Gyaarr, Avast, Ye Bloggin' Swabs!

By Neptune's binnacle, shipmates, if we don't enjoy the opportunities for linguistic variance afforded by ye blogosphere! Aye, first 'twas our delight in using the otherwise outmoded editorial "we," but today be even better — point yer spyglass towards our links crow's nest and regard no. 32: Monday be National Talk Like a Pirate Day, mateys! The cap'n'll be back then, so we're talkin like a pirate now, while we're at the helm! Welcome aboard the Blogganear, ye scurvy dogs, as we hoist our Bloggy Roger and drop anchor in a few blog ports o' call. Arrrrr!

The Controversies Du Jour
Lessee what we got today... a blog post that satirizes the Bush administration and Magic: The Gathering geekoids at the same time... a badly Photoshopped head covering on a woman a Council on American-Islamic Relations website... and, ah yes, the Pledge of Allegiance was declared cnconstitutional — again. Not a bad day's catch, eh, sailor?

Exeunt, News. Enter... the Mach 5?
Today the Internet has been put in the rare and extraordinary position of having foreseen the development of a new grooming product years before its actual release. This is our no. 9 link for today, a straight news story about a new five-bladed razor from Gilette, and this is our no 4 link, a column from The Onion in which the fictional CEO of Gillette hilariously lambastes his subordinates for letting Schick out-blade them in the razor game. (Readers are warned that the CEO is a foul-mouthed curr.) "The Onion and reality: The two keep getting closer," writes Andrew Sullivan. Another blogger weighs the question on its merits: "I think a single-bladed razor works just fine (and is also less irritating to your skin)". Arrr! A rusty dagger's fine for us, mateys!

Rough Times ahead
The New York Times is almost always in BlogPulse's top five most-cited news sources, but tomorrow it's staring "Times Select," a service that will require you pay to see its opinion columnists such as David Brooks and Frank Rich. How will bloggers do their work if they can't link to the Times' writers? How much presence can The Times maintain by hiding its writers? We'll be watching.

Also: Arrrrrrr!