A dispatch from New Delhi in the international section of today's New York Times reports that India has supported President Bush's plan for missile defense. The New York Times news article describes the support as "India's fulsome approval of a Republican president's effort to overturn decades of established nuclear policy."

Here's how Webster's Second defines "fulsome": "disgusting or offensive, especially because of excess or insincerity." If the Times finds it disgusting or offensive that one democracy is praising the policy decision of another democracy, it might want to explain why, or save the expressions of disgust for its editorials rather than adjectives slipped into news articles. And if the Times is assuming that India is insincere in its praise of Mr. Bush's decision, the newspaper might consider that India might actually be happy about the prospect of a shield that would protect it against missile attacks from Pakistan or China.

As it is, the claim that Mr. Bush's missile defense effort overturns "decades of established nuclear policy" is just false. Public Law 106-38, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, became U.S. law on July 22, 1999, and said, "It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense." Mr. Bush is not overturning the policy but rather breaking with the precedent of the Clinton administration by actually adhering to the policy set by the 1999 law.

Counting Votes: The "political briefing" column in the national section of today's New York Times reports, "Republicans are close to being an endangered species in California -- Democrats control the Legislature, most Congressional seats and all but one statewide elective job -- and a main reason is that in recent years Republicans have backed a number of ballot initiatives that struck many voters as discriminatory." The article doesn't explain how backing initiatives that all passed because they were supported by majorities of the state's voters has had the effect of causing California Republicans to become endangered.

Lost in Brooklyn: The real estate section of today's New York Times includes an article about living in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. "Neighborhood parents can also consider three private schools in Brooklyn Heights," the article reports, naming St. Ann's, Packer, and "the Brooklyn Friends School at 375 Pearl Street." In fact the Brooklyn Friends School and Pearl Street are not in Brooklyn Heights but in downtown Brooklyn.

The international section of today's New York Times carries a dispatch about political developments in Iran. The article reports, "Iran's revolution has evolved into an extended, sometimes bloody tug of war between those who would have it remain much as it was in its early days and those in Mr. Khatami's camp who favor some evolution. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has supported the conservatives, who also control the security agencies, the courts, the police, the army, state-run television and important oversight committees."

Saying that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "has supported the conservatives" is like saying the king has supported the monarchists. It is, in other words, a confusing, circular and obvious way to describe the situation; more accurately, Mr. Khamenei is a conservative (not in the American sense) and the conservative cause in Iran is the effort to maintain his absolute authority.

And yes, something can be confusing and obvious at the same time.

Revolting on the U.N.: The lead editorial in today's New York Times, "Revolt at the U.N.," is a perfect example of the Times's blame-America-first attitudes. The U.N. votes America off the Human Rights Commission and leaves Sudan and Libya on it, and the response of the Times is that it is the fault of the Bush administration and of "American behavior." This is confusing the effect with the cause. The Times would have its readers believe that the U.N. often acts like a silly anti-American gathering of dictatorships because America treats the U.N. with disdain; in fact, America treats the U.N. with disdain because the U.N. often acts like a silly anti-American gathering of dictatorships.

Note: Smartertimes.com is in Massachusetts today and is operating off the New England Final edition of the New York Times.

A dispatch from the United Nations on the front page of today's New York Times reports that America was voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The second paragraph of the article reports, "The ouster of the United States from the commission while nations like Sudan and Pakistan were chosen for membership was certain to generate further hostility to the United Nations among conservatives in Washington."

It's not just conservatives in Washington certain to become hostile as a result of this decision; it's anyone with more than two and a half brain cells. Here's a quote from today's New York Times from Rep. Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California who can hardly be described as a conservative: "It is absurd that rogue states and chronic human rights abusers such as Libya, Sudan and Cuba remain on the commission and sit in judgment on the human rights practices of others while the United States now stands on the sidelines."

The Times focus on the reaction from "conservatives in Washington" spins the story from a straightforward example of U.N. silliness into just another partisan skirmish in Washington.

Late Again: The New York Times waddles in today with a six-paragraph, unbylined article in its national section reporting on the settlement of Sidney Blumenthal's lawsuit against Matt Drudge. The Washington Post carried this news on Wednesday morning; it's just laughable that it takes the New York Times two full days to follow with a less complete report than the one the Post had.

