| March 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
An article in the current Rolling Stone (issue 1022) slams Cheney for being, in the opinion of RS, mean:
In fact, per RS, he's even "meaner now than he ever was." So it would be reasonable to at least infer that Rolling Stone is opposed to meanness. RS, one might infer, hews to a reasonable, calm, point of view, that is never mean.
That's why it seems so jarring to see the table of contents entry for this same article:
They're using his name as a four-letter word, and making a joke of doing so. They're not only being rude and mean, they think it's funny.
So what is with this double standard? How is it reasonable to criticize Cheney for doing something that they themselves like to do?
