A dispatch from New Delhi in the international section of today's New York Times reports that India has supported President Bush's plan for missile defense. The New York Times news article describes the support as "India's fulsome approval of a Republican president's effort to overturn decades of established nuclear policy."
Here's how Webster's Second defines "fulsome": "disgusting or offensive, especially because of excess or insincerity." If the Times finds it disgusting or offensive that one democracy is praising the policy decision of another democracy, it might want to explain why, or save the expressions of disgust for its editorials rather than adjectives slipped into news articles. And if the Times is assuming that India is insincere in its praise of Mr. Bush's decision, the newspaper might consider that India might actually be happy about the prospect of a shield that would protect it against missile attacks from Pakistan or China.
As it is, the claim that Mr. Bush's missile defense effort overturns "decades of established nuclear policy" is just false. Public Law 106-38, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, became U.S. law on July 22, 1999, and said, "It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense." Mr. Bush is not overturning the policy but rather breaking with the precedent of the Clinton administration by actually adhering to the policy set by the 1999 law.
Counting Votes: The "political briefing" column in the national section of today's New York Times reports, "Republicans are close to being an endangered species in California -- Democrats control the Legislature, most Congressional seats and all but one statewide elective job -- and a main reason is that in recent years Republicans have backed a number of ballot initiatives that struck many voters as discriminatory." The article doesn't explain how backing initiatives that all passed because they were supported by majorities of the state's voters has had the effect of causing California Republicans to become endangered.
Lost in Brooklyn: The real estate section of today's New York Times includes an article about living in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. "Neighborhood parents can also consider three private schools in Brooklyn Heights," the article reports, naming St. Ann's, Packer, and "the Brooklyn Friends School at 375 Pearl Street." In fact the Brooklyn Friends School and Pearl Street are not in Brooklyn Heights but in downtown Brooklyn.