A correction in today's New York Times displays the newspaper's classic attitude toward Jewish matters. It says, "A television review on April 21 about 'Varian's War,' a film on Showtime about the efforts of Varian Fry, an American, to save European artists and intellectuals from the Holocaust, misstated the religious affiliation of some notable figures he rescued. Marcel Duchamp, Max Ernst and Heinrich Mann were not Jews."

Well, glad that was cleared up -- not. The correction raises more questions than it answers. If Ernst, Duchamp and Mann were not Jews, why did they need to be rescued from the Holocaust? Were they victims of the Nazi campaign against "degenerate" art? Did they have Jewish grandparents? It would be nice if the Times filled its readers in on the answer.

The glaringly odd wording, though, is the description of whether someone is or is not a Jew as a "religious affiliation." The definition being used by Hitler at the time Fry was operating had little to do with "religious affiliation" and much to do with bloodlines. Similarly, many Orthodox and traditional Conservative Jews today consider anyone born to a Jewish mother to be a Jew -- you can't convert out. And many secular Jews and non-practicing Jews and Zionist Jews today consider their Judaism to be a cultural, national or historical heritage, not a "religious affiliation." The only camp that would naturally describe Judaism strictly as a "religious affiliation" is the classical, German-influenced, American Reform Judaism. And that, coincidentally, was the Judaism preferred by those members of the Ochs and Sulzberger families who hadn't yet become Episcopalians.

Under the guise of a 'military analysis,' the New York Times this morning publishes a front-page opinion piece that is sharply critical of President Bush's speech on missile defense.

Some choice excerpts: "But Mr. Bush not only failed to answer these questions in today's address. He also did not even acknowledge them."

And: "But the debate over antimissile systems is not an all-or-nothing proposition as Mr. Bush implied today."

And -- this tops it -- "Even with the end of the cold war, the United States has a stake in maintaining a good working relationship with Russia to safeguard its nuclear arsenal, fight the spread of weapons of mass destruction and avoid an arms race." Unpack that one: It seems to take as a given, for one thing, that America had a stake in maintaining "a good working relationship" with Russia and avoiding an arms race even before the end of the Cold War. In fact, there's a strong argument to be made that the American interest -- and certainly the interests of the Russian citizens and others trapped under the boot of the totalitarian Soviet Communist regime -- was best served by America entering and winning an arms race with the Soviet Union and by placing the desire to maintain a "good working relationship" behind the desire to spread freedom and democracy. For another thing, the "good working relationship" that America maintained with Russia during the Clinton administration consisted primarily of the American taxpayers funneling billions of dollars to Moscow, which was then looted by corrupt Russian officials -- while Russia helped Iran build a nuclear reactor and missiles to deliver nuclear payloads. And finally, the idea that America needs to "avoid an arms race" with Russia now is laughable. The Russians can't afford an arms race with America, and if they tried to enter such a race, America would win. The United States doesn't have a stake in avoiding such an arms race; Russia does.

In any case, if dovish think-tank analysts or European ambassadors or Democratic congressmen want to make these arguments criticizing Mr. Bush's missile defense plan, the Times should by all means report on them. And if the Times wants to make these arguments in its editorials, that's another thing. But slapping the label "military analysis" on the opinions and then sticking them on the newspaper's front page just confirms the views of those who think the Times has not been playing the missile defense story straight. The "military analysis" doesn't quote a single critic of Mr. Bush's plans or even name a critic -- it just offers the opinions of the newspaper's own correspondent, or his editors.

'1947 War': A dispatch from Jerusalem in the international section of today's New York Times is about a retired Israeli general who "commanded an important company during the 1947 war." While violence broke out in Palestine after the U.N. announced partition in November of 1947, Israel's war for independence took place in 1948. The reference to "the 1947 war" is bound to baffle readers familiar with Israel's history.

Conservative Grumbling: A headline in the national section of today's New York Times says, "Senate Takes on Bush's Education Bill as Some Conservatives Grumble." A search of the Times archives since 1996 shows the phrase "conservatives grumble" appeared nine times, while the phrase "liberals grumble" appeared three times. "Grumble" is slightly pejorative for a news headline; it suggests the complaints are somehow grumpy or unwarranted. But maybe that is just conservative grumbling.

The lead, front-page news article in today's New York Times reports on America's energy policy. The article describes a report "to be released later this week" by "the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy." The report, the Times says, "estimates that raising the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks by what it calls a modest amount could do far more to reduce reliance on imported oil than drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

The Times goes on about this report for four paragraphs, including one that is a subtle dig at the vice president: "Mr. Cheney did not discuss the merits of raising government-mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards in his address today. But he strongly defended the administration's proposal to allow drilling for oil and gas in the Alaskan refuge."

