Just curious -- is there a "little pharma?"

Look, drug companies are primarily interested in money. They're secondarily interested in helping people get better (conspiracy theories aside). In a perfect world, would that order be flipped? Sure. But given that most industries are interested ONLY in making money...I'm willing to cut pharmaceutical companies some slack.

More importantly, I'm willing to make my own health decisions in consultation with my doctor, and choose what's right for me from the available options. (I'd prefer, of course, that the available options be as broad as possible.)

I guess I just don't see what's so bad about Pfizer offering a product that they think will alleviate pain -- even if they get rich in the process.

Actually, that's the only part of this where I'm willing to give Letterman a pass. Regardless of which child it was, it was a crass, cruel joke. But the whole "and she's a minor!" thing -- I don't know.

I've followed Palin for a while, but other than the knocked-up one and the baby, I can't say that I know anything about her kids or their ages. I can imagine Letterman's writers just not thinking it through, or forgetting about the other kids, or whatever. Sure, some news reports have mentioned specifically that it was Willow that was in town -- but if you hadn't just told me, I'd have assumed Willow was the oldest one. (Is that Bristol? Talladega? Daytona? Something like that?)

To be frank, if it hadn't been for this Letterman thing, I wouldn't have even known Palin was in New York at all -- kids or not. So if Letterman says that he screwed that up...alright, I'll believe him.

But he still shouldn't have said it.

I really can't stand this type of agitprop "documentary." They're always so jam-packed with bullshit and false "facts"...it really gets on my nerves for some reason -- even where (as here), I generally agree with the basic premise. The fawning article about the movie is unfortunately no better.

1. First, the movie is not one-sided because the food companies refused to talk. It's one-sided because it was always meant to be one-sided. I'm sure the food companies knew that any interview would be edited to make them look scary and dumb -- and didn't want to play patsy to it. However else you feel about this film, it's baloney to say that their refusal to participate CAUSED it to be one-sided.

The director goes out of his way to claim that he tried to present the food companies' side and make a balanced picture -- but golly gee those big ol' food companies just wouldn't talk to him so he had to make an agitprop one instead. Come on, we're not idiots -- we know he's trying to push an agenda, and that the food companies knew it as well as he did. And, look, it's fine to push an agenda. But don't pretend like you were forced into doing it, or claim that you wouldn't have done it if only the other side had agreed to a series of town hall meetings...oh, wait, that's something else.

2. Monsanto doesn't have a "monopoly" over corn or soybeans. It has a patent over the particular strains of seeds it invented. If you want to use other corn or soybean seeds, you can. If you want to use the seeds they invented, you pay them for them. Even at the higher prices, a lot of farmers prefer the better seeds. So what? The movie makes a lot out of this -- but what the hell is wrong with better seeds?

3. Comparing cheap food to tobacco is...not exactly apt. Good first step to getting it regulated by the government, though (which I'm sure is the point).

Look, I'm all for having a choice of organic or non-organic food -- I like organic food, and want there to be more of it. But this "rally government to pass a law, break up the big bad corporations, and free the cows" bullshit really turns me off. Or, to put it another way, any "movie the ________ doesn't want you to see" is virtually guaranteed to be organic, all-natural, e. coli-free bullshit.

I don't get how this is much of a story, frankly. Oh, sure, this guy's a racist idiot and an utter tool. But...he's also a complete nobody. He's a Republican, sure, but so are millions of others. And he had some very small co-chair role in his county in South Carolina for a minor candidate who never made it past the primaries.

Don't forget, John Wayne Gacy was once photographed with Rosalynn Carter because of his service in the Democratic Party. We'd like to think that every psycho, racist, and tool gets filtered out before they can associate their name with our political parties -- but it's not likely. At that level of politics, the primary requirement is "willingness to help" rather than sanity, political smarts, or basic human decency.

This story strikes me as...what's the term? Nut mining? Something like that? Where you look around for the craziest, nuttiest statement from anyone holding your opponent's general views, and then say "See! That's what they think!"

So this jackass is disgusting...but he's just some random jackass. The world's full of random jackasses. It's not a story.

We were on a break!