New at Reason

February 27, 2007

Brian Doherty has some sympathy for the devils; that is, the presidential candidates Americans say they'd never, ever vote for.

Comments

|2.27.07 @ 9:29AM|#

Saw Dawkins pimping his book on CSPAN last month. He made a point worth mentioning.

The more highly educated a person, the more likely they are to self-identify as atheist. There are over 500 congressmen and senators. Nearly all of them hold doctorates. Not one of them will admit to being an atheist.

|2.27.07 @ 9:40AM|#

24% wouldn't vote for a Mormon? A quarter of the populace? Wow.

I suspect that many people confuse the Mormons with the Jehovah's Witnesses, because they both knock on your door, and the LDSers are getting a bad rap because of it.

VM|2.27.07 @ 10:00AM|#

"There are over 500 congressmen and senators. Nearly all of them hold doctorates."

Lotsa lawyers, but PhDs? Non honorary ones?

Coupla physicians... Most have graduated college, at least, but the "nearly all hold doctorates" is a bit much, but the point about atheism is well taken.

This was more of a fun little project as the coffee takes effect (not ripping you or the larger point):

For fun I just checked out the Alabama delegation to the house:
source
7 Reps. 6 graduated college (Robert T Everett didn't). All of those six also have law degrees.

(Trent Franks of Arizona didn't graduate college, either; Pastor and Shadegg, both AZ both have law degrees.)

Snyder of Arkansas is an MD; no attorneys there. I guess there's no reason for cigar sales reps to go to that territory...

One MA in the Ct delegation. Some attorneys. All graduated college. One did go to Williams.

Danny Davis of Illinois has a PhD from "Union Institute" in Cincy. (It doesn't seem to be an accredited institution, tho. Kinda like Argosy or something like that)

Daniel Lipinski has a PhD from Duke and was a professor at U Tenn, Notre Dame, and James Madison.


There are some educated people in Congress, surprising, considering how stoopid so many of them seem :) and the main point, that none would identify "atheist".

Thanks, Brian, for an interesting read. Thanks, Warren for bringing up an interesting point!

Respectfully,
VM

|2.27.07 @ 10:23AM|#

Moose,
I thought doctorate level law degree was a prerequisite to be admitted to the bar. Am I wrong?

VM|2.27.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Gotcha! Betcha you're right!

If only we knew a lawyer. Maybe a meletary (sic) one? Is there such a cat here?

Sorry 'bout that - was thinking along the lines of our Dr. T or Dhex's wife or in Econ or stuff like that. (or corn syrup boy's "PhD in Computers").

my bad.

It was a really neat thing to think about, and that's a cool heads up you brought up.

cheers!

|2.27.07 @ 10:27AM|#

Atheism is the new homosexuality.

|2.27.07 @ 10:32AM|#

A law degree is called a Juris Doctorate, so technically it's a doctorate-level degree, but in pretty much every other field of study, six semesters of grad school amounts to a masters.

|2.27.07 @ 10:34AM|#

I suspect that many people confuse the Mormons with the Jehovah's Witnesses, because they both knock on your door, and the LDSers are getting a bad rap because of it.

How you figure? The JWs are way less moonbat than the LDS. I have to say, the Mormons I've met are all super nice people. But if you let them they want to talk about their faith and then you realize the gullibility bar one must hurdle is set really really high (much higher than for, say the Catholics).

|2.27.07 @ 10:39AM|#

Warren,

The theology of Mormonism is certianly more of a stretch than that of JWs, but their ethics and teachings about the role of the faithful in society are much more compatible with the normal functioning of society.

|2.27.07 @ 10:47AM|#

The Wilder Effect is real, despite Reason's protestations to the contrary. It just doesn't necessarily manifest itself as much on the leftie side, as on the right.

Ken Blackwell's defeat in the 2006 Ohio gubernatorial race was due as much to his race, as it was to GOP scandals in the State and Anti-Bush sentiment. Both the Democrats and Republicans know this, which is why John Kasich ("White and Right 2010!") has already thrown his hat in the ring for the NEXT Ohio race even before the new governor, Strickland, gets his seat warmed.

|2.27.07 @ 10:48AM|#

... their ethics and teachings about the role of the faithful in society are much more compatible with the normal functioning of society.

Says you. Me too maybe. The difference between us is, I can acknowledge that most people don't share my values/beliefs. Being a libertarian pretty much inoculates one against liberal smug.

|2.27.07 @ 10:49AM|#

The difference between us is, I can acknowledge that most people don't share my values/beliefs. Being a libertarian pretty much inoculates one against liberal smug.