Nowhere does the Times disclose to its readers that this American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is funded partly by utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Boston Edison and Southern California Edison. The council is also partly funded by companies with an interest in promoting solar energy. And the Council's board of directors includes representatives of those companies. Raising fuel-efficiency standards for cars probably would reduce reliance on imported oil, but it would also probably increase reliance on electricity produced by those utilities and used to charge electric cars. The Times also doesn't mention that increased fuel efficiency standards probably mean lighter, smaller cars -- and more highway deaths in car crashes as a result.

It's no more responsible of the Times to report on this study by the "American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy" without mentioning the financial interests of the study's funders than it would be for the Times to report on medical research funded by drug companies without mentioning that the drug companies are funding the research. Far be it from Smartertimes.com to suggest that studies partly funded by private industry are any less credible than those funded solely by tax dollars or by universities. But disclosing the source of the funding would at least allow readers to weigh such issues for themselves. As it is, the typical New York Times reader, without the benefit of Smartertimes.com, would have no idea that this study by the "American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy" was partly funded by utilities.

Cellular Confusion: An article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports on the scene at a club called "Doubles." The article says, "A young guest waiting at the bar became momentarily frustrated when her mobile phone was unable to connect with its appointed satellite." Well, the fact may have escaped the technological wizards over on the Times metro desk, but mobile phones don't work via satellites. They transmit and receive signals via ground-based antennae. If the guest at the bar was toting a satellite phone it would be worth noting in the article because they are rare and expensive.

Most Compelling: Here's a line looking back on the 2000 presidential election, from an op-ed piece in today's New York Times. "The most compelling figure in the race, according to many voters, was John McCain, who epitomized a style of politics thoroughly at odds with that of Mr. Bush." If Mr. McCain was the most compelling figure in the race, why didn't he win?

Undocumented: An article in the national section of this morning's New York Times runs under the headline, "Undocumented Immigrants Scramble to Get Through a Small Window of Opportunity." The article twice refers to "undocumented" immigrants. This is a violation of the Times's own style; the stylebook entry says "undocumented" is "a euphemism in references to people who have entered a country in violation of the law." The Times stylebook says "illegal immigrant" is the preferred term.

Can't Win: A dispatch from Cincinnati in the national section of today's Times reports that some black leaders there are demanding that the city's schools restore vocational training. The Times reports that the city "dismantled vocational training two decades ago for lack of money." Well, lack of money may well have been the reason that vocational schools were dismantled in Cincinnati, but in a lot of other places it was dismantled because black leaders and white liberals complained that it was segregating minority students and preventing them from getting a liberal arts education. If Cincinnati does in fact restore vocational education, such complaints are likely to resurface.

The lead, front-page news article in this morning's New York Times is about missile defense. "By all accounts, the Bush administration's approach is fundamentally different from that of the Clinton administration, which designed a more limited system," the Times reports. "The Clinton administration's system involved the deployment of 100 interceptors and the construction of a battle-management radar on Shemya island in the Alaskan Aleutians. The goal was to persuade the Russians to amend the ABM treaty, not to replace it."

This is an example of historical revisionism. The Clinton administration's missile system didn't involve the "deployment" or "construction" of anything. It involved a lot of talk and testing and delaying and consulting with Europeans and sending Nelson Strowbridge Talbott III to go stroke the Russians. The result is that after eight years of Mr. Clinton's presidency America is still vulnerable to penetration by enemy missiles.

The New York Times actually reported along the way on the Clinton administration's delays in the deployment and construction of missile defense, so it's mystifying to see the paper now asserting that the Clinton system involved the "deployment" and "construction" of anything other than rhetoric.

Out of Control on Rent Control: The lead news article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports that the Republican mayor of New York was "disappointed" that a city board approved a 4 percent annual increase in rents of privately owned rent-stabilized apartments. The increase was too large, according to the mayor. Missing from the article is a quote from anyone wondering why, in what is generally a free-market economy, the government is setting the prices for privately owned housing. It's as if anyone with a view that is more free-market than Mayor Giuliani's is beyond the boundaries of the policy debate, as far as the Times is concerned. If the pattern holds, the Times "Big City" columnist will waddle in in the next week or two with a column pointing out the absurdity of this situation. But why should free-market views be relegated to a token columnist? Why not actually let a free-market view be expressed by a source in a news article?

