I never heard of "The Secret" until one day last week when someone suggested in the comments section of a Cary Tennis column. I still didn't quite understand what it was until I read this. I think I'm going to have watch more TV to keep up with current pop culture, although it's all just the same stuff "reimagined".

I'm glad to hear the Congress is going to pursue some of the awful actions that took place inside the White House surrounding this case.

As for a pardon, from what I've read today, Mr. Libby would have to apply for a pardon. There's an official form. Apparently there's a certain amout of time that has to elapse before he does that. More importantly, filling out the form basically admits guilt, something that he hasn't done to date. On the form there is a section where he would have to describe in detail his crime. I don't think he's ready to do that, especially if he's going to pursue an appeal.

I wish someone would point out to these fools harping on pardon, that Libby would be admitted guilt. Let's see how they feel about it then.

Good Lord, don't these people understand the concept of "backing up" files? Wouldn't someone have put these video files on a computer someplace in addition to DVDs? Rhetorical questions, all.

I know it was a previous post where Glenn discussed the origin of the V logo, but it was today's viewing that finally engaged my memory of where I'd seen it before. The old TV series (1983) called "V" about aliens slowly infiltrating Earth's society and taking over. The IMDB link to the first poster with the V logo is here http://imdb.com/title/tt0085106/

Just to add another dimension, here is the quick plot line from the IMDB website:

"When aliens come to Earth to ask for our help, a few suspicious humans discover their horrific true intentions and prepare to resist."

As I understand it, the military considers adultery to be a crime within their system, which is what Pace was referring to. I don't know how explicitly this is written in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but I do recall reading about members of the military being tried for or at least dismissed for this.

What's up with the front page charicature of Paglia on Salon? I can't remember ever seeing the writer of a column having his or her pic up front and center as if they are the important point of the piece. Usually it's the subject of the column or something that illustrates the content of the piece. Is this what Salon had to agree to in order to get Paglia back? If so, I don't think it's worth it to this reader. Will we be seeing her characature every month now? I hope Salon has a little more imagination that that.

Mark, the difference is the reason for the firings.

First, it's typical for a new incoming President to clean house in several areas of the administration. USAs have been cleaned out by several new administrations and the reasons are clear. They're starting a new administratin and want people of their choice in place. Clinton did it & Bush did it too when he began his admin.

In this situation, the Bush administration is targeting a few USAs because they reportedly haven't upheld the admins' dictates. The other huge difference is the Patriot Act piece which allows the admin to put new people in place without any congressional oversight. Notice also that the reasons for the firings given by the powers that be have changed multiple times during the questioning...always a red flag.

There's an article in the March 9, 2007 issue of the Journal of Higher Education on Timothy Naftali. This is the title & subheading..."A Scholarly Salesman Takes Over the Nixon Library: The new director must persuade researchers that the institution has moved beyond its controversial history"

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i27/27a01801.htm

There are actually several articles in that edition about Presidential libraries, including the controversy over President Bush's lib. And, they've included a complete list of all presidential libraries, location, dates established, affiliations. Interesting stuff.

So if the firings of the USAs is AOK with Gonzales, why did his chief of staff get fired? What did he do wrong if there is nothing wrong in this whole affair?

Does LW have any inkling whether Crush would accept an invitation? What if she says no thank you? Will this be a problem for LW?

If not, then I'd say go for it. After all, Crush is not LW's boss, nor do they even work for the same entity as I understand it. LW is part of a small non-profit housed within a county run building that Crush manages. If the relationship falters, things might be uncomfortable, but those are the risks one takes.

An example that I think worked well & the parties involved handled well: I used to work for a small private non-profit where the Director (the boss of everyone) began dating a "minion" employee. They kept it quiet (though there was still lots of gossip about it within the organization), but once they became serious the lower level employee quit her job at this non-profit & they became much more of a public item. They eventually married & have a lovely child together. He continues as director.

Miss Manners would tell us that a handwritten note on blank paper or your own stationary is the only way to go. Cards with preprinted sentiments are impersonal.

Of course, any kind of note card for this situation seems very improper & an invasion into the person's private life.

I for one would love to know his opinion, but I do admire his scruples.

Ahhaaa, Firefox. That's why it didn't work for me.

Someone asked for words they could use in place of the apparently irreplacable "tar baby." Here are a few for you:

Quagmire

Predicament

Dilemma

Quandary

Sticky situation

A fix

A jam

Difficult situation