Well, given Bill Kristol's unbelievably-consistent track record (i.e., he's always wrong), the fact that he disagrees with how Obama is handling the Iranian situation is almost certainly a good sign.

Actually, "Barack" is an alternate spelling of "Baruch", which means "Blessed" in Hebrew, not "Lightning." (Since Hebrew uses a different alphabet, we have to live with transliterations, and thus there are many alternate spellings of transliterated Hebrew words. "Channukah," and "Hannukah", for example.)

I was very interested in Ms. Miller's review of this topic, but if I may be blunt, it appears that she let her views on sexual politics and feminism overwhelm the book-review aspect of the article. In the beginning of the article, she seemed to be saying it was a decent, albeit muddled book. By the end of the article, I had no idea what she thought of the book, but a pretty fair idea of what she thought about the issues in the book.

Which is really not a book review, is it?

If I may be so bold, next time, Ms. Miller, put a little less of yourself in your review.

I can't even express how appalled I am by this news. Froomkin was, quite literally, the only thing on the Post's web site that I read at all, let alone regularly. His was the only mainstream media blog--unless one counts Sullivan's "Daily Dish"--that I have bookmarked.

Fred Hiatt's editorial hackery, the hiring of the perpetually-wrong Bill Kristol, now this. What next? A sale of the Post to Murdock?

I hope to God someone else picks up Froomkin.

Geez, why even bother making it a fixed number? I mean, let's face it: some years, there actually may be more than five worthy films (although I can't think of any year offhand--1939, maybe?), and some years, honestly, there should only be three or four. So why make it a fixed number at all? Just assign a maximum (let it be 10 if that makes the studio honchos happy), and get with the nominatin'.

I mean, I don't know about you, Andrew, but as much as I like Cate Blanchett, should "Benjamin Button" really have been on the list last year ("Dark Knight" or no)?

Just a thought.

Somebody better clue these guys in to the fact that the line that demarcates "reasonable reaction" from "overreaction" is somewhere between chopping off their heads and forming a Committee on Public Safety to initiate a purge, and blowing up their offices in Manhattan. Anything short of head-chopping strikes me as pretty measured.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, let me just say that the best way to deal with this situation is to use a little horse sense. (Mark Twain preferred that to "common sense." "If it was common, everyone would have it," Twain opined.)

Ask yourself this, Concerned: if you kept them from boffing in the boy's bedroom, do you think that would stop them from having sex altogether? Or would it just drive it underground? And would that move give you more control over the situation, or less?

When this happened in our house, I told the teen involved to stop using the basement; aside from the candles burning next to the gas-fired furnace being something of a safety hazard, I told him that since the secret was out, his bedroom would be much more comfortable. Stay in the house. Use birth control. Don't let your girlfriend wander around the house naked. Otherwise, it was up to him.

The girl's parents? We told them. The girl's birth control? We supplied the boy with condoms; the girl's family put her on the pill.. Otherwise, we let them alone, under the principal that if they're gonna, they're gonna. Acknowledging it gives you some control; denying it gives you less.

Eventually, the boy moved on to other women, and the girl moved on to other men. Neither got STDs, and the girl didn't get pregnant.

I think you miffed a little, though, Gary, bringing up the legal issues first. Concerned is already wigged out; talking about discussing things with a family lawyer before addressing other issues is not going to wig him out less.

Horse sense, that's what I (arrogantly) say.

Maybe I'm revealing my age too much here, but the role I, think of when I see John Corbett is not "Sex in the City" (I'm a guy; I didn't watch a single episode) or "The United States of Tara (no interest; sorry), but his wonderful turn as the erudite ex-con and radio jock Chris on "Northern Exposure."

Ah, "Northern Exposure;" how I miss you.

Larry Craig faced the opposition of basically every Republican Senator (and a lot of Republican congressmen), and gave his own series of cringe-inducing interviews after being caught in that airport men's room. I note, however, that Craig is still in place.

I'll believe Sanford will resign when I actually hear his resignation speech. Republicans in public office have shown, over and over again, that they think nothing of their blatant, shameless hypocrisy. I'm not holding my breath on this one.

Maybe I'm being unkind, but while this post may have a good point at its base, it seems kind of, well, weird to be reading about sexually-based semantic games in a blog called "Broadsheet."

Well, Bush was also both deeply uninformed and arrogant about being clueless, but he somehow managed to get elected. Let's not underestimate the power of human cluelessness.

Palin is a lot like Bush, except with winking and flirting and fake folksiness instead of strutting and stupid jokes and fake Texasness. She bears watching.

Honestly, I'd feel a lot safer putting my money on Andrea Mitchell than Bill "Wrong-Answer" Kristol. I mean, who wouldn't?