I'm not at all a pop music fan, though I get assaulted by it in elevators and elsewhere.

So, for those of us who can't even spell Springsteen and Dylan or the Beatles, the one thing that ABBA brought to pop music was hearing and understanding the words to the music--something other artists seemed to work hard to obliterate. You knew what they were singing about and the production values were well above average.

For those of us who abandoned pop music after Bill Haley and Elvis, ABBA brought us back to a time where we could understand the lyrics and enjoy the musicality of the arrangements, which is not a mean feat. Nor often accomplished much since.

First off, I'm not much of a beer drinker (Newcastle at Irish pubs or the local at brewpubs). But my son makes up for me in the case of Bud.

Second, I've been an observer of the company for years for professional reasons. More than most brewers, A-B recognized the importance of good distribution and spent lots of money on that aspect of the business (much like the UK breweries who own so many of their own pubs). A-B also realized how important it was to bring down the cost of production, and its breweries are the most modern and productive in the world. Frankly, A-B has, almost by itself, raised the standards of brewing, bottling and canning. Ask Coke or Pepsi production people: they watch closely what A-B does in production, packaging and distribution.

Third, because of the economies of scale it enjoys, A-B encourages its distributors to be local do-gooders--the philanthropy that others have talked about. Sure, A-B has been very good to St. Louis; but elsewhere, its distributors have become key parts of their local communities for civic and charitable contributions.

From a taste perspective, I believe Budweiser follows the McDonald's/Oscar Meyer concept: don't offend anyone. Be as bland and neutral as you can. But be consistent: the same bland flavor all the time. And let's not forget that this is the company that introduced freshness dating to make sure "skunky" beer only came from the locals.

I'm astounded that the Busch family had given up its shareholder leverage to permit this kind of takeover. Is it good or bad? Maybe good for the beer (though I doubt it), and certainly bad for St. Louis as the Busch family recedes from prominence.

As a former Chicagoan, I grew up with Drewrys and Fox de Luxe in returnable bottles, and I recall my dad walking down to the local saloon with his "growler" for tap beer. Boy, have times changed!

I think you might be surprised by how many of us fans have a lot of respect for Billy Packer--a truly knowledgeable bball guy with his own personality.

Was he sometimes controversial? Was he ACC-centric? A double yes, the same answer to: Was he sometimes irritating? But it was also obvious that he lived college bball and often presented a distillation of information from a lot of inside sources that more casual announcers don't have access to.

Clark Kellogg is okay, but he doesn't bring the coach's perspective to his analysis. My guess is that if you asked any successful college bball coach, he'd tell you that he makes more money today at least in part due to Billy Packer and his insight.

And here's a little tidbit for CBS: When I was channel-searching and found a game announced by Packer, I was much more likely to watch that game than that of any other announcer I can think of. Yes, he had his faults and his favorites, but I think he was the best prepared and most professional of college bball announcers. If CBS sports management really thinks Kellogg is better than Packer, it ought to stick to "extreme" sports.

That's why we (readers) pay editors! Readers shouldn't have to do any skimming at all! Are editors only a substitute for "Spell Check?"

I can't believe I'm the only reader who has noticed that apparently editors have no ink in their red pens (or money in their bank accounts)! Come on up to Sturgeon Bay where the ink is still fresh (until it freezes in winter). No wonder books are an endangered species; so is attention span.

Although Mark Warner would be a good bet, I'd like to suggest former Rhode Island Republican maverick Lincoln Chaffee, who often demonstrated working across the aisle. He knows--and is respected by--the Senate, and is very statesmanlike.

I think the whole business of Hollywood movies has begun to be dependent on two factors:e

1. American movie-goers, both of them, have relatively short attention spans. So movies have to be rotated far more often than ever before. And that means more movies are available, but for shorter periods--hence lower grosses.

2. More power to the film distributors, thanks to this process. Due to the first point--and the studios that don't promote movies over a longer period--the "shelf life" of a movie has become ever shorter. Part of this is due to DVD release, which changes the dynamics of theatrical release, and part of it is due to the cost of taking a family or date to the theater.

However, the benefit is that more limited-audience movies are being made, from historical pieces (like the Edward R. Murrow picture) to sci-fi movies to nature pieces.

Frankly, I think it's very healthy for the motion picture business. It's just that there won't be huge blockbusters regularly like in the past.

When John McCain genuflected before Rev. Falwell and other Evangelical "agents of intolerance," he shed the "Maverick" tag quickly. Can't have it both ways.

One of the fastest growing packaging segment in wine is bag-in-box, both for inexpensive wines, but now some truly upscale varieties.

Unlike the "juice boxes," the corrugated box can be recycled, and the empty bag and spout take up little landfill space.