O'REILLY'S COLUMN WAS 'LUDACRIS'

I got a good laugh from Bill O'Reilly's March 9 editorial, "This Bud's not
for you."

O'Reilly chastised Anheuser-Busch for hiring rap singer Ludacris to push
their beer because Ludacris is a bad example for children. What promotional
method does O'Reilly suggest Anheuser-Busch use to sell their products to
children? Last I heard you had to be a legal adult to drink beer.

O'Reilly said, "Does Anheuser-Busch realize that millions of children
digest the garbage Ludacris puts out?" Well, if 13-year-olds shouldn't be
digesting Ludacris' rap music, then maybe they shouldn't be digesting a six
pack of Budweiser either, right?

O'Reilly also said, "Ludacris puts out rap that celebrates illegal activity
(such as selling narcotics)." Granted, selling beer to adults is legal
whereas selling marijuana is not. But American history shows that beer was
illegal from 1920 to 1933. Marijuana was legal until 1937 and opium and
coca products were legal until 1914. This was the prohibition era. Many who
want our irrational drug laws reformed draw no logical or moral distinction
between alcohol and marijuana.

O'Reilly also said, "Hiring a person like Ludacris to push beer is
reprehensible to me." But if we stop and think for a moment, who is being
"ludicrous' here - Ludacris or O'Reilly?

Randy Vizyak, Mukwonago