Administrivia

Places to visit in Baltimore when you're dead

In Druid Hill Park, wedged between the disc golf course and the drive that runs downhill past it, there's an overgrown cemetery with a twisted wrought-iron fence.
I'd long wondered whom its occupants were, so I decided to take a look today on my morning bike ride.

As it turns out, this is the Rogers-Buchanan Burial Ground, a family plot that belonged to the family that once owned the park's grounds.

A 100-foot pine was blown across the grave of Edmund Law Rogers, a founder of the Kappa Sigma fraternity and a prominent actor of the late 1800's. It must have blown down during Hurricane Isabel, but the tree is certainly not the only affront to this mostly untended plot.

The Rogers family's roots run deep, so to speak, in Baltimore; the land that is now the park was bought by Nicholas Rogers (II) in 1710.

His grandson, Col. Nicholas Rogers was an officer of the Baltimore Militia that routed the invading British at what is now Patterson Park.

And he's still here, though not exactly lying in glory.

If there's one thing Baltimore has plenty of, it's dead people. But only a few, like Edgar Allen Poe, are remembered with regularity. We've let the history of this city fade.

When we forget the dead, we forget the past, and as George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”.

The dead are trying to tell us something. If we don't listen, we'll be joining them sooner than we'd like.

[update]

Maybe they're speaking a little louder than I thought.

Not that I'm superstitious or anything, but after I downloaded the photos of the Rogers-Buchanan Burial Ground to my Mac this morning, the system locked up. When I restarted it, the hard disk's startup information had been corrupted. It tool multiple attempts with a disk utility and some tech sleight-of-hand to get it restored to normal.

Translation: my Mac was possessed. Hopefully, I've exorsised any remaining software demons.

Standard
General Chaos

The Blogesse-Oblige

Since I have, ahem,other obligations this weekend, I will not attending Dave Winer's BloggerCon, virtually or in person. But I do have one point of conversation to throw into the mix as the blogarati gather at Hahvahd to think big thoughts:

Is blogging now reinventing the gateway system for stories that print invented and television tuned mercilessly?

I think it is. Ask anyone who's been Slashdotted, Instapundited, orDave'd. Or anyone that hasn't. Ask them about their hitrates, their readership. And compare the haves with the have nots.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The difference, of course, is that the new boss is not concerned with balance, or at least the perception of balance. The new boss is all about the new boss. Blogging, is , at some level, the greatest ego-satisfaction engine created by modern technology; where else can someone gain a worldwide audience for his or her rants overnight?

People's eyeballs are lazy; they tend to follow the same pattern as they travel across the web. Eventually, they self-select a gatekeeper blog that matches their interests;they follow Dave, so they go to Scripting News, and they follow his links. Right-wingers (and Democrats who want to troll) go to Glenn's sight to get their desired fix of (a)self-righteousness or (b)vitriol (pick one and only one per visit). Group blogs like Slashdot and MetaFilter are natural gateways because they aggregate so much content, it's a lazy browser's smorgasbord.

So what's the obligation of these gateway bloggers? Do they have the same responsibility as many claim the media does–to be balanced in coverage, if not through their content, then through their linking? How responsible are they for the quality of the content of what they link to?

The government says they're liable in some ways…Sherman Austin got sent to prison for linking to a site with the “Anarchist Cookbook” on it thanks to the PATRIOT Act. But beyond that, are bloggers subject to libel charges for what they link to? Do star bloggers have an obligation to their readers to fact-check their links?

I sense that they would say, “Hell, no!” But what's the dividing line between being a guy posting his rants online, and being an information gateway with responsibilities? I suspect that the most obvious one is the moment you start getting paid for it.

Standard