I’m not the best at responding to my inbox–although I’m trying to do better. Here are some of the more interesting emails I’ve received recently (with a few edits).

1. “Will you be responding to Michael Kinsley’s column on embryonic stem-cell research?”

I already did. His latest column is a more lurid version of an argument he has been making for several years, about which I comment on pages 158-9 of my book.

2. “You said that you had responded to [Andrew] Sullivan’s philosophy elsewhere. Can you point me to it? I’m very interested.”

(The emailer is referring to this post.)

Sure, if you’re interested enough for several thousand words. Sullivan wrote an essay about conservatism, I replied (sorry about the punctuation), he came back at me (can’t find it), and I responded again. That’s probably the most thorough airing of our differences out there.

3. “Forgive my presumption, but might I advise you and the rest of your NR colleagues to adopt a policy of radio silence toward Andrew Sullivan? I know he’s on a one-man mission to depress sales of your book and demonize NR, but lately he obviously LIVES for the fights he picks with you, Jonah, JPod, etc., that is, when he’s not preening about torture or practicing armchair soldiering. Deprive him of oxygen and don’t even engage his baiting. Let him shout in the wilderness and listen for nothing but his own echo. He deserves nothing more.”

I get this advice every time I mention Sullivan, and I can see its force. But imagine that a columnist for Time were regularly slandering you. Wouldn’t you want at least to clear the record?

4. Two readers send me two links that shed more light on the Sullivan method. Here is a comparison of his views on the war and torture from before and after President Bush’s endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and here is a look at his self-awareness. (Here’s an amazing Sullivan quote I found via the second of those links.)

5. “Thanks for giving us the context of your remark about Sullivan not being a conservative. That makes it a lot more understandable. But I think you’re putting the focus on the wrong place. Sullivan takes conservative positions on many issues, from protectionism to federal funding of [embryonic] stem-cell research. I don’t think you mean to say that the problem with him is that he is a liberal. I think what you should have said is, No serious person regards Sullivan as a serious person.”

I’m open to that amendment.

6. “Just finished P.O.D. I have to say I was a little disappointed. You’re too soft. I don’t mind your ‘incrementalism’ so much. . . . [What’s worse is that] you say emergency contraception should be legal, you’re coy about whether abortion should be banned in cases of rape, you don’t come out for jail time even for abortionists, let alone the women. I wish you have been tougher.”

Duly noted. I’ve received only one other email to that effect, incidentally, from a guy who wished I had titled my book Party of Murder.

7. “So what was it like being with all those snooty libs in Aspen?”

Delightful, actually. Not everyone was a lib, and I didn’t see tons of snootiness from the libs. Everyone was very nice. (I may have a low bar: Pretty much all anyone has to do to win my favor is to compliment my daughter.) And my wife said she overheard someone after one of the panels saying, “That Indian guy seems pretty intelligent, even though he’s a Republican. . .”