Is there some sort of office contest where New York Times columnists compete to write columns on the most lazy or insipid topics?

First, we had Gail Collins on John Edwards and tangerines. Then David Brooks spent a whole column on an obscure book about old age from 1911 that he picked up while “rushing to catch a plane” (translation: he needed a column topic asap!).

But my personal favorite has to be Stanley Fish’s column today on how hard it is to get coffee these days. I kid you not. It’s the Seinfeld of op-eds — a column about nothing.
Here’s a sample quote:

But then your real problems begin when you turn, holding your prize, and make your way to where the accessories — things you put in, on and around your coffee — are to be found. There is a staggering array of them, and the order of their placement seems random in relation to the order of your needs. There is no “right” place to start, so you lunge after one thing and then after another with awkward reaches.

Unfortunately, two or three other people are doing the same thing, and each is doing it in a different sequence. So there is an endless round of “excuse me,” “no, excuse me,” as if you were in an old Steve Martin routine.

Was Andy Rooney unavailable?

The most disturbing aspect of the whole fiasco is that Fish is a Times op-ed contributor who substitutes for regular columnists; they presumably have no obligation to run what he gives them. That means the Times chose to publish this piece over the hundreds of far more worthy submissions the newspaper receives every month. What a catastrophe.

Thankfully, tomorrow’s paper (Monday) features something more useful — a Paul Krugman column destroying the pretense upon which most of the paper’s commentary and reporting rests:

Two presidential elections ago, the conventional wisdom said that George W. Bush was a likable, honest fellow. But those of us who actually analyzed what he was saying about policy came to a different conclusion — namely, that he was irresponsible and deeply dishonest. His numbers didn’t add up, and in his speeches he simply lied about the content of his own proposals.

In the fifth year of the disastrous war Mr. Bush started on false pretenses, it’s clear who was right. What a candidate says about policy, not the supposedly revealing personal anecdotes political reporters love to dwell on, is the best way to judge his or her character.

Is anyone at the Times listening?

PS: Times Select subscribers, you can send your demands for refunds c/o Pinch Sulzberger.