Below, you’ll find several of those responses I received. I’d like to invite anyone to contribute your own thoughts in the comments section (the comments will go into moderation but I’ll take them out shortly). Many bloggers have already provided tributes on their own blogs. The blogosphere is full of mini personal obituaries for Kurt Vonnegut. This will just be one of many:

Mark Sarvas (from The Elegant Variation):

I came to Vonnegut comparatively late in life. The common Vonnegut experience seems to have been to have encountered him in college but it wasn’t until my late 30s that I pulled out the dog-eared family copy of Slaughterhouse Five and, at once, saw what the fuss was about. My most vivid memories, however, turn on reading Mother Night, presented by Vonnegut as the confessions of an American Nazi spy named Howard J. Campbell, Jr., and merely edited by him. The book’s central question – spelled out by Vonnegut in the 1968 introduction added seven years after its release – that “we are what we appear to be” had all kinds of resonance, that stayed with me through the writing of my own book. Plus, he made me laugh with a novel dealing with Nazis, which made me uncomfortable but is impressive in its way. The Mark Twain comparisons are a bit overworked but seem, finally, apropos – it’s hard to bring to mind another writer who is so successfully engaged with the follies of our age with such sharp humor and, finally, compassion. His heirs are not apparent.

C. Max Magee (from The Millions):

I’m very sad to see Kurt Vonnegut go. His death was a surprise though not altogether unexpected considering his advancing years. It is comforting, though, that he lived a full life, even penning a surprise bestseller that put him back in the public eye in 2005. That was fun to see because, though Vonnegut may be one of the most important writers out there for me as a reader, most of his literary output came before I was born.

When I was a younger reader, I was a completist. I didn’t have knowledge of dozens of books and writers at my fingertips, so when I found a book I really liked, I would read everything by that author. And so it was that I read substantially everything that Vonnegut had written before I left home for college, starting with a late novel, Hocus Pocus, after finding it lying around the house when I was 14 or 15, and finishing up with Player Piano, Vonnegut’s first novel, on a long, late-summer car ride home from Maine, a few weeks before moving away from home. So, in many ways, Vonnegut was in the background through my teenage years, providing a vivid counterpoint to the mundanities of suburban high school life. His books are very important to who I am as a reader and a writer, so I’m sad to see him go.

Levi Asher (from Literary Kicks):

I had three real-life brushes with Kurt Vonnegut. The first was at Albany State, where I went to college. In fact, it’s entirely possible that I chose to study at Albany State because I had read about the school in Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slapstick”. Kurt’s brother Bernard Vonnegut is a professor of atmospheric science at Albany, and there are some good bits in this underrated book involving Kurt’s relationship with his adult brother (who he likes, but never hugs, though he likes to hug his dog).

I guess I was hoping Bernard’s presence would draw Kurt in as a college speaker, and during my junior year Kurt finally did show up. I won’t bother saying that Kurt is quite a public speaker, because everybody already knows that. There was a reception with drinks and a cheese plate after his talk, and I lingered there as a few other students parried with Kurt about whether or not humanity was better off in our caveman past than in our present state (it seemed to be Kurt’s position that it had been mostly downhill since the invention of agriculture and fire). I noted that Bernard Vonnegut showed up at the reception (though not at the speech), and that the brothers shook hands warmly but did not hug.

My other two brushes with Kurt Vonnegut both took place in Manhattan’s East 40′s, where I presume he lived (though I never verified this fact, so I’m not sure). One fine day in February 1996 I was in a supermarket on 2nd Avenue when I suddenly spotted Kurt Vonnegut in the drink-mixers aisle, picking out a bottle of (I think) Tom Collins Mix. I was fairly blown away but I did not say anything or do anything. A writer deserves to buy a bottle of Tom Collins mix in peace.

Then, in the summer of 2002 I was walking down 2nd Avenue when I saw a literary countenance bearing down upon me in the opposite direction. It was Kurt Vonnegut, strolling down the sidewalk, and the only thing I noted was an intensely sad expression on his face. Again, I did not bother him. A writer deserves to be sad in peace. I hope he went home and had a Tom Collins and hugged a dog and felt better.

Kassia Krozser (from Booksquare):

This is actually a tougher question to answer than you realize . I’ve been thinking back to his appearance on The Daily Show when he was promoting Man Without a Country, and (I will paraphrase), he noted that we’ve done our best to destroy this world we inhabit and now the planet is fighting back. This was post-Katrina and it was one of those “Yes!” moments. Over these past years, we have been asked to pretend that killing people prevents killing people and that war is the answer to questions that weren’t properly asked. Kurt Vonnegut reminded us — many times — that war is not without sacrifice and should never be treated with casual disregard. I would have loved to see him debate Cheney, but that’s because I have a secret penchant for seeing bullies cut down to size.

Also, sadness is the greatest source of humor — and once you can find the humor, you know it’s all going to be all right.

Nick Mamatas (author of Under My Roof):

Kurt Vonnegut was that rarest of writers in that he was widely, nearly universally read thanks partially to high school requirements, but also had a devoted cult of enthusiastic readers, and he was, until the other day, alive.

Most writers just get the last bit, and only for a while.

Cult fictions generally don’t last once they get institutionalized, and they do all the time. High school English teachers tend to be dorky misfits with a secret plan…turn the world into a haven for dorky misfits and thus save the whales, clear the skies, and reverse their past personal tragedies. The apparatus through which they hope to affect this change is the fiction of their own youths. Thus the generation that loved THE CHOCOLATE WAR, for example, ruins it by assigning it to a bunch of sullen teens their age. Good job, feeding a book about a boy standing up against mob rule to the mob that rules. Now they know our secret hopes and revenge fantasies!

I tease. Most people just fake their way through THE CHOCOLATE WAR.

Vonnegut is hard to fake one’s way through, because if you so much as glance at a page, you’ll start reading. His voice is avuncular, conversational, and just so much more compelling than that of the average high school English teacher. So you get hooked, quick-like.

Vonnegut’s fiction has also lasted simply because it is superior to most other cult fiction. Cult fiction is that fiction that is about something — but generally only one thing — which is what makes it very teachable on the high school level. “The theme of THE CATCHER IN THE RYE IS ______.” And you can fill out that Ad-Lib with any of Vonnegut’s work as well. But there’ more to it.

Most fiction isn’t about anything at all but giving you something to do while in a plastic chair so you won’t have to talk to your fellow passengers or patients. Cult fiction is, as I’ve said, about one thing. The greatest works of literature are about many many things, which makes them very handy for making sure that generations of doctoral students have something to write about.

