which is ironical because he is giant sockpuppet!

ondolette is right! CONDOMS WERE BIG IN COLONIAL AMERICA! VERY BIG!

http://threerivershms.com/bundlingartcontents.htm

The role of the press is something nobody should take lightly. They are one of the few safeguards against a society of propaganda and ignorance. It's a shame when somebody like Tucker Carlson gets into a position where he's speaking on behalf of journalistic standards.

I had to crack up when the conversation turned to condoms... My new housemate does AIDS (and meth and antibiotic-resistant staph &c) outreach at gay clubs. He trundled off tonight with a LARGE shopping bag full of condoms. Rather shocking when it falls over and spills in the local Denny's, if you recognize what they are.

@LWM You are a treasure trove of new and interesting information and sources. I don't belive you are a sock puppet of William Timberman, although I'm developing a theory that somewhere near Sedona there is a hybrid peyote, a cross of the local and that introduced by space aliens, which he's been imbibing periodically, yielding bebop-o and GoodCelery!.

Personally, I'm stuck on Camel Wides and cheap vodka. Never liked whiskey... (Armangac on the other hand...)

I find it interesting that one of the common Salon ads is "We're Listening!"

The role of journalism is to question people with power. Challenge them. When they stop doing that they are not a legitimate press. Frankly, this election has shown us that some of the so called A list blogs, have succumbed to being embedded journalists to various camps.

Salon, thanks for not falling victim to the heinous vitriol of partisanship. I credit you Mr. Greenwald, other writers and Joan Walsh for keeping us honest.

That would be like you to refuse to read the links and see what I am trying to explain to you. Stubborn.

How dare I criticize and not go back to school? Contraceptives have been around for ages, and enlightenment era colonists weren't dufuses. Duh. It's a goof. Respected guys with lots of credentials, tons of books, gazillions of peer reviewed papers goof sometimes.

I once did a whole semester project on a single painting by Shih T'ao. The Art historians, not a small number of them, either, were all Ph.D.'s with lots of credentials, and I was reading their books, which means they were respected, and our Asian Art department, not to mention the one down at the oh so respectable Smith College, had shelves lined with their books.

The books went on for pages about the fabulous use of dry brush stroke, the bold literati painting style, and on, and on. I struggled the whole semester to find a print of the painting itself. After all, if it was such a significant piece and Shih T'ao was such a significant artist, it must be quite something, and I wanted a xerox in my paper. When I finally found the print in the BPL, it was by working backwards as these guys quoted and cited, and cited and quoted -- each other. It was in an 1896 book. NO BOOK HAD PUBLISHED A REPRODUCTION OF THIS PAINTING FOR 80 YEARS. Guess what? I had to rewrite the whole paper, this time about the problems with Art History as a discipline. The problem? NO DRY BRUSH IN THE PAINTING. Oops.

I know about Griswold, it's very famous. And I know what the guy was trying to say. I just don't agree. Because I don't agree that the founding fathers were ignorant about contraceptives. I don't think that means I need to report for re-education.

Personally, I would follow Scott Horton's torture theories on the Founding Fathers and privacy. He asserts that they felt the ban on torture was so fundamental and obvious they didn't need to talk about it. So they didn't. Not a really vetted theory, but it feels okay to me. And it doesn't assume the stupidity of dead people.

Is there any subject more devoid of intellectual substance than the discussion of whether the media is teh biased?

Adversarial or coy doesn't make much difference unless you're saying something substantive. The Obama aide didn't lose her spot because of the substance of her charge (that the Clintons are any-weapon-to-hand opportunists -- a statement that certainly isn't out of bounds and may well be 100% true) but because she uttered a single badly chosen word: monster.

Glen, I'm all for calling Carlson a piece of shit. He is. Obviously. And while I'm sure the monster quote is technically fair game, it does strike me as adding nothing to the conversation beyond sensationalism. Which makes it kindof sad and empty. Would we really be less informed in a meaningful way if we only knew the substance of the 'monster' quote without the flame bait? Especially when she tried, almost immediately, to take it back?

Seems sleazy. Fair, but awfully sleazy.

Whatever it was, at least Tucker Carlson didn't unintentionally reveal anything about it -- unlike Hester Prynne.

Looks like we've all contracted a bad case of the Saturday Night OT's. Or is that DT's, DCLaw1? Anyway, thanks all. Even if we all hate ourselves in the morning, I've enjoyed every word of it. A thought for all of you shoveling snow to the east of me -- More antifreeze!

And so to bed.

That would be like you to refuse to read the links and see what I am trying to explain to you. Stubborn.

If you wish to believe that condoms were widely used and available in each one of the 13 vastly different American colonies I can't disabuse you of the notion. All the man is saying is that most Connecticuttians wouldn't have been familiar with them, relying instead on other methods of contraception, but would have had no problem banning them. If anyone is being the historical revisionist here, I'd have to say it was you.

I have noticed that online journalists in America have begun to distort many things when it suits their purpose. Recent examples: Hillary Clinton's tears on both occasions were portrayed as deliberate acts to gain sympathy rather than spur-of-the-moment reactions to comforting statements by well wishers--much ado about nothing. Also, the taking of Bill Clinton's remarks out of context about the South Carolina primary and deliberately distorting it to imply a racial motive planned out and executed for the sake of winning rather than giving the ex-president the benefit of the doubt that he might be a typical spouse protecting his family member. Jonathan Chait's inflammatory depiction of Hillary as a maniacal politician out to destroy the Democratic Party is another egregious case in point. Such instances show the low standards of American journalism. The media are becoming the harpies of cyberspace and have no right to look down their noses at anyone, much less the British reporter.