A strange entry title, I know. But there’s a slight connection here. Just bear with me.
Thomas Sowell has a book out called “Intellectuals and Society,” and I really want to read it. However, with two jobs, a blog, a husband, four dogs, two stepkids, and an infant daughter on the way any day, I tend to quickly run out of hours in the day, so I like to make sure that any books I put my time into are REAAAAALLY worth reading. So, I could take HowTheWorldWorks word for it (a major thumbs up from him, as you can see here), but I thought I’d ask our clever and competent readers if you have read the book. And if yes, what’s your take on it? I’d like to hear your thoughts…
With all the talk about intellectualism and its lack of Practicality and Actual Common Sense (at least that’s what I’m hearing here), I thought it was apropos that my Dad forwarded me an email this morning about how the Democrat party is the party of lawyers. Which I truly believe that they are. The email, while sent this morning, was from a piece that American Thinker did in 2008 called “The Lawyer’s Party.” In my little bio here at COTR, I spew my belief that I think there is an overabundance of lawyers in this country. I don’t think I’m wrong about that, as we’ve become a fingerpointing, “what about me! I’m a victim!” kind of society during my lifetime. Don’t get me wrong, you readers who are attorneys. I’m sure some of you are really wonderful people and do really wonderful things. And I DO believe that there’s a need for lawyers in this country, so before you get your panties in a wad and tell me that I hate lawyers and threaten to sue me and stuff – I don’t. I believe there’s a time and a place for the law and legalese, but I think that our government is oversaturated with lawyers as opposed to other professions. There’s not enough “real people” representation, in my opinion. And, that underlying victimization culture we see nowadays? Lawyers eat this crap UP – while billing out at around $300/hour, I might add. (But yeah…the hot-shot capitalist pigs making bank on Wall Street are the demons. Riiiight.) The only difference of opinion I have with this article is that I believe the Democrat party is the Party of Lawyers and Celebridiots – I don’t feel as though Democrats represent “real” people like me. You know, people who work in industry and business. People who actually contribute to the economy. People who don’t consider themselves intellectually superior, but rather worker bees in the cogs of the wheel that is real America. People who basically live paycheck to paycheck and budget strictly to make sure that things like power bills and groceries and gas and taxes and college educations and diapers can be paid for. You know, trivial crap like that. So at least you know where I stand here. You’re welcome.
Case in point – with a majority in Congress – Democrats will never bend to Tort Reform. If you have to wonder why, then you just don’t get it.
The last Republican lawyer President in this country was Gerald Ford (1976). And the article sums it up quite nicely when it says, “The Democratic Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth…The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And so we have seen the procession of official enemies in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers and anyone producing anything of value in our nation. This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.”
Parsing language to favor their side. Hmmm….that sounds kinda familiar.
The article goes on to say, “America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked…We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America.”
And this article, I must remind you, was written in March of 2008.
Intellectualism versus common sense, people. It’s the reason that people are getting antsy these days. It’s the reason people are fed the hell up with government. REAL people want real change. Not rhetorical change in the form of legalese and flowery semantics. Not intellectualism, frankly. Much like Mock’s last entry states, we don’t need committees to discuss, debate, and discuss some more on HOW to stop out-of-control spending. We don’t need to freakin’ TALK about it at all, in my opinion. We need to just STOP SPENDING SO DAMN MUCH. And start taking responsibility for ourselves. And quit feeling entitled to what other people have.
I hope we see a trend in electing more “real” people – and not as many of these self-proclaimed intellectuals. People like me and you. Because only then will we truly see reform and that “hope and change” the intellectuals would like to believe they can implement – when in actuality, it’s the REAL people like you and me that are the only ones capable of truly doing it.
Oh, and I’ll look forward to seeing if any of you guys have read Sowell’s book. It’s a rainy Sunday here in the cornfield, and I could use a trip online to Amazon.com…
Here’s an interesting statistic: tp://www.averyindex.com/lawyers_per_capita.php – there’s one lawyer for every 36 inhabitants in Washington DC.
