To LBC readers who prayed for my sister and/or contributed to the “Send Shannon to California” fund, she has a message for you.
By the way, welcome her to the blogosphere! I’m still working on my other sister and brother.
This may be a strange question, but have you bloggers made arrangements for your blog when you die? Is there someone you trust with the password to carry out your wishes? For instance, if this site is still in operation at the time of my death, I’ve made arrangements to have it shut down completely. It will live forever in Google’s cache, of course, but LBC will cease to be, just like me.
A morbid rhyme.
A story called Ghosts in the Machines reminded me of my own blogger mortality:
More than a year after his death, Aaron Huth continues to haunt those who knew him. His profile on the behemoth six-degrees-of-separation Web site Friendster.com still lets people know that in May of 2003 he was listening to bands like the Birthday Party and the Postal Service and reading Nietzsche. His likes and interests were frozen for posterity on May 26, 2003, the last time he logged into the site….Twenty years old at the time of his death, Huth had made no preparations and left no instructions with regards to how his worldly affairs should be dealt with, much less his online presence—how the people he knew only in the virtual sense should be notified. He is far from being alone in that regard.
Think about it. If you’re like me, blogging and various online activity have become a big part of your life. Just as you make plans for your assets, the care of dependents, etc., you ought to make plans for your blog and all password-protected web-based accounts, such as e-mail. Remember this story?
Happy Monday. 
Selecting an experienced, sitting judge for the Supreme Court instead of an inexperienced former employee…what a novel idea!
Update: “In a recent column I suggested that all the fuss about Harriet Meirs’ credentials and by implication her intelligence, which is probably higher than many of her critics, is a distraction. What matters is not that she have previous experience as a judge or be several standard deviations to the right on the Bell Curve, but that she have an originalist judicial philosophy.” — Red Phillips.
Regarding the “separation of church and state” issue, see Incompatible Kerry’s Immaculate Deception.
Sunday night at 9:00 p.m. EST (Don’t forget to turn back your clocks this weekend!) on WRKO in Boston, Kevin and Gregg of Pundit Review will interview Kris Mineau, President of the Massachusetts Family Institute and Vote on Marriage, about homosexual “marriage.”
Mineau is collecting signatures to put a marriage amendment protecting traditional marriage on the 2008 ballot in the state. Gregg in particular wants to debunk the ridiculous notion that homosexual “marriage” is a civil right or is in any way related to the Civil Rights movement.
To stir things us up (This typo has been up here all day. The shame…) a woman from Mass Equality will be joining them. Listen live at WRKO in Boston at 9:00 p.m. EST.
Call in and weigh in at 617.266.6868 or 877.469.4322.
Don’t forget to turn back your clocks!
Related posts:
Check out Mark La Roi’s post on fathers and abortion.
Bloggers are more of a threat than people realize, and they are only going to get more toxic. This is the new reality. — Peter Blackshaw, Intelliseek (which has a blog!)
Forbes magazine’s cover story (try BugMeNot to bypass reg.) makes a few good points about blogs and certain legal issues, but the overall tone is hysterical (as in neurotic, not funny). According to the article, blogs promote a lynch mob mentality. I’ll admit that in the aggregate, blogs can whip up a frenzy and create an opinion storm that probably scares the establishment more than we bloggers imagine. And that’s good.
This is America. It’s our duty to challenge politicians and the press, and with a free market system, businesses better beware, too. What frightens them so much is they can’t control us. Yes, if we libel companies or individuals, there should be consequences. But a blog swarm in itself is not a crime or an infringement of anyone’s civil rights.
A blog swarm can be a stinging gadfly, a much-dreaded possibility, or someone’s worst nightmare, but in my opinion, blogging is free expression at its purest. If we’re willing to embrace this freedom, we ought to be willing to embrace its power.
Although the Forbes article is technically not a tirade, I really enjoy reading and listening to anti-blog rants.
Is that normal?
(Hat tip: Micro Persuasion)
Related posts:
- Easongate
- ABC Busted By The Blogs
- Peasants Don’t Blog
- ‘Manly’ Maney Says Blog Novelty Will Wear Off
- Ken Fuson’s Confusion
- Nick Coleman’s Blog Envy
Update: Mean Dean has spoofed Forbes already!