Abdel Who? A dispatch from Cairo in the international section of today's New York Times includes a reference to a "Mr. Abdel Maguid." Mr. Abdel Maguid's first name and title never appear in the article. That leaves readers wondering who he is.

Usual Suspect: A front-page article in today's New York Times reports on product placements in a new ABC reality show. One person quoted bemoaning the network's practices -- the only person quoted bemoaning the network's practices, in fact -- is identified as "the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, a public advocacy group that deals with a range of issues from nutrition to commercialization." A more direct description of the Center for Science in the Public Interest appeared in an article in the March 21, 2001, "Dining In, Dining Out" section of the New York Times. That article identified the center as "usual suspects," "food police" and "movie popcorn equals death."

To its credit, the New York Times Book Review today publishes a review debunking a new book accusing Israel of deliberately killing 34 Americans in the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. The review says this section is the book's "weakest," that the claim "hardly seems plausible" and that the author "sides with the conspiracy theorists," and "rather too credulously," at that. All of which makes it even more egregious and inexplicable that the New York Times news department spun this book's claim into a full-length news article on April 23, 2001, a news article so one-sided that, as Smartertimes.com noted on April 23, 2001, the article didn't even include a fresh comment from the Israeli government responding to the allegation. The Times book review suggests that perhaps the book's analysis "has been skewed" by the author's "palpable distaste for the Jewish state." What, readers are left to wonder, was it that skewed the coverage of the book's claim by the Times news department?

For more on the USS Liberty, check out the article by Michael Oren in the Israeli journal Azure.

Distracting Issues: The editorial in today's New York Times asserts, "Bill Clinton struggled to enact his economic policies and health care reforms amid the chaos created by his swirling personal style and distracting issues like gays in the military." Well, the Times may consider gays in the military a "distracting" issue, but for a newspaper that periodically pats itself on the back for its support of gay rights, it's a bit of a strange way to phrase it. The issue wasn't "distracting" for gays trying to serve in the military; to them, it was actually pretty important.

Driving Drunk: An article in the Style and Entertaining "Part 2" of this morning's New York Times magazine reports on an alcohol-soaked dinner. "The drive home was in defiance of some serious laws, but at that time of year the roads on far eastern Long Island were almost empty," the Times reports. Well, guess that's the New York Times attitude toward drunk driving: Just try to avoid heavy traffic.

Old Saw: An article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports that Atlanta "saw its downtown compared to a flea market and an unsolved bombing that marred the games." This is poorly worded; it sounds like the downtown is being compared to an unsolved bombing. It also violates the Times style rule on "saw." The Times stylebook says "saw is a journalese mannerism in this kind of sentence: 'The scandal saw 33 officers arrested; The day saw 11 people injured.' Neither scandals not days can see." Atlanta can't see, either.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson's charity, the Citizenship Education Fund, has filed an amended federal tax return for 1999. The New York Times deals with this news this morning by publishing a four-paragraph item in its national section under the headline, "A Jackson Group Amends Tax Return." The Times article totally omits the fact, reported in today's New York Post, that the New York City Board of Education is listed on the new tax return as having donated $15,000 to the Citizenship Education Fund. Surely that news would be of interest to the Times's New York City readership, even if the Board of Education claims, as the Post reports, that there was no such donation. The Post reports the news under the headline, "Jackson's 'revised' tax return still error-filled," and generally provides a fuller and more skeptical account than the New York Times does.

British Air: The "Business Digest" column on the front of the business section of today's New York Times carries an item under the headline, "$1.4 Million Investment at Airline." The item reports that "In a rare vote of confidence, Sir Christopher Bland, the newly appointed chairman of British Telecommunications, will invest about $1.4 million of his own money in the debt-ridden company." BT isn't an airline.

The national section of today's New York Times carries a news article about President Bush's budget. The article reports, "Mr. Bush's budget proposed an increase in spending for the coming year of 4 percent on the array of general government programs for which Congress must set spending levels each year. That would be an increase sharply lower than in recent years, when that category of spending climbed about 6 percent to 8 percent a year." The effect of that sentence is to make Mr. Bush look like a tightwad. But here's what actually happened to discretionary outlays of the federal government in recent years, according to the Office of Management and Budget's historical tables contained in Mr. Bush's budget. From 1991 to 1992, discretionary spending increased 0.1 percent. From 1992 to 1993, it increased 1 percent. From 1993 to 1994 it increased 0.4 percent. From 1994 to 1995 it increased 0.6 percent. From 1995 to 1996 it decreased 2.2 percent. From 1996 to 1997 it increased 2.7 percent. From 1997 to 1998 it increased 0.8 percent. From 1998 to 1999 it increased 3.6 percent. From 1999 to 2000 it increased 7.5 percent, and from 2000 to 2001 it is estimated to increase 5.6 percent. (Real 1996 dollars are the basis for these comparisons.)

