For all those wireheads out there, last night's Hitchcockian cameo by David Simon in the Sun newsroom, was actually not his first appearance in his own show...towards the end of the second season when Frank Sobatka gets taken out of his union hall after being arrested by the now Commissioner Valcheck, the horde of reporters waiting outside include Mr. Simon stretching over the hood of a car tape recorder in hand yelling questions at Frank as he's lead away....

In assessing the fifth and final season, I agree that it's the "weakest" only by comparison to the other 4 seasons, but only because they were so monumentally great, that there almost had to be some kind of come down, but nonetheless the show never ceased to be amazingly good television with stand-alone moments of chilling power that rival anything else the show has done (Michael saying good-bye to Dukie and Bug, him saying, "I don't" was probably the simplest, most heart-wrenching moment I think I've ever seen on TV) that only got stronger as the season progressed.

However, I have to disagree with the general flux of criticism about season 5, namely that the "newspaper" storyline was weak and simplistic and failed to capture the scope and depth of the show's other examinations of crumbling institutions. I find it interesting that so much of the criticism comes from lifelong newspapermen/journalists (Mark Bowden, David Plotz, Jeffery Goldberg, each with their own "baggage" as journalists to put it mildly, see Mr. Goldberg's pre-war statements about the moral vision of GWB.) While I don't have their insider perspective, from someone who merely consumes their product, Simon's "un-nuanced" attack seemed totally in line from where I stand. Namely that yuppie charlatans and corporate greed have just about ruined a functioning fourth estate. It seems some are more than content to jeer at the bureaucratic villains of the schools, city halls, and police departments of America, but apparently not in the newsroom.

In other news, Gov. Carcetti, I mean Spitzer is having some trouble keeping the devil way down in the hole...

I for one, would be far less likely to consider the labels "conservative" and "christian" synonymous with "ignorance", "rube", or "charlatan" if the people who self-describe as either one didn't spend so much time trying to ban the use of dildos.

I'm not sure why it's incumbent on me or anyone to provide reasonable, scholarly refutations of that which is manifestly idiotic, unreasonable, and unconstitutional. Contempt and mockery are the only reasonable reactions to bullshit like this, and the emotional babies and prudish hysterics that crawl out of the woodwork every time they suspect someone, somewhere might be having more fun than they are.

And to anyone who considers the "right" to buy and use a sex toy as a trifling or trivial matter unworthy of serious discussion, consider this: if you are not allowed to control your own body, then what other rights can you possibly have? If your body is subject to the state, then what meaning does any other right (speech, assembly, petition) have?

I suppose if you consider abortion or black people voting "hard" issues to figure out...but I don't, so I could care less what the rubes think about it. States rights be damned, as our founding fathers, like Alexander Hamilton, were fond of pointing out, tyranny is more likely to occur on the local level, largely because passions and prejudices are unchecked (see American South, c. early 20th century)

This, like probably a thousand other reasons is why I oppose local control of just about anything (especially so on matters of taste) and am generally glad we have a strong federal government, as a check on the various compound-dwellers--sorry, Pauliacs--eager for a return to the dark ages.

So basically Bucky, you have me dead to rights: I have no problem letting "coastal elites" decide social policy for the rest of America, because the alternative is creationism in biology class, the "The Handmaiden's Tale" in sex-ed, and a variety of other "community-based" standards not fit for North Korea, let alone America.

from the original post: " but my mind balks at the Paulamania when you consider his platform of restoring the constitution and government to its Gilded Age size and scope sans any regulation or function beyond a military seems, to me at least, like it would only make the problem worse."

How about his odious invocation of "state's rights" on every issue from abortion to civil rights?

How about his asinine cloying about returning "returning to the original intent of the Constitution" which is the coverall for every anti-modern lunatic in America. Especially considering that 19 of the current Amendments didn't even exist back then.

I could go on, but in all fairness I do like his positions on ending all of the metaphorical "wars" (drugs, terrorism, etc.) that we're currently waging--and losing--but, the orginal point of the post was to poke fun at the fandom and certifiable mania that has sprung up around the good doctor, a point I think rather nicely underscored in the ensuing comments.

What bothers me about Ron Paul in general and his supporters specifically is their constant harping on the fact that anyone who isn't in their camp is hopelessly naive and deluded--something I'm sure is firmly based in the reality of most voters in America--yet why not turn those high powers of perception inward? Or does the tax-free, no-welfare utopia promised by the ronvolution where each and every individual free from government interference, would always act in rational self-interest not warrant the same level of skepticism reserved for those other evil-doers in Washington?

Did I mention he's a gynecologist? Would you send your daughter for a check-up?