Why do I read the Boston Globe?

They've seemingly abandoned all pretense of objectivity as a newspaper; not only is their op-ed page rife with pro-Kerry, pro-Democratic Party columnists, but even their "hard news" sections are blatantly pro-Kerry.

Today's "bombshell" is about President Bush's alleged failure to register for National Guard duty while in Massachusetts at Harvard Business School. Front page news, no less.

Okay, if he didn't register while here, that's clearly wrong. Even if hundreds and hundreds of others were doing the same thing, it was clearly wrong. If it's true, the President should immediately acknowledge it and apologize for it.

But I think it's a non-starter, because Kerry has already admitted that he didn't do his own reserve duty when he returned to the states after a four-month tour in Vietnam. The three-Purple-Heart "out" meant that he had to come back stateside and perform reserve duty. He was assigned as an adjutant to a Navy brass, but admits he didn't do it (presumably, this was when he was mobilizing the Vietnam Vets Against the War).

Wonder if the Globe, in fairness, will report as front page news Kerry's admitted failure to serve?

In an unrelated (but telling) piece the other day, the Globe featured prominently the Rev. Eugene Rivers, a black political activist from the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, endorsing (his own words) candidates for elective office.

You KNOW that if Rivers had been a Catholic priest, there would have been literally hell to pay! If a member of the Catholic Church even tangentially suggests that he/she might support one set of positions over another (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage), the entire Church is accused of conflating the Church/state "wall of separation." Apparently, though, inner city black pastors get a free pass.

Or perhaps I'm being too harsh. Maybe the only ones who get a free pass are those who happen to champion those favored by the Globe itself.