The most popular story on WSJ.com today has been their semi-exclusive about Joe Lieberman saying he's never going to vote for a health care bill with the public option. If you heard about Lieberman making news on health care today and went to Google "lieberman public option," you'd get these results. The shaded red boxes are the News Corp. properties: WSJ.com and Foxnews.com. Those would disappear, but there would be no shortage of results showing you what Lieberman told the WSJ in the top results.

But let's say you were really motivated to find the specific Wall Street Journal story about Joe Lieberman derailing health care and you searched "lieberman public option" and "wall street journal." That would currently bring up the story in question, as well as the Fox News result and an old WSJ blog post. But it would also bring up plenty of other sites that can tell you what was in the WSJ story. Those all likely will also provide a link to the WSJ story, but if they put up the pay wall Murdoch has promised, why would you bother to click through?

Lastly, here's a search for "lieberman public option" and "wall street journal," but with results from WSJ.com and FoxNews.com filtered out—in other words, what Google would return if they weren't allowed to index News Corp. pages.

All but the top two results — irrelevant HuffPo stories — show you exactly what Lieberman said in the Wall Street Journal. And would conceivably show you a link to the WSJ. So, no big loss.

For months, Culligan has been digging into the mystery of why Maggie Williams, a longtime Clinton staffer who served as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager and now works for her as a Secretary of State recruiter, used Clinton's taxpayer-funded office to receive correspondence about stock options she received from Delta Financial, a subprime lender.

It's the most obscure imaginable charge. What, does Culligan think Clinton ripped off taxpayers by having a government-paid clerk drop the letter off at Williams's desk? It's hardly a scandal compared to the $1 million-a-year bill the government has paid since 2001 to fund Clinton's post-presidential operation.

It would have been a simple thing for the Clinton camp to brush off the charge as irrelevant. But the move to reclaim Clinton's domain names suggests that the charge has stung nonetheless. What is it about Williams's mailing address that has Clinton's lawyers so worried now — as opposed to any point in the past decade, during which time Culligan pointed presidentbillclinton.com, williamjclinton.com, and williamclinton.com as a gag to the Republican National Committee's website?

(Photo by AP)

A note from Karl Taro Greenfeld:

I wrote all the articles. that story was actually written for Details but they killed it and then I sold it through my friend Chris Seymour to Tokyo Journal—I had once been the editor their and so there were numerous reasons why I didn't want to use my own name. Wired saw the story in Tokyo Journal and called Chris who told them to call me. Kevin Kelly, the wired managing editor at the time bougth the story from me and understood the whole situation. Even weirder, The Face ran a version that had both my name and Chris' name on it.

Summary of what happened, as far as we can tell: Greenfeld wrote the piece for Details. It was killed. He sold it to the Tokyo Journal (which he used to edit), which ran it under a different byline. Wired saw the story, liked it, bought it, and ran it under Greenfeld's byline, knowing the entire backstory. The different names given to the hackers in the LAT Magazine piece and the Wired piece hasn't been fully explained. So while we originally wondered if this was a plagiarism issue, it turns out to just be a case of a writer reselling his own work.

By Christopher Seymour, Tokyo Journal:

By Karl Taro Greenfeld, Wired:

Karl Taro Greenfeld's description of a hacker named "Kojack" in Wired:

Karl Taro Greenfeld's description of a hacker named "Snix" in the LA Times Magazine:

• Freetards. Fake Steve has no love for Linux acolytes. And Daniel Lyons may be the only writer Linux acolytes hate more than Fake Steve. Now the objects of their wrath are revealed to be one and the same.
• Microtards. First Lyons does the sober interview with Steve Ballmer, and then, as Fake Steve, tells us what the Microsoft CEO is really thinking.
• Blogtards. Fake Steve has it out for bloggers like Robert Scoble and, um, yours truly and my boss. Lyons is the author of the much-maligned Forbes cover story "Attack of the Blogs!" Of course, now we know that Lyons is a blogtard himself — twice over. Welcome to the tardosphere, Dan-o.