Ten years ago, consumer watchdogs complained because the FDA was inspecting only about 2% of imported food. Now it's 1%. Too few FDA inspectors have been trying to stay on top of too many tainted products from China alone -- pet food, toothpaste, fish.

It's time for a little self-questioning alarm at the agencies that are supposed to ensure food quality. Instead, they show a disconcerting level of complacency. USDA officials are saying there's no evidence that beef from the sick animals at Hallmark Meat entered the food supply, though they can't say it didn't; and schools immediately stopped serving the meat. And even though it's illegal to process "downer" cattle for consumption because the symptoms can indicate mad cow disease, USDA Undersecretary Richard Raymond insisted that his agency "safeguards the safety and wholesomeness of our food supply." Not this time, apparently.

The superdelegates will almost certainly determine the outcome. If they do, it will not just have the potential of making the entire process a travesty of democracy but also a tragedy for the Democratic party. For if the superdelegates go against the popular will of the voters, whoever emerges as "victor" will enter the presidential election shorn of democratic legitimacy and devoid of electoral credibility.

"It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided," said Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives' speaker. Too true. But while Pelosi's argument answers the question about what the superdelegates should do at the party convention in August, it begs another. If superdelegates are going to follow the popular vote anyway, why have them in the first place?

In last year's Supreme Court sleeper case, a woman named Lily Ledbetter lost her right to sue because she didn't go to court the first time her paycheck was docked because of sex discrimination, as opposed to when she later realized she was being shortchanged. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear a new employment discrimination case that could also shake up the law of the land and leave the court's liberal dissenters apoplectic. This one may not only prune back employees' rights under the particular statute at issue, but also help the Supreme Court's conservatives rein in discrimination suits more generally.

The current state science standards address earth sciences but rarely blend in climate change. In some states, climate change receives parenthetical mention, but to ensure significant student exposure and understanding it needs to be woven in as a significant content or subject area. Making it part of the standards and the curriculum rather than an optional topic will mitigate the problem of science teachers avoiding it due to concerns that it is partisan and will provoke a parental backlash.