Um, Warren, doesn't that sound a bit smug?

|2.27.07 @ 10:50AM|#

Yeah, Warren, libertarians are know for their intellectual humility and absence of sumgness.

|2.27.07 @ 10:57AM|#

I thought doctorate level law degree was a prerequisite to be admitted to the bar.

Nope. All you have to do is pass the bar exam. AFAIK, there's no formal education requirement whatsoever.

|2.27.07 @ 10:58AM|#

thoreau,
It's a fair cop. I guess I'm differentiating strains of smug. Quite often I encounter liberals who just can't imagine anyone disagreeing with all their most cherished beliefs. They are convinced that the only way anyone could is if they were deliberately evil, and they retract in horror if someone suggests say it might be better to treat the poor as equal citizens than as societies pets (OH that smug, tsk tsk).

The joe, knows people here won't agree with him. But he definitely has that liberal "My motives are the only good motives and anything that serves my motives is acceptable even if it might be a little oppressive to some people I don't like anyway".

|2.27.07 @ 10:59AM|#

thoreau,

Warren does't have a problem with smug, just "liberal smug."

And I have to admit, when you're a liberal in 2006, smugness is an ever-present danger.

|2.27.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Joe,

You're confusing liberal with 'not-republican'.

de stijl,

Moslem was the new homosexuality, atheism is the new moslem. Get it right.

VM|2.27.07 @ 11:08AM|#

Thanks joe, Pig M, Dr. T et al for clearing up the lawyer bit!

Warren - point taken about smugness - the Hit and Run smug often is clad in Econ 101 or something like that. We're definitely not immune from smug. I can see your final sentence as being a good working definition of smug in general! Ours and theirs!

joe - I bet you have stories where you cringe when you hear smugness coming from your team!

cheerio!
VM

(lemon curry?)

|2.27.07 @ 11:13AM|#

Nope. All you have to do is pass the bar exam. AFAIK, there's no formal education requirement whatsoever.

Some states have an education requirement and others don't.

A JD is not a doctorate level degree, despite the name. It's a professional degree, one slightly more demanding than an MBA and significantly less demanding than an MD. It's funny how the Master of Laws degree (LLM) is higher than the Juris Doctorate (JD).

Gray Ghost|2.27.07 @ 11:21AM|#

But to sit for the bar exam in many states, you have to have either graduated, or be close to doing so, from a law school. Usually, the law school needs to be accredited by the ABA.

Mo made my point for me about the J.D. vis a vis professional degrees and doctorates.

I thought the idea behind a PhD was that you were making an original contribution to the discipline, hence the dissertation. J.D.s, with the possible exception of those who publish Notes or other review articles, really don't do anything like that. At a luncheon, I once heard an attorney advocate that the study of law should be reduced to two years of classroom study + a 1000 or 2000 hour practicum/internship. Seemed to make a lot of sense, particularly since the third year is a bit of a waste of time anyway.

Gray Ghost|2.27.07 @ 11:26AM|#

And, if I'd read closer, I'd have realized Mo already made the point about required education and sitting for the Bar...

(preview is there for a reason.)

|2.27.07 @ 11:27AM|#

I just want to add, the thing with a PhD, which is very different from an MD, JD, or whatever, is that after taking a bunch of classes and tests you are required to formulate and solve a unique 'problem'. This may take 4 or 5 years (mine was 5.5), or it may take up to 7 years.

|2.27.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Oh, I guess I should have reloaded the page too. Point made.

fyodor|2.27.07 @ 11:33AM|#

I think most people of any political persuation think that those disagree with them do so on account of some sort of flaw, be it intellectual or ethical. It would be nice if libertarianism could innoculate us from that, but I don't think so.

Getting back to joe's point that elicitted Warren's smug attack, at first blush I didn't think people know enough about either Mormon or JW theology to make conflating one with the other a cause of the reported prejudice. But then I thought that if you asked some of those 24% why they feel that way, and I realized you'd probably get some saying, "Aren't dey da kooks what think the world's gonna end any day now??"

|2.27.07 @ 11:35AM|#

lol @ warren.

you don't have to re-read too many past threads at reason to see plenty of examples of libertarian-style smug. and like the moose said, it's of the outraged, "demand curve!" variety.

Danny Haszard|2.27.07 @ 11:54AM|#

Who are Jehovah's Witnesses?

