A front-page dispatch in this morning's New York Times reports, "The Pentagon schedule to build a missile defense is entirely driven by the belief that North Korea will have a long-range missile by 2005." The Times, and other opponents of national missile defense, would like to believe this, so that if North Korea becomes a peace-loving nation or suddenly stops pursuing efforts to build a long-range missile, national missile defense for America would be dead. But the Times' contention about the Pentagon's schedule is just not true. While the schedule may be substantially or even mostly driven by concerns about North Korea, it's not "entirely" driven by it. As the rest of the article makes clear, there are also concerns about missiles being launched from Iran, China or Russia. Certainly when President Reagan got started on the Star Wars program North Korea wasn't his primary concern. Supporters of national missile defense, including some at the Pentagon, say that no matter what happens in North Korea, America should have the capability to defend itself against incoming missiles.
Teacher Pay in California: A front-page story in the Times of June 26 had told us of the horrors of California's supposedly underfunded public school system; in recent years , the article said, the state's schools ranked last in the nation "in students per teacher, students per principal, students per librarian and students per guidance counselor." Moreover, the June 26 article reported, the problems in the public schools in California include "textbooks that refer to the Soviet Union in the present tense, crumbling toilets" and several classrooms with American flags so old that they still have only 48 stars. Today's Times, in its national section, has a chart showing teacher pay. California teachers have salaries that are the eighth-highest in the nation, an average of $46,326 a year. The national average, the chart says, is $40, 574. The Times story of June 26 from California had made a passing reference, toward the end of the story, to the fact that "teachers' salaries here have absorbed a significant share of spending increases over the last two decades, and have remained relatively high." But you only get the actual number and ranking in today's paper.