The first NY Times editorial uses the
EchoStar - Viacom spat as an object lesson in the dangers of media consolidation. The second decries
new groups that are trying to get around McCain-Feingold. The third is about
Islamic clerics in Northern Nigeria telling lies about polio vaccinations. The fourth is on
NY Mayor Bloomberg's back-and-forth on gay marriage.
Thomes Friedman continues his paeans to outsourcing tech jobs to India. I think uggabugga sums it up nicely:
(more summaries below)
Maureen Dowd praises John Kerry through recounting an interview
in her snarky, shallow style. A guest editorial
praises the new Iraqi constitution on paper, but worries that there are no plans for effective governance once sovereignty is to be returned to the Iraqis at the end of June.
The new document mentions the emergence of a government to be decided upon after "wide consultations." This body will adopt a series of laws for the creation of a National Assembly of 275 members, to be elected before February 2005. But the text does not further specify how electoral law will be organized. With no stated criteria and no models better than the one that led to the emergence of the unelected Governing Council, how can we hope for smooth and fair elections?
Once the 275-member Assembly is created, not only will it have to do the long work of drafting a final Constitution, it will also choose a "presidency council" of three officials, who will decide on a variety of matters including the appointment of a temporary government and prime minister.
Those familiar with the Iraqi opposition in its long exile have seen this sort of leadership structure before. The Iraqi National Congress, the umbrella group of exile organizations created in Vienna in 1992, had a leadership council of three men, who chose an "executive committee" with a president. The Iraqi National Congress fell apart because of personal dissension at the top, and the onset of the civil war among the two main Kurdish factions in 1993. Is it truly sensible to resurrect this power-sharing scheme?
In addition, Article 37 of the Constitution holds that once this Presidency Council is chosen, it can rule only by unanimous decision. That apparently means one man can effectively paralyze the council.
Another guest editorial proposes
being able to sell your body to science.
The first Washington Post editorial is on Dubya's and Kerry's flip-flops. It provides a nice list of Dubya's flip-flops:
Mr. Bush fought the creation of a homeland security department until one day he loved the idea. As a candidate he supported regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants; as president he opposed it. Most famously, the great belittler of nation-building has dispatched American troops on hugely ambitious projects to rebuild the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq and now Haiti.
The editorial says that "Bush reversals differ from Kerry waffles", but concludes that both men are not clearly committed to anything. The second editorial discusses gambling and tobacco industries
buying votes in Maryland. The third reports on a
water taxi sinking in Baltimore harbor.
Jim Hoagland writes about the timing of a American-British joint training exercise to respond to a major, coordinated terrorist attack on both countries. Hoagland says that politics makes the timing tricky, but I have a more interesting question - why have the joint exercise at all? What is it about terrorist attacks that would require a joint response? Do they think that terrorists will hijack a jet in England and try to crash it in the US (or vice versa)? Richard Cohen blasts federal sentencing guidelines . George Will provides a twisted defense of the No-Child-Left-Behind Act. He essentially says that the bill is the only way to improve education and those who point out problems in the act aren't interested in seeing all kids are educated. The piece rambles big time. David Broder wonders if FDR would run those 9/11 ads. Surprisingly, he never cites an FDR ad. He cites a letter from FDR to the chairman of the Democratic Party and points out the FDR gave his nomination speech from San Diego Naval Station, and somehow concludes blatantly politicized his war time role. Broder then cites a couple of convention speeches not given by FDR. But did FDR ever run an ad mentioning Pearl Harbor, the WWII equivalent of 9/11? Did he ever politicize that national tragedy?