We have been doing some substantial behind-the-scenes work to make the Patrol reading experience simpler and more natural. Our previous categorization system was relatively primitive, so most of the reworking has involved improving the way we categorize articles, and thus your ability to locate older content.
We've gotten lots of letters—some of them very angry letters—asking why we don't put comments on our articles, editorials, music reviews, etc. As we want you to interact with us as much as possible, we shall endeavor to explain ourselves a bit.
First of all, we do have a Facebook page, where we post nearly every article and blog post that goes up on this site. Follow it and you can comment to your heart's content. You even have 100 percent certainty that you'll annoy us by sending us an email alert every time you give your opinion. We also read all of your replies to / mentions of us on Twitter every day.
But about comments. The tone of some of your letters has reflected a mentality that infects web users these days, and one that we strongly question: the notion that feedback, reader input, crowdsourcing, "Web 2.0," etc., is a God-given right of internet users. No matter what it is—pictures of a cute cat, a story about someone's awful day, a serious article about theology—people expect to be able to drop in their two cents.
Really, though, who would say that the thing the internet needs is more unfiltered commentary? After the jump, what we believe is the future of internet discourse.
A few shards from my Monday-morning web trails:
We all know you are startingly delusional, Blago. But you could at least have the sense to avoid emitting your gaseous egotism in front of wry writers like David Remnick.
DoubleX capably destroys Michael Gerson's off-note column on modern 20-something relationships.
My Politics Daily colleague Delia Lloyd defends "nanny-state" interventions into our deteriorating individual health. I kind of agree.
In memory of the departed neocon Irving Kristol, The New Republic is featuring some of his pieces from their archives, including this meditation on the superiority of Washington, D.C. over New York. It was 1988 and he was mostly wrong, but he was also partly right.
Carrie Prejean all but reenacts a scene from Saved! when she suggests God will reward her lost pageant crown with a bigger one in heaven.
A book to look forward to.
In response to my article from last week, "Higher Ground," which asked the question "Where will Christians fall when the marijuana debate lights up?" I've received some excellent feedback via email. I wanted to share a few of the thoughtful responses and give other readers the opportunity to respond and weigh in on this necessarily controversial topic.
- “Orthodoxy” Book Club, Chapter 3: “The Suicide of Thought”
- Orthodoxy Book Club: Chapter 2, “The Maniac”
- Introducing the Confront-Your-Prejudices Book Club on G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”
- The Men of Fox News are Right: My Breadwinner Wife is Destroying My Marriage and Undermining Civilization
- Philosophical Flavors
- No public Twitter messages.
TagsAbortion Albert Mohler Andrew Sullivan Atheism Barack Obama Bible Book Review Books Catholic Church Christian Christianity Christianity Today Christian Right Conservatives Evangelicalism Evangelicals Facebook Faith Feminism God History Jesus Mark Driscoll Marriage Martin Heidegger Marvin Olasky Media New Sincerity New York City New York Times Patheos Philosophy Politics Quote of the Day Religion Religion and Spirituality Rick Perry Rob Bell Ross Douthat Same-sex marriage Sarah Palin Sex Theology United States Women