You know, I really don't appreciate being told that I have "an axe to grind," or being grouped with the "new agey magical thinking club" because I am suspicious of a giant drug company that is forcing a new drug on my child without being able to point to statistical, longitudinal studies supporting their assertions that their vaccine is safe. Particularly after the recent Vioxx debacle.

Had Enough: am I being unreasonable for being suspicious of an FDA under an Administration that refuses to disclose the deliberations of an "Energy Task Force" that almost certainly contained members of a company that has been convicted of criminal wrong-doing? An FDA under an Administration that has outlawed its overseas functionaries from even discussing birth control? An FDA under an Administration that has pressured its own scientists to refrain from even using the term "global warming?" An FDA under an Administration that is supportive of teaching "Intelligent Design" as an equal alternative to evolution in public schools? Is it unreasonable to think that this FDA might not be compromised in some way?

Is it unreasonable to think that the Texas legislature, after months of heavy lobbying by Merck, might themselves also not be compromised? Is it unreasonable to think that there are possible long-range consequences to a drug that has been on the market for such a short period of time? Is it unreasonable to believe that the possible consequences might equal or exceed the chances that my daughter might get the types of cervical cancer this drug might prevent? Is it unreasonable to think that I should be allowed a choice as to what to do with regard to my daughter's health, rather than having it forced on my family by the government?

Had Enough: Are you saying that I should trust Merck, that I should trust the the FDA under this Administration, that I should trust the Texas legislature under Governor Perry, and that I should blithely allow all choices to be taken away without protest? Is that what you are saying?

No, I don't want to go back to Measles, Mumps, and Whooping Cough. Or Smallpox. Or Polio. Hell, I had the Mumps. In my pancreas. But I also don't want to blindly trust the government, especially not this government. I remember the Swine Flu vaccine. I remember Thalidomide. Vioxx. Thimerosal, with its "harmless, trace levels" of mercury (a neurotoxin, for crying out loud!). This is a government that keeps redefining what a civil war is. What constitutes "wounded" in battle. Whose Vice-president trumpets our tremendous "successes" in Iraq as we sink into the morass. Forgive me if I'm suspicious of the FDA under such an Administration.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with being new-agey. This has nothing whatsoever to do with me being worried about whether giving my daughter a shot will encourage her to be promiscuous. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that homeopathic remedies are superior or inferior. Nope; this is about a knock on my door, a guy appearing with a needle and a smile and saying, "Hi! I'm from the Government! I'm here to help you!" Do I trust him? During the Bush years? Without a whole heck of a lot more proof?

You may have Had Enough, but when Merck--the makers of Vioxx and tireless lobbyists of federal and state legislators--comes out with a drug, and it's approved by the FDA under the Bush Administration--the folks who brough us Iraq, abstinence-only sex-ed, faith-based programs, relaxed arsenic controls for our water, and other insanities--and made mandatory by a Republican governor in a state where the antics of the legislature can no longer be chronicled by the late, lamented Molly Ivins . . . well, forgive me if I'm suspicious. You're durn right it's a health issue, and forgive me if I don't want my daughter involuntarily signed up to do a long-range drug study for Merck. She's dyslexic, dysgraphic, and has ADD; she has enough damn problems already. And frankly, I have had enough.

What else would one expect from Mr. Goldberg? He is the one, after all, who refuses to follow the logic of his hawkish tendencies, and declines to serve in the armed forces. He has protested that he is too old (he isn't) and has a family (so do many Guardsmen and Reservists), and when forced to face these facts, decided that he would no longer discuss the "chickenhawk" issue at all.

Like many right-wing pundits, Mr. Goldberg shows the classic bullying tendency: he can dish it out, but he can't take it. He will advocate to send others to a stupid and pointless war, but won't go himself. He will decry someone else's *perceived* bias, but refuse to acknowledge his own. He will berate someone for using too few sources, but then hang an entire line of argument on a single email. And so on.

The sad thing is, the entire right-wing echo chamber seems to be built on these precepts, and the supposed left-wing media lets them get away with it. Should we laugh, or cry?