The New York Times is having a very productive Thursday.

I was working myself up into quite a lather about this Drudge report story about the New York Times deciding that they need to dig into the adoption records of John Roberts' kids, but Hugh Hewitt did it for me. (this post is a must-read!) I couldn't have said it better. And that's the understatement of the decade.

Let me get this straight. It's all part of the NYT's "background checks". Right? Wait. They DO background checks? They know what the word "check" even means? Oh, hang on. I get it. They do "background checks" on Republicans. On Decent People. (don't want to contradict myself by assigning John Roberts a partisan moniker here) Where were there infamous "background checks" when John F'n Kerry was running amok during the 2004 elections telling one whopper after another and he got a free pass? How about when Sandy Berger was stealing documents and stuffing them in his socks? Chappaquiddik anyone? Bill Clinton? Silence from the NYT.

But gee whiz, when the President may or may not have been AWOL, they drool all over themselves to make up something resembling a story and scream about it from the rooftops. Or if Karl Rove may or may not have been involved in outing a CIA agent *snicker* they get all in a lather and can't wait to trot out their made-up make believe garbage and treat it like "facts". That were "checked". "Thoroughly".

The most frustrating thing is I keep wondering if people believe this crap. I mean, there are still people out there that think if it's in the NYT, it's gotta be true. I hope to God that those numbers are dwindling. I truly do. And I pray that perhaps in my lifetime I will get to see rags like the NYT, The Washington Times, The SF Gate, and others go bankrupt. I truly do.

Anyway. Enough. I'm off on vacation now 'till Tuesday. The Sage will be sure to post her Sagely thoughts as the news unfolds.

Have a great weekend ya'll!
:)