Ronald Harwood:

"I don't believe in research. You have to tell a story in a movie. Sometimes the facts disturb all that. I was asked to adapt, and that was what I decided to do."

Was anyone else struck by the arrogance dripping from this statement? This attitude is especially irritating when the subject is a film adapted from a book. People who have read the book go to see the film expecting that the spirit of the story they so enjoyed will be preserved, and it is extremely disappointing when this does not happen. But the screen writers, directors and producers have a higher standard to hew to when the subject is not fictional. The truth is always more important than the puffed up ego of some film maker. In the end, all Ronald Harwood contributed to was a highly artistic form of libel.

Graham is, as Slackie Onassis puts it, Crackers. Or had tongue firmly in cheek. To be comparing what is happening here to what is happening in Iraq shows gross (and perhaps willful) ignorance and a callous disregard for the thousands who have died in political and religious violence in Iraq.

Mr. Graham won't, of course, tell us that the only reason things have calmed down somewhat in Iraq is that the ethnic cleansing in Sunni and Shia neighborhoods and towns is more or less complete. Tens of thousands have died, and over 2 million are displaced. Yup, if you get rid of those who disagree with you, "reconciliation" is possible!

Unlike Digg, Buzz does not let people submit just any stories from across the Web. Instead, Buzz is seeded with articles and videos from about 100 pre-selected news sites and blogs, among them Wired.com, Forbes, Time, The Huffington Post, Boing Boing, Portfolio, and Salon.

What is the rationale behind this seeding? It seems to me that this limits the utility of Buzz and unduly restricts the content that a Buzz user might be exposed to. After all what is so good about Digg is that it brings me into contact with web sites I might otherwise overlook.

And why is the 'buzz up!' link not in the Share menu along with the Digg, Reddit, etc. links? Is there something in it for Salon for giving it such prominence?

As Noam Chomsky and others have pointed out time and again, the tactic of convincing the people that the issues are just too complicated for them to comprehend is intended to discourage the average citizen from questioning authority. I think that is what we have here, with John King playing the part of the poor befuddled citizen, setting up McConnell to play the part of the saviour expert who we should all trust and not question, because he is so Wise and Good.

One thing I believe is ruining the letters section is the constant personal exchanges between a few people, often not even on topic. One way to limit this is to restrict the number of letters any user may post on a particular story/column/topic. I'd prefer a limit of one myself. This way you make your comment and that's that. If you chose to waste it on attacking someone else, so be it.

How do you avoid letting the obnoxious stuff overwhelm the interesting comments? Let the users do it! There are hundreds of them, aren't there? And their labour is free! This is a great idea. Digg uses something similar, I believe.

I especially like this idea because my own experience is that the worst abuses have not necessarily come from Anonymous posters, and therefore removing this option will do little to clean up the letter sections. But allowing users to rate other user's letters would allow the good ones to float to the top.

• First, only the segment on the Alabama governor is not aired
• Then it's CBS's fault
• Then, when CBS says it ain't so, all of the sudden it's a local receiver that was at fault.
• Then they rebroadcast it later that evening. But wait, if the receiver failed during downlink, where did they get the segment from? I realize that they could have gotten it later somehow, but that's a part of the story. Shouldn't someone find out how they got it to rebroadcast it?
• Maybe the owner did support John Kerry; who knows? But Scott Horton in the original Harper's piece noted that WHNT was "noteworthy for its hostility to Siegelman," and the report was on Siegelman, not Kerry.

It could all be innocent, blind bad luck. It could.

Thanks King. I was born in Wisconsin and so grew up a Packers fan. Though I'm old enough to remember other Packers QBs, I cant readily do so. All I can remember is Favre and how much fun the NFL season was going to be, come what may. The inevitable had to happen, but I so hoped that it never would. Being a Packers fan has always been something special because of the Packers unique status as a community team. But it just won't be the same without Brett.

Citizens of a free and truly democratic republic don't need a daddy protector. And it is clear from the wording of the oath of office that our founding fathers understood this very well. The president is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If the president does that, we can handle the rest. If the president does not then he/she is more dangerous to our liberties than all The Terrorists combined.