I sometimes give into the impulse to attack the, ummm, no-so-well thought out parts of the blogosphere, and, in the process, completely forget to praise the blogs and bloggers whom I really, really like. The following list is not an endorsement of each view ever presented on the following blogs, nor is it exhaustive. Rather, it’s a list of blogs that I think the blogosphere would be much, much poorer without. And that happened to occur to me in the last five minutes. Do check them out, if you don’t already.
And I continue to be, not yet a Buddha. (Though, this begs the question: Is it Buddha, or a Buddhisatva, whom we’re aspiring to be?)
Tacitus. An easy one. As a self-identified liberal Republican who finds so-called conservative Democrats more his “type” these days, Tacitus represents the kind of Republican Party I’d proudly belong to. Ok, there, I’m out of the closet — don’t tell my (liberal Democrat) wife. 😉
As does The Commissar. Well done, Comrade.
Josh Marshall. Actual reporting!
InstaPundit. Yeah, I know the rap(s) against him. Still, generally good insta- (read, not always thoughtful) reactions.
Professor Bainbridge. Smart, somewhat full of himself — what more do you need in a law pofessor?
The conspirators at Volokh. Hands down, one of the very best group blogs on the web.
Crooked Timber. Ties Volokh in the best group blog category.
The Panda’s Thumb. I dig good science done good — probably a result of my wife’s influence, who was once a grad student in Neuroscience.
Which means, of course, that Amygdala gets the mad props as well.
Fafblog. Reminds me of the funny smart kids in college I never was quite sharp enough to keep up with.
Paul Cella. Brilliant, witty, learned, and a skillful writer of the old school.
Kevin Drum. Either I agree with him, or I think twice about my current position. That’s what I look for, fundamentally, in a blogger.
The Techno-Ninjas at Swordstyle, who first got me involved in blogging and taught me the meaning of good music. A meeting place for friends, and not friendly for public consumption (yet).
Sullivan. Fellow liberal Republican travellers, unite.
Citizen Smash. Always worth a look.
Yglesias. Reminds me of the smart kid in college who was sometimes a bit too smart for his own good.
John Cole. A good balance, the kind of conservative Republican I can get along with.
And, of course, my worthy co-bloggers: Katherine, Moe, Sebastian Holsclaw, and Edward. Folks I’ve never met face-to-face — or, frankly, even spoken to over the phone — and, yet, I’d trust any of them far more than I trust most of the people who I do meet face to face.
(Don’t forget the regulars: Slarti, Jes, the commentator formerly known as Praktike, Macallan, Harley, TtWD, Navy Davy, and others too numerous to mention — i.e., don’t read anything into being left out.)
It’s funny — as in funny-sad — that there are not more women bloggers on this list.
Add your own favorites. This is an open thread.
I feel the love.
“Is it Buddha, or a Buddhisatva, whom we’re aspiring to be?”
Opinion varies, but the latter is much more likely. And since the route is more important than the destination, it doesn’t really matter. Good luck.
Here’s a plug for grown-up academic non-flashy bloggers Mark Kleiman and Brad DeLong (though in that category you might prefer Dan Drezner.) Also it’s dangerous to use the media without a steady dose of The Daily Howler. And of course Atrios is much more centrist than you might think.
I don’t know how you manage to read a couple of guys on your list, but de gustibus… I do read Sullivan from time to time, but I think it helps to wash him down with some SullyWatch.
Of course, you needs to throw in some PoorMan, Adam Felbers, and Pandagon, if you want to laugh.
oh, and by the way, Fafnir calls your fellow poster “Edward Underscore.”
I feel the love.
I second asdf.
Recommended: the Nielsen Hayden blogs, Electrolite and Making Light.
I’m a big fan of Girls Are Pretty. Just a daily dose of creative writing.
As for the Buddha/bodhisattva question… depends on whether you like Theravada or Mahayana Buddhism.
“…gets the mad props as well.”
Not to look a gift link in the mouth, and I do thank you, but what’s the name of that blog again?
Oh, I forgot: The Decembrist – not exactly a blog in the .gt. n posts/day sense but every time I read it I learn something I didn’t know I was in dire need of knowing.
A liberal Republican?
Oy.
A liberal Republican?
You are damning Tac with faint damnation.
Fafnir calls your fellow poster “Edward Underscore.”
That’s only because I’m too clueless to figure out how to bypass the “last name” required field in TypePad.
Can’t sneak anything past Fafnir.
I thought your last name was Otter. BTW, should we consider Fafblog a group blog?
More serious, but also more passionate and better written than most of those, if you aren’t reading David Neiwert aka Orcinus you should start now.
Juan Cole and Jim Henley are two of the very best. As is Aziz Poonawalla, whose unoffical Dean campaign blog was the first I ever read.
And here are a few of my favorite female bloggers:
Respectful of Otters
Teresa Nielsen Hayden (her husband’s good too)
Belle Waring (examinedlife.typepad.com, in addition to Crooked Timber) (and her husband too)
Body and Soul
I enjoy Econopundit and Pejmanesque a great deal. They were early Very Important Blogs for me. Plus, as you mentioned, Glenn Reynolds and Kevin Drum – though they have different approaches – are both very worthwhile.
I would add TBogg and World O’Crap for snark and humor. Arthur Silber for thought provoking libertarianism. And myself for one post a month, which is all I can seem to find time for.
Not to look a gift link in the mouth, and I do thank you, but what’s the name of that blog again?
Cut and pasting error, Gary. Sorry.
A liberal Republican?
Or a conservative Democrat.
I thought your last name was Otter. BTW, should we consider Fafblog a group blog?
Nahh, it’s Bismark. 😉
Damn, I forgot Body and Soul. The others, I intend to check out.
