From: tracy@hekla.pnge.psu.edu (Tracy Freeling)
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Organization: PSU Petroleum Engineering
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:35:57 GMT

In article <Sep.30.09.44.18.1992.1435@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>In article <92268.165034TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu> TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu (Tracy A. Freeling, who obviously has _MUCH_ to learn) writes:
>
>> Remember Dan Quayle at the Republican convention saying that America
>> has 70% of the world's lawyers?  Everyone was amazed by this figure
>> since we account for less than 10% of the world's population.
>
>Well, not everyone (though perhaps the ignorant were).  The claim is
>not new, nor is the figure original to Quayle.  This is something that
>has been bandied about for years -- though there is certainly quite a
>bit of controversy about it.
>
>> Quayle went on to point out that Japan has only a few thousand, while
>> we have more than a half million.
>
>> Well...take a look at Mike Royko's syndicated column today.  [For
>> those of you who can't or won't do this, I will summarize his column.]
>
>> Royko talks about two academics--Ray August, a law professor at
>> Washington State Univ., and Toshika Kitawaki, a professor of law at
>> Nihon University in Tokyo--who investigated this claim.
>
>> According to these gentlemen, Quayle's claims are NONSENSE.
>
>Is it our intent to look at the matter objectively here, or is it to
>try to score some political points?  If the former, then the question
>arises: is there an agreement as to how to define "lawyer"?  If the
>latter, then this question becomes spurious.
>

I am looking at the point a lot more objectively than you are, Mr.
Kaldis.  I was the one who pointed out that Quayle was comparing things 
that were not necessarily comparable...apples and oranges if you will.  
As for trying to score points, well you can't exactly point the
finger there...now can you?

>> We do not have 70% of the world's lawyers.  We have LESS THAN 10%.
>> Many countries--Japan, West Germany, Italy, and much of South
>> America--have more lawyers per capita than the US.
>
>Again, by what definition?
>

Gee...Theodore...instead of firing off a follow-up, why didn't you just
read the rest of my post?!  I do talk about the fact that Quayle only 
used litigators in other countries and ALL lawyers in the US.  That
was the whole point of August & Kitawaki's research.

>> You see in the US you become a lawyer by going to law school and
>> passing a state bar exam.  Once this is done, a lawyer can do
>> anything--argue cases, execute wills and contracts, etc.
>
>By being admitted to the bar, the lawyer becomes an officer of the
>court.  (And I don't think that a law school education is a necessary
>prerequisite -- but good luck trying to pass the bar without one.)
>

As other people have already pointed out, you don't know what you are
talking about here.  And as I said out, when you responded to my post 
about Bush's visit to PSU,  all your what-ifs are pointless...if you 
don't know the facts, you don't have a basis to comment on.
  
>
>> The situation is similar in Britain where there is a distinction
>> made between barristers and lawyers.
>
>Where a lawyer prepares a case and a barrister (e.g., Rumpole) argues
>it in court wearing a white wig.

Did you really have to comment on everything--and waste
bandwidth--even when you have nothing to add to the point of
discussion.
 
>> Quayle--or more likely his handlers since I personally don't believe
>> that he could count past 5
>
>And I personally believe that you're a moron, inasmuch as I feel that
>

So much for your objectivity there, Theodore...Do you really have to
resort to insults? 

>> --conveniently omitted to count these categories in other countries
>> event though they perform the same type of work as most US lawyers and
>> by are standards are lawyers.
>
>I suppose it must be beyond the mental capacity of morons to deduce
>that there is probably an alternate explanation as to how the 70%
>figure was arrived at.
>

Rationalizing again, are we?

What alternate explanation?  Do you have one?  If not, are you only
throwing out comments like that because you believe that everything
that comes out of Dan Quayle's mouth must be true?

>> So you see...as usual Dan's aquaintance with the facts is iffy.
>
>Dan Quayle has managed to get elected to the Senate of the United
>States (no trivial task) -- more than once.  What have you
>accomplished?
>

That's right, he did get elected to the Senate.  He supposedly made
important decisions about international relations, etc. while there.
Given that, can you explain why he thought that Latin America was part
of the US, that people in Latin America spoke Latin?  Can you explain
how, while serving as head of the administration space planning, he
could believe that there are cannals on Mars?

As for what I have accomplished in my life...I'm only half Dan
Quayle's age.  I was a National Merit Scholarship Semi-Finalist in
high school.  During my years as an undergraduate in petroleum
engineering, I received several scholarships from the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, served as an officer of three different campus
organizations, served as editor of a campus magazine, interned with a
major oil company, and conducted independent research.  [I think I can
safely say that I know more about math than you or JDQ.] As a graduate
student working towards a master of science in petroleum engineering
and a master of engineering in mineral engineering management, I have
received a fellowship--based solely on academic merit--to complete my
education, served as a graduate representative in student government,
served as an officer in the Society of Petroleum Engineers, interned
with a second major oil company, been a teaching assistant, and
conducted research for two separate thesi... 

But what does any of this have to do with Dan Quayle?  What have you
done with your life may I ask--since you are being so snide about
mine? 

>> But as I say frequently [...]
>
>Why should anyone care what you have to say?
>-- 

Interesting comment coming from someone who regularly floods the net with 
his own viewpoints.  At least I only post when I have something new to
contribute to a discussion point.  You seem to post just to hear
yourself 'talk'.  And as I have said before, you usually are intent on
rationalizing not thinking or speaking rationally. 
 
Moreover, I have never called you anything derogatory...if you plan to
continue in that vein, then take it to e-mail.  Don't waste everyone
else's time on your petty name-calling.

_________________________________________________________________________
Tracy A. Freeling
Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
Internet:  taf102@psuvm.psu.edu,
           tracy@hekla.pnge.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush