Monday, June 05, 2006

do wingnuts practice being stupid?

* bumiller is finally leaving the nyt. good riddance you stupid woman. here's her article about her time covering the WH (with kisses)

* the nyt has an article about States Secrets:
"Under Mr. Bush, the secrets privilege has been used to block a lawsuit by a translator at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Sibel Edmonds, who was fired after accusing colleagues of security breaches"
amongst other things.

* speaking of the nyt, here's byron calamity:
"COMPLAINTS about the May 23 Page 1 article on Hillary and Bill Clinton add up to one of the most uniformly negative and partisan reader reactions to a Times article during the past year. Most decried as tabloid journalism the story about the couple and the political implications of their marriage for her Senate re-election campaign and presidential aspirations."
and Greg Sargeant's response

* eriposte:
"Are you reading Calitics? If not, you should be. It's one of the best progressive California blogs and they have some excellent coverage of California politics. Bookmark them and read them daily if you are interested in California politics."
* bostonglobe:
"The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office."
yay. good news.

* wingnut captain ed (via maha):
"The Internet is not a private network, as some could argue the phone systems provide. Communications are not point-to-point but broadcast, and the expectation of privacy in Internet communications should have disappeared long ago."
do the wingnuts practice being stupid?

"Presidents want to be judged kindly by history. This is especially true when they stand little chance of being judged kindly in the present. But here's my question: if Bush is hoping that his validation will come from future generations, why on earth is he yet again coming out in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment?"

No comments: