An editorial in today's New York Times labels as "true reform" a bill that would, the Times acknowledges, ban "'issue ads' broadcast within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary." The editorial manages to avoid totally the obvious question of why Americans should have less of a right to free speech in the period immediately before an election than they do at any other time. The First Amendment doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances so long as the speech, assembly and petitioning takes place at least 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary." It just says "Congress shall make no law. . ." One would think that speech rights should be at their most robust in the period immediately before an election, not at their most limited. That is the period, after all, when the voting public is paying the closest attention and is most able to reap the benefit of speech that throws the issues into the sharpest relief.
'Tanzin': William Safire's column on the op-ed page of today's New York Times twice quotes Ariel Sharon referring to the "Tanzin," a militia associated with the Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization. In fact, as the Israel Defense Forces Web site ( http://www.idf.il/english/news/tanzim.stm ) makes clear, the name of the group is the Tanzim, with an "m" at the end. It will be interesting to see if the Times corrects this error; the Times still has not corrected the January 24, 2002, Safire column in which the columnist referred to a Sherlock Holmes story involving "a dog named Silver Blaze." As Smartertimes.com noted at the time, the dog is not named in the story, and Silver Blaze was actually the missing horse the great detective was pursuing.