whose only concern is for what is beautiful and what is true. You, Ms. Barber, are beautiful, because you speak the truth.

Scott C.

I came as a legal immigrant to this country in 1961 due to communism in Cuba. When my parents wanted to get my sister and myself out of Cuba to come into the U.S. they had to jump through several hoops. When I came into the U.S. in 1961 I arrived as a legal resident with the green card. I am thankful for this country and am a proud American. I am against illegal immigration 100% I do not need for these Hispanics who support
illegals to speak for me as they do not speak for me one iota. There are many Hispanics out there who like me are against this illegal immigration. It is unfair for those who have applied to come into the U.S. in a legal fashion to be ignored because of these illegal immigrants. Yet under the proposal in Congress they would allow most illegals to stay in the U.S. in a path for citizenship. What about those who are complying with the laws to come into the U.S. Anything related to allowing the illegals to stay I do not care what ever term is called I call it appeasement pure and simple.

Al G.

What a beautiful woman!!! INSIDE AND OUT!

Consider this a rave review. I am most impressed by everything I saw and read at your web site. I do plan to be a regular…Sincerely from an instant FAN,

Dan S.

Thank you for reading my blog.

From Ashanti L.:

Hi LaShawn,

I’m not quite sure how I came across your blog but I must say I found your posts humorous and thought-provoking. Although I am a young black liberal it’s strange that on the surface you and I have much in common. I was an English major, graduated from NC State University, I’m presently in law school and my true passion is writing. The thing that scares me a little (no offense) is that as I get older I find myself leaning a little more to the middle of the political continuum. Up until this time in my life I have always thought of myself as a self proclaimed “flaming liberal” and I really don’t want to change. My questions for you are when did you become a republican and do you think becoming “born-again” in Christ changed your political views? Oh one more thing we have in common: I also prefer being called black rather than African-American. I’ve been to Ghana and loved it and all but uhhh… I wasn’t born there.

In my reply, I told her that I became a conservative first (Independent Conservative, not Republican), Christian second, and how I was drawn to each. More explanation here, here, and here.

From Karla S.:

Dear La Shawn,

I’m sorry for being so informal! I feel I know you in the short few minutes I just spent reading your bio and a few of your posts. I just wanted to drop you a line of encouragement from one believer/aspiring writer to another. (Well, technically you’re a former aspiring writer… but I’m sure you know what I mean.) Every now and then I get a glimpse into another person’s life that inspires me to be more. I appreciate the journey you’ve gone through, your faith in Jesus Christ, and your willingness to be bold.

Thank you for contributing to the blogosphere so effectively through your intelligent debate and humorous but piercing posts. You are making an impact!

Starting last year, I intended to post e-mail on a regular basis, including “negative” ones, but I never got into the habit. Perhaps I will this year.

For people who’ve inquired about guest blogging, I appreciate your interest. Signing on guest bloggers is still on the list, so stay tuned for an announcement.

I’ve been “challenged” to a debate on the Bill Bennett fiasco, and the odd thing is I’d consider doing it if the challenge were serious. Last year a law school student organization invited me to debate on…something. Can’t remember. I was offered a decent fee to do it, but the invitation was last-minute. Having no public debating experience and little time to prepare my argument, research my opponent, etc., I had to refuse the offer.

But…I like the idea of openly discussing a topic where each person lays out his argument, the other guy cross-examines him, lays out his argument, and so on. We all have opinions, and I dare some many of them are not based on facts but impressions and emotions. In a formal debate, if done properly, a pattern of truth emerges on one side. People get to hear both sides of an argument and the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. Emotional, ill-informed tirades edify no one.

I would debate someone only if the formal rules of debating applied. What my challenger has in mind is probably a mini-shout-fest with two people pulling “arguments” out of the air at random with no coherent structure or goal. I would engage only if there were a neutral moderator who followed the rules and made sure the debaters did the same: time limits for opening statements, arguments, rebuttals, and closing statements.

People think what they do on blogs is debating. For from it, my friends. Sometimes intelligent discourse emerges, but not often. We tend to get emotional, which usually obscures the point being made. I sense that most who disagree with me have a hard time controlling their emotions, and almost nothing is gained when we reach that point. People don’t know how to formulate an argument or rebut someone else’s based on facts and rules of logic. The ancient Greeks knew what they were doing.

For instance, the rebuttal portion of a debate involves exposing the weakness in your opponent’s argument and/or offering evidence that would tend to disprove it. Unfortunately, what most people do on blogs and on shout-down radio and TV is “rebut” a point the person never made (the “strawman” fallacy) based on his own prejudices and assumptions while veering wildly off-topic, attacking the person who made the argument and assuming that because one thing follows another, it must have caused it, etc. Hey, I’m guilty, too.

James White is a skilled debater, and it’s almost embarrassing to listen to him defeat an opponent who clearly has no idea how to structure an argument or respond to someone else’s. If I’m going to engage in public debate, it must be a real debate with rules.

If you’ve engaged in formal debates, let me know. This is a skill I want to develop.

Wow. I started out talking about e-mail. The other stuff just popped into my head. So I’ll answer my e-mail now.