Vonnegut’s stuff? It’s about two things. It’s about how miserable you feel within an absurd world, and about being glad to be alive anyway. And there are two ways to be introduced to Vonnegut: you can be assigned Vonnegut, or you can be surreptiously passed a worn paperback by an older relation, friend, or nervous teacher.

If you are in the former group, you’ll be sad today because Vonnegut died, but you will soon go back to your abiding pastime: watching the TV news with clenched fist and fuming nostrils, so upset and perplexed that someone somewhere might have gotten slightly more than you think they deserved.

If you’re in the second group, you’ll be able to answer the question at the end of this anecdote.

In high school, I had a crush on a girl named Loryn Picard. (I hope she’s still alive and Googles herself occasionally! Hi Loryn!) She was one of those quirky types, perhaps a bit troubled. Played the flute. Dressed like Molly Ringwald, I swear. Played the flute, but only for herself, not in the school band or anything. Didn’t come to school much. (Troubled, she was troubled!) Was in some honors classes, some not.

One time, as we were shuffling out of Spanish class, she asked the teacher, Mrs. Henry, “Do you like the works of Kurt Vonngut?” and Mrs. Henry said, “Yes, yes, I do” and then reached an arm out to tug on my shirtsleeve. The teacher knew that I was a Vonnegut reader — genesis: my uncle Peter, the book was SLAPSTICK, and is still a sentimental fave though even the author gave it a D — and thought that the three of us could have a wonderful conversation about Unca Kurt in the two minutes between classes. But I rolled my eyes and twisted my mouth like she’d squirted sour orange juice up my nostril, and quickly turned the corner and escaped.

Why?

Keith R.A. DeCandido (science fiction author):

Oddly, my strongest memory of Vonnegut doesn’t come from anything he did — exactly.

Years ago, I worked for the late Byron Preiss. One of my colleagues, Howard Zimmerman, was editing a comic book adaptation of SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE, with art by Christopher Bing, a very talented (if slow) artist. On Howard’s birthday one year, his assistant, Ken Grobe, gave him a page of artwork by Christopher from the adaptation, which included three panels of Howard and Kurt Vonnegut having a conversation at a party.

Howard absolutely loved it, as he was a big fan of Kurt’s and was thrilled at the chance to work with him. (Sadly, the graphic novel never actually saw the light of day….)

David Louis Edelman (author of Infoquake):

The news of Kurt Vonnegut’s death today hits me particularly hard. For me, Vonnegut was the novelist. He was perhaps the first “adult” novelist I read seriously, the first novelist I fell in love with, and undoubtedly the novelist who got me through high school. I’m sure there are millions of people out there who can say the same thing.

My first exposure to Vonnegut was through his seminal collection of short stories, Welcome to the Monkey House. I was probably around 13 or 14. Up to that point, my reading had consisted mostly of straightforward, unironic science fiction and fantasy: J.R.R. Tolkien, Piers Anthony, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov. My other recent obsession at that time was Douglas Adams, who strove all his life to achieve Vonnegutdom with mixed (albeit funnier) results.

Then my sister brought Welcome to the Monkey House home and it quickly swept through the whole family. I was stunned. I’d never read anything like these stories. Cynical, yet wondrous; funny, yet deadly serious; childish, yet crammed full of adult insight.

Vonnegut’s lessons are the lessons that I think all teenagers should be required to absorb. They’re the lessons that saved me from completely withdrawing into my shell.

These are, I think, the main lessons of Vonnegut’s work:

* Adults take many things too seriously.
* We all get buffeted around by powerful forces we don’t understand.
* Religion, art, politics, and careers are largely full of shit.
* Just because something is full of shit doesn’t mean it can’t be wonderful or useful.
* Be nice to each other. We’re all trying the best we can.

Kurt Vonnegut is dead. The world has lost one of its brightest literary talents. So it goes.

Jason Erik Lundberg:

I never met Kurt Vonnegut. Never passed by him on the street, never spotted him on the subway, never sat at the next table in a restaurant. I never attended a reading or lecture given by him. I never sent him a fan letter, although I now know he probably would have answered it.

My first exposure to the late great master of American letters was a five-second cameo that he did for the Rodney Dangerfield film Back to School, in which he played, naturally, himself. This was sometime during middle school, and I felt like I’d get in trouble watching it because of a very brief female nude scene the very beginning of the movie, but it was a movie I enjoyed, and Vonnegut’s cameo never left my mind.

And that sort of sums up my experiences with the man and his work: tangentially, ephemerally, a glancing blow. I read Slaughterhouse-Five a few years later while in high school, and while it was like an armed claymore to my pubescent brain, I didn’t read his words again until much later (Timequake and A Man Without a Country). I bought three of his other books in paperback (Cat’s Cradle, Galapagos, and Welcome to the Monkey House), but never got around to reading them, and ended up selling them before my recent move to Singapore.

However, his words have always stuck with me, and his philosophy, summed up from God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater — “God damn it, you’ve got to be kind” — is one that I took to heart early on, and will continue to do so. And so, even though I never met the man or shook his hand, I will miss him as much as if I had.

Doug Lain (author of Last Week’s Apocalypse):

With the death of Kurt Vonnegut the world, and more specifically, America has lost yet another sane voice, another clear head, another person of integrity. Since the turn of the century, and as the US has gone stark raving mad, there have been many similar figures snuffed out by disease, despair, or simply the unyielding impact of time’s passage. Susan Sontag, Octavia Butler, Joseph Heller, Robert Sheckley, Arthur Miller, and Kurt Vonnegut are all up in Heaven now.

But before we move on to the next thing, and the next, we would be wise to take a close look at what Vonnegut decided to do after he turned 80 in 2002. This man who had wanted to quit writing when his book “Slaughterhouse Five” turned out to be a smash, a man who had been filled with despair over the human condition since highschool, whose mother committed suicide in 1944 and who often wanted to follow her example, who threatened to sue the manufacturers of Pall Mall cigarettes because their product had failed to kill him in a timely manner, spent his final years writing political essays for a socialist magazine out of Chicago called “In These Times.”

Let me say that again: Kurt Vonnegut, a sane man who understood how horrible and humiliating life could be, spent his final years writing for a socialist newspaper and considered himself a socialist. This, to me, is perhaps the most significant fact about good old Kurt. He proved, over and over again, that the sane and rational thing to do in the face of the horrors of the 20th and 21st century, is to have hope, to be kind, to try to be better. This was his message.

