Banning in the Blogosphere

There's considerable discussion today in the South Dakota blog world about Sibby not being included in the Argus Leader's blogroll; both the South Dakota War College and South Dakota Politics are talking about it.

Sibby has strong opinions, and though it may come as a shock to my "dark companion" Todd Epp, I don't always fully agree with him. But I'm sure Sibby doesn't always agree with me, either. I can't even get my wife to agree with me all the time, so why should I expect anyone else to?

If I can presume to speak for him somewhat, Sibby's comment about Satan was not absurd...unless you've lost touch with Christian theology. If someone is doing work that Satan would be proud of, as many on both sides of the political aisle are doing these days, then I think it's fair to link them to Satan. Are they completely evil people? I guess that's for God and Satan to know, but perhaps we can glean something from the magnitude and volume of their actions; after all, the Bible does say we'll know where people's allegiances are by their fruits.

And if you don't think Satan exists, then congrats: he has you right where he wants you.

The Argus has every right to exclude Sibby from their blogroll. I don't include some of the blogs that feature content which is consistently far beyond anything I could in good conscious facilitate access to. And many blogs don't include Dakota Voice, probably for the same reason.

Truth be told, I don't hold "mainstream" newspaper blogs in very high regard anyway (the Rapid City Journal's Mt. Blogmore is pretty much just a forum for liberal commenters--Blogmorites--who otherwise wouldn't have the gumption to start a blog of their own). The "mainstream" media gets enough of their "objective" opinion out in their news stories--why do they need a blog to further spread their liberal slant?

But even before I read Sibby's latest post, somehow I knew he wasn't crying in his cornflakes over it.