The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Rocket Failure May Test Leader of North Korea,” describes more than the waste of a $1 billion effort, it represents an amazing loss of face for the country’s new leader, Kim Jong-un.

Already young for the head of a nation, in his 20s, Kim Jong-un had built a special $400 million launching facility to highlight his nation’s mastery of the complex machinery needed to put a satellite in orbit. Yet this attempt attained only an altitude of 94 miles, far short of the 310 miles needed.

Surprisingly, North Korea admitted the failure; previously, the nation claimed to have succeeded in its goal when it clearly hadn’t. It may be that the power of global communications was the reason for this admission. With cellphones being smuggled into the country through China, the reality of the situation would have soon become evident.

The question then becomes what Mr. Jong-un will do next. According to his nation’s lore, a new leader must establish himself with extraordinary deeds, and many North Korea watchers believe that the test of a nuclear weapon is imminent. Satellite imagery has already picked up possible preparations.

Even worse, the North Koreans may try to replicate a recent attack on a border island with South Korea, and a full-scale war could erupt as a result.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Campaigns Plan Maximum Push to Raise Money,” provides a sobering look at the role money had on the Republican primary and predicts an even greater outpouring during the general election.

While President Obama may not actually raise a billion dollars — his advisers claim that’s a scare tactic to boost conservative donations — it is going to get pretty close. And with Romney aides predicting a haul of $600 million, not counting their super PAC, it puts great pressure on the President’s campaign to match or exceed it.

But President Obama has only recently launched his super PAC, Priorities USA Action, and it has had trouble raising money so far (not counting Bill Maher’s generous million-dollar donation).

When Mr. Obama bowed out of the federal financing system for the 2008 election, he ended up outspending McCain by a ratio of 4 to 1. This time, many predict the Republicans will achieve parity, and that’s a chilling thought.

Chilling on a variety of fronts: the Republicans would reverse the clock on so many ways we have progressed since the 1950′s, reducing Pell grants and other investments in education, turning back women’s rights on many fronts beyond the hot-button issue of abortion, decimating support for medical research, the environment and so much more.

Yes, the contrast is stark in this election — the Republicans are truly promoting a form of social Darwinism, but human beings are not wild animals. It is our protection and caring for each other that sets us apart and makes us civilized.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Prosecutor Files Charge of 2nd Degree Murder in Shooting of Martin,” at long last starts to bring some modicum of justice to a race-tinged situation.

The crime took place in February, and George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch person who committed the killing, has been free since then. There were suspicions of him becoming a flight risk, but he is now in custody.

The killing sparked protest marches across the country, and Ms. Angela Corey, a state attorney, was appointed as the special prosecutor in the case. Her decision to avoid a grand jury was widely seen as a courageous one, taking responsibility for the situation rather than trying to put guilt on a grand jury.

All the victim’s family wanted was a fair trial, and that’s what they’ll get. On the face of matters, it seems like Mr. Zimmerman is guilty, but Florida’s Stand Your Ground legislation could be a wildcard in the situation.

This law gives the benefit of a doubt to the person using deadly force, and it is now being widely reviewed in other states across the country where it has been enacted.

There are still possibilities of an acquittal and the racial tension that will cause. But one strong likelihood is a settlement of the case without a trial.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Santorum Quits Race, Clearing a Path for Romney,” provides an expected denouement to the contest with Mitt Romney the undisputed winner.

But the way Romney won could come back to bite him. His approach was basically a no holds barred negative campaign to destroy his opponents. That left a bitter taste in their mouths, most especially Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, neither of whom have any desire to rally around and support him now.

Mr. Romney, in the process, ran up his own unfavorable ratings, making the cardinal error of failing to define himself positively before embarking on a negative campaign against his opponents. While his tactics did give him the victory, they also depended on reduced turnouts for the result. This reduced turnout of Republicans could prove critical on election day.

Santorum did not even mouth the word Romney during his suspension speech, a sign of how bitter the contest had become. His immediate reason for leaving the race involved the $2.9 million negative campaign Romney was teeing up against him in Pennsylvania. If Santorum lost his home state, it would have doomed any Presidential run in 2016, and that’s why he quit.

One wonders what Romney will do now to try and woo the conservatives back without affecting his chances in the general election.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Facebook to Buy Mobile Start-Up for $1 Billion,” shows the power of the online industry and particularly that of Facebook.

Facebook was designed for use with larger computers and browsers while the field is increasingly being dominated by mobile devices. Instagram provided a social network, based on photo sharing from smartphones, and Facebook bought it in order to facilitate its own move into the mobile industry.

While some more cynical people suggest that Facebook’s real motive was to steal the programming talent from Instagram, others noted the strategic elements of the purchase, and Mark Zuckerberg’s promise to keep Instagram intact.

Zuckerberg, of course, will be holding his own public offering for Facebook next month, and many predict a $500 billion valuation for the company. Meanwhile, the two founders of Instagram, Mark Krieger and Kevin Systrom, are now worth millions themselves, and they are only in their 20s.

The next move by Facebook, many predict, will be to monetize the smartphone software industry in much the same way it has done for standard social networks. For those of us who treasure their smartphones, that is not an appealing possibility. Facebook is one of the few software giants with absolutely no customer service.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Transfers Control of Raids to Afghanistan,” describes a new agreement that is actually a fig leaf to justify longer U.S. involvement in the country.

