First of all, you can't just dump your kids on your friends after you die without telling them first. They need to be aware of the arrangements you've made. Include your executor in this conversation as well. (BTW, I would not recommend having your executor be the same person as the guardian; too much responsibility and conflict of interest.) If you aren't comfortable enough with these friends to flat-out tell them, that's not a good sign.

Second, you'll need to be prepared for the reaction from your family when word of your decision leaks out (as it inevitably will). I know someone who's made a similar custody decision, and if this individual's situation is typical, your family is likely to get upset when they find out about it. They'll feel hurt that you have judged them to be so lacking as human beings that you can't trust them with your children. (No, this isn't what you meant, but that's how they'll interpret it.) More importantly, they will be afraid that your children's guardians will not maintain contact between your kids and the rest of your family. In effect, they're frightened that you will die twice to them: once for your actual death, and again when your children are given to strangers who have no incentive to keep up a relationship with them.

This isn't a reason NOT to give custody to your friends. Your responsibility as a parent is to do what's best for your kids, and if you feel that they are better off in the custody of your friends, that's your call. But because you haven't said anything to indicate otherwise, I'm assuming that you have a reasonably good relationship with your family that you wish your kids to maintain after your death. If this is true, you'll need to be prepared to deal with your family's reaction. You did not set out to hurt anyone's feelings, but feelings will be hurt just the same. You will need to explain why you made this decision and reassure your family (particularly your parents) that they'll still be part of your children's lives after you're gone.

Can't we just read literature and skip the tedious gender baiting?

Moby Dick may be "manly" and Jane Eyre may be "womanly" (just to pull two examples out of a hat) but they are both excellent, thought-provoking novels that speak to the general human condition.

Lori Drew is herself being stalked and harassed by people who are angry at what she's done. They think that she's going to walk off scot-free after having caused (or, at the very least, contributed to) the death of a young girl because there's currently no law against it. So they're taking matters into their own hands.

The general consensus seems to be that Drew's actions are so outrageous that they should be punished. The problem is that the law hasn't kept up with technology. By putting her up on terms of service and other charges, the feds are attempting to establish some kind of legal framework for trying these cases. It's a stretch, and it's entirely possible that it will be abused in the future. But right now, it's what they've got. They need to maintain belief that the justice system is flexible enough to deal with cases like this within the rule of law. Otherwise, it's up to the vigilantes.

While I don't want this case to be used as an excuse to crack down on the web, I also don't want people like Drew to have free reign to make the lives of others into a living hell. She's not being prosecuted for concealing her identity to engage in web gossip, download sexually suggestive songs, or even do a spot of online gambling. She's being prosecuted for concealing her identity to inflict harm on another person.

What is it about school administration that attracts these people? Must be the power trip from pushing kids around.

Plenty of girls attend prom with a gaggle of girlfriends, and no harm done.

Being able to buy inexpensive "Faded Glory" clothes at Wal-mart totally made up for the salary hit I took when my large multi-national employer decided to shift a big chunk of software development work from the US to India and laid off everyone in my office.