Sometimes you have to wonder just how idiotic the New York Times really is.
From their post-election Goo Goo editorial on needed electoral reforms, they include this item:
1. A holiday for voting. It's wrong for working people to be forced to choose between standing in a long line to vote and being on time for work. Election Day should be a holiday, to underscore the significance of the event, to give all voters time to cast ballots and to free up more qualified people to serve as poll workers.They've been printing a letter to the editor about once a week espousing this, but you can argue that letters to the editor don't tell you much about the editors. But this is an editorial, written by the editors. Are they this clueless?
When the government declares a "holiday," it means that we pay government workers not to work; it doesn't mean that other employers give their employees the day off. Do the editors of the Times think that employers are going to rush out to give an extra vacation day to their employees?
Well, there's a simple explanation: maybe the editors of the Times actually plan to mandate that employers give employees the day off?
Gee, that will work well. Are we going to shut down hospitals? Taxis? Restaurants? Day care?
What's that? Some people will have to work? Who? Who decides? Is the government going to establish a new Department of Elections to decide which jobs are vital and can be performed on election day, and which ones require days off for workers?
Sheesh. (Of course, while I'm sure the Times would have no philosophical objection to such a new, powerful, sweeping government bureaucracy, I suspect the real answer is that they simply haven't thought past "Holiday good.")