Kurt Vonnegut is up in heaven now. He’s up there where, in the words of his character Wanda June (a little girl who was hit by an ice cream truck), “Everybody is happy–the animals and the dead soldiers and people who went to the electric chair and everything. Nobody is mad. We’re all too busy playing shuffleboard.” I’m sure that Kurt is happy as a clam up there too, grateful for his the way he stumbled and fell, and ultimately thrilled with the brain injuries that took his life.

He’s up there where things are good, and we’re down here.

So it goes…

Simon Owens: In our last interview in early 2006, you said that blogs would never be able to replace the mainstream media because they don’t have the resources to do original reporting. Do you think now, a year later, they’re doing more investigative journalism?

Damian Penny: I think we’re starting to see a lot more “on the scene” reporting from bloggers, especially from people like Michael Totten and Michael Yon. Totten, in particular, finances most of his reporting from the Middle East with readers’ donations, and the result has been some excellent reporting you don’t see anywhere else. When bloggers have the resources, or if something important is happening on their doorstep, you get a lot more original blog reporting.

Simon Owens: Do you think that as online advertising increases, the major blogs will be able to hire on-the-scene reporters so they can break news just like other more traditional outlets?

Damian Penny: Some bloggers already publish guest posts from people on the scene, but I don’t think you’ll see reporters “hired” to report for blogs. One of the defining features of blogs is that they are personal, and most bloggers will want to keep it that way. Maybe you’ll see some add full-time guest bloggers to look at things from other perspectives. (My most prolific guest-blogger, Mark Collins, knows a lot more than I do about military matters.)

Simon Owens: I’ve interviewed a number of Pajamas Media bloggers in the past, and I always try to get their insider input on the network. How has your experience been with PM? Do you think it will continue to stay strong?

Damian Penny: I’ve been very happy with PJM, and I think they are getting better. Picking up some high-profile guest bloggers, like Victor Davis Hanson and Ron Rosenbaum, was a very good move.

Simon Owens: You said in our last interview that you first became inspired to start blogging partially because of 9/11. As someone outside the US, how did that event affect your political views?

Damian Penny: 23 Canadians were killed in the 9/11 attacks, along with hundreds of people from dozens of other countries. Attacks against one country will almost certainly have repercussions – and victims – from other nations, and Canada is so intertwined with its southern neighbour that 9/11 had to have a major impact. Indeed, many of the planes grounded on that day ended up here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Simon Owens: How does the Canadian political blogosphere differ from the US political blogosphere? Do they act in the same manner?

Damian Penny: I think the American blogosphere has received much more recognition from the US media than Canadian bloggers have received from Canadian news outlets. Some Canadian blogs have gotten pretty big, but none of them have become near-household names like Daily Kos, InstaPundit or Power Line. The high-water mark for the Canadian blogosphere was when the sponsorship scandal was at its peak – fueled, ironically, by American blog Captain’s Quarters, which had a source inside the sponsorship inquiry (and wasn’t bound by a Canadian publication ban).

Simon Owens: In our last interview in early 2006, you said that the blogosphere had a “potential for a much larger readership than we have now.” Do you think the political blogosphere has grown significantly in the past year? Has its effect on politics grown?

Lindsay Beyerstein: The political blogosphere’s influence on politics has continued to grow. This year’s YearlyKos convention will host its own presidential candidate’s forum. Campaigns are investing heavily in netroots outreach. At the same time, increasing numbers of bloggers are becoming established as credible sources of original reporting and commentary. For example, Talking Points Memo is credited with breaking the US Attorney scandal.

Simon Owens: In your widely-read Salon article on why you didn’t blog for Edwards, you said that your outspoken atheism would likely be a problem for the Edwards campaign. Do you find it depressing to face the reality that atheists are so feared by the average voter? Do you think atheists like Richard Dawkins are effective as activists for atheist rights?

Lindsay Beyerstein: I am sometimes dismayed by the widespread anti-atheist prejudice in the USA. I was very excited last week when Pete Stark of California became the first American Congressman to declare himself a non- theist. So far, I’m not aware of any significant backlash. So, maybe other politicians will be emboldened by Stark’s example.

I think Richard Dawkins is an excellent example of an effective surrogate. He’s good for atheists because he’s willing to push the boundaries of mainstream discourse. People often misunderstand Dawkins’ role. He’s not out there trying to convince anyone to become an atheist, he’s acclimatizing the public to the existence of atheists. I find some of his overt sneering a little off-putting. But I’m glad there’s someone out there doing that on TV.

Simon Owens: Let’s pretend for a second that you had signed on with the Edwards campaign, and the right had launched a similar swift boat attack your way. How would you have handled it?

Lindsay Beyerstein: That’s a really tough question. During the actual onslaught, there was very little an individual blogger could do. Amanda later said that it was excruciating to be under attack and unable to respond on her own behalf because of campaign discipline. I don’t know whether I would have ultimately resigned or not. I don’t think so–unless I was under immense pressure to do so from inside the campaign. I’m just stubborn that way. Resigning would have meant conceding. On the other hand, resignation might have been the best thing for the campaign. Personally, I think that the furor would have died down eventually when people realized that a campaign blogger just blogs press releases and not their own stuff.

Simon Owens: How did the Salon article come about? Did you pitch it to them, or did they approach you?

Lindsay Beyerstein: Amanda wrote about her experiences in Salon. They published one of my photos to illustrate Amanda’s article. So, I emailed Amanda and asked her which editor she worked with for the article. Then, I wrote to the editor and pitched the story.

Simon Owens: As someone who oftens posts pictures of your real-world encounters with other bloggers, what’s it like to meet someone face to face after you’ve only known that person through a computer screen previously?

Lindsay Beyerstein: It’s surprising how few surprises there are. People get to know each other online better than they realize. If I like someone online, I’m confident that I’ll like them in person.

A lot of people are initially apprehensive about mixing their online and offline lives. There’s this sense that the Internet is unknown territory and that it’s somehow risky to interact with people you met there. People think “Oh, I think I know that, but they could be anyone!” After your first couple meetups, that sense of apprehension goes away and it feels perfectly natural.

You get a real sense of how someone’s mind works when you read their writing regularly. So, meeting for the first time doesn’t necessarily feel like an introduction. It usually feels more like a continuation of the relationship that was initially established online.

Simon Owens: What do you think are some of the tactics the liberal blogosphere will use in the 2008 elections? Do you think Web 2.0 products like Youtube will provide an increasing influence over swaying votes?

