When my daughter was growing up I used to embarrass her regularly with lectures, often in bookstores and libraries, about the importance of the first amendment and the essential role of the press in the preservation of democracy.

According to journalists everywhere, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Plame case seriously compromises the press's freedom to use confidential sources, therefore, by extension, its ability to inform the public about the true workings of the government.  Given my love of press freedom, should I be alarmed?  

The argument seems to be that in forcing Miller and Cooper to reveal their sources in this case, the court has threatened all unnamed sources in all cases for all time.  Henceforth there shall be no more Deep Throats.  Etc.

But that's not how it seems to me--and I don't think my perception is predicated on my political leanings.  Mind you, I sometimes have difficulty separating the two, so perhaps I really am getting them muddled in this case.  

In his nytimes column this morning, Nicholas Kristof treats the current buzz that links a propensity toward faith to human DNA.  Trouble is, the article implies that all those with faith are Republican, those without are Democrats--and that people of faith reject the science of evolution.  

More below the fold.

Markos was very generous in characterizing Howard Kurtz's story in the Washington Post "not terrible."  I disagree.  Here is the text of the letter I sent this morning to the WaPo Ombudsman.