I'm Back!

Hello all! I got back from a vacation to Sturgis, SD last week and I had a wonderful time. First, I am not a big time motorcycle person, but my parents are and they own a large bed and breakfast there. It was refreshing to be with people who were proud of their country and their president. It was also fascinating to read the local papers. We received the Rapid City Journal every day and the differences between this paper and the Seattle Times were startling. I mean it. We are not talking subtle differences here, folks. Just in the week I was there, there were many examples of these differences, but one in particular stands out in my mind. The headline was "prairie Dogs Taken off Protected List" and under that it said, "Relief in sight for embattled ranchers." I was shocked when I read the story. Can you believe it? The editors were worried about THE RANCHERS first! The people came first! Apparently, prairie dog holes cause cows to get stuck and break their legs and is a huge problem to ranchers. If the Seattle Times did this story you can bet it would be all about how cute and cuddly the prairie dogs are and how these evil ranchers can now indiscriminately murder these adorable creatures.

Then I reluctantly came back home. I will be totally honest. I haven't wanted to start writing in this blog because it makes me too damn mad. That's why I have been MIA so long. Perhaps seeing the Rapid City Journal has made me realize what an incredibly uphill battle this is. I mean, I feel like OF COURSE the Seattle Times is biased. Any rational person can see this. What's the point of documenting it? They certainly aren't going to change because of what I'm doing. And if you don't think the Seattle Times is biased, then I'm sure there's nothing I can write to convince you otherwise. If you do, then I'm simply preaching to the quire.

So, what am I saying here? Well, in the last three months I have collected countless examples of liberal bias exhibited by the Seattle Times. If you doubt the Times is biased, I suggest you review this information.

But going forward, this blog will more resemble editorial pieces than a day by day deconstruction of the bias in the Times. It will still be about the liberal bias at the Times, to be sure, but I no longer feel I need to document each and every example of liberal bias. I believe I have proven my case, and if you have read every single thing I have written in this blog and STILL don't feel like the Times is biased, well then, NOTHING I can say will convince you.

So, with that said, let me get right into it with a short discussion of the Times' coverage of the organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Basically, the only coverage the Times has given to this organization has been negative. In other words, when SBVT is brought up in a story, it always about how this person or that person is condemning the group and what they stand for. What SBVT is saying about Kerry is NEVER covered as a news story in it's own right. For instance, the first time SBVT was mentioned in the A section was when the Times reported that John McCain was condemning what the group was covering. Then yesterday, the Times reported on the fact that Bush will not come right out and condemn the organization. OF course, I don't remember the press ever asking Kerry if he condemned Move-on.org as they have compared Bush to Hitler. In fact, I don't recall the Times EVER covering the fact that Move-on.org compared Bush to Hitler. Where was the outrage then? I mean, Bush IS our president.

And speaking of Move-on.org, today the Times did a full page story on George Soros in their close-up section. They did mention the fact that Soros is a major sponsor of Move-on.org but failed to mention some of the things this organization has said about Bush.

The hypocrisy displayed here is monumental. Apparently, groups like Move-On.org can say anything about Bush with no media back-lash, and no connections with Kerry are assumed. However, when similar groups make anti-Kerry statements, all the backlash is directed at Bush, like he organized the whole thing.