New York Times Review
In an effort to add some consistency, here's my first installment in a review of the Times for the day in question, which will include a reaction to the articles that I disagree with and the ones that I do agree with.

I never thought in my wildest dreams that I'd side with the Justice Department, but I feel that the unnecessary hysteria has reached a critical mass regarding the Bush administration's most feared specter, John Ashcroft. As has been reported extensively in the last few weeks, the Justice Department is seeking the release of hundreds, perhaps thousands, and most likely only 2,700 medical records for the purposes of supporting a case for the limiting of, what are commonly referred to as, partial birth abortions. Today's Times explains that this dreaded request is just yet another example of Bush reneging on one of his campaign promises that strived to assure much more privacy regarding medical records. However, as it states later in the article, the names are going to be deleted from the records, which, in my mind, assures the privacy of all individuals involved. The fear, though, is that there are certain details that are inherently recognizable that won't be deleted from the records. Recipients of abortions aren't named in the cases, but they also haven't been told that they're records are being requested. If this isn't a case of needless hysteria, I'm not sure what is. Again, I realize the seriousness of having privacy matters compromised, but this seems like an instance of not allowing the government leeway on any issue, due to needless concern.

Adding more ammunition to the Bush re-election campaign, the Times decided to highlight Kerry's constant flip-flopping on the issues. It does contain the following statement regarding the differences between Bush and Kerry that states that "Between the moral clarity, black and white, good and evil of George Bush that distorts and gets reality wrong," he said, "and someone who quotes a French philosopher, André Gide, saying, `Don't try to understand me too much,' I'd let Americans decide which in the end is closer to what they need in a president, in a complex world where if you get it really wrong there are enormous consequences." It's still a dangerous game to play when it comes to defeating the Republicans in the election.

My favorite exchange to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in a Q&A:
Dinitia Smith: “It seems that in the 2000 election the court took a markedly more proactive role."

William Rehnquist: “I don't really want to discuss the ins and outs of Bush against Gore."

Oh, and isn't it great that he mentions that he would have liked to have been an architect if he hadn't been a judge? Just like George Costanza (aka Art Vandalay).

Highlights from the editorial page. The following quotes are interesting to say the least.
From Baseball's Shame
"It is obviously too late to restore the credibility of baseball's records, but it is not too late to level the playing field. And it is never too late to begin educating the next generation of players."
Oh, please, let's not throw all the records away just yet. Also, if you're talking about Barry Bonds, just say his name outright and not tiptoe around in some vague mentioning.

From Missing Witnesses
"The Bush administration needs to rethink its reluctance to share evidence and offer witnesses to aid in the prosecution of Sept. 11 suspects. It was understandable that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the administration was wary of giving too much emphasis to judicial process. But it now stretches credulity to maintain that keeping captives isolated for so long may be necessary to prevent attacks. What it may prevent is credible criminal prosecutions of those implicated in the most heinous crime in American history."
Again, the mind reels at the notion that Bush and his cronies believe they're protecting us by violating the Constitution on a daily basis.