I also kind of disagree with his calling the guests "infobabes". I don't always agree with them (especially Wiehl!), but they are both attorneys, and speak with more knowledge the the "info-fat-slob".
I also kind of disagree with his calling the guests "infobabes". I don't always agree with them (especially Wiehl!), but they are both attorneys, and speak with more knowledge the the "info-fat-slob".
Interesting. So one must be an attorney to have a credible legal opinion? Where does that leave the rest of us? Should we be able to engage in the public discourse at all? Or are we beholden to the experts? In my opinion, one of the unfortunate tendencies adversely affecting our republic is the reverence of credential over content. Do you really mean to imply lawyers are on average more credible than anyone else? Do I need a lawyer to tell me what the Bill of Rights says?
Your criticism of the term "infobabes" is noted, and I will seriously consider refraining from using it in the future. However I don't think it unlikely these commentators were chosen as much for their aesthetics as any legitimate qualification.