I had intended to blog something on Little Green Footballs a few weeks ago during the fuss with MSNBC and Anil Dash, but never found the time. Now that Rittenhouse Review has announced that it (well, he) will not link to any blog that links to LGF, some of my unfinished comments are timely once again. (That's one of the nice things about the Blogosphere: we recycle our topics.) I made the first two points in a comment on some weblog or other, but they seem worth repeating, not least because I can't remember what weblog it was.

1. I don't know whether the actual Klanwatch lives up to its name, but an organization that keeps an eye on the Ku Klux Klan and similar groups and reports on their filthy doings is certainly a good thing in principle, however this one has worked out in practice. (I haven't checked because the Klan is rather low on the list of current dangers to life and liberty.) Anyone who claimed that such an organization was a bad thing because it would tend to bring white Southerners into disrepute, saying only negative things about them, would run the risk of being thought either foolish, or racist, or both. Surely one can list and analyze the sins of the Ku Klux Klan without having to balance one's website with paeans to all the good things in white Southern culture: Hank Williams (Senior, of course), pulled pork, Bear Bryant -- ask the Possumblogger for a complete list. Just as vultures and dungbeetles perform a necessary role in the animal kingdom, 'Klan watchdog' is a cultural niche that needs to be filled, however distasteful it may be to look too closely at what the watchdog finds. Keeping an eye on Islamicist extremism is even more important. Charles Johnson does it very well, and those who object often sound rather Victorian: they would 'rather not know' what's going on in large parts of the Islamic world.
2. Everyone talks about "the Arab street" and how we should listen to what it says. Some of the more intemperate comments on LGF (and Free Republic) give us information on what "the American street" is thinking. It may not be pleasant, or subtle, but that does not mean that it is not worth knowing.
3. It is common, and not always unfair, to judge people by the company they keep, and the same applies to weblogs. I know I'm unlikely to link to a site such as The Rittenhouse Review that links to WarbloggerWatch, 'Hesiod', and 'Atrios'. (See what I mean? I just didn't.) But making a general and explicit rule out of such an opinion, and asking others to follow it, is a whole 'nother thing. Friendships are not transitive. If I very much like A, and A is a close friend of B, that does not mean that I will like B, or even be able to stand being in the same room with B. Asking A to choose between myself and B as friends is way too 'junior high' for me. The same applies to blogs. Many of those to which I link link to blogs I wouldn't be caught dead linking to. So what? Life is complicated.
4. 'Hesiod' thinks that Den Beste's comments on the Rittenhouse style were "absolutely unnecessary stylistic cheapshots". Unnecessary to his argument, maybe, but 'Hesiod' seems to think that bloggers are not allowed to 'review' other blogs as we review books and CDs and concerts. Why ever not? Professional courtesy? Blogging is hardly a profession, and courtesy towards fellow bloggers has never been one of Hesiod's strong points.

I'm not entirely happy with these disjointed thoughts on a complex issue, but they'll have to do for now. At the end of his post, Steven Den Beste gives a long list of links to those who have commented on the issue.