It also prevents all kinds of clients who (for various reasons) can't implement SSL from visiting your website. I'm sure this is a "small web" blog, whose author wants to be visited by e.g. a Commodore 64, an OS 9 iMac, or somebody who just wants to telnet in. If the sensitivity of the information on this page was critical or you were going to be submitting information then by all means yes, SSL is important, but if you're going to be reading a personal blog about calendars then http is probably fine. Of course the ideal solution is offering both and letting the client choose.

Man I really hope this doesn't get autoflagged because people need to see that this is an opinion people actually have, and what the (justified) reaction to it is.

HTTPS on a blog does nothing. It doesn't protect you from anything. I guarantee you're not getting "all kinds of MITM injections" on this block of text. The only reasonable desire I can think of for "HTTPS everywhere" is hiding the content from your ISP but a) they still see the URL so they can get the content if they want it, and b) if you're so worried about that, use a VPN which coincidentally is even better because it will also hide the URL, and most importantly c) it puts the onus on you, the person who wants the thing, instead of hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of text-only website owners who rightly couldn't care less about HTTPS.

MITM attack on a read-only text webpage... okay.

More annoying is the slightly shiny/shaded text that is supposed to highlight something. Who chose this style palette?

I think you would have a better argument if you said something like: "I don't want my ISP knowing about the content I read" or something along those lines. MITM for a text download is like saying we have to have https for dns (yes DoH exists now), but the point still stands. You aren't sending any sensitive data to the website, MITM is unlikely.

Surprised this is downvoted. Chrome forces me to click through a warning to even visit HTTP sites nowadays.