US tort costs in 2005 exceeded $260 billion – $880 per every man, woman & child: http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/careers-career-path/3982861-1.html
Japan has one attorney for every 10,000 residents, compared to the U.S. ratio of one attorney for every 390 residents. For every 100 attorneys trained in Japan, there are 1,000 engineers. In the United States, that ratio is reversed. Just imagine: if a terrorist was caught with his pants on fire in Japan, he might NOT get a lawyer! What a horrible thought!
“People who actually contribute to the economy.”
Everyone contributes to the economy, whether you realize it or not. But beside that–do you have any actual facts to back up the claim that the Democratic Party is made up of lawyers, whereas the Repubic Party is just normal “real” folk? My guess is that the percentage of lawyers that make up both parties is roughly equal.
Did you read the first two paragraphs of the link Daisy provided? We don’t just pull this stuff out of the air, Pink Slip. We write commentary based on SOURCES, which she linked. If you want to question the author of the sourced article, be my guest. But Daisy’s post is in response to that article.
I figured Pink Slip would be the first one to jump on this. For someone who agrees with absolutely NOTHING we say, you sure do spend a lot of your time here….
Like Mock said, read the article. I didn’t write it. I’m just commenting on it, PS. And, again, please click on a Google ad each of the 52 times you’re on this site today.
I just started his book, so I will get back to you on it. However, I can state as an avid Sowell reader he never disappoints, but we shall see.
As to proof the Democrats are the party of lawyers, one need only look to ALL of the lawyer lobbyist groups and see who they continually throw their money and weight behind…THE DEMOCRATS! That is why no tort reform was included in the health scare bill. That is also why you will never see loser pays in this country either. Frivolous lawsuits are nothing more than legal armed robbery, that in the end, cost everyone in higher prices and an over abundance of government regulation and government itself. Remember, to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Years ago, my father warned me that all the lawyers were in Congress by design, so they can manipulate the law, and use legal speak to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. I hate it when he is right.
FOR PS: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518886
By Howard Dean’s own (in)famous admission, the attempt at tort control as it relates to health care had no chance because the Democrats would have to -gasp- take the lawyers on. The fact is that there are many fewer Republican lawyers than the Democratic ones, and the American Bar Association ABA) is not only firmly ensconced in the Democratic Party’s nether regions, but makes its residence there with pride, the rent payment notwithstanding ($261 billion as of 2005). In contrast, the self-same ABA refers to Republican lawyers as reptiles. I suppose “reptiles” is a term of endearment compared to the name I have in mind for the ABA. But, this is a family channel:)
Mock/Laurel—none of the links you have posted address my assertion, which is this:
My guess is that the percentage of lawyers that make up both parties is roughly equal.
The American Thinker article merely cherry-picks a few names that support his point.
Btw, we passed tort reform in my state years ago and health care costs kept sky-rocketing. Plus, tort reform would only reduce health care costs by like 0.5%
Well, since Daisy didn’t base her entry on your guesses, we’ll just let her post stand as is, commenting on the article she sourced, and you can go right on guessing.
Pink Slip you obviously haven’t read the link I posted. the assertion I NOT the number of lawyers in either party, but the number of lawyer lobbyist groups that support Democrats.
Your sleight of hand didn’t work.
Sorry that should read..”IS NOT”
For the record Pink Slip it also depends on the tort reform passed. You can pass tort reform that has no value or meaning. States that have passed it with meaning, saw a substantial drop. What should concern you as a liberal is the fact that OB Gyn’s are the group that is hardest hit by tort lawyers. I thought liberal’s were all about women’s rights and reproductive health? If you are then you should be concerned that they are being targeted and driven out of business, including my own.