Lindsay Beyerstein: It will be very interesting to see what happens with social networking sites. The $64,000 question is how you translate blog reading into political action. Arguing about politics online doesn’t win elections. Blogs are like other media. They can push a message, but they aren’t necessarily the most effective organizing tools. Owning the news cycle is great, but it won’t deliver 25 people to walk precincts the next day, I can exhort my readers in California or Virginia to get out and vote, but it doesn’t mean much coming from me. It’s much more effective for someone in their own community to give them a phone call, or offer them a ride to the polls.

So, a lot of really smart people are trying to figure out how they can use the web to organize people in their own communities to do the nitty gritty stuff that actually wins elections. That’s what all this hype around MySpace and Facebook and Second Life is coming from. Campaigns want to figure out how to use the internet as a decentralized organizing tool that will actually get people to do stuff locally.

I’m sure we’re going to see a lot of viral marketing. Campaigns and interest groups are going to produce fun videos and hope to disseminate them online. Individual activists will be putting their content up, too.

The blogosphere will help by identifying and promoting talent. If an obscure 15-year-old posts a powerful political video on YouTube, it only takes one blog reader to pass that link on to John Amato of Crooks and Liars and BAM! national exposure for that video.

Brian Flemming is a film director, a playwright, and an outspoken atheist. In 2005, he released the controversial documentary, The God Who Wasn’t There, a film not just arguing that Jesus wasn’t God, but that Jesus the man never existed at all. He’s also the creator of the faux documentary, Nothing So Strange,and the musical, Bat Boy.

Last year, Flemming developed the Blasphemy Challenge, which called on atheists to upload videos to YouTube where they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Flemming has a blog where he talks about atheism, film, and politics and a variety of other things as well.

Simon Owens: In the past year, we’ve seen a huge surge of atheists in the media. We have everything from The God Delusion to Letter to a Christian Nation to your documentary, The God Who Wasn’t There. Does this mean that atheists are finally banding together as activists, or that the public is becoming more open to hearing the atheist point of view? Or both?

Brian Flemming: The number of atheists is growing, we’re getting more vocal, and as evidence rises that religion is doing harm to our culture, people are more receptive to a godless point of view. In fact, many people who don’t identify as atheists actually are atheists, in that they live their lives as if there is no supreme being. They may obey the rule that says it is rude to publicly reveal one’s atheism (as it implicitly criticizes theists), but they’re essentially atheists.

The visibility of atheists isn’t much of a surprise to me. I think we’ll see the United States head down the same road as the countries of Europe — which over the past several decades have become not only strongly secular but also specifically atheistic. When religion is openly discussed on a fair playing field, it never wins. It simply can’t be defended on rational grounds. Barring a development such as a great disaster, which could be exploited to empower totalitarian ideologies like Christianity, we’re headed for atheism as a default point of view.

This development is, of course, a very good thing for the United States. There is a correlation between standard of living and atheism — the more atheistic a country is, the healthier it is, in terms of overall lifespan, overall wealth, access to health care, stillbirth rate, children living with two parents and many other measures. Even within the United States, the people doing the worst by these measures are in the Bible Belt. The most religious communities in the U.S., for example, have the highest divorce rate.

As atheism increases, we’ll see others benefit as well. In terms of giving to the less fortunate, the highest rate of giving to other countries occurs in the most atheistic countries.

As facts like these make it into the mainstream conversation, I think we’ll hear a lot more positive things about atheism — and a lot more wonder at how so many of us once believed that Jesus would soon come down from the sky and save us.

Simon Owens: In our last interview in early 2006, you indicated that Bush’s greatest talent was “manipulating the American people with fear.” Do you think that talent has subsided at all?

Brian Flemming: Yes. He really only had that one trick, and its effectiveness is reaching its expiration date. As the man said, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Simon Owens: More importantly, will that talent strengthen again if there were another terrorist attack on American soil, or will Americans be more wary next time?

Brian Flemming: I really don’t know. It is very hard to predict reactions like that. I would expect that the Bush Administration would certainly try to exploit any new attack to further increase Bush’s dictatorship powers, but people are certainly a lot more aware of Bush’s basic character now, and they don’t like it.

Simon Owens: I’ve noticed a growing trend in documentaries where the documentarian becomes a narrator in the story, while old-school film-makers like Errol Morris hardly speak at all in their documenaries. Do you think today’s documentarians are becoming too intrusive on their work? Which style is more unbiased?

Brian Flemming: I think we’re seeing the language of the documentary expand, and that’s a good thing. But the old guard will always gripe and complain. Errol Morris himself was undeservedly rebuked by the establishment for using re-creations in “The Thin Blue Line,” which is the best documentary ever made.

As it becomes easier and easier to make a documentary (and that possibility now extends as far as the lower-middle class) we’re going to hear a lot more voices that are unhampered by establishment rules — one of which is that a documentary should be “unbiased.” There’s a place for the kind of documentary that imitates newsmagazine segments, but there are also many other ways to make a documentary.

I personally don’t mind if a documentarian “intrudes” on the movie — so long as that documentarian has a strong point of view that is worth my attention or has some essential role in the action of the film. I’ve never heard anyone complain about nonfiction writers of books or magazine articles who use the word “I” — if that first- person point of view is justified by the material. Text nonfiction runs the gamut from sterile schoolbook prose to intimate personal essay. There’s no reason that video nonfiction can’t do the same thing.

Simon Owens: Do you think the “blasphemy project” is an effective way for atheists to come out of the closet?

Brian Flemming: The Blasphemy Challenge has certainly encouraged quite a few godless folks to unequivocally state that they aren’t afraid of Satan. I think it’s hilarious that this is actually a controversial statement to make — as if Satan were not a purely mythological character. The Blasphemy Challenge is radical compared to how we normally talk about superstitions such as Christianity, but it shouldn’t be. It should always be acceptable to declare one’s independence from Bronze Age myths. In fact, it shouldn’t really be news at all.

Simon Owens: Does the internet provide an outlet that atheists wouldn’t normally have?

Brian Flemming: Yes. It is hard to imagine a project like the Blasphemy Challenge without a site like YouTube to organize it. It’s amazing how easy it is for the participants in the challenge to communicate their views using video. Not too long ago, this ability was tightly held by corporations who controlled access to the extremely expensive equipment needed for TV broadcast. Now, a webcam is as cheap as $20.

Given that religion in the United States is a strongly intimidating force on media outlets, the internet is the perfect medium to express an atheistic message. Religion has created a rule in our culture that says religious beliefs are the sole beliefs that cannot be critically examined — one is allowed to state the most outlandish conclusions under the banner of religion, and it is considered rude to question those conclusions in the way one would question any others. Mainstream media outlets largely follow this rule. They praise the emperor’s new clothes.

