Just fired next week’s column off to the editors. I suspect it will provoke a bit of a discussion, although possibly one a little less vehement than last week’s. Once again, I’m taking a position that is a priori somewhat contrary to what one might expect based on a cursory reflection, but this time I think I’ve made a case that is more methodical and logically airtight than last week’s admittedly more rhetorical argument.
It’s definitely a bit more work, though. Jonah Goldberg of NRO is so correct when he complains that the Internet is vastly overrated as a research tool. You can always learn something about the subject in which you’re interested, but the moment that you decide you need a particular piece of data, it begins to assume the prospect of a needle in a haystack, moreover, a needle which quite possibly may not be there. We have a long, long way to go before the Internet fully realizes its promise of becoming an easily accessible instant brain-data multiplier.
In any case, I like having a bit of variety, not only in subject matter, but also in how it’s presented. I hope most of you feel the same way too.