Stop the Presses (at the New York Times)! 

Well, I didn't have anything to post about again, so I decided to go to the New York Times online and browse until some piece of liberal propaganda made me angry enough to write something. That was a good idea, because just about every headline today shows the obvious left-wing bias that they constantly deny.

Here's a few examples: "Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil," "Complete Coverage: The Struggle for Iraq," "Ex-Minister Says Blair Knew Iraq Had No Banned Arms," "C.I.A. Chief Caught in Middle," Is that enough for you? I can just see them sitting in their little editing meetings or whatever they do. One guy would say, "Hey, here's a story about soldiers rebuilding an Iraqi school and giving candy to all the children! Can we print it?" Then the editor would say, "Bush bad! Dead soldier good! No war for oil! Vote for Wesley Clark! Arnold groping! Graaarrr!!!" And then he would rip the arms off the guy who suggested the story so he could never write again.

Seriously, could you people be any more frickin' negative? I'm a cynical pessimist and I get depressed reading your headlines! I like the headline, "The Struggle for Iraq." That makes it sound really bad despite the fact that we pretty much control every part of the country except the Sunni Triangle, and I'm fairly certain that a few dozen arabs with RPG's and AK-47's aren't going to chase off a few thousand trained U.S. troops. And of course, they have to include as many stories as possible trying to convince people that we went to war for the wrong reasons. They seem to be going after Tony Blair now, since Dubya has become such a straw man for the Times that they don't even bother mentioning him anymore.

There's another interesting article here that says, "In the Face of Death, an Undercover Life of Guns." Apparently it's about police officers that pose as criminals to investigate firearms. I find the headline odd because it makes an effort to put "guns" and "death" in the same sentence. The little description thing under it talks about how the officers "pose as criminals to deal with criminals." Right, because everyone who has a gun and doesn't wear a badge is a criminal, you moonbats. I just skimmed through the first page of the article, and it talks about how they stop gun trafficking, but it doesn't say WHAT KIND OF GUNS! This is brilliant. "Hey, I've got an idea! Instead of talking about illegal firearms or violent crime, let's villify the guns themselves...again!"

In the article, the officer being interviewed says, "...we know we've got a gun out there...This is a moral issue." What? WHAT?! What kind of guns? I just read the second of 4 pages, and they still haven't identified what kind of firearms are being investigated. It just says "guns." Actually, it talks about shotguns and pistols and things, but these are legal! It mentions assault weapons once, and that's it. Another fun little tactic is how they set up the scenario for an undercover gun purchase. The way they describe it, you'd think it was a drug deal if they didn't put the word "gun" in the story.

This is idiotic. I know they're taking guns away from dangerous criminals, but why do they spend the entire article talking about how bad the guns themselves are? They don't talk about how many people they've arrested, but they mention how many guns have been confiscated. They even take the time to describe officers being shot and mention how afraid they are of guns. This is going too far. It's obvious they're trying to make people feel sorry for these officers and support gun control.

I think I may have gone too far with this rant, but after taking AP English last year, I'm able to get a lot of meaning out of a few words (I had to read James Joyce). Maybe this is why the liberals are against war. "Yes, I think Saddam Hussein should be deposed, but...guns? Someone could get hurt! Why don't you take this whiffle bat? It's really loud but doesn't hurt much. There, play nice, children!" How dumb can you be?

I should stop. Really. I'm going to start breaking things if I think about this much longer. By the way, the counter hit the big 1-0 at 3:00 this morning. According to my stats, someone on the University of Idaho's domain was reading my blog. That's intense! I realize that 3 or 4 of the hits are from me, but 6 or 7 is still pretty good for one day.

I noticed that other blogs don't really update much on the weekends. Why? That's when you have the most time! I've never understood that. I'm in college. I have homework every night. On weekends, I have lots of time to put off that homework, and I like to work on my blog and read other blogs. I don't understand why so many people take weekends off. Do you see this as work? Blogging is a hobby, not a chore! I guess people who get thousands of hits a day do need to work a little harder, but I still think if they updated more on weekends they could get a lot more hits. Weekends are when I read blogs the most. I can't be the only one.

Anyway, that's it for now. The guys across the hall are yelling at the Giants game. They have to watch it on a computer because it's not being broadcast on TV in Syracuse. That's dedication. I'll end with a question: How many blogs could a blogger log if a blogger could log blogs? I expect your answer to use the metric system. This is 10% of your grade. Don't F it up.