Now, I enjoy a good, solid, well-written story about a celebrity's penis as much as anyone. Who doesn't? But I have to say, I was more than just a little bit startled when I was shown this blurb from the gossip section in today's New York Post. The headline: "Nude Jude Not A Huge Issue":
(Note: That really was the headline. Seriously.)

HEY, Jude — keep it in your pants!

That was the surprise reaction of unimpressed female media types who got a sneak peek at full-frontal nude shots of Jude Law that are being shopped to the tabloids.

In snapshots that recall George Costanza's infamous "shrinkage" episode on "Seinfeld," the love-rat actor's meager manhood is on full display as he changes into a swimsuit outside his mother Maggie Law's house in Vaudelnay, France.

"He's no Tommy Lee, that's for sure," sighed one unimpressed publicist who viewed copies of the paparazzi pix obtained by PAGE SIX.

Alright, I have to admit, I laughed out loud when I read this. For like a minute straight. I also shared the link with everyone I could get a hold of. It was that special to me.

But I came to my senses after a while, and I thought, You know, this kind of stuff has no business being in a newspaper, a source that offers reports and commentary on serious matters like war and politics. In Us Weekly, yes. The National Enquirer, sure. Dan Kim's blog, absolutely. But not a newspaper, even if it is the New York Post. It's impossible to take a report on Iraq seriously if you turn the page and see a column making fun of Jude Law's penis size. It doesn't work, and it might even serve to trivialize the real news items in the paper.

If you can imagine: "A car bomb exploded near a bus station in Baghdad today, killing 5 people and wounding 6 others. . . . . and in other news, actor Jude Law is hung like a door knob! Eww!"

I'll pass.