Monday, February 08, 2010

Cruising the Web

Justice Clarence Thomas appeared recently at the University of Florida Law School and had a fascinating Q and A with the students. Here is a report on his appearance and here is the video from one speech he gave and here is the video from his Q and A with the students. He comes across as such a decent man, just the man he came across in his marvelous autobiography. I wonder if these younger generation of students who were toddlers during the Anita Hill hearings will form a different opinion of Clarence Thomas the man than the one older folks might have formed. (Link via Ann Althouse)

Gawker refutes the various arguments about whether or not the National Enquirer should be eligible for a Pulitzer for their reporting on John Edwards. Hey, if the NYT got a Pulitzer for their reporting on Eliot Spitzer's amorous adventures, than the National Enquirer's reporting should definitely be eligible. Heck, Pulitzer got his start as a tabloid journalist. He was a lot closer to the National Enquirer than to the more "pristine," yet pretentious press.

Even more errors found in the IPCC report. It's turning out to be quite a fertile field for reporters to find all sorts of violations of their supposedly strict standards for only using peer-reviewed studies.

The Washington Post had an article this weekend about how the Tea Party movement is composed of lots of people with diverse interests and concerns. Well, big whoppety doo. Parties in America are coalitions. The Democratic and Republican parties both are composed of many different groups with diverse interests. Any group of people gathered for a political purpose will come at that goal from different paths and with different concerns.

Democrats in the California State Senate voted to establish
'a 'Medicare for all' health-care system that would cost “about” $200 billion a year." Yeah, that is just what the California government budget can afford.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports
on how Scott Brown used new media so effectively to build a volunteer organization and raise money. The lesson here isn't about all the exciting ways that the new media are changing elections. If Scott Brown hadn't had a message that was appealing, he could have been twittering his heart away and calling for a moneybomb day after day and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. The same thing was true for Obama's use of the new media.

Politico says that
Obama is starting to sound like a scold telling Americans how to live their lives better and congressmen how run Congress better. Well, isn't that just typical of the liberal nanny state telling people they should be living their lives: what they should eat, what type of car they should drive, or how much they should exercise?

Who's a bigger joke: Patrick Kennedy or Scott Brown? Case closed.

It's starting: the little whispers that perhaps Obama will drop Biden from the ticket in 2012. Don't they know that no one messes with Joe?


Bachbone said...

Odd that the IPCC report is of so little interest to American journalists. Their foreign counterparts are eating their lunches digging up the dirt.

Pulitzer awards have been badly tarnished in many areas by questionable awardees: Arafat, Carter and Gore.

Skay said...

Would Obama nominate Biden to the Supreme Court in order to put Hillary in the VP spot?

tfhr said...


I don't think so.

1. Hillary still wants to be President and I don't think she's willing to sink with Obama's ship. She will be one of the rats leaping over the rails when it comes time to set up for her challenge to him in the 2012 primaries.

2. Biden would be hammered mercilessly if he were to be nominated. He would destroy himself in his confirmation hearings. On the outside chance that he could survive himself in the hearings, his inability to keep his mouth shut for more than a few seconds would absolutely paralyze the Supreme Court.

Your question brings up interesting thoughts about who should replace these two losers in Obama's court.