Since atheists are essentially pointing out a naked emperor, it’s great that we have the internet to get around the special exemption that religion has declared for itself.

Simon Owens: As an atheist, do you view all religion with equal disdain? Are there any religions you dislike more than others?

Brian Flemming: I don’t see much difference between the beliefs of, say, Scientologists, and those of Christians. The space-alien theology of L. Ron Hubbard is no more or less ridiculous than the flying-dead-man theology of the Holy Bible.

Simon Owens: What is the future of atheist activism? What specific issues should atheists focus on first?

Brian Flemming: I think we’ll see many different atheists concentrate on many different messages. Declared atheists tend to be independent-minded folk with strong points of view, so we’re never going to gather under a single banner. Which makes sense — we don’t see organizations of “a-Clausians” (people who don’t believe in Santa Claus), as that group is filled with far too many sub-groups. Since atheism is merely a rational default position with regard to a certain brand of mythology, we shouldn’t expect a great deal of ideological unity within this group.

Saskboy’s been blogging since 2002, and contributes to Off The Grid, a blog that won the 2006 Canadian Blog Award for Best Science/Technology blog. He co-moderates and is the assistant webmaster of a prominent Canadian political blog aggregator, and has organized public Barbeque picnics for groups of Saskatchewan bloggers affiliated with the Saskatchewan Blog Aggregator

Simon Owens: For Bloggasm, I’ve conducted nearly 200 interviews, and the vast majority were with bloggers who could be categorized within a specific niche. You’re one of those bloggers who blogs on whatever comes to mind. Do you find it hard to gain readers this way?

Saskboy: Ah, the niche of the “whatever-blogger”. It’s not a famous niche, and certainly not the way to attract a regular and massive following. It’s the type of blog I enjoy writing (and reading) the most, however. I started blogging to share pictures and stories with my family after I temporarily moved several thousand kilometers east to Canada’s capital city Ottawa. Then I got interested in eBay’s discussion forums, and found I enjoyed writing and commenting on almost any subject under the sun. I hated it when something I’d put hours into discussing, would scroll off the page into the virtual dustbin, and so I started saving my rants, jokes, and conversations by putting them into a blog I could archive, instead.

Sometimes I get onto a kick about politics or environmental policies. Other times it’s tech news, or things that relate to big-business locking customers out of fairly using things we’ve bought. I also do a bit of travelling in my job, so I have photography from small towns that most people would normally never visit. My blog is a true journal and log of my days, not a focused news or gossip blog which tends to get the most loyal readers and huge traffic numbers, but I’m happy with the crowd I do have (and look forward to meeting many more as they slowly discover my blog). I enjoy the intelligent and humourous comments I do get at my site.

Simon Owens: I’ve noticed that several of the Canadian bloggers I’ve interviewed follow US politics closely. Do you find this to be a trend among most Candians? How do you guys view the recent power shift in Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats?

Saskboy: All Canadians who follow politics, also follow US politics closely. Canada’s certainly not the 51st state, but we listen to what comes out of Washington DC, because we know it will have a significant effect on what happens on our side of the border. Many of our jobs depend on trade with the USA, so having an insular President in power impacts on our trade and tourism industries, as we saw with the Beef BSE blockade, softwood lumber NAFTA dispute, and the ongoing Homeland Security passport directive that is killing the camaraderie and cross-border shopping trips that have gone on for generations between our countries.

Canadians politically also have an unfortunate sense of smugness that comes from knowing a lot about American politics, while the average American knows next to nothing about Canada, let alone our politics. It’s understandable really, but it doesn’t mean we like being unnoticed and unacknowledged as an important part of North America by American culture. Canadian news always contains coverage of American news (which is part of why we know American politics), but we don’t see an equivalent proportion of Canadian coverage on American media. And when we do, half of the time it’s through the distorted lens of Bill O’Reily, or Ann Coulter who tell lies about Canada in their reports.

I think most Canadians are either optimistic that the Democrat-controlled Congress will improve the relations between our countries, or are entirely indifferent to the change. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to the right ideologically of slightly more than half of Canadians. There are some differences between the parties, but the almighty dollar rules even more strongly than it does in Canada, so two parties who are beholden to corporate interests don’t really give the independent thinker or politician a fair chance to be heard.

I was impressed when Senator Leahy tore a strip off of Alberto Gonzalez for witholding information from a Senate committee, concerning the deportion of Canadian Maher Arar to Syria where he was tortured. Holding the executive branch responsible for crimes is something we didn’t see during the Republican years, so hopefully the improved oversight is a glimmer of things to come. American democracy is suffering from a lack of imagination, especially if it elects another Clinton to the presidency. I don’t think it’s right for only Bushes and Clintons to be in power from 1988 through 2012, even if Hillary would do a fair job.

Simon Owens: How does the Candian political blogosphere compare to US political blogs? Do you have your own versions of Michelle Malkins, Instapundits, and Daily Kos?

Saskboy: The Canadian political blogosphere is vastly different from the American political blogosphere. In Canada, blog aggregators (sites which republish the feeds of member blogs) rule the numbers game, with only a few exceptions. There are popular newsprint media bloggers, and one very large Conservative blog written mostly by one woman, Kate (also from Saskatchewan like me), but the most popular sites are ones that direct readers to the hot news of the day on whatever blog siezes upon the latest topic in the best way. Kate’s blog is politically in line with Michelle Malkin’s, so you could say she’s the Canadian version, but since Canadian bloggers know of Malkin, Kos, Little Green Footballs, Glenn Reynolds, etc. it’s as accurate to say we add to the American blogosphere at the same time as being a microcosm of it. Progressive bloggers is probably the closest site Canada has in readership, style, and ideology to Daily Kos. And Bourque may be our Instapundit, although he was just rocked with a paid-headlines-as-real-news scandal, so his readership may have taken a dive?

Simon Owens: You linked to a “10 things that blogging has taught me” item recently, which commented mostly on the quick, often hysterical nature of the blogosphere. Do you think that bloggers are still in their toddler stage, and will mature as a form of journalism media as time goes on?

Saskboy: I think the bloggers of tomorrow are the kids making websites in grade 6 classes, and the bloggers of today are people who barely grew up with computers. The blogosphere is going to be changing constantly, but there will always be new bloggers, some having just started using computers, and some having used them their entire life. I don’t see blogging evolving into journalism of the kind provided by major news stations and professional journalists, at least not if the Internet and laws regarding free speech stay as they are today. There’s no way for every blogger to devote the kind of time they’d need to “evolve” into a pro, so we’ll always have cat-blogs, and variety blogs like mine.

