Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:09:13 -0800 From: Paul Ward <paw196 at soton.ac.uk> Reply-To: paulward at openlink.org Organization: soton uni X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lbo-talk at lists.panix.com" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Subject: RE: Hitchens + rule by lawyers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
(1) Good ole Hitchens. Coming out guns blazing and in contrary style to the bulk of American confused liberals who keep whinging on about 'sexual pecadilloes' of all things. So Tweedle-dee says 'sexual pecadilloes' & Tweedle-dum says 'lying under oath'. Still the wishy-washy liberals have got one thing right when they talk about right-wing coalitions (religious right team up with injured capital & other vested interests). All of which has Hitchens on the horns of the proverbial dilemma - in going for Clinton's jugular is he not aiding & abetting Newt Gingrich's loosely cobbled together coalition of 'baddies'? But then a true radical critic of the American political/economic system would hardly differentiate between Team A & Team B so Hitchens remains constant to his radical roots (hurrah).
(2) Anybody know what the technical term might be for rule by lawyers? Seems like every head of state nowadays was a lawyer at some point as if this is an essential stepping stone to the number one spot. Latin American governments have reportedly the highest number of lawyers in their legislatures hardly representative of their electors. Still one in four Americans are supposed to be lawyers so perhaps it IS representative at least in the 'land of the brave & the free'. Still the American Constitution was scripted almost exclusively by lawyers & after all whole else should run a legislature but a lawyer?