Up close and personal Jehovah's Witnesses can be wolves in sheep's clothing.

Think about this-When the devil comes knocking on your door he may not have the 'dark goth look'.They could be smartly dressed and wielding the Christian Bible.

I have Jehovah's Witnesses family who practice the Watchtower JW enforced ritual shunning that i have not seen or heard from in 15 years.

The central core dogma of the Watchtower is Jesus second coming (invisibly) in 1914 and is a lie.Jehovah's Witnesses are a spin-off of the man made Millerite movement of 1840.

A destructive cult of false teachings, that frequently result in spiritual and psychological abuse, as well as needless deaths (bogus blood transfusion ban).

Yes,you can 'check out anytime you want but you can never leave',because they can and will hold your family hostage.

The world has the Internet now,and there are tens of thousands of pages up from defrauded Jehovah's Witnesses like myself who have been abused by the Watchtower cult.

The Watchtower is a truly Orwellian world.
----
Danny Haszard Jehovah's Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation

(What forensic psychologist say about cult leaders like Jim Jones and David Koresh.They are control freaks who will never abdicate control.They will choose death by suicide or a fiery fight to the very end.We can indeed see a comparison with the arrogant watchtower cult.)

|2.27.07 @ 12:08PM|#

Yeah, I'm totally busted. I practically wallow in smug. I shouldn't have used 'smug' (damn you Stone and Parker!).

But I have a point. There's no way a libertarian can convince himself that "all decent people think as I do". Umm wait... It's a lot harder for libertarians to do that. Even if you spend all your time reading Reason and chatting at H&R, and the only time you leave the house is to attend the leadership meeting of the local LP, it still can't escape your notice that there's almost no libertarian friendly conversation in the culture at large.

Liberals, it seems to me, are highly susceptible to deluding themselves. They not only immerse themselves in echo-chambers, there's enough liberal argle-bargle in politics and entertainment, hitting the walls all over the culture, that they think everyone thinks as they do (except for their arch enemies, 'the conservatives', but they are baaaad people)

|2.27.07 @ 12:18PM|#

But to sit for the bar exam in many states, you have to have either graduated, or be close to doing so, from a law school. Usually, the law school needs to be accredited by the ABA.

To add to your point, only 3 states allow non-JD candidates to take the Bar, and another 4 allow candidates from non-accredited law schools to take the bar. Everywhere else requires playing by ABA guild rules.

|2.27.07 @ 12:22PM|#

Warren,

Conservatives really do the same thing. Sure there are bogeymen like the "media" and others, but there are plenty who convince themselves that the hearts of regular Americans are with them (silent majority) and they need to be organized to push back against threats to their culture, way of life, etc. So I guess what I'm saying is that they're all Communists.

|2.27.07 @ 12:28PM|#

A JD is not a doctorate level degree, despite the name. It's a professional degree, one slightly more demanding than an MBA and significantly less demanding than an MD. It's funny how the Master of Laws degree (LLM) is higher than the Juris Doctorate (JD).

That's absolutely correct. In fact, the older term for what we now call a "JD" is an LLB--Batchelor of Laws. I believe either Harvard or Yale still uses the LLB designation for its graduates. The USA is one of the few countries in the world in which law is anything other than a four-year batchelor's degree.

Another fun factoid--there is, in fact, a legal doctorate degree in the USA, called an LLD, that rates higher than both a JD and an LLM. LLD's are only held by a small number of legal academics, however, and the LLM is pretty much the real-world equivalent of a PhD for most purposes.

|2.27.07 @ 12:31PM|#

The JD is a relatively recent invention and is limited to the US.

The equivalent in the rest of the world is the LLB or Bachelor of Laws. Until twenty or thirty years ago Harvard awarded a LLB while other schools awarded the JD.

There has been some talked of other professionals (eg engineers and architects) being required to take the same type of post-baccalaureate education. But so far it has not gone far.

|2.27.07 @ 12:31PM|#

From the article: Given enough information, surely we can all find something to hate about every single one of them.

Apart from Ron Paul, I haven't a difficult time hatin' on all of them, personally.

|2.27.07 @ 12:32PM|#

Isaac and I are NOT the same person. Really.

|2.27.07 @ 12:51PM|#

Sorry, ChrisO, I was composing my comment while you were posting yours.