The other aspect to your question is the implication of having bloggers a part of the main stream public consciousness. As blogs endure, some will grow into professional journals, and the public will become more aware of independent media online. Blogs have the ability to revolutionize where people get their news from, and that will have profund implications on culture around the world. I think the jury is out on whether bloggers will be more or less hysterical than the current media, where everything is a “shocking revelation” if you trust CNN to describe the nature of events.

Simon Owens: What are the five blogs you’d recommend to supplement the reading of your own?

Saskboy: 1. Miss Cellania – is a great read, and there’s more than enough laughs to kill an evening with, on any given day. Miss C has her fingers on the pulse of every joke on the web that you haven’t seen yet.

2. The Galloping Beaver – has an excellent perspective on political news, usually from a person with a lot of military experience. When I need to know how a government is messing up in regards to defence, TGB is an excellent resource.

3. I put a lot of effort into promoting blogs from my home province, so I’d be remiss if I didn’t plug the SaskBlogs Aggregator hosted and designed by Lance Levsen, another ex-military blogger. There is a nice cross section of blogs to be read at the Aggregator, and I swing by almost every day to get the latest on what other Saskatchewanians think about current events.

4. The Prairie Wrangler – Olaf’s blog is from a conservative viewpoint, but unlike many Canadian Conservative bloggers (known as Blogging Tories in Canada), he conducts himself in a more personable manner. Facts and intelligent discussion are important to Olaf, so along with the humour of the daily political cartoon, you find plenty of honest debate from dozens of commenters.

5. There are a few I’d like to put for my last pick. There are so many good blogs I read, and 5 doesn’t cover nearly enough of them. But Procrastinatrix is an interesting and intelligent (even when there are poo jokes) blog. Bonus points go to her for actually knowing the details of feces, and still having a sense of humour.

And in “link dump” fashion here are other considerations: 1337hax0r for his excellent set of websites combined with his political and technical knowledge. Nic’s Opinions for the sometimes naughty jokes, and funny threads. Liberal Catnip for her blistering indictments of government incompetence. And Jim Bobby Sez for his unique, accented style.

***

(Related posts: Interview with Echidne of the Snakes, Interview with Jurassicpork from Welcome to Pottersville, Rush Limbaugh caught with bottle of Viagra, A Wikipedian’s fake “authority”, Interview with John Hawkins from Right Wing News, College kids posing nude for campus magazines, Have you broken the law and want to write a book about it? Don’t go to Canada)

Bloggasm interviewed her previously in early 2006.

Simon Owens: With the prospect of Hilary Clinton receiving the Democratic nomination, how will this affect feminist discussion over the next two years? Do you think Republican attackers will try to tread lightly over the subject of Clinton’s gender, or do you think this will be the most politically incorrect election we’ve had in years?

Echidne: It has already affected feminist discussion, because some feminists have publicly come out in support of another candidate, which in this case means a male candidate, given the scarcity of women in politics. As I see it the conflict is between wanting a more representative system of government, one with more women in it, and between wanting certain political stances (such as getting out of Iraq quickly) respected.

I don’t think Republican attackers would tread lightly on anything that could help them. The form those attackers will take depends on the calculations they make inside their heads. For instance, how much would misogyny gain them and how much would it lose them?

By the way, “politically incorrect” is a paradoxical term to use, because what is really “politically correct” is to be whatever the people in power want you to be, and feminists are not in power. The whole term smells of Luntzian thought pretzeling.

Simon Owens: You’ve responded to Ann Althouse‘s anti-feminist statements numerous times. Several bloggers have noted that Althouse is the only person who considers herself a feminist. Do you think that “feminist” has become such a mainstream word that it’s starting to lose its meaning, to the point where people like Althouse can continually claim they fall under that label?

Echidne: Not numerous times. I’ve talked about some of Althouse’s posts and articles, but only two or three of them. I don’t think Althouse thinks of herself as the only feminist alive (that would be me), but I’ve pointed out that she appears to believe that the dirty work of feminism belongs to someone else.

As to the meaning of the term “feminism”, I think that many startlingly new proposals of the second wave of feminism are now mainstream and fairly accepted, but that the term “feminism” itself has been smeared and turned into something quite nasty-smelling by Rush Limbaugh and the like, to such an extent that to say that one is a feminist (i.e., a believer of equal opportunities for women and men and a believer in the equal valuation of traditionally male and female spheres of activities) reads to many as saying that one hates men. So the term itself didn’t get mainstreamed, even though some of its ideas did.

Simon Owens: In our last interview, you described Pandagon as a blog that deals largely with feminist issues. How did the recent witch hunt the conservatives conducted on Amanda Marcotte affect you?

Echidne: It didn’t affect me personally, but I wrote on some of things that William Donohue has done in the past and the sort of access he has in the mainstream media, access, which nobody from the liberal/progressive blogosphere can even dream about. It is not a fair fight at all, and Amanda got attacked by it. Anyone writing about feminism knows that keeping women in their traditional places is an important subtext in much of today’s wingnuttery. Sadly.

Simon Owens: What’s your policy on deleting comments from feminist-hating trolls? How many do you get on a weekly basis? Do you find that they increase whenever a conservative blogger links to you?

Echidne: I try not to delete comments if there is anything factual or debatable in them, and sometimes I leave a comment even if it doesn’t satisfy this rule if it tells us something more about the anti-feminists.

The weekly dirtload varies and is affected by what I post and by the links to them. But I’m a fairly mild-mannered goddess and so get spared the very nastiest kinds of trolls.

Simon Owens: Have your thoughts on feminism evolved since you started your blog back in 2003? Has there been any major changes in the feminist movement since then?

Echidne: My thoughts are always changing but not the basic platform from which my feminism grew. I pay more attention to the rest of the world now that the Internet offers me so much more information. I’m also much more aware of and informed about the anti-woman and anti-feminist sentiment out there, and better equipped to argue the claims attached to it.

I think that the feminist movement has changed since 2003, although I’m not sure if the changes are major or not yet. There is a greater openness to different discussions, many more young women writing and working in the area and a feeling of something being born. My guess is that we are in the fermenting stage right now. What will come out of it is interesting to witness.

***

(Related posts: Why I love Glenn Greenwald, The untouchable is now touchable: Abstinence-only education being pushed towards medical students)

Simon Owens: To prepare for this interview, I combed extensively through your archives, and though you are a political blog, you tend to focus on more obscure issues than the ones highlighted by the bigger blogs. Do you think the B-list bloggers have to find new topics in order to be heard? What do you think of the hierarchy of the liberal blogosphere?