I second that notion, Laurel. I know at least two ER docs personally that no longer practice medicine. NOT because they don’t want to, and not because they weren’t fantastic docs. It’s because they simply can’t afford the malpractice…
“the assertion IS NOT the number of lawyers in either party, but the number of lawyer lobbyist groups that support Democrats”
Nice try, but there as several instances in the post (and especially in the American Thinker article that is linked) that refer to actual members of Congress that ARE lawyers–not that they are swayed by lobbying groups. And the question of “intellectualism versus common sense” surely doesn’t address the issue of lobbying influence. And consider this statement:
“believe there’s a time and a place for the law and legalese, but I think that our government is oversaturated with lawyers as opposed to other professions.”
How does this assert anything about the influence of lobbying groups? No, I think the assertion was that more Democrats in Congress are lawyers than Republicans–and that’s a bad thing due to their “intellectualism” and “non-realness”. And this is a faulty premise.
Pink Slip, the fact remains that Daisy was basing her commentary on a source, whereas you continue to merely GUESS that it’s inaccurate. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you to to provide a source which contradicts the one Daisy linked.
This is just silly. You don’t agree with the linked article. Suit yourself. But you can’t simply say, “This is a faulty premise” just because you WANT it to be. Daisy provided a source for her assertions. Where’s yours?
Mockarena: stop asking silly questions! Don’t you know that “feelings” are more important than facts? As a university teacher I had many occasions of students bringing their poorly graded tests to me to argue about the grade. The strongest argument was usually: “But, Dr… I studied hard and I FEEL that….”
Head….against….brick…..wall….
Pointless.
Well, I think this post was brilliant. It says so many things which I’ve been thinking a lot about recently. The amount of superiority I see among liberal lawyers (and liberals in the education system, too) who say they stand for everyday folks is just astounding. It’s nice to see that I’m not the only one who’s noticed.
On an unrelated note, I found your blog about two weeks ago and it has become one of my favorite places on the web. Thanks for the time you put into it, and keep up the good work!
Hey genetics73, let me know when there are any facts posted here. So far, all I see are assertions based on some blogger’s opinion. Opinions are fine, but please let’s see some facts to back them up. Is that so much to ask?
Here are the facts that you wanted so much, Pink Slip – aren’t you sorry now?
http://www.campaignmoney.com/Trial_Lawyer.asp
Between 1999 and present, trial lawyers gave $1,032,517 to Democrats and $132,250 to Republicans; 79% vs 10% of all individual contributions went to Democrats. I suppose that is just a fluke and the lawyers who gave to the Democrats wanted Republicans to win, just as those people who voted for Scott Brown really expressed anger at Republicans. Could it be that
lawyers have a bias? Say it ain’t so.
On the other hand…
http://www.campaignmoney.com/ceo.asp?pg=411
In the same time period, CEO’s of various companies gave $86,154,644 to Republicans and $84,461,104 to Democrats (39% vs 38%).
These are the facts. Should you need more, I will provide them.
By the way, not everybody contributes to the economy: people who do not create wealth do not contribute, except in a trivial sense, such as in the case of a person’s death – the event gives employment to the undertaker, but it contributes basically nothing. Welfare recipients, living off taxpayers’ largesse, contribute very little. It is true that the welfare class has created a large bureaucratic machine in whose interest it is to maintain welfare – I don’t consider such perpetuation of misery a “contribution”; I consider it parasitism.
