The State Journal - Inane or Fatuous?

In its lead editorial today, the WSJ calls on local officials to ease the squeeze on property taxpayers. The paper correctly notes wages are stagnant or falling (or worse for those who have lost their jobs). The editorial ends:

It's time for more accountability and significant budget cuts to ease the squeeze on homeowners across Wisconsin.

Huh? More accountability? More than the elections we hold every spring?

"Significant budget cuts"? The editors fail to make any suggestions for these significant budget cuts. What should be cut? Why not run an editorial calling for higher wages without explaining how this change would be accomplished.

***

And then there's the front page, the place where hard news used to lead. No more. Today, the WSJ asks its readers to ponder "Can prayer help heal?" And not the idea that prayer helps a person's emotional or spiritual outlook in ways that make them better able to fight off disease. No, this story is about 'intercessory prayer'. Strangers pray for you and you get better. On the top of the front page.

Here's a study. But why study it? Isn't it a matter of faith to believe in the prayer? (Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof.") If you need science to prove it, doesn't that just show your lack of faith? And will true believers change their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence anyway?

***

A more perplexing question: why I do still pay money for this "news" paper? You can get a new subscription to the NYT Weekender for some pretty attractive rates. Actual news included.