Every morning I schlep to the curb to pick up the N&O and the New York Times.

The Times I read almost cover-to-cover.

With the N&O, I usually scan the front page for grammatical errors before I slip to the City/State section in hope of finding something of substance. Mostly I'm disappointed, though Under the Dome continues to have worthy tidbits from time to time.

In occasional moments of weakness, I'll also look at the N&O's editoral pages. If there's a Rick Martinez column, I close the paper. My life is tedious enough without having to endure his predictable nonsense.
re
For a fully insufficient reason, I read the N&O's editorial on ScAlito this weekend. Here's the part that took my breath away:

But it's significant that unlike some earlier Supreme Court nominees, Alito interprets the Constitution as providing a right to privacy, which undergirds the Roe decision.

On a different level, Alito proved himself a patient listener during tense moments in the hearings. That quality, along with the respect he has earned among colleagues on the bench, are reasons to hope he will continue to decide cases on the law and the facts, not on any agenda.

Just like there were reasons to hope we'd find WMDs in Iraq?

The N&O is like a woman who chooses to stay in an abusive marriage . . . certain that things will miraculously turn for the better in the face of hard, cold evidence to the contrary.

I watched all of the ScAlito hearings. Exactly when did he say there's a right to privacy in the constitution?