A front-page "political memo" in today's New York Times reports that New York's Mayor-elect, Michael Bloomberg, is winning favorable reviews but "has yet to take the kind of steps that could be politically problematic, be they budget cuts, rousting homeless people who are sleeping on city streets or setting the tone for Police Department conduct."
It's an interesting assumption that cutting the city's bloated budget -- recent expenditures include more than $80 million to redo the Boss Tweed Courthouse and $2.5 million for tickets to Broadway shows -- is "politically problematic." It is also an interesting assumption that helping homeless people find safe and secure shelter and making sure the sidewalks and streets are passable -- the Times calls this "rousting homeless people" -- is "politically problematic." It sure shows where the New York Times is coming from that it sees budget cutting and homeless "rousting" as political problems rather than political opportunities. Same with setting the tone for Police Department conduct. If done correctly there is nothing politically problematic about that. If there is a political problem it lies not with the steps themselves but with the interest groups that react to the steps with gripes that the Times can be counted on to trumpet and echo.
Right-Wing: An article in the Week in Review section of today's New York Times reports, "In Israel, where the United States has always in the past urged restraint in the wake of suicide attacks, Washington now found no choice but to tell Israel it was free to take whatever measures it saw fit. That, in turn, freed the right-wing government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to do what he had long wanted to do, declaring Mr. Arafat unfit to negotiate with unless he eliminated Hamas."
Mr. Sharon's government is not "right-wing"; it is a national unity government that includes Israel's Labor Party. The foreign minister is the Labor Party dove Shimon Peres. What's more, Mr. Sharon's desires are mischaracterized. Eliminating Hamas would be nice but it is not necessary or sufficient. What Mr. Sharon wants is an end to attacks on Israel and on Israelis. If Hamas were eliminated and the attacks on Israel and on Israelis were continued by Islamic Jihad and by the Tanzim militia of Mr. Arafat's Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Mr. Arafat would still be unfit to negotiate with. Similarly, if all the attacks on Israel and Israelis ended and Hamas endured strictly as a religious and social service organization, Mr. Sharon probably would be willing to negotiate with Mr. Arafat.
Indian Ships: A dispatch from Islamabad, Pakistan, in the international section of today's New York Times quotes "senior military intelligence officers" there who said "that a naval task force consisting of India's only aircraft carrier, the Vikrant, six other ships and two submarines had moved toward Pakistani waters in the Arabian Sea, placing Indian naval aircraft within easy striking distance of Karachi." There doesn't seem to be much intelligence among these intelligence officers, never mind the Times staffers who pass this news along. The Vikrant was decommissioned in 1997 and there are plans for turning it into a museum. India's aircraft carrier is called the Viraat, which is a different ship from the Vikrant.
Take Your Pick: An article in the "A Nation Challenged" section of today's New York Times refers to "Brother Joel Magallan Reyes" of "Asociacion Tepeyac." An article in today's New York Times magazine refers to "Brother Joel Magallan" of "Asociacion Tepayac."
Excessive Attribution: A dispatch from Crawford, Texas, in today's New York Times reports, "Mr. Bush, in remarks delivered from his 1,600-acre ranch here, said he was 'disappointed' by what he said was the failure of the Senate to act on an economic stimulus package." It seems pretty much undeniable that the Senate failed to act on what Mr. Bush is calling an economic stimulus package. It's not just Mr. Bush saying the Senate failed to act; the Senate failed to act. It's a checkable fact that, so far as Smartertimes.com can tell, is not under dispute. If the Times wants to make perfectly clear that it isn't taking sides on the question of whether the package would stimulate the economy, the "he said" could go before the "economic stimulus package" part.