: I'm in favor of the blogbook (even though I've been a lazy SOB and haven't posted here yet or submitted my nominations for others' or my blog; do not take procrastination as a statement; take it as laziness).
But I have to admit that one thing did scare me about the project and that fright is coming to life, as witnessed in the posts that lead to the two good responses below: What I feared was editing by democracy or by the mob. Kottke complains about what is and isn't in the book. Others complain about balance. If you listen to that, posts will have to be weighed by their balance of opinions: one on this side, one on that side, one on this side, one on that side. And before long you will have...
A VERY BORING BOOK.
Matt Welch started this when he complained that the "other side" had their book.
Now this side can have its book. Whatever the hell this side is. That will come out in the wash of what goes into it. That will be a rich ragout of opinions and perspectives and opinions.
But what this book must have is a voice. Generally, that is what an author or an editor -- rather than a democratic mob -- gives it. It must not be so scared of offending or omitting anyone that it becomes one big tapioca mush.
So don't try to impose some PC quota system on who's here or what's said. And don't presume you know what label to put on those of us who are here. Being against terrorism does not make me anything but right. Not right-wing. Just right.
I couldn't have said it better than Eric did below.