Boy, nobody really reads Alterman anymore, do they?
Format is too annoying. Plus they keep updating the RSS feed like, every five minutes for no apparent reason.
I feel I should defend myself, here.
Gotta establish the bona fides. Liberal Republican — yikes.
Good grief! I guess that makes me a liberal Republican as well. Thanks for the warm compliments, Von. I return them in kind: this fine site is daily reading for me.
Don’t worry Paul or Tac. Niether of you will be confused with Teddy Kennedy any time soon.
Tacitus, I have to ask: does,”I’m for militarization of the US-Mexican border.” mean that you’re not a free-marketeer? That’s the one statement on that list with which I disagree not because I’m more liberal, but because of the fact that, when it comes to economics, I’m about as laissez-faire as they come. Free movement of labor as well as financial capital, and all that. Better in the long, long run.
I guess I’m a free-market capitalist socialist-revolutionary kadet (hwaaaah?). I don’t know what to call myself, except that I’m no monarchist. 😉
Cheers to all, as always. Apologies for prompting digression.
Gotta establish the bona fides. Liberal Republican — yikes.
Hold up, I’m being misread: I didn’t mean to say (or imply) that Tacitus is a liberal Repuiblican. Cripes. He’s not — read his blog. (And neither’s Cella.)
You wanna see the difference between a moderate-to-conservative Republican and a liberal Republican conservative Democrat:
“I’m against abortion.”
— Am too, save for the standard exceptions (life of mother, rape, etc.). But I’m far from passionate on the issue.
I’m against most social welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare.
— So long as SS is replaced by a market-based retirement program, great. Medicare’s a different kettle of fish, though, for a whole bunch of pragmatic concerns.
I detest the 17th Amendment.
— Not as big a deal as some would make it.
I’m against racial preferences of any kind.
— Happily part company, here; though, for pragmatic concerns, I favor economic- rather than race-based preferences.
I agree with Bob Ehrlich on multiculturalism.
— I don’t read Bob Ehrlich.
I’m against 90% of gun control laws.
— Silly statement. Gun control should be handled on the state level. (I also suspect that Tacitus has never been 21, seven-or-so-beers beers into a long night, and learned that a less-than-bright 21-year-old associate is carrying a concealed .32. And then proceeded to bar hop for the next several hours. And, yeah, it was perfectly legal.)
I’m for massive defense spending.
— Yup.
I’m for militarization of the US-Mexican border.
— Nope. Free exchange of goods, services, ideas, and people.
I’d be happy to ditch the UN entirely.
— And ditch reality as well, I suppose.
(All snarks without malice; this is more an exercise in differentiation than an attempt to critique.)
von
We know that Tacitus is not a self-described liberal Republican. But is he a liberal Republican? Seems like political orientation can be a matter of attitude as much as ideology. Most of Tac’s laundry list of conservative positions can be held by liberals – or at least by Democrats.
Practically everybody is against abortion. What Tac must be saying is that he is for government, federal or state, bans on it.
Social security and medicare are mandatory national insurance programs. I doubt if Tac is against insurance programs so it must be the mandatory part. So the difference between liberals and conservatives seems to be what they want the government to control.
Tac’s objection to the 17th amendment is unknown to me. Was it better when senators were elected by state legislators? I have a small bias towards the state-wide elections cause it would seem more democratic but Tac probably has good objections to this because I hardly believe he’s undemocratic.
Against racial preferences? One can’t be happy with the history or the present of American society.
Multiculturalism. Hmmm. I can’t really be against that less I miss out on the pierogies at seder.
If your for 10% of the gun control laws that classifies you as liberal in some quarters.
Massive defense expenditures. We have those already. Since we spend as much as the rest of the world put together there may be no satisfying Tac on this. If we stop with the unnecessary wars we won’t need much more.
Militarization of Mexican border? There’s plenty of union folks would go along with that. Its mostly Republican businessmen who want the cheaper labor from the south. This isn’t necessarily a conservative position.
The UN is a force multiplier for the US military when we play our cards right. Sure there’s lots of bath water to get rid of but there’s a baby in there too.
The terms I usually use to describe Tacitus is Republican, militarist and blog-friend. I know the last one is presumptious but he certainly makes me feel welcome at his place. To return the goodwill I try never to describe him as a liberal anything. I hesitated even to vote for him for the Drysdale award but did thinking that glory and renoun should be his no matter the dubiousness of honor.
Some here may be interested to hear that Sullivan is pushing Kerry-McCain ’04.
Sen Inhofe, R OK:
“I’m probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than the treatment … These prisoners, you know they’re not there for traffic violations.”
McCain walked out (probably not because of the misuse of “that”).
Thanks for that link rilkefan.
I was mocked when I touted that ticket a while ago on another blog…Sully does it and he’s a genius…oh well, the power of timing (and Sully does actually give it more thought than I had).
I do like the sound of it though (and I do mean the “sound” of it). Say it out loud Kerry-McCain.
I also really like the symbolism of it. Especially as our enemies and allies alike would interpret it: America is taking the WoT and the US’s role in the world seriously.
It’s perhaps too Hollywood a solution, but it’s certainly something both men should consider.
A vice-pres has to be loyal to the policies of the administration. How could McCain do that? How would he vote as President of the Senate if there was a 50-50 tie? A Kerry-McCain ticket makes no sense to me. A cabinet position maybe.
Kevin Drum just noted Sullivan’s essay. He’s ambivalent.
I think Kerry and McCain would just work out spheres of influence and McCain would agree to cast a vote for Kerry despite personal disagreement the few times it was necessary. The main questions for me would be the tone of the McCain-Cheney debate and getting McCain on the ballot across the country as an Independent.
Actually, on good days Sullivan links to really good stuff.