Pink Slip, you cannot get your own references straight: “Plus, tort reform would only reduce health care costs by like 0.5%” There is a figure five that is used in Democrat and liberal white papers on talking points about tort reform costs, but it is 5%, not 0.5%. And, it is in error by several degrees of disingenuity. It does a lot of that cherry picking you were put off by and it does not take into account the indirect costs of medical care that are a result of a tort system created by and for the American Trial Lawyers Association, which is the single largest contributor to their Democrat abettors (see John Edwards record on this as past president of the Trial Lawyers). The indirect costs vary from state to state depending on a number of variables such as accounting regulations and state imposed mandates. An example of that would be California’s requirement that all persons insured in that state will be required to kick in a little extra money to cover tattoo removals for their wackier neighbors. You won’t find nonsense like that in a red state, but our national government wants to impose mandates like that across state lines. But I digress. The true average exponent of costs for torts would be in the neighborhood of 50, yes fifty percent. The spectrum is between 29% and 65%, once again varying from stste to state. The largest component of those indirect costs is driven by defensive medicine. Doctors order a plural-plicity of tests (all of them costly) to be able to demonstrate in court that they have done all that can reasonable be done. Have you been down to your local MRI show room lately? Would you be willing to pay for one so your doctor can cover his ass? No! Well there you are. But, ole Doc has to buy one of those and scores of other testing devices and lab services and on and on and on…..and you and I and everyone else has to pay extra to cover the purchase price of all those defenses. Did I mention insurance? We pay dearly for that indirect (hidden) cost. And guess what. That huge governmental apparatus you worship gouges us all on our doctor bills with indirect taxes on everything. EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!! Got that???????????
Hi KatieL! And welcome!
Pink Slip – I’ll slow this down for you for the umpteenth time, because I know you’re struggling with the comprehension here. This is a BLOG. We are BLOGGERS. This is NOT A NEWS SITE. We take news, commentary, observations, and the like from OTHER SOURCES (which I have dutifully cited in the entry – I think you’ve missed that just a few times here), and we comment on it. Let me let you digest that (again) for a few minutes….I’ll wait over here.
From personal experience, I know that some students need a simple list of easily-digestible information. So here’s one for you:
Me = Blogger
Mock = Blogger
You = liberal who hates what we have to say, comes here to try desperately to make us into a non-credible news source, when WE’VE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A DAMN NEWS SOURCE.
You may want to run along and go read one of those “real news” sources like Huffington Post, as I’m sincerely starting to fear for your mental health at this point.
I just love Daisy when she’s irritable.
It is apparent that PS didn’t read the link I posted. It is replete with cold hard facts and numbers and the source for those numbers, and yet has the utter gall to accuse Daisy of making stuff up. No wonder PS is a liberal, she is clueless as the rest of them.
Laurel, how can you be so sure of PS’s gender? She seems rather manly to me, at times.
I really don’t like lawyers myself, so in general I agree with your assessment, Daisy. At least, the part where more lawyers spell nothing but troiuble. I absolutely disagree with the idea that the Democrats are guilty of being comprised of less ‘real people’ than the Republicans, though. It’s the basic delusion you base all sorts of your ideas on — that Democrats are intellectual elitists that look down on the masses, while the Republicans are good ol’ boy, regular working stiffs looking out for freedom. That is a lie. That is the propaganda they sell you, and you buy it. Politicians are politicians are politicians, and when it comes down to it, a disturbing number on both sides of the aisle couldn’t care two shakes about their constituents.
I also think your characterization of “real people” as “people who work in industry and business” is just stupid. Those of us who work in education, for non-profits? Not “real people.” College professors who provide the education you save for? Not real people. Nurses, like my dad? Not real people. Low-level government employess, say, secretaries, like my mom? Not real people. You know, you like to talk about how much you have to do, and how good it makes you feel to be responsible for you and yours. I agree. I think it’s great. I’m a women in my twenties who lives alone at the top of a two story walk-up, with my own 95 pound dog, and my own two jobs. Those jobs might not be in industry or business, but I take care of myself, I pay my debts, I feed myself and I answer for my actions. I’m a real person, don’t you think? And, as a “real person” I feel my views and opinions are more represented by Democrats than Republicans, even though, like I said, I’m not fool enough to believe that anyone with money on the line gives two ****s about me.