Jurassicpork: I’m not sure I know what you mean by “obscure.” I generally tend to stay on top of the bigger issues and stories, such as the ones regarding Iraq and Iran, the Walter Reed scandal, etc. The devil’s in the details, as they say, which is where finding and expounding on smaller or less publicized issues comes in. But I wouldn’t be much of a political blogger if I studiously ignored the State of the Union Address or the elections for the sake of keeping my own scope unfettered.

Just because the likes of Aravosis, Amato, Eschaton, Kos and Hamsher offer excellent and astute political commentary on the hot button issues doesn’t mean that there aren’t, literally, tens of thousands of people out there who wouldn’t be interested in your take. I have readers who come in all the time and leave comments that they’re disenfranchised by the A-list blogs and their “comment management”, the cliquey-ness, the swarm factor, even the development of a culture and a secret nomenclature that surrounds the webmaster(s). There’s none of that at my place. Aside from that, I’ve already made my thoughts on A list hierarchies known and I don’t wish to pull off scabs by naming names.

However, I see what you mean about B list blogs finding new and less-traveled roads. I’m always up for finding the important but little publicized story, the odd, the arcane, the tragic and the simply ludicrous, like the Havidol hoax. That’s why I do a “Twenty Bucks, Same as in Town” weekly feature. I highlight some of the better and most unusual blog postings by
other, usually smaller bloggers, partly to get their names and URLs out there.

There’s also something to be said for scavenging the Internet for the little publicized that really deserves special attention, such as the deaths of soldiers and Marines of Iraqi veterans such as Jennifer Parcell and Gloria Davis. When Editor and Publisher’s Greg Mitchell reported on Parcell’s death, only seven local press mentions were made of it. I thought that was horrible and that her ultimate sacrifice shouldn’t be overshadowed by the Anna Nicole Smith death circus. So I wrote about her. Then I wrote about her again when she wouldn’t let me alone.

Remember, if you’re thinking about Jennifer Parcell or Gloria Davis or any other soldier or Marine who’d perished overseas, then it’s guaranteed that more people than you think are also thinking of them and they will find you and be grateful for your attention. That alone is one of the greatest rewards of being a blogger. Connecting with people, making people happy, touching them more easily than, ironically, real life would ordinarily allow. That’s really what’s it’s all about. Not scooping or flaming the deserving.

Simon Owens: You talk about Hilary Clinton in a few of your posts, and you’re highly critical of her–specifically her reluctance to admit her mistakes. Very few of the liberal blogs are endorsing her, do you think this could spell trouble for her campaign? Which candidate will receive the greatest benefit from the blogosphere now that Edwards has let his bloggers “resign”?

Jurassicpork: Well, you’re asking me for an opinion of what will happen in the next year and a half, which would hardly invite a scientific analysis. Your guess is as good as mine. Hillary is looked askance by both sides of the blogosphere for both good and bad reasons (we tend to have the good reasons), which makes her being a front-runner over Obama that much more mysterious.

Her alliance with the DLC, which is what I call GOP-Lite, doesn’t help her cause, as is her reluctance to admit her mistake in voting for the war. Then there’s also the revived and not altogether unjustified backlash against Bill Clinton. No one, it seems, has forgotten Hillary sitting over her husband’s shoulder during the 90s and crafting with him that co-opted laughingstock of a health care bill, acting like a second Vice President.

Plus campaign fatigue is already setting in. Hillary spent many millions of dollars to beat someone who was never a serious contender with the intention of serving just the first third of her second term in the Senate. Think of it: She just got sworn in again and less than a month later she announced, surprise, surprise, her intention to seek a better job in the White House. She’s in perpetual campaign mode and people are getting tired of giving money to her. That’s why she’s getting abandoned by the likes of Spielberg and big Democratic campaign donors. And, of course, getting embraced by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, of all people, gives people Lieberman-like PTSD.

So, yeah, I think the bigger blogs could make a dent in her campaign. But if anyone or anything will sink Hillary’s campaign, it’ll have to be done by Hillary.

Edwards’ non-support of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, I fear, won’t be remembered by the voters, so I don’t see Hillary or Obama or Richardson capitalizing from that. Edwards’ biggest disadvantage in his campaign is not holding a national public office like Clinton or Obama. That in itself is worth about $25,000,000 of TV ads.

Simon Owens: Do you think that the political blogosphere will remain mostly a “commentary” type of media, or do you think they have the capacity to do some major investigative reporting? What kind of resources would they need to do this?

Jurassicpork: With very few exceptions, such as Media Matters and Newshounds, to name but two, I don’t think one major blogger and not many B listers got into this game to act as a watchdog or minder of the watchdogs of democracy, as Helen Thomas calls the press. I believe that the political blogosphere originally started as a platform for commentary, which it still is essentially. Don’t forget the provenance of the word “blog”: It’s a contraction for “web log” or an online diary. Diaries are typically journals of private thoughts.

However, for the first time in our nation’s history, we’re in a position to judge the probity and efficacy of the mainstream media. Blogs have broken us out of the capricious and often exclusionary forum of letters to the editor or even emails to your favorite program. And the longer we do our thing, the more people discover us.

We now have a national convention in Yearly Kos, politicians are embracing both sides of the blogosphere, we’re becoming columnists, authors, television and radio personalities and political blogs are exploding in popularity. Also, more professional journalists, such as Keith Olbermann, Charlie Ross and Craig Crawford are becoming bloggers.

All the same, the impression I get is that bloggers in general are not comfortable with having to be arbiters of what’s true or not true. And now I’m about to say something very surprising. It’s not our job to tell the truth. I can picture the expression on your face right now. But I’m right in that it’s not our job to tell the truth. That’s why we have a Fourth Estate. It’s their job to tell the truth instead of being mere mediums and stenographers for the government. It’s only our job to seek the truth. And if the MSM doesn’t do its job which it largely isn’t, then we will have to seek it out that much more diligently. And in some notorious cases, we have “scooped” the media.

Otherwise, there’s no blogger out there who can approach the likes of Ron Suskind, Seymour Hersh or David Brooks in terms of access or sources. And that’s the way it ought to be.

Still, the MSM largely disrespects us and even resents us for being so critical of the way they do their jobs, which is alarmingly similar to the arch, “We’re in charge and we know what we’re doing” attitude of the government. And they forget that we’re an increasingly large part of their customer base.

