priorities

my problem with the coverage of the war in iraq is pretty much summed up by today's new york times. on the front page there's a story about a chinese takeout place in baghdad.

if you manage to make it to page 10, you finally learn that armed men ousted the mayor of baghdad and replaced him with a follower of the badr organization--an iranian sponsored organization. that quite recently was battling u.s. troops two thirds of the way down the article about the mayoral ousting, they also mention that an american soldier was killed yesterday and two more were wounded. in other attacks, a total of 4 civilians were killed in bagdad, with 58 more wounded. the article ends by noting that the ousted mayor will probably flee iraq:

"When I left [Iraq] in 1995, every day, it is years for me," Mr. Tamimi said. "But now when I leave I don't think I will be sorry. I leave because I cannot live in such conditions."

not that i'm not interesting in how to find authentic chinese cuisine in baghdad, but i can't explain the priorities the placement of those articles seems to suggest. maybe finding good chinese food in iraq is an issue dear to the heart of the times reporters. i guess anyone would get sick of falafels and kabobs after a while

(note: post edited after aaron pointed out my screw-up)