This is about as close to an apology as I get.

I titled a recent article "Liberals Killed Shasta Groene's Family", and while I don't regret it or the point it made, I DO see the legitimacy of the criticism that followed on Myrrander's thread (for the record, when Myrrander addresses a reply on his blog, it's not point whoring, it's because he CAN'T--through no fault of mine--reply directly to my articles, so it's completely acceptable). And the fact is, in one sense I didn't go far enough to underscore the legitimate argument that conservative policies played a significant part in this tragedy. I did mention it, but in rereading the article, the sentence was far too brief and focused too little on the point at hand.

You see, the fact is, this monster never should have been allowed to see the light of day again. And while liberals have pushed for policies and reforms that put these animals back on the street, one can equally scandalize conservative policies that put drug users away for life and force the prisons to choose which offenders to release when the funding doesn't allow for the swelling ranks among their population.

But in getting read, it's all about the hook. Call it shameless, call it what you will, but a benignly titled article doesn't get read. I've been blogging long enough to know this is true. And so you have to choose a title which will draw the reader in. Provoking outrage and emotions are good ways to do it. You can pretend to take the moral high road all you want, but until you start reading the worthwhile articles that sink because they didn't have a good hook for a title, you're only encouraging the same tendency you're criticizing. Think about it.

So, I don't apologize for the article, or its title. But I DO apologize for not elaborating further on a valid point that could well have been made.