Simon Owens: You write extensively about how Republicans are becoming even more antagonistic. Is this a sign of an inner explosion of their political movement? Or is there another root cause for this?

Jurassicpork: I look at the recent Republican hysterics with a lot of amusement. The less power they can get their mitts on, the more “unhinged”, to quote Michelle Malkin, they become. I think you can begin to explain this rage from GOP politicians as an addiction to incumbency and control. But I see more of an implosion in Republicans on the Hill, perhaps because the last election chastened them and some of them are finally beginning to see the importance and necessity of bipartisanship and compromise. They’re clashing with the ones who still haven’t learned, such as on the nonbinding resolution on Bush’s surge. The bobbleheads on TV, who still seem to be getting their marching orders from someone who’s the love child of Frank Luntz and Joseph Goebbels, are a different story. So, the kind coming from the neocon punditocracy is more complex, I think.

In most cases, we’re seeing people who actually thought that conservatism never goes out of style (Norman Bates assured us in Psycho II that it wouldn’t. That’s what you get when you place your trust in amateur taxidermists who wear cheap wigs and knife people in showers). We’re seeing people who’d been fooled into thinking by the likes of Karl Rove and others that the Republican Reich would last for 1000 years and the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, et. al. simply jumped on the wrong team.

So, as I’d said recently in Liberal Truth: It’s All the Rage, there’s a lot of money, access and reputations at stake. Plus a lot of conservatives are genetically incapable of admitting when they or their icons are wrong. Just try telling someone like Ann Coulter that Ronald Reagan was an elitist, narcoleptic, jackbooted racist thug who cut and ran from Lebanon when the terrorists made things too hot for us and watch her head explode.

Simon Owens: Is it true what media analysts are saying that the liberal blogosphere is the new counter-force to the right-wing noise machine of talk radio and Fox News? How effectively are bloggers pushing against spin to make the media more objective?

Jurassicpork: Thanks to excellent watchdog sites such as Media Matters and Newshounds, who make it their business to keep these right wing pundits honest, we’re gaining ground. Unfortunately, our efficacy is directly proportionate to the volume of our readership, which still numbers, I’d estimate, less than 1% of the nation’s population. If the ’08 general elections were held today and Fox “News” were to suddenly declare John McCain the next president instead of, say, Sen. Obama, I can’t completely trust that the dinosaur networks wouldn’t fall in line instead of risking being scooped by Fox, of all networks. We saw that exact same scenario happen in 2000 and it could happen again because of the persistent right wing bias in the news.

Several bloggers like John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, John Amato, Firedoglake and many many B-list bloggers and a loyal army of readers have proven to be excellent investigative journalists when called upon when they smell a rat. Whether it’s pushing back against a blatant lie (think Swiftboat Veterans for Truth) or outing a hypocrite (Jeff Gannon), we’ve often upstaged the lazy and biased media to their rage and rue.

Unfortunately, the numbers that we command (Superblog Crooks and Liars, even on their best day, can generate just over a half a million unique hits a day, which is a sixth of one percent of the national population) doesn’t mean that we can sway public opinion on a national level. There’s a neverending tide of crap and falsehoods that come cascading from the Far Right but our only other option besides slugging it out is to give up. And if we give up, then the conservative terrorists will have won. And people who threaten to take lives and wish attacks on liberal cities like San Francisco are terrorists and ought to be prosecuted as such.

Simon Owens: What are the five blogs you’d recommend to supplement the reading of your own?

Jurassicpork: Five blogs. Jeez, there are so many fine blogs out there by compassionate, intelligent, talented people. I hope the 99.9999999% of the guys I don’t end up mentioning don’t feel slighted. How about ten or fifteen? No? Five?

Well, if you want an education in how to sling words like brickbats, you could do a lot worse than a pal of mine out of Chicago named D r i f t g l a s s. There was a legendary Greek satirist in the days of the ancients whose words made his enemies commit suicide and this guy D r i f t g l a s s may be his reincarnated spirit. Using words like a skilled warrior uses a cudgel, employing a hefty dose of common sense and sometimes surprising compassion, this guy is a must-read for people who love to see the English language used to its highest potential. I’ve said it before and I’ll gladly say it again: This guy makes me want to be a better blogger and writer.

Firestarter5, who runs a blog called Playing With Fire, is another good but overlooked liberal blogger who has my weakness for soft core porn and sense of irony with an occasional O Henry twist (such as this post on Britney Spears’ Sinead O’Connor moment). He’s pretty good, considering that he’s Canadian, which isn’t saying much (Oh, come on, FS5. I kid, I kid!). As with D r i f t g l a s s, I have him in my special Must See Blogging list on my sidebar.

I’d be an ungrateful bastard if I didn’t mention Alicia Morgan at Last Left Turn Before Hooterville. As much as the Dood Abides, Alicia’s a magician with Photoshop and we’ve collaborated many times on some of my posts (most notably on my Christmas post, “It’s a Blunderful Life”). It’s not at all unusual to see her work kicking off an Assclowns of the Week (my big weekly feature) with a custom-made lead picture. She’s my political soulmate and her hubby and their kids are lucky, lucky people. Now, if only we can get her to post more often…

The folks who make up the Unruly Mob, or Les Enrages, have been very kind to me over the last several months. It started out as the brainchild of Sans Culottes, a frequent commenter at AmericaBlog who mysteriously disappeared last spring. The Unruly Mob is now led by another Canadian blogger named SadButTrue and, with oldtimers Revphat, Ice Station Tango and sexy ladies JumptotheLeft and KayinMaine, this group blog gives some interesting perspectives with some talented writers. They treat me like a king and it’s an honor to graduate from erstwhile guest blogger to regular contributor.

Lastly, if you want to see how good blogging can be, go to Baghdad Burning by Riverbend. If you’ve somehow never heard of her, she’s a 27 year-old Iraqi blogger who’s our eyes and ears at Ground Zero in the “Global War on Terror.” Her English is so accomplished, so eloquent, that her blog postings have been collected in two books. If there was ever a Nobel prize for blogging, she’d certainly be a consideration. Because Iraq dominates the political blogging landscape, her blog assumes that much more importance. She also gives us an almost unique perspective from her vantage point 6000 miles, in translating Arabic into flawless English and not allowing us to forget that the carnage in this war not only works both ways but that over 100 of her people are killed each day.

***

(Related posts: Andy Griffith hates our freedom, Interview with Kevin Holtsberry from Collected Miscellany, Ann Coulter loses another column: Thank God, When service workers pee on your food, Interview with Patricia Storms from BookLust)