Addendum: If you’re in town on October 11, you may want to attend a conference at Heritage called Reclaiming Our Destiny.

Unrelated Update: No whites allowed.

From: XX@cs.com
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:52:01 EDT
Subject: Where do YOU stand?
To:

LeShawn,

I read a few blogs, most of which leave me angry with myself for having spent time doing such. I read yours once or twice a week mainly because I think you are fundamentally a nice person. I am writing now because your blog site is now looking more like a scandal rag than a personal opinion page. Blogging is an opportunity for common folk such as myself to rant into cyberspace about issues immediate, long term, abstract, or any of an infinite number of potentials.

However, your site is now less about what YOU think and more about your compiling the blogs/rants of others. Your site is morphing into a cyber news magazine. Something far beyond a personal blogging device. Maybe that is what you want, but I find it a little disappointing in that I think your smile reveals characteristics of someone that is more than just a compilation device.

You looked tired today. Burning the midnight oil chasing the already known?

Jim S.

An e-mail from a fellow blogger who de-linked me from his blogroll:

Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:36:08 -0400
Subject: Saddened
From: “Matt” matt @XX.com
To:

Dear La Shawn,

In preparing my post on the death of the Pope, your blog was one to which I naturally turned, as I know you to be a Christian and had considered your perspective to be of value. It was thus with great sadness that instead I read these petulant words:

“I will say, preliminarily, that if the Pope believed Christ died for his sins, and that we are saved through faith alone in Christ alone by his grace alone, the Pope, like anyone else who believes these things, will be spared from God’s righteous and just punishment.”

It brought back years of fruitless discussions with my fundamentalist in-laws, who were as arrogantly certain of their own righteousness. Rather than rehash any of that, I’ll simply note that my Church was founded by Jesus Christ and yours by some guy in the 19th century I can’t be bothered to look up right now.

I have admired your blog and your skill as a writer. I wish you all the best with that and your other endeavors. However, though you will not care in the slightest as your blog is much larger than mine, I can no longer consider myself a reader and I am removing you from my blogroll, albeit with much sadness.

Sincerely,

Matt

This reader wanted to know why I wasn’t blogging about the Pope:

Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:04:46 -0400
From: XX@verizon.net
Subject: What?
To:

You have completely ignored one of the most historic events of the era – the death of a Pope. Why?

As an avowed Christian, you have commented on many events of Christian concern, including Terri Schiavo. Why not the Pope?

I would hate to think that you may carry a bias on this issue. For if you do it would seriously, to my mind at least, negate much of what you have written which I previously found to be cogent and coherent.

This Pope was a true Christian in his beliefs and in his teachings. We have lost a truly great and good man!

Chuck S.

Did you catch that? If I didn’t blog about what he wanted me to, I’m suddenly no longer “cogent and coherent.” The same reader responds to the Pope post:

Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:57:49 -0400
From: XX@verizon.net
Subject: You have lost me.
To: lashawn@lashawnbarber.com

“that if the Pope believed Christ died for his sins,” I see a bias here that is not Christian. For those who have a belief that only their concept of God is correct, a heart is closed. I need no further proof than you statement.

Goodbye, I will look elsewhere for a true Christian. I hope that you truly find God.

Chuck S.

As I said, those who offend easily have no problem offending me. If you re-read my post on the Pope, it will be apparent that these people are over-the-top, reading into the post information that isn’t there. And notice how polite these folks are with “Dear La Shawn,” the proceed to shoot me down:

To: lashawn@lashawnbarber.com
From: XX@new-manifesto.com
Subject: Terrible timing
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:38:19 -0400

Dear La Shawn,

I can’t tell you how hurt and disturbed I was at your postings on the passing of the Pope. It’s akin to a stranger sitting at the back of the church at Grandma’s funeral whispering to the family that we all know she was unfaithful to Grandpa. Factually based, but bad form. Very bad form.

You note your surprise at how quickly your former compatriots have “severed the relationship.” I think much of this is due to your desire to have it both ways. You bring up the whole centuries-old Catholic vs. Protestant debate, in the midst of a time of great mourning amongst the Catholic faithful, yet you set the terms of the debate such that there really is no debate.

It’s a circular argument: you will not answer email about the unique supremacy of scripture unless my arguments are supported by… scripture!?! That’s like saying, “We are free to debate the color of the sky as long as we both agree that the sky is green.”

You have opened this door at an inappropriate time. Yet, by your statement that, “my comment was mild compared to what needs to be said!” we know there is even more to the story. You’re rude enough to bring up the topic but not respectful enough to tell us what you really think. So it’s time to lay your cards on the table:

Are faithful Catholics assured of salvation?

Or, to be more blunt:

Are faithful Catholics going to Hell?

You opened this door at this particular time. You keep feeding it with hints and comments that there is more to be said. You limit the debate to only those who agree with you. And you wonder why you’re being abandoned?

There is room in the world for this debate, but not like this. If you wish to engage the Catholic community, then engage. But if you wish to simply point us out as heretics, then please get on with it.

Sincerely,
David S.

I get this stuff all day. There’s no end to the “advice” people think they’re qualified to give.