An article on the front page of the House & Home section of today's New York Times reports on parents "raising a daughter . . . in a household that has been shaped by the adults' experiences with psychedelic drugs." The Times reports that "The couple started dating in 1976, after sharing a bottle of Kahlua and LSD, and the drug has remained an important part of their lives and their art." The article quotes one parent who "said they take LSD about twice a year, never around their daughter." The couple "belong to a synagogue and a Buddhist community, attend pagan festivals and add a keen interest in Hinduism and the shamanic religions of the Americas, some of which use psychedelic plants." It's a pity some Times editor didn't feel a twinge of restraint before parading photographs of this 13-year-old girl before newspaper readers. Never mind that there are still some Times readers who open up the paper expecting articles with a tone that reflects the New York Times and not High Times, the Village Voice or Rolling Stone. The real sin here isn't against the newspaper's readers but against the 13-year-old. She is named in the article and photographed, but the article doesn't really probe how she might feel about being paraded along with her parents in an article about LSD use. It's utterly exploitative and tacky and invasive of the child's privacy.
Only: A news article in today's New York Times runs under the headline, "Jewish Groups Endorse Tough Security Laws." The article reports, "Several Jewish leaders said their groups were still studying the administration's antiterrorism initiative. Some said they might press for changes behind the scenes. But so far, only the liberal Reform movement has publicly raised objections."
It is not true that "so far, only the liberal Reform movement has publicly raised objections." In fact another Jewish group, the Workmen's Circle, issued a November 2001 press release in which the group's executive director, Robert Kestenbaum, said, "we have grown increasingly alarmed by the proposals of the Bush Administration and members of Congress to combat terrorism . . .These proposals trample on many of our traditional civil liberties." The Workmen's Circle hosted and sponsored a December 2, 2001, public forum in Manhattan at which Rep. Jerrold Nadler denounced the new antiterrorism laws as "much too restrictive of civil liberties," and at which several other speakers denounced the administration's antiterrorist initiatives in strong terms. None of the invited panelists at the Workmen's Circle event expressed support for the administration's domestic antiterrorist initiatives.
Warlord: A dispatch from Kabul in today's New York Times refers to an "anti-Taliban commander" as a "leader" and an "Afghan official." Fair enough. A headline and a photo cutline that accompany the article persist in referring to him, however, as a "warlord," a word that is laden with negative connotations and that the Times seems to enjoy using to refer to any armed man who is swarthy and whose first language is not English.