Letterman had pseudo-psychiatrist Dr. Phil on his show last night, and the world is better for it. It has been a long time since I laughed that hard. Letterman has lampooned Dr. Phil's television show virtually every night for the last six months in his "Words from Dr. Phil" show, giving little snippets taken completely out of context, in which he generally makes Dr. Phil look like an idiotic country bumpkin.

I admire Dr. Phil for having the gumption to appear on the show after all of that abuse, but he proved that he can dish it out as well as he can take it. Letterman tried to get him to admit that most of the people on his show are just bozos who need little more than a swift kick in the pants, but Dr. Phil had a good answer for every barb. I enjoyed it.

Two men who know how to laugh at themselves: it was glorious.

Interestingly, part of Dr. Phil's advice mirrors one of my own little nuggets of philosophy: You only get one trip through life. If you aren't having a good time, you ought to go do something else.

Without any fanfare or public outrage of any kind, as far as I can tell, the FCC is set to enact some rule changes that will significantly alter the configuration of the nation's media outlets.

Today, a newspaper is not allowed to own a radio or television station within the market area it serves. That rule is scheduled to go out the window.

Further, today, a network is not allowed to own radio or television stations that serve more than 35% of the population of the country. That rule is also scheduled to be tossed out.

There are several things about these actions that I do not understand. First, I do not understand why the FCC would even consider making changes like this. Where is the benefit? It seems intuitively obvious to me that it is unconditionally a Bad Thing to have a single company serving news and content to more than a third of the nation. Besides corporate pandering, what is the point?

Second, where is the outrage? I'm guessing these rule changes will slip right by, under the guise of "deregulation is the universal good", but the fact is that most deregulation benefits corporate executive boards much more than it benefits middle America.

The first amendment ensures that the government cannot interfere with a free press, but there are no constitutional protections against corporate interference with a free press. To me, that single statement is a compelling argument for the continuted regulation of the media markets by the FCC.

Are they asking me to believe that corporate America has my best interest at heart? Haven't Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, and Martha Stewart all provided thorough and complete counter-examples against that claim?