An odd article in the New York Times
I suppose that, as a native Californian I should be flattered that on such a big news day (war starting and such) the NYT takes time to cover what "we" think. To be honest, it didn't even occur to me to fret about what New Yorkers think and feel on this day... at least no more so than what, oh, Virginians, Texans, Alaskans or Arizonians might think. In retrospect, I should have, though.. since the 9/11 attack happend there and it's natural that they be more freaked out than the average bear.
But why would the Times decide top cover SF and LA today? Is it the assumption that, as prime "blue" area and having been as far as possible from the 9/11 attack, "we" can be counted on to agree with their editorial board? Is it a reflection of the "only the coasts matter" mindset? Much is made of how differnet the West coast is from the east coast... but both are probably more diffeent from, say, anywhere in-between... so contrast doesn't seem to be the big thing. Though I suppose it could be to re-enforce tehir self-image as the "serious" side of the country? The Hollywood jackasses they mention in the article sure don't make us look all that bright: "During some lunchtime and office-cooler chatter there has even been longing for President Clinton, a Hollywood favorite, who, the reasoning goes, would never have allowed a war to play havoc with Oscar night, one of the state's most hallowed traditions."