OK, so I'm a newbie, a neophyte, a babe in the woods...I'm very green at this whole blogging thing. One thing I do know, however, is that there is absolutely no justification for the FEC to regulate blogs. Period. The only folks interested in controlling the blogosphere are the same ones who feel that freedom of speech only applies to incumbent politicians. So, let me follow Patterico's lead and state:
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.
And while I'm angrier than a 2cm zit on a teenager's face, let me state that Newsweek's Steven Levy has the kind of insight that God normally intended for a mollusk. He asks the unbelievably inane question "Does the blogosphere have a diversity problem?" Guess what? The blogosphere is populated by people, interested in an unbelievably wide range of topics, many of whom are totally anonymous. So, as Jeff Jarvis says:
"I'm white and male. Not much I can do about it. Not much I want to do about it. I'm sure as hell not going to apologize for it. I'm white. I'm male. I blog. You got a problem with that? Tough."
Anyone can blog; I'm certainly ample proof of this. That means any man, woman, boy, girl, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, atheist, Hispano/Anglo/Sino-American can blog. There is an inherent impossibility of bias against a person's race/creed/ethnicity in the blogosphere.....because bloggers can only offer their ideas and thoughts for everyone else to critique. I love Michelle Malkin's opinions, and can't stand Wonkette's; they both happen to be women. Does that somehow make me 1/2 sexist?
Why is it that the same yahoos that think it is so important to have "diversity" are the same ones hell-bent on controlling the free expression of so many truly diverse people in the blogosphere?