Lieberman's blinkers work in two ways: he goes to Iraq and gets snowed by the PR and obviously filters everything we know about the country, its history and current state.

But he also lacks insight. It's astonishing that he can make a statement like this:

"In the Democratic Party there are a lot of people who have the same kind of hatred -- which I find is self-defeating and almost certainly wrong -- towards Bush that a lot of Republicans had toward Clinton."

Clinton-bashing was irrational--he was even accused of murder. Republican Congressman abused him in foul ways: remember the "scumbug" remark? How about the time Clinton was warned not to go down south because he wasn't popular--this, by a Congressman implicitly threatening his life.

But Bush-hating is based on quite rational loathing for the evisceration of the Constitution, abandonment of the environment, contempt for our allies, continued lies about the War and many other demonstrable policy disasters.

Lieberman is also a fine one to talk about Clinton haters when he helped undermine Clinton by attacking him in the Senate. He thought Clinton's lying about sex was a national threat, but the misdeeds of this administration aren't worth comment, and pointing them out is unpatriotic?

Joe "McCarthey" Lieberman has to go.

Okay, what is so special about a Fox station pimping one of its shows on the news? You're telling me the major networks don't do it, too?

At any rate, they do it better and more intelligently. It's not the violence that makes this show work, it's the timing. The show takes the metaphorical ticking clock of every well-made thriller (film or book) and foregrounds that. You're actually watching the minutes tick away, and that's what's the hook here, as well as the season being a day's events.

I'm a mystery novelist and reviewer and I love this show for the script, the acting, and the fantasyland CTU (notice all the blue tones?), but I wish it told us what torture really yields in terms of useful intelligence according to experts in the field: very little.

Second verse, same as the first.

They'll weasel out of this one by parsing the word "want." You can already write McClellan's responses. All the surrogates will say: of course the planning was necessary--because he was driven to it by Saddam, Al Qaeda, whoever. He didn't want to do it, but had to do it.

See, he's the educator-in-chief and had to teach the world a lesson.

Lying plagiarist = good

People who exposed him = evil

Blogger who makes these equations = righteous

After all this disappointment and frustration, he wants to be a writer ?

I can't imagine a worse transition. He's just setting himself up for years of struggle. I've published 17 books in many genres, seen my essays and fiction become homework at colleges across the country, spoken in half a dozen countries outside the U.S. on tour, and won some prizes, but the writing life is worse than acting and filled with constant ego blows.

At least acting offers you a community in a show of whatever kind, but writing is very solitary, which makes the downs harder to take. And for everyone thinking "If only I can sell a book, everything will change," here's the epigram of my mystery The Edith Wharton Murders, quoted from novelist Daniel Magida:

The only thing worse than not being published is being published.

It's true, it's true, it's true.

He doesn't sound like someone who feels compelled, so I'd warn him to try something safer.

I've written for the Washington Post, Jerusalem Report, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, and yes, even a student newspaper way back when, and no editor ever, repeat, ever inserted chunks of prose into my work. What editor has the time?

That explanation is pure nonsense. How can he believe anyone will credit it?

Likewise, "Domenech also wrote that he had personally received permission from writer P.J. O'Rourke to do a 'college-specific version of his classic piece on partying.'" If that's the case, then why didn't he footnote O'Rourke in some way?

The guy was lazy and stupid and got caught. So of course, it's somebody else's fault. I wonder why Domenech's critics hate America so much. . .

"His defenders may say Domenech was only a college student when he made those mistakes."

Speaking as an escaped academic, typically in college courses plagiarism is grounds for an F on the paper in question and potentially an F in the course.

This movie is deft, absorbing, far more compelling than the original source. I loved the way it combined a dystopina thriller with a police procedural; thought Natalie portman's accent and acting wree just fine; enjoyed the creepy look and color palette; relished the head-on bashing of the administration. Muddled? Flat? Not at all.

The not-so-funny subtext is this: he's an arrogant twit who has the nerve to criticize them for interviewing him too early.

He knew what he was getting into when he agreed to go on the show (unless he's unaware of the time zone difference between New York and Texas), yet he feels obliged to point out how put-upon he is (cue a John Stewart Bush "heh-heh-heh"). He's rude and obnoxious, and reeks of privilege. The Bush legacy lives on. Like Grandfather, like father, like son.

It's always scary to read actual transcripts of what he says. Thoughts wander, get tangled, don't add up. Newspapers quoting either clean up what doesn't scan, or he deosn't sound so confused and confusing via excerpts. But those few lines at the end of the article? What did he mean: "Hello, I must be going"?