The lead, front-page article in today's New York Times reports on the House passage of speech-regulation legislation. The Times news article reports that the legislation "would also impose new regulations on thinly disguised campaign ads by outside groups, prohibiting their broadcast within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election." This description is not-so-thinly disguised bias by the New York Times. The legislation in fact applies not only to "thinly disguised campaign ads" but to, as the bill text puts it, "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office." In other words, the bill prohibits within the designated period not just thinly disguised campaign ads but also thickly disguised campaign ads and even ads that have no relation, thickly or thinly disguised, to campaigns, but which merely happen to mention the name of or show the image of a congressman or president who is running for reelection. It's a thinly disguised effort by Congress to abridge the First Amendment right of the press, the First Amendment right of speech and the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Interestingly enough, the ban applies to television and radio ads but not to newspaper ads. A cynic might say that that is the reason the New York Times newspaper supports the bill so ardently, but Smartertimes.com is not so cynical as the Times and the other speech-regulation advocates, who seem to think that political decisions are driven largely by money.
Usually: The lead editorial in today's New York Times, about preserving endangered species, includes the following gem of an argument: "Nor is the problem the Endangered Species Act, which has to do with far more than the protection of flora and fauna. It speaks to the human condition as well: when an entire species is sufficiently threatened to require protection, it usually means that the same ecosystem will eventually fail the humans who depend on it as well." Note the use of the words "usually" and "eventually." Guess the demise of the dinosaurs and the passenger pigeon means that the Earth will "eventually" fail humans, too. No mention by the Times of the fact that, as one American Museum of Natural History Exhibit put it, "Extinction is a natural process and some two-thirds of all animal species that existed have become extinct." Note: Smartertimes.com is operating this morning off the New York Times on the Web.