In other words, President Bush's proposed 4 percent increase in discretionary spending is larger than the actual increase in eight out of the last ten years. For the Times to describe this as "sharply lower than in recent years" is to focus on the last two years instead of the last ten years. It warps the policy debate in favor of more spending.

If the Times op-ed columnists or editorialists want to play these kinds of games with numbers, that's one thing. But to pull this kind of stunt in a news article that runs under the headline, "Bush Faces Senate Struggle On Rise in Rate of Spending" is the sort of thing that erodes a newspaper's credibility.

The New York Times has now been reduced to printing the articles that don't meet Newsweek's standards. The case at hand is an article accusing a genuine war hero, Senator Bob Kerrey, of, as a New York Times editorial puts it this morning, "the purposeful shooting of noncombatants" in the village of Thanh Phong.

The Times news coverage this morning dwells on the background of Senator Kerrey, but it tells very little about the background of the writer for the Times magazine. That writer has accused the U.S. Navy of embellishing the Soviet naval threat and of culpability in the downing of an Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes.

The Times editorial says the Thanh Phong incident is a "horrible lesson of the physical and psychological damage to people on both sides when a great power undertakes a war without a rationale." The war in Vietnam, the Times editorial says, "seemed to lack any rationale except the wrecking of as many lives as possible on both sides."

Well, the South Vietnamese who fled by the thousands in rickety boats to avoid communist rule understood that there was a "rationale" to the war. But even if the Times claims there was no rationale, the truth is, an event like Thanh Phong can happen in any war, with or without a "rationale." The way Senator Kerrey tells the story to the Times magazine, he only discovered the dead women and children after a nighttime exchange of fire. The American who claims the women and children were killed in cold blood, we are told by the Times magazine, "immigrated from Germany as a child" and "comes from a long line of German military men." Unexplained, this information raises more questions than it answers. Why is the account of the German more credible than that of Senator Kerrey? And if Senator Kerrey's account is correct, what it amounts to is essentially an accident -- a tragic accident, but not a war crime, and surely not worthy of the razzle-dazzle treatment the Times gives it today, with a lead editorial, a front-page news article, and a splashy animated display on its web site.

A dispatch from Jerusalem in today's New York Times reports that "Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, is taking some steps to curb and condemn attacks on Israelis." The Times reports that Mr. Arafat "effectively denounced terrorism on Monday, stating publicly in Arabic that he does not 'agree to any form of attack on Israeli or Palestinian civilians.'"

Only an apologist for Mr. Arafat could consider this a step to curb and condemn attacks on Israelis. In fact, by specifying that he does not agree to attacks on Israeli "civilians," Mr. Arafat is essentially declaring open season on Israeli soldiers. He might as well have said, "Go kill Israeli soldiers."

Since Israel has an army of citizen-soldiers, the distinction between soldiers and civilians is lost on many Israelis. An Israeli shot and killed by a Palestinian Arab is just as dead whether the Israeli was in uniform or not.

Fun With Labels: A dispatch from Washington in today's New York Times reports on President Bush's picks to be the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force. A liberal critic of the nominations is described as being from "the Center for Defense Information, a non-profit policy group." A conservative backer of the nominations is described as being from "the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization." Why is it that the Times invariably labels conservative groups as conservative but labels liberal groups with neutral labels?

Good Reason: A "military analysis" in today's New York Times reports on President Bush's proposed arms sale to Taiwan. "With good reason, Washington did not agree to sell M-1 tanks. Even Taiwan military experts cannot make a good case for the tanks," the Times reports. Well, guess there's no mystery where the Times news department stands on that question.

Sinking Feeling: An article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports that the new editor of the New York Post "has boasted about his occasional habit of urinating in his office sink during editors' meetings." The way this is written, it sounds like the urinating happened during editors' meetings. More likely, it was the boasting that happened during the editors' meetings. But you never know.