Unrelated Update: See my update on the Harry Potter post. Spoiler alert! If you have a response, please comment there.
Update II: No time to celebrate. I agree. And I feel for Miers. If this post comes off as an attack against her, that wasn’t my intent. Bush is either getting bad advice or no advice. He looks a bit haggard in the photo, doesn’t he? Running a country, especially one with free expression and a free press, can’t be easy.
———————————————————————————
Miers is gone.
But I predict George Bush will nominate another unqualified person. Perhaps his tailor. Or his dentist. Or his dog walker.
What did Bush learn? Maybe he learned that the people who put him in office actually expect him to be a conservative with common sense and choose someone qualified to sit on the highest court in the land, and not an unknown-quantity crony. We’ll see.
Other bloggers: SCOTUSblog, Michelle Malkin round-up, Captain Ed, Patterico, Pundit Guy (another round-up), The Buzz Blog, Jason Smith, The American Princess…
Dan Phillips says:
My fear now is that either W will nominate Gonzalez, for whom I have NO enthusiasm, but who is qualified, and pretty clearly NOT in our corner ideologically; OR he will nominate an excellent candidate, and our enemies will use the very weapons we just so thoughtfully handed them to oppose him.
Ugh! Read what I wrote about Alberto Gonzales last year.
Dan adds: “To make sure I was clear, when I say Gonzales is “qualified,” I mean technically so — i.e. in the ways Miers’ critics complained that she was not.”
Mean Dean says:
It is my hope that Harriet Miers, by nobly putting her Nation and her President above her own personal ambition, would motivate George Bush to take this do-over opportunity to make a bold move to the right - and nominate a great thinker who understands the Constitution and is willing to forgoe the social fads of the day in favor of good law. Even if said nominee isn’t a long time pal of the Bush administration.
Important Update: Would Janice Rogers Brown, who has the proper judicial credentials, suffice? Will Bush dare?
If you’re bored with this topic, check out the Harry Potter post. Book 6 spoiler warning!
On Monday I wondered whether USA Today photoshopped a photo of Condoleezza Rice, and I linked to the person who called my attention to it, Bucktowndusty. This morning he sent this link, which was picked up by Michelle Malkin.
The ensuing swarm must have been too much. USA Today has removed the demonic-looking photo of Rice.
(Thanks for linking, Mike)
Update: Editor & Publisher writes about the blog swarm, although they fail to give credit to Bucktowndusty, who brought everyone’s attention to the doctored photo in the first place. Figures.
Matt Drudge did the same thing (see left column). Lazy.
Check out California Conservative’s third photo.
December 5, 2005: Did you surf here from Google? Visit my new blog, Fantasy Fiction for Christians. 
Friday, November 18, 2005: Have you seen The Goblet of Fire? Tell us what you think!
Update IV (11/1): Continue discussing Harry Potter theories here.
Update III (10/28): More evidence for my Dumbledore-was-already-dead theory: As Draco prepares to kill his headmaster at the end of Book 6, Dumbledore tries to convince Draco that he can protect him and his family from Voldemort if he refused to carry out the Dark Lord’s mission. Draco doesn’t believe him, but Dumbledore says, “He cannot kill you if you’re already dead.” (Book 6, p. 591)
This has a double meaning: 1) It implies that Dumbledore must have faked people’s deaths before to protect them from Voldemort (Regulus Black?); and 2) Major hint from JKR: Snape didn’t kill Dumbledore because he was “already dead.”
——————————————————————————————
Update (10/27): STOP! This post contains spoilers of Book 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
Townhall.com has published my article/review, Harry Potter and the Charmed Christians. (The typo in “HogwartsProfessor.com” will be fixed.) I didn’t know it would be up so soon (last night), so I’ll spend the next hour or so this morning filling this post with my theories about the series, and links to articles and other resources.
If you’re a Christian and object to reading Harry Potter, please refrain from commenting. This thread is for Christians and non-Christians who have read the books. If you’re compelled to preach and just can’t hold it in, please e-mail me.
I’ll briefly discuss some of my views on Book 6. They could fill this whole blog, but I’ll try to contain them. Those who haven’t read the series, including Book 6, or haven’t seen the movies will have no idea what I’m talking about. The post is written mainly to fans, so I won’t go into detail explaining certain things.
Filed under: Book Reviews, Faith, Pop Culture
