Hey Destor. Welcome! I like the new Flair. I was just thinking that we need some new blood around here. (Note to Orlando, you have 28 minutes and 37 seconds to get the trifly jeezle out of here.)

Thanks for the interface compliments, though its mostly the open source software, our tech budget being on the low end. You know, the economy and all

I do feel a bit funny about TPM complaints at dag--it's like Joanie Loves Chachi dissing on Happy Days. I will say that I hope that the reader blogs don't turn into alt.tpmcafe. We started dag so that we wouldn't be limited to writing about politics, not to replace the cafe, so I'd love to see people contributing on a variety of topics.

Speaking broadly to the topic of your post, this reminds me of the Ahmadinejad negotiation debates during the primary. Or more pointedly, to Columbia's invitation to have Ahmadinejad speak. Do you offer someone with whom you strongly disagree a pulpit to facilitate lively debate or do you resist giving him the opportunity to express abhorrent views.

I lean to towards the former. I'm not saying that it's immoral to refuse to invite someone to speak or write. If it's your platform, you have the right to invite whomever your like, and it bugs me when people cry about censorship from private organizations. But even if it's not immoral to refuse to invite opposition, I think it's unhealthy. Without dissent, you become wrapped up in your own worldview; you lose perspective.

I read your comment at the other place about Knott's authoritarian views. There's something to that. I wouldn't invite Hitler to guest blog. But I do think that dissent should be discomfitting. If your opposition is too amenable to your way of thinking than it's not really opposition.

So here's a challenge to you: Who do you feel is the most intelligent voice of conservatism today?