Men's pride in their male appurtananaces is matched only by their mortification when they don't work as designed. I think the real issue behind banning Viagra ads lies in the shame-based affect that most men have about even thinking about erectile functions, dysfunctions, etc.

The ads are tasteless. So are most ads. If we're going to ban ads on the basis of aesthetics, most ads would be toast. If we are discussing banning it becuase young children should not be exposed to the horrific concept of male erectile dysfunction, then - we certainly have a lack of capacity to sutain discussions about sex without shame or embarassment. Time to get over it. And we perpetuate an apalling lack of candid discussion about sex, sexual activities and sexual awareness. I can guarantee that the 10-year old boy is going to - most likely - know about erectile function and dysfunction via trial and error by the time he is 13.

I use erectile enhancement drugs. I do so becuase I am a Type I diabetic, and these drugs radically alter my personal life. I'm tired of folks styling those drugs as "lifestyle drugs. Big Pharma notwithstanding, staggering and artifically inflated pricing in the US notwithstanding, the core reality is that the drugs address a core issue for many men.

I'm not suggesting that we sustain ads that illustrate 'before' and 'after" usage, nor am I defending the taste qantifier of the advertisers. That said, I'm not really interested in protecting Jimmy from the realities of sexual awareness if he is, indeed, old enough to ask the question. And for that matter, it doesn't hurt Janey to understand what goes on (or not) as well. A little empathy in the world might be a useful thing.

As for Congress, obviously the meltdown of the economy, the challenges of mopping up the Bush crud and the challenges of sustaining two wars in distant lands has left some legislators bored, listless and filled with a desire to really do good things with their spare time.

Darl'n Arlen was a Democratic DA for Philadelphia at the start of his career, and switched for electability reasons. I note that Republicans don't get elected in Philadelphia, which is why Fast Eddie ran as a Dem for Philly mayor. Both were very "centrist" dems, to say the least. Arlen switched to Republican to win regionally, and succeeded, thus clinching the upstate vote, which stands in radical contrast to Philly (or used to, before both Biden and Clinton claimed Scranton as their beloved home away from home.)

Upstate politics have been changing, Scranton and Wilkes Barre have an increasingly sophisticated "quality of life" affulent population moving in, now that New Jersey has been fully suburbanized. Some of that change is demonstrated by Fast Eddie's winning of the governor's manse; the political pundits thought his campaign would collapse fifteen miles outside of Philly. While he still won because of Philly and Pittsburgh, the returns were surprisingly not as bad as they could have been elsewhere......

I have no doubt that, if Toomey wins the Republican nomination, Specter will win, hands down. While his right wingnut beliefs will hold sway in some of the more rural areas, it will fail miseerably in Philly, Scranton, Wilkes Barre and, increasingly, the suburban areas. The only thing that might be a detriment, indeed, would be the popular Tommy Ridge coming back to life, having been pretty much a nonentity in the Bush admin.

Democrats will embrace Spector for expediency and votes; this is an arranged marriage at best, and it will be good for the last term that Specter's health will probably allow.

Where rock bottom is for LW is a matter of judgement and discretion.

First, difficult to tell, at this point, whether LW is an alcholic or someone who is chronically depressed, using alchohol as a form of self-medication.

There is the romantic myth of finding "rock bottom" - after the sirens, the departed wife, trashed job, DUI's, etc. And for some, that is true. A number of folks have already spoken to where their hingepoint was. Frankly, the "right time to stop" is when you decide to stop.

Like one other writer, I stopped when I recognized, with horror, that I might be becoming my alchoholic parents. that was enough. NO drama, no dramatic story, and in fact, my coworkers were surprised that I thought I had an issue.

There are some "lessons learned" worth throwing out there. One's body is habituated to a 90-day cycle, so the habit of drinking will have that cycle. The intuitive AA 90/90 (ninety meetings in ninety days) is an emperical response to creating a replacement pattern of behavior until one has succesfully modified....

Alchohol is, when consistently used, a depressant. If LW is naturally susceptable to depression, she may well find that the alchohol was contributing to some of that ennui. That said, it bears value to consider therapeutic intervention in the early stages.

And... habits are habits. LW may think about what she wants to replace drinking with. Reading, Peer support, art classes, exercise and fitness... whatever. LW needs to create a new regimen, even if it is half-hearted at first, and tune to it.

I'm personally not a great advocate of AA, but it is enormously successful for many. I find that 12-step groups provide rich peer support, but don't buy the histrionic overlay of salvationist language, frankly.