I was one of Steve Glass' editors in college. Now they're making a movie about him, starring Anakin Skywalker.

The latest sign I am really, really old:

We come home from dinner a few weeks ago at around 11, and joke to our college-student babysitter that he's probably just heading out for the evening now.

His reply: "It's great that you still remember what it was like to be 21."

Ouch.

While I'm quite enjoying this blog thing, I am somewhat stunned at the arrogance of the mindset some bloggers have. Witness Mickey Kaus trying to make the argument that Woodward and Bernstein were the first bloggers.

Kaus admits that they weren't bloggers (hardly shocking since let's see, ARPANet was only a few years old). But he argues that

(the) Post's editor Ben Bradlee instinctively understood -- you keep the story going, with hit after little hit, which gets people talking, which panics sources into coming forward, which gets other papers into the hunt and ultimately brings much more information to light, even if this means you occasionally get something wrong

Kaus goes on to argue that this is also a virtue of blogging, and that Woodstein were paving the way for this new version of journalism. But he's getting the argument the wrong way around.

Journalism has long been viewed as "the first rough draft of history," as Bradlee put it. Competition from television has prompted newspapers to move back from the attitude of get it first, but if anything, the 9/11 attacks provided ample evidence that the attitude still prevails on TV.

News blogs (which are far from the only kind out there, I might add), are thus hearkening back to an older form of journalism, rather than paving the way to the a frontier. And if Kaus had any sense of history, he'd see that. The argument is reminiscent of the online auctioneers who think they invented the idea of a "Dutch auction" (hint: there's a reason it's called Dutch.)

OK, if you're ridiculously impatient like me, then this site is a godsend. I always want to read the spoilers, even if I fully intend to see the movie.

According to Time Magazine, the most important story of the week is "what it's like to be Tom Cruise."

Are you kidding me? I mean, I bow to no one in my love of all things pop culture, and I'm an ardent devotee of Time's sister publication Entertainment Weekly. But surely EW is the place for a Cruise cover?

It's not that there's something wrong with feature stories, but this one isn't even a particularly good feature. Cruise is hugely famous, and given the amount of information written about him, you'd have to come up with a pretty interesting new tidbit to warrant the front of a major national newsmagazine. Instead we get the exciting news that Tom Cruise loves his kids, and believes in Scientology and is a very efficient person. This is a cover story?

So I get a call at work from "so-and-so at The Wall Street Journal". My ears prick up. Maybe they're scouting me out for a job! They've seen my brilliant writing and want me to come work there, with fabulous benefits!

Sadly, no. They want me to buy a subscription. Oh, well, back to work.

Was Pat Buchanan Deep Throat? (I have to say there's a mental picture I never wanted to have.) Somehow, I doubt Buchanan could have kept quiet about it for that long. I've always plumped for Al Haig, despite Woodward's denial.

It's the 30th anniversary of the break-in, and I'm somewhat amused that most of the coverage seems to be focusing on "who was Deep Throat?" and "boy, that -gate suffix sure is useful," as opposed to, you know, "Gee, the president was a big, fat liar and had to resign."

Um, ew. Just ew, ew, ew.

If you're looking for proof that evil exists, I think I've got some right here. If this isn't a tool of the devil, I don't know what is.