An article in the national section of today's New York Times reports, "Reform Jewish leaders are recommending that parents withdraw their children from membership in the Boy Scouts of America and that synagogues end their sponsorship of Scout troops, the strongest action yet by a religious group to the Supreme Court decision allowing the Boy Scouts to exclude gay members."
The Times manages to report the entire story without quoting a single Jew, Reform or otherwise, who opposes the decision. It's an amazingly one-sided dispatch.
If the Times was looking for a Jew to make such an argument, it could have called the editor of Smartertimes.com. Here's what he might have said, "As an Eagle Scout whose troop was chartered to a Reform Jewish synagogue, I think it's a mistake for the Reform movement to encourage its synagogues and youth to break ties with the Boy Scouts of America. I realize that reasonable people can disagree with the scout policy on gays, but a more effective way of changing the policy would be to work within the scout system rather than cutting ties with scouting entirely. Would the Reform movement have its members renounce American citizenship or refuse to serve in the American military because of the ban on gays in the military? Would the Reform movement have its members all move to Vermont because the other 49 states do not recognize civil unions of gay couples? The scouts also discriminate against girls, who aren't allowed to become Boy Scouts, and against atheists, who are also excluded. Do Reform Jews think it's worse to discriminate against gays than against girls or atheists?"
White House Pets: A dispatch in the national section of today's New York Times about President Clinton's cat and dog reports that the animals are "famous." It goes on to say that "Despite the pets' notoriety, a senior administration official familiar with the interactions of the two animals said that they did not get along." This is a misuse of the word "notoriety." As the Times' own stylebook puts it, "notoriety means more than just fame. Use it only to mean unfavorable repute."
Garbled Kennedy Quote: The front-page story in today's New York Times about the withdrawal of Linda Chavez as President-elect Bush's nominee for labor secretary reports that Ms. Chavez "appeared more hostile to labor unions and workers' rights than the labor secretaries who served under Presidents Reagan, Ford and Nixon." The article then quotes Senator Kennedy as saying, "If there's a silver lining to the events of recent days, it's the opportunity not to name a labor secretary in the distinguished tradition of recent Republican presidents."
A person could read that section of the article several times and still not be sure of what Mr. Kennedy means. Is he being sarcastic when he talks about the "distinguished" tradition of recent Republican presidents? If he was not being sarcastic, did he really say "not to name" or did he mean "now to name"? Given Mr. Kennedy's Boston accent, the two could well be indistinguishable to the ear of an untrained listener.