Dick, dick, dick, dick, dick. There, does that about cover it?

[giggle] See, it is just that Glenn's posts (recent criticisms here notwithstadnding) are nearly always fact-intensive, heavily analytical, and he never employs scatological terms unless quoting another. And the comments section here is genreally as cerebral as the author's posts.

And yet, we just ARE talking about George Bush's dick, because we were all supposed to be impressed by George Bush's dick, and that is what was making Fred Hiatt swoon as well. It was George Bush's dick.

Thus, here we are at Salon, a bunch of intellectualoids, talking about dicks, and a WaPo editor's heavy-breathing over same.

Someone above asked about whether there isn't a lot "bad type" of gayitude creeping into the GOP. Not long ago James Wolcott wrote that he is now convinced that all Republican men are secretly, passionately, exceedingly gay. Or words to that effect. (Don't recall whether it was the Foley or Haggard episode that inspired him, but the evidence, it do mount daily.)

Anyway, "dicks" is an actual and legitimate political subject because, well, Karl Rove wanted us all to notice George Bush's member.

The whole thing -- including that it is an unavoidably fit topic for comment and analysis here -- strikes me as incredibly amusing.

Paul Dirks:

I was a little kid when the Big Three went from 15 minute to half hour nightly news programs. Thirty minutes allows only for serious coverage of grave matters, and not continuing drama about: bug-eyed runaway brides, missing white girls in Aruba, breathless waiting for the DNA tests telling us who is daddy to Anna Nicole's baby and who takes under her will & etc.

"News" is now everywhere on cable, 24/7, and must be entertaining to keep ratings. That is only part of the explanation, but it is a significant part. As libertarian as I am and allergic to such accusations, I'd almost call it a market failure.

Free markets in America have made us the best in virtually every aspect of medical innovation and care, including pharmaceutical discoveries. The problem is in the access to the modern miracles, not market failure. The state of modern medicine in the U.S. is the exact opposite of our news in terms of quality.

The reason the news sucks is because people want the crap the news stations and papers peddle. It isn't a real "failure" if success is defined at giving people what they want, but it is a failure if success is defined as giving them what they need to be good citizens.

Of course, this common-sense observation drives a stake through the heart of your beloved libertarianism. But those are the breaks.

No it doesn't. As revolting as I find the current state of the "news" to be, there is no cure that would not be worse by seriously impairing freedom, as Mr. Dirks noted. People do not always use their liberty in ways I like, but letting them do so beats paternalism and totalitarianism every time.

Moreover, the reality is that this kewl Internet thingie -- unregulated and free -- is becoming, and will continue to become, the corrective. Unless, of course, The Regulators put a stop to it.

Just as abolishing the FDA is the way to protect public health. Because it seriously impairs the freedom of those whose lives it saves.

Actually, the FDA has killed people. It does this by not permitting them -- even when they are terminally ill and have nothing to lose -- from using drugs or techniques not yet approved by Their Protectors. The FDA also is directly implicated in the prison-industrial system fueled by the War on (some) Drugs, and the corollary war on doctors who deal with patients in severe and intractable pain.

Odd how the "my body, my choice" mantra flies out the window for some leftists when one of their beloved regulatory agencies is at issue.

I really cannot respond to you criticism of my views, WT, because I didn't understand it. All I can say is your endorsement of social engineering is appalling to me, and the bedrock position of all elitists, including neoconservatives.

I despise what cable news has become, but I would not regulate it to give the masses the medicine they "ought" to have. They apparently like all that blather about runa-away-brides and Anna Nicole's will. And if they think Fox is actually giving them the "news" in any sort of intelligent and insightful way, well, I would not invoke government to "fix" that problem.

The cure for that is Glenn Greenwald et al., and the Internet. Again, unless and until The Regulators get at us "out here" too.

Ames: I do not oppose most of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Truth in labeling, meat inspection & etc are fine by me. What I object to is nanny-state prohibitions that disallow me from deciding what I will take into my own fucking body. As well as prosecutions of doctors who prescribe "too much" pain meds to the "wrong" people. It is none of the state's business to determine what risks I am willing to assume; it is the state's business to police fraud.

In general: No one designs markets. They just are, if allowed to be. I do not "worship" them, I appreciate what human beings generate when they are free to do so. Like, for instance, the quality of American medicine, it totally rocks. The problem is that delivery became tied to work benefits via historical fluke, and that has been a not good thing for a variety of reasons.