Breezes
Bravo for the beer bust by state ALE. Don't mess with beer drinkers, bar owners. But Bud Light, Busch Light, Coors Light? I didn't know there was any difference.
Thanks, Leonard Pitts, for today's thoughtful column : One idiot who calls himself a conservative means all conservatives are stupid. Another blow against bigotry.
Money discriminates against the blind, a federal appeals court rules. I thought it discriminated against everyone who doesn't have it.
The candidates' spouses are targets this year. Kathleen Parker writes not so favorably about Michelle Obama today (Charles Davenport will take his shots Sunday). Cindy McCain draws criticism, too. I guess the only one who gets a free pass is Bill Clinton.
Every time I see a headline like this, I have to remind myself: Oh, yeah, my kids aren't teenagers anymore. Thank God.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Kinda like these left wing papers that hailed Nancy's common sense plan for lowering gas prices. Can not seem to find a liberal media outlet that can answer this. Your turn! You left out Pitts is liberal, that has ignored this. Like most liberal media, he praised it before the election, and is quite as a church mouse after the election.
Posted on May 23, 2008 5:59 AM
Doug, I know you've come out against the death penalty but in light of this counterfeit beer thing ....you may have to re-consider.
Posted on May 23, 2008 8:42 AM
Considering the brands of beer here, I think a penalty of picking up empties on the side of the road for a couple of hours would be harsh enough.
Now, if we were talking about serving a run-of-the-mill blended scotch instead of a fine single malt, we'd have to get serious.
Posted on May 23, 2008 8:49 AM
Although I often disagree with Leonard Pitts, he at least usually offers an intelligent take on the issues. But not today - this column was the intellectual equivalent of sticking out your tongue and calling names.
I mean, what if someone had written this column, but replaced "conservatives" with a particular religious or ethnic group. Can you imagine the (completely justified) uproar? Can you imagine how mad Pitts undoubtedly would have been?
As far as the candidates' spouses go, I believe they are fair game because they are campaigning for their husbands. If they want to get out there and be an asset for their husbands, then they also are opening themselves up for scrutiny. It's just part of big-league politics and they knew that going in.
Posted on May 23, 2008 9:36 AM
Pitts was totally disingenuous in that column, talking about the regression of conservatism since the age of Reagan. I don't believe he was any fan of Reagan in the first place.
What he described in the column, though, wasn't a regression of conservatism but the betrayal of conservative values by many Republicans today.
Posted on May 23, 2008 10:03 AM