>>>>>Some will reflexively say this is just a partisan post. But I don't see how anyone can read this article with any degree of open mindedness and not be troubled about the prospect of this person becoming President of the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?scp=13&sq=sarah%20palin&st=cse
>>>>
>>>>Once again, the New York Times addresses the scatilogical side of the news.
>>>
>>>I don't follow. Can you elaborate?
>>
>>You're kidding right? :o)
>
>Nope. Here is the definition of "scatology" from Merriam-Webster:
>
>1 : interest in or treatment of obscene matters especially in literature
>2 : the biologically oriented study of excrement (as for taxonomic purposes or for the determination of diet)
>
>Given that, I didn't get why Grady used that word to describe the article. Or the "once again." I thought it was a pretty good piece of reporting given the stone wall that has been erected around Sarah Palin.
>
>I really get annoyed sometimes when the Times is dismissed as some loony left wing attack dog. When people say that I know they are picking it up from right wing "pundits" and don't even read the damn paper.

Why should they read "the damn paper"? Life is short and reading sources are unlimited. Hopefully, you don't suggest pushing your favorite reading down the other people throats?