College professors are NOT real people. Having been among them for years I know that a great majority of them have a thinly veiled contempt for the ordinary people. The REALLY sad part is that a multitude of the professoriat are not truly educated – not in the classical sense of the word. They are often highly trained, but seldom educated – just try to read the papers produced by the Modern Language Association members or those by assorted educational “experts”. There’s a reason why that Education departments exist – it is so that sociologists have someone to look down on.
And again, this “I feel…” business. What do feelings have to do with anything. No one here says there are no Democrats who work for a living, and work hard. What we are saying is that as political entity, the Democrats are disingenuous at best and sanctimoniously deceitful at worst.
Megan: To extent I agree with you. Republicans do have elitists, we call them Country Club Republicans, or Big Government Republicans. Where you are incorrect is the current crop running the country is Liberal Democrat elitists. They are in charge and they are front and center, as well as their media cohorts that demean Tea Parties.
It is the left though that has history on it’s side in regards to elitism. Look at the most prolific writers of the 19th and 20th century, most are on the left, and more than a few politicians followed their words, with even more doing so today. I don’t think I need to list them, but if necessary I will.
genetics 73: You and I are of a like mind. I really cannot stand it when people substitute ‘I feel’ for ‘I think’, as well as ‘fairness’ for ‘equality’ or ‘justice’. For some reason our civilization has come to the conclusion that these words are interchangeable. They are not.
Also it is long past time that our society learns that information is not knowledge or wisdom. It should begin in academia.
I never doubted that trial lawyers contributed more to Democrats. But this post’s point was that more Democrats in Congress are lawyers than Republicans–and that’s a bad thing due to their “intellectualism” and “non-realness”. And this is a stupid premise.
Hell, both parties are bought and paid for. If this post was meant to criticize the influence over politicians, then that’s certainly a valid point.
“By the way, not everybody contributes to the economy: people who do not create wealth do not contribute”
I call BS. These people create demand, which gets met with supply. Which puts money in people’s pockets. Demand creates jobs.
Daisy, you can be a blogger and still have opinion based on fact. But what you have done is take a specious argument, based opinion and represent it as truth. If your intent was to portray the Democrats as being influenced by trial lawyer lobbyists, you’ve done a poor job. Very little in the post actually implies that. A much greater portion of the posts tries to paint Democrats as intellectual elitists devoid of common sense because the party is made up of lawyers. I say the GOP has had roughly the same amount of lawyers. Who knows, you don’t present any facts to back this up.
Laurel–“PS didn’t read the link I posted. It is replete with cold hard facts and numbers and the source for those numbers”
WHERE? NO IT IS NOT
genetics73–“What we are saying is that as political entity, the Democrats are disingenuous at best and sanctimoniously deceitful at worst.”
I would agree that many of them are. But how in the world do you think Republicans are any better? They don’t give a **** about the tea-bag movement. They stand there at these rallies with their “wink-wink, whatever you nutjobs say–just vote for me” attitude. If you truly think one party has Americans’ interests in mind–you’re beyond delusional.
Megan–well said
Good heavens – there’s no one so blind as he who would not see; no one so deaf as he who would not hear. Quite frankly, the usefulness of PS as a promoter of considered reasoning has reached and end. He/she/it has hidden the point very well, changing the topic in midstream on many an occasion. Since power of persuasion doesn’t work, perhaps persuasion of power will (Andy Stern). It is pointless to reason with a moving target, shifting sands and variable winds.
Pointless, indeed. Holy mother of freakin’ migraine already.
Papa Kilo–“There is a figure five that is used in Democrat and liberal white papers on talking points about tort reform costs, but it is 5%, not 0.5%”
No, it is 0.5%.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
And the studies referenced INCLUDE the indirect costs that you mention–like defensive medicine.
PS: Either you didn’t read the link or you can’t read because the article does list it’s sources.
