The New York Times editorial page has become a total joke. Check out this piece of insight in which the editorial staff demonstrates their unabashed ignorance of all matters economic.

For nearly two months, Republicans blocked an extension of unemployment benefits, a basic recovery measure.

Yeah, nothing spurs economic recovery more than paying people NOT to work. Then they go on to become deficit hawks, and their proposed solution to the federal deficit is not to cut or even slow spending. Nope, it's raise taxes:

First, he needs to keep driving home that he is committed to addressing the deficit, and that he will call for widespread sacrifice to do so — starting with letting the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans expire at year end.

You almost have to laugh. "Widespread" sacrifice means taxing the "richest Americans?" Never mind that the so-called Bush tax cuts affected every income bracket. It's only the richest that need to participate in the Times widespread sacrifice. And here's why:

Next, he needs to explain why too much sacrifice, too soon, especially from the middle class, would do more harm than good while the economy is weak. More government support is needed until conditions improve.

Oh, I get it. the middle class doesn't need to sacrifice, because that would hurt the economy, and the government needs to support the middle class. I guess by continuing to pay them not to work, as we saw at the start of the piece.

Next, the editors suggest Obama needs a big unifying idea:

He needs to rally the nation around a big idea — a project that is worth sacrificing for, worth paying for, worth working for.

One imagines something inspiring, along the lines of President Kennedy's call to put a man on the moon. The Times is not nearly so imaginative, nor inspiring:

That mission could be the “21st century infrastructure,” that Mr. Obama mentioned on a multi-city trip this month, “not just roads and bridges, but faster Internet access and high-speed rail.” It could be energy independence, with high-tech green jobs and a real chance for addressing global warming. Either of the above would make sense, economically and politically.

Roads, bridges, fast trains, and internet access? Jobs at windmill factories? This is supposed to inspire and rally an entire population? Most of which already has plenty of roads and bridges, as well as internet access. And doesn't much care about trains, not because they don't go 120 miles an hour, but because they don't go 600 miles an hour.

Now, for the big payout from the elite editors of the New York Times:

We believe Americans are ready for hard truths and big ideas.

If these morons think suggesting raising taxes on rich people while extending welfare for the unemployed and doubling the speed of trains are "hard truths and big ideas," they really are insulated in their left wing cocoon.

If it wasn't the New York Times, I would think I was reading The Onion:

... Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.

I guess this counts as cutting edge wisdom in New York, but to me it's a moronic platitude. Everything any of us do remains legal until somebody else criminalizes it. I guess in Tom DeLay's case the Times considers this remarkable.

Here's an interesting post complete with pictures. Compare and contrast:

Chelsea Clinton's wedding: "They hold this wedding at the Astor Estate, with its porcelain bath fixtures, paying millions of dollars, and claim to be for the little people?"

Jenna Bush's wedding: "She had a small, discrete ceremony in Crawford, Texas."

Bonus observation: "It's like the difference between Al Gore's multiple mansions and George W. Bush's simple ranch that really is a 'green', environmentally friendly home."