An article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports on yesterday's Salute to Israel parade. The Times reports, "A group of about 30 demonstrators, angry over what they consider Israel's excessive reliance on force to combat Palestinian dissent, held a small rally near the start of the parade route." Even attributing the sentiment to the demonstrators, describing the controversy as being over "Israel's excessive reliance on force to combat Palestinian dissent" is absurd. The force, excessive or not, isn't being used to combat Palestinian "dissent," but Palestinian mortar attacks, small arms fire and suicide bombing attacks on cities and civilians in Israel.
A cutline in the international section of today's New York Times runs under a photograph of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "Some vocal critics suggest Mr. Sharon is becoming militaristic," the cutline says. This is pretty humorous, even to those of us who are sympathetic to Mr. Sharon and who believe he seeks peace. Ariel Sharon, who made his career as a general in the Israeli army and whose autobiography was titled "Warrior," is becoming militaristic?
Race and Income: The lead editorial in this morning's New York Times, about education legislation making its way through Congress, reports, "The administration has specifically argued for a testing plan that would break out test scores by race and ethnicity, so that states could be held accountable for closing the achievement gap between rich and poor children." Talk about your soft bigotry of low expectations. If the Times, or the Bush administration, wants to hold states "accountable for closing the achievement gap between rich and poor children," the way to do it would be to break out test scores by family income. It's unsettling that the Times or the Bush administration would consider "race and ethnicity" to be the most convenient and fail-safe proxy for determining whether a child is rich or poor.
Page Three: A New York Times reader in Massachusetts reported early this morning that in his copy of the New England edition of today's Times, page three has been reproduced from Saturday's paper, right down to the word "Saturday" at the top of the page. Guess if those New England readers really want that scintillating update on the Lori Berenson case, they will have to check the Times Web site or write to the Times production department.