I don't know the exact history of the JD v LLB is or what schools use which. My mother went to Harvard and I occasionally read the alumni stuff she gets. I've notice that before the 60s or 70s they use LLB but now they use JD. I don't know exactly when they changed.

|2.27.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Sorry, ChrisO, I was composing my comment while you were posting yours.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I don't really know when "law schools" as such started. I know that reading for the law was the norm 150 years ago or so.

As a JD holder, I personally believe that a four-year bachelor program is more appropriate. Basically just spread out the 1L course load (plus a few electives) over the last two years of college. Most of the rest of law school is just padding of university revenues. Nobody comes out of law school actually knowing how to practice law, so most of that upper level course work is useless to students. Realistically, it takes about five years of practical experience for a new lawyer to be able to practice effectively. You learn it best by doing it under supervision, rather than studying in the classroom.

fyodor|2.27.07 @ 1:21PM|#

There's no way a libertarian can convince himself that "all decent people think as I do". Umm wait... It's a lot harder for libertarians to do that.

It's certainly true that it's easier for liberals and conservatives to insulate themselves, especially socially, from those who think significantly differently politically (yes, I know that's awkward, I like that sometimes!) from themselves than it would be for the vast majority of libertarians, and many of them do just that. Still, what that says to and about someone likely differs with the individual. Having to be entirely surrounded by twits and dorks doesn't necessarily make a libertarian any less smug about it!!

|2.27.07 @ 1:21PM|#

Basically just spread out the 1L course load (plus a few electives) over the last two years of college.

The problem is that law school tries to serve future lawyers and future academics. A 4-year program would be more than adequate for lawyers and a master's program could serve the academics, which sounds like how it used to be.

Also, if it's going to be a doctorate, lawyers should get titles (esquire doesn't count). Perhaps "jocus."

|2.27.07 @ 1:29PM|#

"There's no way a libertarian can convince himself that "all decent people think as I do". Umm wait... It's a lot harder for libertarians to do that."

That must be why no one ever accuses me of being a racist, Stalinist, homophobic, power hungry, blind partisan.

Gray Ghost|2.27.07 @ 1:30PM|#

Thanks ChrisO, Isaac, and Mo for the history. I had no idea its origins were a bachelor's degree.

Returning to religion and candidates, Romney's (or any other candidate's) personal religious beliefs don't concern me, unless it seems likely that he would try to impose those beliefs upon the rest of us. It's the same reason it doesn't bug me too much that Ron Paul's pro-life: he claims that he wouldn't let his feelings about it get in the way of his federalist principles, and I believe him. Of course, Paul has about as much chance of getting elected as I do...

A much better reason than Mormonism to disfavor Romney is that it seems he will say or do just about anything to get elected. I'm still trying to figure out what he stands for; it may be that he's the political embodiment of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

|2.27.07 @ 1:40PM|#

That must be why no one ever accuses me of being a racist, Stalinist, homophobic, power hungry, blind partisan.

joe,
When I accuse you of being a power-hungry blind-partisan I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Because it's the only other explanation I can think of for some of the, racist, Stalinist, stances you've taken. (My apologies for not being able to recall when you were homophobic.)

|2.27.07 @ 1:46PM|#

A much better reason than Mormonism to disfavor Romney is that it seems he will say or do just about anything to get elected. I'm still trying to figure out what he stands for[.]

He stands for Mitt Romney, of course. Suits don't come much emptier than that, do they? About in the same league as the Clintons, I suppose.

|2.27.07 @ 3:34PM|#

Another fun factoid--there is, in fact, a legal doctorate degree in the USA, called an LLD, that rates higher than both a JD and an LLM. LLD's are only held by a small number of legal academics, however, and the LLM is pretty much the real-world equivalent of a PhD for most purposes.

I thought it was called an SJD, at least that's what my bro told me. So I looked it up and the LLD is either honorary or from another country, while the SJD (or JSD) is the US equivalent.

At a luncheon, I once heard an attorney advocate that the study of law should be reduced to two years of classroom study + a 1000 or 2000 hour practicum/internship. Seemed to make a lot of sense, particularly since the third year is a bit of a waste of time anyway.

