Yikes!

A mention by Jonah Goldberg in today's Corner. How in the Sam Hill did he find it? I certainly never expected this - hoped maybe, but never really expected it. I'd always thought this would be an adventure in solipsism, as I think the benign paranoia of my other site (http://quotidianquintilian.blogspot.com/) makes clear. Pressure's on now, I guess.

If I still have his attention, I'd like to press him for the longer answer about his "bias towards having arguments within groups you agree with more than not." If I understand him correctly, Goldberg isn't using 'bias towards' in the sense of 'against,' but rather in the sense that more productive arguments usually involve parties that have found some common ground to work within. I bring this up only because friends have asked about my statement that "I would rather disagree with conservatives than agree with liberals." The meaning, if not the sentiment, seemed self evident to me at the time, but here goes:

An argument between Michael Ledeen and Daniel Pipes would more than likely yield some interesting results. I'd hazzard that an argument between Micahel Ledeen and Ibrahim Hooper would be less an argument than an exercise in futility. Shows like "Crossfire" and even "Hannity and Colmes" make this pretty clear - over and over again.

Thanks for the notice!

Goldberg's post on bias can be found here