By the same token, major blogging voices are all about niche appeal. McArdle does libertarian leaning, snark-infused, cold commentary. Wonkette’s Ken Layne does hyperbole and sarcasm. Media Matters and Malkin alike do aggrieved/”look they’re at it again” like few others.

If you want to criticize the rhetorical/argumentative shortcomings of bloggers who handicap their opponents well you might as well not stop with naming McArdle, just about anyone with a blog should be named, including yourself.

When we talk about public education, your comments aren’t consistently infused with anecdotes about the horrors of the status quo as perpetuated by the institutions you support. On illegal immigration, no discussion of the preventable murders made by illegal immigrants. On abortion, what about discussion of the anguish caused to barren women, those killed during the procedure, or even of would-be fathers. Which isn’t to say, “oh look you’re a hypocrite and nothing you say matters.” Quite the opposite. I’ve really enjoyed reading posts here and older ones at L’Hote. I think you make good points, insightful comments, and ask provocative questions.

At no point, however, do I find your writing or arguments compromised by a insufficient discussion of costs. Perhaps that’s because your posts tend to be more open-ended and conversational. If a discussion of the casus foederis of reform is missing, I think that means we need more voices that can communicate the missing aspect of our discussions rather than criticizing people for not meeting artificially imposed standards that have as much to do with style as substance.

I gave away my freedom to spend that $1200 a year on whatever I want, just to ensure that schmuck who texts while driving has the means to compensate me should he run me over on my motorcycle. Patrick Henry would be appalled. My freedom of speech and assembly are hanging by a thread.