« Pledge #1 | Main | Never say that bloggers lack chutzpah. »

July 26, 2004


I respect his Moe Lane fellow. Indeed I would go so far as to say I like the cut of his jib. But I must disagree with him. The hope that we treat each other with respect and decency is not yet futile.

Hey, Moe, can't we do both? Disagreement need not mean a fight to the death. Can't we disagree on principle but continue to respect someone with whom we disagree?

"Hey, Moe, can't we do both?"

I would say so.

Who will nod, abashed, and withdraw 'futile' from 'hope'.

Respectfully, I disagree.

I typically only bother disagreeing with bloggers I respect. I don't bother with Atrios, yet I'll disagree with Kevin Drum.

i'll disagree with Sebastian. Frequently thoughtful, he far too often dismisses those who disagree with him, as opposed to engaging them.

he is, for example, pro-life, but refuses to articulate (in anything i've read, at least) what the consequences of prevailing on his pro-life views would mean.

he is, also, frequently far too snide. like the 12:007 am post above. atrios is one of the most popular liberal blogs, according to NZ Bear's site. he is a red-meat blogger no different than, say, much of tacitus. SH's lack of respect indicates, to me, a lack of willingness to understand why so many people consider the current US administration to be abhorrent, a rejection of key american values.


I respect Kim du Toit very much for many of his opinions and his can-do attitude, but some of his invective turns me off.

I'll disagree with Andrew Sullivan...no, that's too easy.

Hmmm...I know, I'll disagree with Tacitus!

No, I don't think I'm doing this right.

Maybe I should disagree with Kos. Actually done that plenty of times.

Got it. I'll disagree with Katherine. (Fat chance actually, but I'll keep an open mind about it.)

I've been noticing a move toward what you're calling for here Moe, and even before the apparently synchronized effort to declare it at the convention. There seems to be a spreading realization that we're gonna have to accept the outcome of the election and be ready the next day to face the world, and especially our enemies, united. So come what may election day, in the haze of hangovers (from victory parties or pity parties) on November 3, we stand as one nation. And God help the fools who underestimate our resolve.

I take the polarization of the blogosphere as a given. So, to call for disagreement "across the aisle" would be redundant. The idea was to help prevent a Conservative "Party Line" mentality.

My characterization of The Left may not have been nice. And such characterization can apply to extreme Right blogs as well.

In any case, Moe, you're one of the reasonable guys, on either side of the aisle.

I'm curious about the whole idea of sucking it up and lining up behind the boss. How do you square that with the need to question bad policy, call dishonest leaders to account, etc.? I think it's hard to find the right balance there--on one side, you question everything and undermine a new president's ability to do anything, so that instead of the (in your opinion) wrong policy, he manages to get nothing done. On the other side, you silently nod your head or make occasional polite expressions of dismay while your president leads the country off a cliff.

You're a Japanese advisor to the Emperor in 1939, and the prevailing winds in the government are all toward gearing up for a war with the US. Are you more of a patriot if you get behind the push for war, or if you openly and loudly point out that Japan's industrial capacity is a fraction of the US', and that Japan is sure to be crushed in any long-running war. When should you stop pointing out impending disaster so that your country can have unity in its rush off a cliff?


I'll agree with Edward: disagreeing with Katherine is the best I can come up with. She and I frequently part ways in political discussion, but of all the people I frequently disagree with, I find her the most eloquent, erudite and...well, convincing. I don't think I've ever noticed Katherine making excuses for anyone simply because they vote the way she does, which counts a great deal in the integrity column. And is, unfortunately, all too rare.

But she might be disqualified because she's no longer blogging. Damn.

A blogger I what now?

I do believe the point was to disagree with someone you routinely agree with.

I don't really routinely agree with anyone, so I feel kind of left out.

I belive politicians set the standard on this. When they can behave civil towards eachother I'll give it some serious consideration. You lead by example, and politics are no different.

Attack ads on Max Cleland showing him in the same space as Osama, Bush/Hitler ads that should never have been posted (however shortly) on Moveon, bumper stickers espousing that Osama supports Kerry, these are all things that contribute to the decline of civility and only serve to enrage the other side to the point of hostility. Coulter doesn't help, Moore doesn't help, Al Franken doesn't help, Limbaugh, Hannity, the list goes on. None of that crap helps and it makes me sick.

Of course, I probably don't help either.

This is actually a comment to pledge #1, but you ask that the comments there be restricted. I don't think this one will be particularly inflammatory, though.

What does VRWC stand for?

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy...

something Hillary Clinton noted was the source of her husband's problems

used tongue-in-cheekly by Republicans now.

used tongue-in-cheekly by Republicans now.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about, Edward. Nothing new, though.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad