Over the last half century the television interview has given us some of TV's most heart-stopping and memorable moments. On the surface it is a simple format - two people sitting across from one another having a conversation. But underneath it is often a power struggle - a battle for the psychological advantage.

The classic rule of thumb is that if you are an intellectual ideological magazine you do better in opposition than you do if your views are reflected by people in power.

The pace of technological change in recent years has been both impressive and positive for consumers.

In the case of Iraq notwithstanding the violence there at the moment the very fact that a hideous regime - responsible for genocide for the use of chemical and biological weapons aggression against two neighbors - has been removed in itself is a positive development.

There's a weird cloud around you when you're recognizable. It was a brief window for me. I think you have to have a pathological need for attention of any type negative or positive to thrive in that kind of situation. And I only want compliments.

I'm not deeply ideologically driven. I believe in good center-right politics.

Lapped in poetry wrapped in the picturesque armed with logical sentences and inalienable words.

Besides the actual reading in class of many poems I would suggest you do two things: first while teaching everything you can and keeping free of it teach that poetry is a mode of discourse that differs from logical exposition.

Serious poetry deals with the fundamental conflicts that cannot be logically resolved: we can state the conflicts rationally but reason does not relieve us of them.

The poetry of this one is called philosophical of that one philological of a third rhetorical and so on. Which is then the poetic poetry?