paul and Mona are discussing the nature of the FDA and its utility.

One element of the FDA role is common in many government organizations, one that makes it quite difficult to retain both libertarian principles and an capitalist economy. The government serves as a trusted third party in many different situations--in this case, in certifying that drugs are safe and effective. Likewise government agencies serve as trusted third parties in stock market regulation, in defining real estate ownership, in maintaining a reliable currency, and in many, many other roles.

I get very tired of libertarians who talk about minimal states who also believe in capitalism. You can't have capitalism without a large, intrusive state apparatus. You can't even have real property without a large, intrusive state that is the ultimate owner of all such property, and has obtained that property through coercion.

The FDA exists because of market failure--drug manufacturers can not be trusted to accurate assess drug safety and efficacy. The trusted third party element is being undermined, as funding is shifting from general revenues to user fees assessed on drug manufacturers.

I don't agree that the "government" has no business "saving" you against your will. That would depend on you being alert, oriented, and informed. Otherwise, the emergency medical system in this country does not accept your consent or rejection of medical procedure.

That is as it should be. If you think the market and private enterprise will swoop down on a diabetic in insulin shock, miraculously battle their hypoglycemic combativeness and get them the glucose they need, rather than just let them run aground and die, you are living in a very strange bubble.

On a lighter note, how could you possibly sort of like Tang?

And the great autobahns were built by the Third Reich. That doesn't mean that's the way you want to do it in the future.

http://ihatecharlesbird.blogspot.com/

Mona, the term social engineering was chosen deliberately. When we agree, in any political context, to impose restraints on the obstreporous or anti-social, we are in fact engaging in social engineering. We do this in many cases for the safety of those who aren't equipped for competitive struggle with their neighbors, but who are of value despite their weakness.

Consider the little old lady living in a neighborhood taken over by gangs of young men. Consider the blue-collar worker cheated out of his contributions to the company health insurance plan when he develops a terminal illness, or a disability which prevents him from working. Fuck them if they can't protect themselves; is that the idea?

Frankly, I don't care what you do with your own body, but it isn't, nor should it be, the principal concern of anyone who considers the greatest good for the greatest number.

So please, consider the intent behind what may be properly referred to as social engineering, and avoid the knee-jerk libertarian aversion to collective actions which -- despite their potential for abuse -- are sometimes the only defense an individual has against the predations of those who have more power.

Could someone identify any specific views that Keith Olbermann has that demonstrates he is a "liberal" in the sense that it's meant (i.e., in the left-wing Democratic Party sense, rather than the classical 18th Century sense Paul Rosenberg described earlier)? I'm not saying he has none, but I honestly don't know of any.

--GlennGreenwald

I think people call Olbermann a "liberal" because a disproportionate amount of his criticism falls upon Republicans and those who carry their water. Which begs the question "Is Olbermann fair?' I think so, conservatives do not.

Yeah, that's a hoot, Charles. The pundit roundtable on Fox just can't be questioned as biased because...it's the "pundit roundtable

The point, which apparently went clear past you, is that the pundit roundtable is biased. That's why I phrased it that way. Hume has 20-minute, once-a-week appearances on FNS, and then hour-long, four-day appearances on Special Report, yet Glenn is apparently offended that Hume is called a journalist because Hume spends a fraction of his time as a commentator. Glenn also conveniently omits that Hume was a longtime journalist with ABC News before his stint at Fox. Olbermann's time before MSNBC was reading sport highlights.

I give little credence to Kurtz because he is of the same mind set as politicians/doctors/lawyers. They don't criticise their own. Why should I say to myself: this is Hume reporting the news and that is Hume fuming at Bush's opponents. What I see is that Hume's pro-Bush stance informs his attitude both during the news and when in opinion mode. Olbermann's disgust with Bush over the Iraq war influences his critiques. What I don't bother with is Kurtz's two cents worth.

With the access to news and commentary available in a wide range of blogs I go to WashPost and NYT early in the afternoon, not before. I do check in the NRO just to see how far they go to the right of old Buckley. When I want a chuckle I look for Fred Barnes. (One has to be aware of the gems that come out of the right side of the mouth).

But it sounds like the typical crap we've all seen from the Free Enterprise Institute or whatever euphemism Big Pharma is using.

And btw, it is not at all obvious that the FDA saves more lives than it takes, as has been written about extensively. (I'm too lazy to go gather links right now, but that is true.)

Perhaps you know we can easily debunk them. Protecting people from qauckery is more likely to save them than kill them. Tell us, Mona. How many people died because they thought Laetrile would cure cancer.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

Could someone identify any specific views that Keith Olbermann has that demonstrates he is a "liberal" in the sense that it's meant (i.e., in the left-wing Democratic Party sense, rather than the classical 18th Century sense Paul Rosenberg described earlier)? I'm not saying he has none, but I honestly don't know of any.

There's this in the KO wiki:

Although it began as a traditional, apolitical newscast, Countdown With Keith Olbermann has gradually adopted an opinion-oriented format. Overt and occasionally scathing criticism of prominent Republicans and self-identified conservatives (especially the Bush Administration and commentators like Bill O'Reilly, whom Olbermann routinely dubs the “Worst Person In The World”) has become more and more common on the show.[8]

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has written that Olbermann is “position[ing] his program as an increasingly liberal alternative to The O'Reilly Factor.”[9] This has led the right-wing media watchdog group Media Research Center (MRC) to accuse Olbermann of “liberal bias.”[10][11] The MRC compiled a list of the recipients of Olbermann's “World's Worst” description and reported that, of the approximately 600 recipients, 174 (29%) of those fit their definition of “conservative” people or ideas while only 23 (4%) were what they considered “liberal.”[12]

In an interview with Al Franken, Olbermann noted that in 2003, after having Janeane Garofalo and Franken on his show, the Vice President of NBC had questioned him on inviting “liberals” on consecutive nights. [13]

Keith Olbermann has responded to accusations of bias by saying, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American."[14]

This is yet another illustration of a long running theme of yours regarding opposition to authoritarianism as "liberal" position. However, you can be sure that Hugh Hewitt will not show up on FireDogLake anytime soon, while Olbermann has made appearances there.

It's similar, I think, to Froomkin. Or, FTM, Jon Stewart. I expect both of them to criticize and make fun of a democratic president (I bet they're hoping for Clinton.) So this comes back to what we mean by these definitions. Bush supporters are down to just the theocons and the neocons. Are these the "real" conservatives, and everyone else is "liberal?"

But I do suspect that Olbermann is pro-choice, supports women's rights, opposes censorship in public libraries, wants to teach evolution in science classes and holds other views that I see as upholding American values, and also simply rational, but are seen by the theocon right as secular liberalism, while his opposition to the war puts him on the neocon hit list.