Why doesn't The Post-Star ax its own editorials?

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

A few days ago, The Post-Star posted yet another obnoxious screed treating people idiots for not following the blindingly self-evident illumination that appears on the righteous daily's editorial page.

(Matt has his own take on The Post-Star's 'leadership')

The Post-Star pretty much only writes editorials on two topics: whipping up COUNTERPRODUCTIVE hysteria against teen drinking (how dare pragmatism and common sense be injected into a serious discussion) and slapping around readers for acting like citizens or parents rather than only thinking of themselves as taxpayers (how dare anyone stray from the consumerist model).

Occasionally, they throw a nod to the open-government types. These editorials are usually sensible in their actual position, while never losing the paper's smug tone.

Given the two-trick pony that The Post-Star's editorial slot has become, it belies the excuse they concocted for axing Molly Ivins' column several years ago before her untimely passing: that the Texan was too predictable.