Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Phil Bronstein Hits Bottom.
There is no parody that can make justice to this
The comments say it all, let's look at the first five:
keiffer: huh?
tommurphy: FAIL
ryattay: i feel somewhat retarded for reading this article, which made less and less sense as it rambled on.
debster58: I think I could read that 69 times, and still not understand exactly what he was trying to say. Why doesn't he go to the site and offer physical aid?
syoung8: Am I high? WTF was that?
The comments say it all, let's look at the first five:
keiffer: huh?
tommurphy: FAIL
ryattay: i feel somewhat retarded for reading this article, which made less and less sense as it rambled on.
debster58: I think I could read that 69 times, and still not understand exactly what he was trying to say. Why doesn't he go to the site and offer physical aid?
syoung8: Am I high? WTF was that?
Monday, May 17, 2010
If it's hypocritical, it's in the Chron.
Oh my... Phil blabbers about Supreme court nominee Elena Kagan and whether she's gay or not. Honestly, the answers is: who cares; but Phil nonetheless pens 1,000 words on the topic.
And saying otherwise, officials insisted, was a smear. Any claims that she was gay were "false charges," presidential spokesman Ben LaBolt said.
Being called gay is a smear? A "charge"? Even if it is factually inaccurate? Since when?
Phil is so dense. It's not "even if it's factually inacurrate", it's because it is factually inaccurate that it is a smear. If you say I'm a girl, I might be offended.
But here's what is riling us up about this piece:
But that's different from weighty subjects like the Supreme Court. In the universe that matters, these things have already been adjudicated in the court of public opinion.
It was fairly well known in the San Francisco legal community, for instance, that Judge Vaughn Walker was gay. When he was chosen to hear the lawsuit against the anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition 8, he was outed in the press. Then the subject was dropped. If Walker can reasonably sit in judgment on a case involving gay marriage, who cares what Elena Kagan does in her off hours?
We highlighted the passive voice. Because who outed Walker? Who thought Walker should recuse himself? Phil Bronstein's Chronicle!
Of course, the next line starts with: If Walker can reasonably sit in judgment on a case involving gay marriage,... then what? In this "If," you see that Phil still think it's relevant. But why? Why shouldn't Walker sit in judgment on a case of gay marriage. Should an African-American judge recuse himself from cases of racism? Should a female judge recuse herself from cases on, say, abortion?
Phil won't own up to (a) the terrible judgment of the Chron in outing Walker; (b) the skewed logic behind it that privileges of the straight people should only be arbitrated by straight people.
If it's hypocritical, it's in the Chron.
And saying otherwise, officials insisted, was a smear. Any claims that she was gay were "false charges," presidential spokesman Ben LaBolt said.
Being called gay is a smear? A "charge"? Even if it is factually inaccurate? Since when?
Phil is so dense. It's not "even if it's factually inacurrate", it's because it is factually inaccurate that it is a smear. If you say I'm a girl, I might be offended.
But here's what is riling us up about this piece:
But that's different from weighty subjects like the Supreme Court. In the universe that matters, these things have already been adjudicated in the court of public opinion.
It was fairly well known in the San Francisco legal community, for instance, that Judge Vaughn Walker was gay. When he was chosen to hear the lawsuit against the anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition 8, he was outed in the press. Then the subject was dropped. If Walker can reasonably sit in judgment on a case involving gay marriage, who cares what Elena Kagan does in her off hours?
We highlighted the passive voice. Because who outed Walker? Who thought Walker should recuse himself? Phil Bronstein's Chronicle!
Of course, the next line starts with: If Walker can reasonably sit in judgment on a case involving gay marriage,... then what? In this "If," you see that Phil still think it's relevant. But why? Why shouldn't Walker sit in judgment on a case of gay marriage. Should an African-American judge recuse himself from cases of racism? Should a female judge recuse herself from cases on, say, abortion?
Phil won't own up to (a) the terrible judgment of the Chron in outing Walker; (b) the skewed logic behind it that privileges of the straight people should only be arbitrated by straight people.
If it's hypocritical, it's in the Chron.
If it does not make sense, it's in the Chron.
And we quote:
Kaus' campaign against Boxer, who has been called one of the Senate's most liberal members, is a longshot in blue California. But his bid underscores challenges for California's junior senator.
Barbara Boxer is in a tough spot because her opponent stands no chance.
If your political analysis does not make sense, you can find it in the Chron.
(well, it makes sense, not in a fact-based perspective - which the Chron is not interested in any way- but as anti-Boxer propaganda)
Kaus' campaign against Boxer, who has been called one of the Senate's most liberal members, is a longshot in blue California. But his bid underscores challenges for California's junior senator.
Barbara Boxer is in a tough spot because her opponent stands no chance.
If your political analysis does not make sense, you can find it in the Chron.
(well, it makes sense, not in a fact-based perspective - which the Chron is not interested in any way- but as anti-Boxer propaganda)
Thursday, May 06, 2010
The Chron Hearts Carly.
Carla Marinucci salivates over Calry Fiorina.
A glowing portrait without any hint of policy discussion. Carla still loves her GOP.
A glowing portrait without any hint of policy discussion. Carla still loves her GOP.