It's funny, I'm friends with a great deal of law students and all of them tell me that the 3rd year is basically a vacation. They don't take much of use, they know their full-time employment. So they generally spend their time drinking and playing golf. Seems like a great cash cow for the universities though.

|2.27.07 @ 3:36PM|#

As far as religion and piolitics go. I don't care what religion you are, just the extent that you want to push it into the public square. This goes for everything from Judaism and Christianity to Scientology.

|2.27.07 @ 3:57PM|#

Warren, 12:08: "Liberals, it seems to me, are highly susceptible to deluding themselves. They not only immerse themselves in echo-chambers, there's enough liberal argle-bargle in politics and entertainment, hitting the walls all over the culture, that they think everyone thinks as they do (except for their arch enemies, 'the conservatives', but they are baaaad people)"

Warren 1:40: 'When I accuse you of being a power-hungry blind-partisan I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Because it's the only other explanation I can think of for some of the, racist, Stalinist, stances you've taken.'

*does end zone dance*

|2.27.07 @ 5:07PM|#

There are two main kinds of liberals that I've encountered (and living in San Francisco, that's a lot):

1) The kind that really cares, but is wholly ignorant of economics or really anything technical. They tend to volunteer and give money to charity. They tend to pay all their taxes without bitching. Hell, they seem to like it. They actually seem hurt when I explain to them how the policies they support sometimes do harm. They do a lot of good, and they really hate the idea that they might support anything that is harmful or anti-freedom. I really like these people, even if I do consider them ignorant.

2) The kind that just wants the government to cover their ass if anything goes wrong, and force everyone to live they way they think is "right". These types do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes. They get really pissed when I question their beliefs. These people NEVER give to charity at all, or really do much of anything if there isn't something in it for them. I really fucking hate these people and I consider them to be evil. The world would be better off without them.

Obviously, there are many shades of liberal, but most that I meet seem to fall in these two categories. Type 2 would likely be Conservatives if they lived in a Conservative area; but in SF, it really is the default conservative (note the small c) view to be liberal. I wonder if I'll ever stop being amazed at the sheeplike behavior of people. Most people seem to never even attempt to think for themselves. It's sad, but what can we expect from some apes that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. We are some funny monkeys.*

*Who may or may not have souls. (That's for the faithful. Peace.)

|2.27.07 @ 5:35PM|#

Unacceptable qualities in political candidates.
I would never *ever* vote for anyone who:

Can name actors/movies that are up for academy awards.

Can name everyone still on the island. (Exception if the list starts with Gilligan)

Ever spent a cent voting for their Idol

Orders a drink with more than three ingredients.

|2.27.07 @ 5:38PM|#

I thought it was called an SJD, at least that's what my bro told me. So I looked it up and the LLD is either honorary or from another country, while the SJD (or JSD) is the US equivalent.

I was indeed wrong about that one. Got out of the wretched profession several years ago, so I don't dwell on these matters anymore.

|2.27.07 @ 6:42PM|#

Can name actors/movies that are up for academy awards.

I can name a few, but very few. Mostly because I was just checking to see if a movie I really liked got nominated. I didn't watch, though. I usually only watch about half of one per decade.

Can name everyone still on the island. (Exception if the list starts with Gilligan)

Can't name a one (except for all of the Gilligan's Island crew!).

Ever spent a cent voting for their Idol

Hell, no!

Orders a drink with more than three ingredients.

I admit, I occasionally like a Mai Tai and in my youth I had a thing for LIITs, but generally it's a pint o' ale, single-malt scotch neat or over with soda, or a very dry vodka martini. Do two olives count as individual ingredients? I hope not. A corollary to this rule should be anyone who ever orders the trendy new drink (think Appletini or some such abomination).

How sad that I'll never run for office. ; >

|2.27.07 @ 7:11PM|#

"Can name actors/movies that are up for academy awards." That chick. That little kid. And that Martin Scorsese movie.

"Can name everyone still on the island. (Exception if the list starts with Gilligan)" Sorry, I don't watch Lost.

"Ever spent a cent voting for their Idol."

I walked to the polls to vote for Kerry, so you can't even count gas money.

"Orders a drink with more than three ingredients." Barley, hops, water, and yeast. Ah, crap.

|2.27.07 @ 7:49PM|#

Can name actors/movies that are up for academy awards.

Can name everyone still on the island. (Exception if the list starts with Gilligan)

Ever spent a cent voting for their Idol

Orders a drink with more than three ingredients.

How many movies are we talking about? Besides, when I get the office Oscar Pool,I'm forced to know them even if I decline participation.

Gilligan is the only pop culture icon I have that much knowledge about.

Martinis disqualify me (gin/vodka, vermouth, olive and water [when shaken or stirred with ice]).

|2.27.07 @ 7:51PM|#

Oh and I thought the American Idol calls were toll free, doesn't that make it impossible to spend a cent?