After fifteen minutes of perusing the mostly unreadable and excessively long posts they’ve put up in the last few days, I feel confident that the world has missed nothing by their absence in the blogosphere prior to October 2007. I also feel vindicated in my habit of not reading their editorials.

I especially like their defense of a corrupt, convicted Alabama governor who happened to be a Democrat. They substantially misrepresent the strength and reliability of one person’s disputed hearsay testimony that Karl Rove might have been involved in hastening the prosecution against that former governor, Don Siegelman.

Somehow, I can’t imagine them writing a similar editorial calling charges against a corrupt Republican officeholder “overblown” after he has already been convicted and sent to prison.

“In my conception of hell, the only books to read are bound volumes of New York Times editorials.”

One more reason to go to confession before I next board an airplane. (Shudder.)