There are many of both the left and right who nearly insist that sin is rooted in ideology, but the foundation for it is always the same: greed, temptation, pride, envy, jealousy, arrogance, etc. Such knows no political leanings. One of the reasons I found the title of Hugh Hewitt's book "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat" so maddening was the implication that one party or the other is composed of a greater degree of moral, honest people. As a watcher of politics for about 40 years, I have seen no correlation between party or ideology and personal rectitude. However, because each side tends to believe passionately in its cause, it is easy to fall into a smugness trap that one's cause is the bottom line, when instead it is always God's providence that is over all and in all.

Perhaps one of the reasons that I felt so compelled to defend Bill Clinton is that much of the criticism against him appeared arrogantly tied to the idea that rightousness finds a home in a political party rather than in covenant relationship established by God's grace. Some felt that I gloated over Rush Limbaugh's predicament of some time back, when in essence I was just pointing out that all of us face peril when we throw stones from glass houses.

As a 19-year-old, I foolishly believed that Democrats' overhelming victory in 1974 in the wake of Watergate would enevitably lead to cleaner politics. But many politicans of both parties remained convinced that either the rules didn't apply to them or that they wouldn't get caught. Thus, just a few years later, several Democrats became caught up in Abscam -- many of them the same folks who had condemned Nixon for his dishonesty. This doesn't leave me as a complete cynic, just as a believer that ultimate transformation comes through Christ.

Agreed. Ben was/is one of the guys I looked up to when I was first creating the concept of my blog. I didn't agree with any more than 2% of what he wrote, but that did not stop me from admiring the guy for his abilities, particularly his prose.

He'll be back. I'm sure of it. And when he comes back, all those of my fellow left-of-center bloggers who went into rabid-attack-mode will find themselves looking down the barrel of a very big gun.

I'll go and be less concise on my own little soapblox.

He's really just lucky that this all came out right now. At 24 (younger than me!), he's got plenty of time to go underground and make a comeback. If this had happened at 34, or 44, we'd be looking at a ruined career.

In any case, his opponents will always be able to point out how even after he resigned he was still snotty about what he'd done and even managed to lie about the P.J. O'Rourke material while sort-of apologizing for the rest of his trespasses.

The fact that he finally came out and appeared to genuinely apologize yesterday evening may well be (and in my opinion, probably ought to be) forgotten in the future. I sympathize only because I can't imagine what it would be like to be my age and know that your career is shafted for a very, very long time - even if it was something that was obviously wrong and that was obviously your own fault.

Poignant? Creepy better describes Krempasky's column. His buddy gets caught stealing and Krempasky gets mist-eyed over Domenech's downfall because he's "a man of principle" who's "passionate in his [conservative] beliefs." Unable to leave it at that, he had to unleash his rage at the, "irredeemable...lowest of the low...loathesome, vile, and disgusting" liberals who exposed his friend. Typical.

Stephen Glass is the left's Ben Domenech. Fabrication and Plaigirism are the two capital offenses in journalism. Both are a form of fraud. Josh, while anyone involved in journalism has "been guilty of sloppy writing," there is a difference between writing sloppily and ripping off someone's work. Honestly, I'm surprised he wasn't caught earlier.

I was always impressed by Ben Domenech's work. I can't be impressed anymore -- what can I believe? Worse yet is his cavalier attitude in response to the legitimate questions. He blames the Left (sure, the creepier elements of the Left gloated, and sure the Left dug for much of this), but the crime against Ben's ideals and Ben's movements was committed by Ben himself. He blames an editor at William and Mary. He blames the Washington Post (who hired him!).

Again, Ben should think about what he did. He lied to readers who thought that those thoughts were Ben's original thoughts. He stole the glory from the original writers. He pushed ahead of young writers who had similar aspirations. He undermined the credibility of the Right.

Stephen Glass blamed others for putting such intense pressure on him to succeed. He blamed his editors for questioning him on his sources. His crimes tainted some of his supporters, including Michael Kelly.

Domenech initially blamed others until he had no other choice but to admit what he had done. His crimes have tainted everyone who ever supported him. And he doesn't realize the fullness of his crime. Conservatives should not be an apologist for Domenech. Let him fade away, let him rebuild his life, and if he is to return it will only be because of his sweat.

I'll second T.J.: I don't think knowingly plagiarizing (which is what Domenech eventually admitted to) is "sloppy writing."

Everyone, to be sure, has written sloppily at one point or another. Not everyone has knowingly attributed others' work to themselves.

Re-reading this post I see that it could rightfully be interpreted as me saying Ben's mistakes were "sloppy writing." I did not intend to suggest that.

I didn't think you did the first time I read it, either; it wasn't until I read T.J.'s comment that I realized that I might have misinterpreted it myself. Fair enough. :)

Re-reading it, I see what you're saying. Constant sloppiness leads you down a road you don't want to travel.

Just got around to reviewing the evidence. It would appear that Domenech was in the habit of cribbing passages written by others to "beef up" his entertainment reviews. What a shame that this will besmirch the rest of his writing.

The most recent example appears to be over four and a half years old. Hopefully he can rebuild his reputation. The fact that his misdeeds are already several years old and occurred when he was in college and just starting his career, and that they're not in the area where I presume he intends to do most of his writing, should help him.