Now I just love this little tidbit…”I call BS. These people create demand, which gets met with supply. Which puts money in people’s pockets. Demand creates jobs.” This is precisely what Bush in part argued, and yet the left howled! Remember his go shopping comment do ya? BTW…the type of demand you imply is negligible at best. People living off of entitlements don not generally go out and buy large ticket items. You are contrary for the sake of being contrary and it is hardly intelligent, but you are entertaining at least.
One other point. Demand only creates jobs if there is capital to meet it.
Megan-well said.
PS, antagonist or protagonist depending on your point of view has galvanized this blog. Genetics you are on fire sir. Your presentation of facts regarding contributions by trial lawyers to Democrats over Republicans is very informative-I did not know it was that out of whack. And it is disgusting.
But to imply the Cheney, Bush, clans and their ilk are not elites as well is not real either. Condi Rice is worth what, $250 million from investments in oil rigs? As a philosophical libertarian I view the leadership of both parties as being out of touch with Main Street and that they have both been hijacked by interest groups be them lawyers, oil companies, unions, ECT, choose your poison. My only issue with Daisy’s very thoughtful post is that it is frankly…well partisan. The thinking underneath it is so sound and important it should be extended across the board because Americans are fed up with both parties. Certainly the Independents are and if Republicans miss this they will not capitalize like they should in the fall. They still have not crafted or tapped into a resonating theme or message other than anti Obama rhetoric.
And Daisy I beg to differ. By creating this site or blog you have assumed a mantel of leadership which enables you to identify, call out and bubble up issues and information be it original or not to be presented on a mass level. If you don’t think bloggers compete with news organizations-ask a news person or news organization. A by product of the digital age, just depends on far you want to take it, a blog is how Huffington got started. Don’t be so quick to abdicate from the full scope of capabilities of this fine platform you have created for yourself.
And keep it up.
“Either you didn’t read the link or you can’t read because the article does list it’s sources”
Just cut, copy, and paste it here…cuz I sure can’t see it.
“the type of demand you imply is negligible at best”
genetics73 argued that not everyone contributes to the economy. My counter pointer was that even low-income Americans contribute to the economy due to demand. Anything above zero is a contribution. So I’ll consider your “negligible” remark a type of tacit agreement.
PS: It is negligible because it is not supportive or sustainable. Feel free to look up the definition of negligible.
JDN: No one is implying any such thing about Bush, Cheney or anyone else. I doubt your stats on Condi, regardless what is wrong with making money? DO YOU NOT make money? Do you not set out to do the best you can every single day? You are implying that elitism is due to money, which it is not. Many factors go into the making of an elitist. You are also making assumptions about Republicans. While we may be sick of more than a few of them, we are not sick of all them. The reality is the mantra you espouse “I am sick of both parties” is just more populism unto itself. What you really want is Libertarian thinking to rule all, which is no different than the Republicans or the Democrats. You remind me of the science geek standing between the jocks and the cool kids screaming “I am the smartest kid in the room!” In the end, you might be the smartest guy in the room but you aren’t going to win, so choose a side and move on.
Let me have the last word on the matter: In the 111th Congress, there are 216 lawyers among the 535 representatives (541 if you count the 6 non-voting members) – about 40% of the total. I didn’t count the Republicans lawyers in the House (my eyes glazed over), but in the Senate there are 38 Democrat-lawyers and 18 Republican-lawyers among the 100 (or so) Senators – twice as many Democratic lawyers as Republican ones. If the ratio applies to the House, you might expect about 108 or so House lawyers to be Democrats and 54 to be Republicans.
As to the “elites” – there’s a difference between elitism and class, between education and knowledge, between feelings and convictions. To use Obama’s phrase, “let me be clear”: I do not consider it a conviction to “redistribute wealth.” I consider it a robbery.
Genetics I will give you the final word-just one response to Laurel…Don’t think I have ever been compared to a science geek before HA-HA-HA, if you met me I’m sure you would find that equally amusing LOL.
JDN: Just a metaphor dear. I’m sure you are not geeky at all.