Thanks, everyone, for your kind comments ... at a place where one must be brave enough to take all comers.

Do liberals of Krugman's ilk even hear themselves? I know he thinks Bush is a "fake hero," because he hates him with a blinding passion. But Krugman wedges W in there as almost an afterthought among his parade of "fake heroes" — " ... and even George W. Bush." Before that, Krugman calls Rudy Giuliani a "fake hero."

Now, Giuliani would be the first to reject the "hero" label, because he knows who the REAL heros are. He saw many of their dismembered bodies in the rubble of the WTC. He went to funerals for months on end. But what Giuliani did was of enormous value to the city of New York and the nation: He stayed calm in the face of enormous chaos and fear. And he acted as a leader — as did Bush.

Giuliani suffers in the measure of Krugman (as did Bush) for the same reasons. Both men were non-liberals (non-Democrats) who earned the admiration of the people. Krugman thought he'd be able to belittle Bush for the entirety of what he thought would be one quick term as a "pretender" who "stole" the election from Gore. Only now, of all days (but without comment), does Krugman feel the urge to scratch that long-neglected itch.

And with Giuliani, Krugman is settling and old score of the New York liberal elite. Krugman takes such a cheap shot at Giuliani because he was the REPUBLICAN mayor who — long before 9/11 — made New York City livable again, destroying the status quo of liberal governance of Gotham by the likes of David Dinkins. If Giuliani was remembered only for cleaning up the city, Krugman would still resent him — but with less vitriol. Because Giuliani ratified his wisdom and civic leadership — on a national scale in the wake of 9/11 — the man is simply due for this vicious slur that Krugman could no longer keep inside.

If Krugman thought this post would diminish Bush or Giuliani, he was (as usual) sadly mistaken. He only diminished himself.

That's what I find funny — or at least strange. Do liberals of Krugman's ilk even hear themselves? I know he thinks Bush is a "fake hero," because he hates him with a blinding passion. But Krugman wedges W in there as almost an afterthought among his parade of "fake heroes" — " ... and even George W. Bush." Before that, Krugman calls Rudy Giuliani a "fake hero."

Now, Giuliani would be the first to reject the "hero" label, because he knows who the REAL heros are. He saw many of their dismembered bodies in the rubble of the WTC. He went to funerals for months on end. But what Giuliani did was of enormous value to the city of New York and the nation: He stayed calm in the face of enormous chaos and fear. And he acted as a leader — as did Bush.

Giuliani suffers in the measure of Krugman (as did Bush) for the same reasons. Both men were non-liberals (non-Democrats) who earned the admiration of the people. Krugman thought he'd be able to belittle Bush for the entirety of what he thought would be one quick term as a "pretender" who "stole" the election from Gore. Only now, of all days (but without comment), does Krugman feel the urge to scratch that long-neglected itch.

And with Giuliani, Krugman is settling and old score of the New York liberal elite. Krugman takes such a cheap shot at Giuliani because he was the REPUBLICAN mayor who — long before 9/11 — made New York City livable again, destroying the status quo of liberal governance of Gotham by the likes of David Dinkins. If Giuliani was remembered only for cleaning up the city, Krugman would still resent him — but with less vitriol. Because Giuliani ratified his wisdom and civic leadership — on a national scale in the wake of 9/11 — the man is simply due for this vicious slur that Krugman could no longer keep inside.

If Krugman thought this post would diminish Bush or Giuliani, he was (as usual) sadly mistaken. He only diminished himself.

I presume the drugs Canadian pharmacies sell online to Americans are the same available for purchase by residents of The Great White North. Are Canadians flopping face first into the gutters of Moose Jaw after taking these medicines? If so, I've missed the reports.

It's a joke for the government to play this off as a safety issue. This is about control over the monopolistic health care regime in the United States — protecting regulatory power in Washington at the FDA, and the rent-seekers in the American pharmaceutical industry.

I also find it ironic that this "law and order" stance from Obama's Justice Department happens in the same week the president's Homeland Security department declares it will basically stop enforcing deportation of illegal immigrants it determines for itself are not a "threat" — i.e. just about every illegal in the country. Also: DOJ has not investigated drug ads on Google (or any other search engine) that come from any other country. Just Canada. Interesting.

Bottom line: The United States can't start putting up walls on the 'Net to regulate commerce (or speech) it decides it doesn't like and wants to "regulate" for our own good. A free country lets it all in, and lets the people — and markets — decide what is good and useful, and what is bad and harmful.

You're spot on, Leo. This review/breakdown is so good, I read it twice ... slowly.

I loved the first season. Then they decided to turn it into Moonlighting with more violence. Ugh.

If CNN wants a show that would get ratings, they'd make it "Coulter/Spitzer." That show would start crushing as Fox viewers wander over to see Coulter humiliate Spitzer nightly.

Howard lost a lot of his luster for me when he dispatched Jackie the Jokeman (Jackie Martling). I listened to him pretty regularly from 1990 to around 2002, but not much since.

Sheesh. I avoided watching "Undercovers" for the very non-racist reason that it was a retread of a show.

Right from the trailer I said to myself: "A TV version of Mr. and Mrs. Smith? No thanks."

The left was already unhinged before the election, and is becoming more so by the day. I stumbled across a liberal talk show host in the car this evening. His arguments were incoherent, for the most part. It was all anger all the time. And hippies kept calling in telling the host to stop getting upset at "ignorant" folks who "drive a truck" and don't know any better.

They were fooled by the Tea Party movement and haters (... but I repeat myself in the mouth of a liberal) to reject Obamaism and all the good his policies were starting to do in their lives. Don't concentrate on them, the callers said. They are hopeless. Go after "the rich," the "power brokers" of the GOP who run the country. They are worthy targets, and liberals need to rail against the "tax give-aways" the Republicans are poised to hand out.

In between gasping at the nastiness of the liberal host, I asked out loud (in all seriousness, which a liberal can't handle): Who's money is it? How much of one's labor is it legitimate to confiscate from a citizen of a "free society"? 25 percent? 50 percent? 80 percent? To liberals, of course, it ALL belongs to the government, or "the collective." And they will take as much as they say they need to bring about Utopia.

And if you complain, you're a hater. And if you're not rich and still think a man's labor -- and the rewards of that labor -- is primarily his own ... you're an idiot. The battle for the future of America as it was founded for us is far from over, folks.

Tough question. If the market was really working in cable, there'd be an inverse of the current ideological MSM presentation. If CNN was smart, they'd try to compete with Fox for mainstream America. Alas ...