I like the Post’s cartoons, so I guess I’ll hold my nose and vote for the Post. Yes, “Luanne’s” fat brother became an ambulence guy to honor 9-11, and managed to rescue her best friend’s crippled boyfriend from a fire in time for the 9-11 anniversary next month. Similarly exciting drama in “For Better Or For Worse” in which a sordid tale of young Canadian college lust has given way to some yawner about the family’s grandfather. And “Dilbert”! And I actually like “Mr. Potato-head”, though it’s not an all-time great. “Beetle Bailey” has been lame for years, I’m afraid. Let’s see…the Times has “Boondocks” which is quite good. I do miss “Alex” and “Pirhana Club” (formerly known as…what? I forget.)
The Post and Times are basically wire-reports, plus local news which is often highly spun. The Post is pro-unification, the Times pro-independence, and I’m not sure what to make of the News. They always seem to print speeches by government officials, in original Chinese and English translation. (If I could figure out why they do that, I could figure out the paper, I think.) Oh well, at least they’ve got Doonesbury.
A few weeks ago the Post editorialized against prostitution. It’s immoral, and so should be illegal, they say. So what ideology are we dealing with here, since I doubt that it is Bible-thumping conservativism? (I only lightly tap mine for emphasis.) I wrote asking whether hypocrisy, being immoral, ought also to be illegal, and if so whether newspapers which editorialize against prostitution yet print thinly-disguised hooker ads deserve some sort of punishment. They didn’t print my letter, though!