First, what Havrilesky calls "procedural" shows are in fact about how police work and prosecution are really done, and they are mostly authentic. The science is good and interesting, even if CSIs rarely venture out of the lab and never do the confrontational, dramatic stuff that they do on "CSI". In "Law and Order", the law is correct and the tactics can be instructive even for lawyers. And they show protagonists as human beings with real problems themselves, which are quite often presented in very moving ways.

"Closer" is not really up to the best of the authentic shows, but it does what it sets out to do: entertain and re-create the Perry Mason fiction that you can trick the truth out of criminals at dramatic moments. Like "Monk", which is a wonderful rebuild of the Sherlock Holmes fantasy, it is intentionally comic half the time, yet capable of very moving moments, and both those shows have become classic examples of that model.

My short takes on "Burn Notice" and "In Plain Sight" are that the former repels because its lead actor is cold and scary, and the latter is completely unauthentic, shark-jumping crazy, and incredible.

But I rejoice that we now have so many possibilities with cable that as the losers expire, great new ones will take their place. Television is better than ever.

Since Cary isn't up to it today, let me offer an analysis with an ethical framework. It's pretty simple, really: What would the Golden Rule suggest? It is the basic rule of ethics among all human cultures, however often it is ignored or overridden by arbitrary values such as religion.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is another way of saying, You should be fair to others, but that traditional way of saying it carries a somewhat heavier burden. It suggests that you should take action even when it is unpleasant, if you recognize that such action is on balance a good thing for the others affected, and the world. Said another way, that it produces good karma.

Telling the wife will produce one of two reactions.

She will say they have an understanding, she has lovers of her own, she's fine with it, and you should cherish the time you have had with her hubby. So you get a bit of enlightenment. You may also then complain that if he wasn't cheating, he was at least dishonest with you about his marital state and caused you distress according to your moral code. The couple should, and probably will, consider this. Outcome from the contact: positive all around.

Or, she will be shocked and devastated. But she will know the truth that was concealed from her and she will be able to deal with it. And you will apologize for having let it go on for as long as you did after you found out, which is atonement under your moral code. You will be more careful in the future. And the guy will be confronted with his dishonesty and will either reconcile and do right thereafter, or will be on his own to reflect on life and ethics. Outcome: painful, but positive.

So you should tell her -- gently, with a letter and an offer to meet discreetly and tell her everything.

I am as angry as anyone in the Democratic Party at Lieberman, but FDR said about another Democratic miscreant, "He may be a sonofabitch, but he's one of OUR sonsofbitches." The truth is, Lieberman has voted pretty solidly with the Democratic caucus right along, even after going independent, and that counts for something. So I say, take his chair but, as LBJ said, keep him inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in.

He's letting it be known that he may switch parties; well, he's going to have to go against his conscience and his constituency on a lot of issues to do that. He's already isolated himself because of his disloyalty thus far, while trying to have it both ways. I don't think he believes he will look good in a Republican coat.

It was with Rahm Emanuel, who gave Dean more than one of his massive, angry, F-worded assaults in pursuit of DNC money for winnable House districts that Dean had budgeted for the 50-state effort. There were good arguments on both sides. But Dean, no Milquetoast he, gave as good as he got, and stood fast, and though he did give Emanuel some of what he was asking for, the 50-state plan went forward.

Dean took those first steps toward re-nationalizing the Democratic Party, and one of the believers in that goal was Barack Obama, and the rest is history. I predict that Emanuel, now the chief agent of Obamaism, will be as aggressive in supporting Dean's plan as he once was in co-opting it.