The Bernoulli Effect

See, you list righty blogs and call them analytical and devoid of ad hominems. I reach the opposite conclusion. While it'd be easy for either to say the other is just crazy, it's possible that neither of us are: rather, we just tend to breeze by the ad homs directed at the other side. Y'know, ala a fish not noticing the water it swims in and all that.

Seriously, though: Instapundit well-reasoned and analytical? He probably could be, if he bothered to do more than write one sentence per post, with as many links as words.

I've noticed a lot of people slamming Instapundit for what they see as shallowness or haste.
Discounting the possibility that these people are just jealous, I'd say, "so what?"
The Insta is what he is. You go there for a smorgasbord of links on an array of topics and an occasional "heh" mystery link or three. The one topic he covers in great depth is photography.
He himself often tells people not to rely on him, that there are many other blogs out there they should be reading. He is conscientious about spreading the love, and rarely if ever descends to the childish tactics so common in the blogosphere.

Why everybody gotta hate?

jpe: I didn't say "devoid", I said "usually tend"--and I was really applying the comparison to righty blogs; my point being that the ones that, more often than not, honor reason and empirical evidence are the ones that I frequent most often. And again, when I said "analytic" I'm not saying you have to agree at all; I just mean I don't have much respect for a wild statement without even a hint of supporting evidence.

But you're right about the "fish in the water" syndrome--that's what this whole topic is about. (And it's also why libs can't see the MSM bias.) I've got at least a dozen conservative books I need to read; the thought of bumping Joe Conason up the list isn't too appetizing, but I guess that's where the hard work part comes in.

Discounting the possibility that these people are just jealous, I'd say, "so what?"
The Insta is what he is.

Absolutely, and he does a valuable service. I just thought it was strange that he'd be included in a list of blogs that lay out arguments, which he just doesn't do (that's just not his thing; this isn't bad, it's just what he is).

I didn't say "devoid", I said "usually tend"

Yeah, I know; my point doesn't change.

He does write two columns, so that's where a lot of argument-laying-out happens.

Lileks seems to be the only man of woman born who can crank out multiple columns and a substantive daily posting. Of course, he's not teaching, grading and writing review articles ...

When I was first starting my own blog, I debated with myself re. the link/think dilemma as well as what extent I'd dabble in ad homs (or, more accurately, jabs).

If politics is a blog's forte, then humor (what I wanted in my blog) often presents itself vis-a-vis irony, soft ridicule, and other tomfoolery.

In my case, I believe how I am writing is a natural extension of myself -- I am presenting my ideas/commentary in a style I am most comfortable with.

With this in mind, I like Instapundit's linking practices (which RealClearPolitics is something of a distilled version of) but I also love LGF's political incorrectness and jabbing. (FWIW, I can't stomach folks like O'Reilly, Coulter, and Michael Savage anymore because they've arguably gone too far in the 'jab' direction).

It seems one can opt for a more objective and scholarly approach or (as in my case) the classic template of the 'columnist'.

Good points. I'm still pretty surprised at the tone that comes out of the keyboard when I type--around the house the invective flies a lot more freely. I guess the people I admire most as writers (like Victor Hanson, Hitchens, Krauthammer) can render someone into bits without raising their voices, so to speak.

And I agree with you about O'Reilly (too arrogant with his "little guy" schtick), Savage (just intolerably reactionary), and even Coulter (amusing, and correct a lot of the time, but doesn't advance the discussion much).