A front-page story in the metro section of today's New York Times reports on the role of the Liberal Party in the mayoral race. The article manages to avoid mentioning that one of the four candidates seeking the Liberal Party's endorsement, Herman Badillo, is a name partner in the law firm of the leader of the Liberal Party, Raymond Harding. The firm is Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner and Harding.

The article also claims that "ideology has never been high on the Liberal Party checklist when it comes to doling out endorsements." That's just false, at least when you use the conventional definition of the word "never." The Liberal Party was founded in 1944 after the American Labor Party was taken over by Communists; it gave Jewish liberals a way of voting for Franklin Delano Roosevelt without aligning themselves with the Democratic Tammany Hall machine. Ideology had a lot to do with it, notwithstanding the Times claim about "never."

The Times article concludes by reporting, "Mr. Bloomberg could well have more to gain from a Liberal Party endorsement than Mr. Hevesi, and would be more in Mr. Harding's debt should he win -- a fact that has no doubt crossed Mr. Harding's mind." How does the Times know with so little doubt what's going on in Mr. Harding's mind? He is quoted in the article, but not on this particular topic. If the Times actually interviewed Mr. Harding on this point, he might have denied that he was considering the question this way. That would have robbed the Times of the fun of asserting what with "no doubt" is crossing Mr. Harding's mind.

The Gore campaign continues in today's New York Times profile of Ralph Nader. The article runs under a headline asserting that Mr. Nader is "Unrepentant," and it reports that Mr. Nader "has no regrets." This is news? No, this is spin: The Times is haranguing its readers and Mr. Nader with the underlying idea that Mr. Nader ought to have regrets and repent. Does anyone seriously expect Mr. Nader to repent? It's just funny that, more than five months after the election, the Times still is harboring hostility toward Mr. Nader for supposedly costing Al Gore the election. The Times would do better to get over it, already, and stop demanding in headlines that Mr. Nader repent.

One-Sided on Liberty: A news article in today's New York Times reports on a book that claims Israel deliberately attacked an American intelligence ship in 1967, killing 34 American sailors. While the Times article duly passes along the allegations in the book, it doesn't bother including any comment from the Israeli government reacting to the book. You'd think that if the Times were going to accuse a friendly foreign government of essentially murdering 34 Americans, it would make the effort of getting a fresh comment from the foreign government in question. There's no explanation given by the Times of why Israel would be so stupid as to risk alienating its most important military backer, the United States, by deliberately attacking one of its vessels.

'One of the Best': An editorial in this morning's New York Times about the New York mayoral race says, "Unfortunately, in this case the mayor's political gaming could erode not only Mr. Vallone's power base but also one of the best campaign finance systems in the country. Meanwhile, two other Democratic candidates, Borough President Fernando Ferrer of the Bronx and Public Advocate Mark Green, have been pursuing the venerable local practice of turning their public duties into campaign events." The reason that Mr. Ferrer and Mr. Green, and the other candidates, for that matter, have been turning their public duties into campaign events is because they don't want to spend precious campaign funds on such events. And the reason that campaign funds are so carefully hoarded is because of the unreasonably low limits on expenditures imposed by the system the Times calls "one of the best campaign finance systems in the country."

Note: Smartertimes.com is in California and operating off the online edition of the Times.

The Gore campaign marches on, at least in the New York Times news coverage of the Bush administration. The lead article in the Week in Review section of this morning's New York Times reports on how the Bush administration is handling the Middle East. The first quote in the article comes from one Bruce Jentleson, who is identified as "director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University" and a member of "the State Department's policy planning staff in 1993 and 1994." The Times doesn't mention that he was one of two foreign policy coordinators for Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. The Gore connection is not a reason to avoid quoting Mr. Jentleson, but mentioning it in the article might be helpful to readers trying to evaluate Mr. Jentleson's comments and trying to understand why he would be quoted in a Times article about Middle East policy.

Also quoted in the article is Robert Satloff, who is identified as the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Times doesn't mention that Mr. Satloff was considered for a job on the staff of the Bush administration's National Security Council. Again, that's no reason not to quote Mr. Satloff, but it is information that might be helpful to readers trying to evaluate Mr. Satloff's comments.

Abortion and Sex-Selection: A dispatch from India in today's New York Times reports on the widespread practice there of using ultrasound testing to allow parents to detect and abort female fetuses. The parents prefer to have male children. This interesting dispatch would be made more interesting if it included some comments from the American abortion-rights and international family planning groups such as Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. It would be interesting to see what their views of such practices are and whether they would condemn them.

Note: Smartertimes.com is in California and operating off the New York Times national edition.