The facts of the story involve a legal agreement that Afghan forces will be in the lead for future night raids and the requirement of a warrant 72 hours in advance. However, buried further down near the end of the story is the real information for those attempting to read between the lines — the U.S. wanted the agreement in place before a coming NATO meeting in Chicago at the end of May when they will hammer out an agreement between the U.S. and Afghan government for the next 10 years.

This 10-year proposal commits the United States far longer than any American, except perhaps the military brass, wants for the future. And this supposed yielding of sovereignty will give Afghanistan the so-called independence to agree to 10 more years of “occupation.”

The agreement itself provides dubious sovereignty anyway. The Afghans supposedly have to get a warrant 72 hours in advance of a night raid, but the requirement can be waived if immediate action is required. The U.S. will be sharing intelligence and can be called in by their Afhan colleagues at any point during the operation. And, since the U.S. pays the salaries of the Afghan military to the tune of $4.1 billion per year, the Afghan army is likely to remain subservient in almost every respect.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “After a Winter of Strong Gains, Job Growth Ebbs,” demonstrates the continuing uncertainty about the economic recovery, with month-to-month results giving mixed signals.

After two previous months of strong growth with around 250,000 jobs added each, this past month only showed a gain of 120,000 jobs. It followed a recent pattern in the past two years with encouraging statistics in the winter followed by a pullback in the spring.

Of course, the Democrats and Republicans each tried to put their own spin on the data, but it seems like we will have to wait another month to see if this slowdown is an aberration or reason to be concerned. Manufacturing continues to lead the way in job growth, but a number of disconcerting signals suggest that its impact might be limited. These signals include a decline in average hours per workweek and in temporary positions — both indicators should increase before employers decide to hire more people.

There are also a number of outside developments to be concerned about as well. One, of course, is rising gas prices. Uncertainty about healthcare requirements is a second. And the economic situation in Europe continues to be unsettled as well, now with a weak bond offering by Spain. Next month’s unemployment figures will be even more important.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Big Turnaround on Fundraising for GOP Panel,” sounds a warning note to Democrats in the era of Super PACs: Beware of Republican fat cats.

The Republican National Committee has taken advantage of a division of responsibilities, albeit informal, with Super PACS, allowing the latter to take the lead on general election advertising while the RNC fills up its coffers with donations and start to build a ground game for like-minded voters in November.

Michael Steele, the former RNC Chair, left the organization deeply in debt, and the current organization is not only paying it off but acting proactively as well. They have also created a “presidential trust” solely targeted at the general election, once the nominee is officially chosen.

President Obama’s campaign, who had a substantial advantage in fundraising the last time around, is scrambling to compensate. They have invested heavily in information technology, data collection and party building while the Republican have focused more on creating a network of large donors.

One wonders, though, if the Republicans are taking the right track. The President is building the infrastructure to success while the Republicans will only have the money to do so, two very different situations.

One thing that noone doubts — especially in the swing states — there will be a barrage of heavy advertising for a lot longer than most people want, or can bear.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Christie Leaning on Tax Subsidies in Hunt for Jobs,” describes the typical Republican in-bed-with-business approach to the economy. The Governor has misused the Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit Program and been criticized by government reform groups for it. He has handed out subsidies for 10-to-15 years into the future, ostensibly to keep jobs in New Jersey, but in reality providing major subsidies to businesses above and beyond all reason.

The amounts are staggering and work out to more than $300,000 per job retained. Probably the most reprehensible is a deal offered to Prudential for more than $250 million to help the company build an office tower. Meanwhile, Prudential’s previous landlords, also in New Jersey, are up in arms about the situation and have filed suit.

Other organizations benefiting from Governor Christie’s largesse are Panasonic, Campbell Soup and Goya Foods. Campbell actually elminated jobs but still kept some of the subsidy.

Needless to say, Mayor Bloomberg is not too pleased about the situation either. But he has done a better job of saving jobs for New York City than Governor Christie, without any subsidies. New York City has recovered 80 percent of the jobs lost in the recession while New Jersey has only recovered 20 percent.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney Adds Three Victories and Clashes with Obama,” describes the final act of the Republican presidential primary and the beginning of the general election.

Romney easily put away his main opponent, Rick Santorum, in primaries in Maryland, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin, effectively shutting down his campaign. You can tell it’s over by the nature of the coverage: MSNBC, for example, is no longer convening a panel of its star commentators and has relegated the primary coverage to the existing show formats.

The beginning of the general election was punctuated by the first mention of Mr. Romney by name by the President. He made sure that everyone knows the true nature of the Paul Ryan Republican budget, and that its cuts and decimation of social spending go well beyond the war on women, which continues unabated.

Perhaps, the most damning indictment of the Republican budget is that we’ve already tried it — providing tax cuts to the wealthy/job creators — and it doesn’t work. The only other reason for the Republicans to keep pushing it involves the fact that their main contributors are the ones who would benefit most.

Mitt Romney is now trapped by the fact that he ran almost completely negative ads to win the nomination, and his failure to supply a vision for our nation can’t be whipped up at the last moment.