So last Sunday I did something against doctors orders: I read the New York Times. On the front page - a piece on American war veterans. The Times says they're all homicidal maniacs, committing up to 121 murders total, stateside. But this is the Times, of course - so you know what they leave out is always more important than what they leave in. I'm talking context. Oh - and a soul.
In the New York Post, writer Andy Solstis, along with other bloggers, point out that the murder rate for returning vets is only one-fifth of that of young Americans who did not fight. The take home message: if you want to make peace, make warriors.
It's funny how the Times thinks the worst of our military - even as they bend over backwards pretending to support them. It's no wonder that they and others swallowed that corrupt Lancet study -the one funded by George Soros - claiming 600K Iraqi dead from the war. I guess if you really need to validate your own bitter assumptions about America - you'll swallow anything.
As you know, that number is almost as unfounded as the Times current circ numbers, which, if they drop any further, will be read less than your average supermarket circular (and about as newsworthy). The truth is, writers do this stuff because the closest they've ever gotten to a soldier is to snicker at the Salvation Army Lady at Christmas time. It's easy to believe bad things about people you never met. The rest of us worry about Osama and Ahmadinejad; the Times editors prefer to target 17 year old kids eating MRE's 10,000 miles from home. Why? Because those kids don't read the Times, or hold Time-ish opinions. They don't care who Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd are (I think they're the same person, actually). Essentially these kids don't believe the Times should run the world. So they must be worse than Hitler. Just like you are, if you don't agree with me.
