What's Better And Worse In The News

First, What's Worse:
 Rush Limbaugh becomes increasingly irritating. I think a large part of his turnoff is that he has never raised children. All his life, he's been solely about indulging himself. That shows in his attitude and tone of voice. Today, he said, he wouldn't lie because " there's nothing in it." What a declaration of honor! It's all about his self-gratification. How about saying, " Because I wouldn't cheat the audience by lying" or "There's no honor in lying?"
 Liberals who by definition are ideologically committed to ignoring character, an internal attribute of an individual and replacing character with structure, an external force of the collective. They believe that the right structure such as a poverty program can produce a perfect person. They have absolute faith in this regardless of the evidence.Liberals now appear to be trying to soften the condemnation of the remaining Boston Bomber. For instance, his obsession with Islamic militarism is being made to appear as only equivalent to his love of rap music.
Now,What's Better:
The feds have dropped charges of trying to kill the President and a U.S.
Senator from Mississippi by the poison Ricin. An Elvis impersonator had been blamed. Law Enforcement should know that it looks like it used an easy target to blame, a man who was both poor and possibly emotionally disturbed or mentally ill. Would the law acted as quickly if the accused were a black?
  A study in the United Kingdom has found that acetaminophen not only helps with physical pain but "existential" pain. I doubt it will be replacing Oxycotin, alcohol, marijuana, heroin, or cocaine but it may help you with emotional pain. We could all use a little of that, couldn't we?
  Kentucky's constitution now includes the right to hunt. It was just voted in by the citizens. Death by hunting is usually much less painful than death by vehicles, starvation, disease, wolves or coyotes. To encourage a humane death by hunters, I would like to see states requiring every hunter to pass a competency test for whatever weapon he uses, be it rifle, shotgun, handgun, bow, crossbow and as is occasionally the case in hunting wild hogs, throwing spear. However this is dependent upon the National Rifle Association  (NRA) volunteering to provide these competency tests. I don't want government involved. It is too expensive, convoluted, and grasping for more intimidation and force over the people. To avoid being overwhelmed, hunters could be given three years to take their tests. It could be an fun event with trophies and prizes given to the top ten scorers in each category every calendar year.
Pete Nickerson, Gainesville, Florida 352-359-0850