While I am not someone who is on the John Roberts bandwagon, given that the only justices I would want to see on the Supreme Court are people like Ron Paul, I must say that what the NY Times did in its “investigation” of the overseas adoptions that Roberts and his wife did a few years back is reprehensible. If you wonder why I am so touchy about this, the reason is that my wife and I have engaged in three such adoptions, a little girl from Guatemala and two boys from Ethiopia.

I am not buying the Time’s line that it was being “sensitive” in its “investigation.” Wanting to get into sealed adoption records is to open a can of worms. That is because of what goes on behind the scenes.When we were in Guatemala in March 2000 to get Sasha (who was just a baby), we asked our facilitator if any of the money we paid went to bribes. He said that it did. Thus, that makes me party to a violation of the Lacy Act and eligible for some time in federal prison. Furthermore, any of us who have been through this process know just how difficult it is, and that journalists have no damned business prying into such records.

Being that the mainstream media is little more than a publicity arm of the state, the idea that the editors of the Times believe they have a right to pry into our private documents tells me that all of this “privacy” talk we read on the NY Slimes editorial page is nothing but lies. But, what else did we expect from Jayson Blair’s former employer?

(By the way, I want no emails complaining that I brought “non-white” children into this country.)