The NY Times editorial page is almost a total waste, except for the first editorial. The first editorial calls for
"no state official who helps run elections should continue to be involved in political campaigns or other partisan activity". The editorial is an elaboration of this point:
When international observers monitor voting in new democracies, a key factor they look for is nonpartisan election administration. (A guidebook monitors use instructs that this can be done by the use of either "mainly professional" or "politically balanced" administrators.) This advice is rarely followed here at home. Decisions about voting machines and voter eligibility, and about who has won a close election, are often in the hands of partisan officials."
The second editorial says that the new Unborn Victims of Violence Act is "an attack on abortion rights masquerading as law enforcement". The third is on an upcoming Supreme Court arguments on whether courts can force an agency to protect wilderness when the agency says that it "working on the problem". The fourth blasts a recent Treasury department ruling that Publishers could publish works by authors living in certain countries, but they couldn't edit them. A fifth editorial is on the closing of some firehouses in NYC.
William Safire writes on the
corruption in the UN oil-for-food program for Iraq. Bob Herbert notices that NYC Mayor Bloomberg can't find money for raises for teachers and cops, but can
find money for a new football stadium. The son of the chief executive of a pharmaceutical company that manufactures antidepressants doesn't like the
new FDA labeling requirements for antidepressants. He presents some good arguments, but couldn't they have found someone with such an obvious bias? The last editorial is on the vital, highly important topic of
cricket in Indian and Pakistan.
I don't have time for the Washington Post today, but it is more disappointing than the NY Times.