I’ve been tweeting on a BwB profile here, saying things like this:

1. People can’t talk about themselves with total honesty, but its harder 2 avoid t truth when you pretend 2B other people http://bit.ly/baPrBB
2. “Massive Oil of Olay slick causing fresher, younger-looking fish” http://bit.ly/9PXrqR HT:Lars Walker, http://bit.ly/16Ujpg
3. RT: jaredcwilson “The very thing we are allergic to — our helplessness — is what makes prayer work.” — Paul Miller
4. RT @bwladd: Spurgeon:The greatest enemy to human souls is the self-righteous spirit which makes men look to themselves for salvation.
5. “It will be a Republican year. The question is how much.” Joe Savino #p2
6. Read O’Connor’s “The Life You Save May Be Your Own.” Didn’t get it. Is the incomplete man acting dishonorably b/c he’s incomplete?

Rachel Deahl of PW writes about who is influential on Twitter. She notes, “One firm fact of the publishing Twittersphere is that it’s a meritocracy. CEOs and editorial assistants—if they’re skilled (and frequent) tweeters—can draw equal crowds.”

Rados, who was named repeatedly as someone who ‘gets’ Twitter, said she believes the social networking site can sell books. ‘An author can tweet about their life, their process, start a conversation about their characters, and those readers who feel a connection will most likely buy a book. I know I do,’ she said. Rados then elaborated with an example, pointing to Jen Lancaster, author of My Fair Lazy, who she follows. The day Lancaster’s new book came out, Rados said she bought it, in hardback.

I’d think blogs can do that too, but one does have to be where the people are. I’ve thought about tweeting a bit, microblogging as it were. I’m not sure it’s for me though. I don’t even have a smart phone or a personal laptop, so why should I try to get involved in the Twitterverse?

Be sure to vote for BwB as the best blog by a heretic on The Crescat.

Just to let you know that I’ve been invited to join the blogging crew at S.T. Karnick’s The American Culture blog. This will not affect my blogging here in any way. Mostly I’ll be reposting reviews from this blog over there.

The American Culture is not a conservative blog, as Sam Karnick describes it, but a classical liberal blog. Its two principle er… principles are freedom of expression, and personal responsibility as the mechanism that makes freedom possible. Sam writes:

I don’t have any formal ground rules on story/essay angles other than this: we’re for liberty, and we enjoy and appreciate culture, including popular culture. To wit, we don’t just complain about the culture but instead report on what’s good as well. To this end, it’s important to note a principle I consider essential and which nearly everybody on the right fails to understand: depiction is not advocacy. Instead of blindly totting up instances of various events in a work and then complaining about it being too dirty and not at all like The Sound of Music (which is of course a darn good film but not the only way to communicate edifyingly), we go deeper and consider the real meaning of it. Thus a book full of gory murders can be very edifying while a book about a Christian family can be very bad art. It’s the assumptions and thoughts they purvey that count.

I think that’s an extremely important principle. It means (which ought to be obvious) that a book that deals with adultery is not necessarily a book in favor of adultery. A book that depicts bigotry is not necessarily a bigoted book (a principle generally out of fashion today). A book that wrestles with questions about the goodness of God is not necessarily blasphemous. Any subject, no matter how disturbing, can be handled morally in a moral story. It’s all in the treatment of the material.

(Just don’t ask me to watch a movie with two guys kissing. Ick.)

Go see the new look of Hunter Baker’s blog. I like it, and you should too. It’s new, improved, and doesn’t have any high fructose corn syrup. What’s not to like about that?