The rassin' frassin' New York Times wants me to pay them money to read the frickin' editorians online from now on.

I noticed this development. It's not a small amount, either -- subscription to the print, or like $50. I like the Times, but I'm just not that devoted, you know? And the carrot of the subscription covering the entire archives just isn't a good enough reason.

Given free news, I would never buy a newspaper, except to scratch an itch (4 hours in a St. Louis airport) or commemorate special events (certain people winning the world series). Given not-free news, I would never buy a newspaper, except to scratch an itch or commemorate special events. Making free news not be free any more just makes me seek my free news elsewhere.

The Times imprimatur is just not that awesome, you know?

I was ten years old when the Challenger went boom, and in the fifth grade. Apparently, that was the year that all the kindergarteners got the TV for events, and the confusion that broke out when the shuttle launch turned out to be more of a shuttle flambe was enough to shanghai my science teacher from the class.

I was in 4th grade and remember misunderstanding what the other students were saying at first about the shuttle, only hearing that there was a teacher on board. I replied that I wished Mr. Blair, a particularly strict teacher that taught us math, had been on-board instead which resulted in a lot of shocked looks. Once I found out what had actually happened, I was mortified.

I was a freshman and college, and very sick with what I think ended up being bronchitis. I just lied in bed watching it over and over again, because I could only get three channels.

Thing is, at work I have free access to the Times' content - but it's through Lexis-Nexis. Is Paul Krugman good enough to get me to search Lexis-Nexis for his editorial? He is not. GOD is not that good. Not that He writes syndicated editorials for the times.

Okay, on the Adam's gay thing. I'm just guessing.

I think if God wrote syndicated editorials for the Times, the conservative press people would totally get on God's case for not being fair and balanced.

On the upside, probably a better prose stylist than Paul Krugman.

So I guess the NYT finally realized everyone was reading the paper online for free. Ah well.

Wait. I can't read today's op-eds any more? Crap.

Given free news, I would never buy a newspaper, except to scratch an itch (4 hours in a St. Louis airport) or commemorate special events (certain people winning the world series). Given not-free news, I would never buy a newspaper, except to scratch an itch or commemorate special events. Making free news not be free any more just makes me seek my free news elsewhere.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure every comic strip I read in the Globe is on-line, and, even if they are, they aren't going to be in the same place. 50 cents isn't that much of a price to pay for the entertainment value (especially because you can find it for 0.25 a lot of places).

Granted, not an issue with the Times.

I have a brownie. Well, most of one, and it's slipping fast.

I'm startled (but grateful) that newspapers give so much away for free. I'd rather pay, all told, than register. But I'm news avoidant, so I do neither, and don't look at papers unless nudged. Or if I want a crossword.