Italgato wrote:First of all, Joe from Chicago points out that my comment that. except for the sciences, most of the subjects at the University of Chicago lean very far to the left, is incorrect since Economics at Chicago leans to the right. Joe from Chicago evidently is not aware that Economics is referred to as "The dismal SCIENCE>"
I've read Heilbronner and Robbins and even Ricardo: I'm well aware that economics is described as the "dismal science." It's also a social science. Are you saying that all the social sciences (e.g. political science, anthropology, sociology, etc.) at Univ. of Chicago are equally free from liberal bias?
Italgato wrote:Now, as to my point concerning Posner. Joe from Chicago asks what's the point of my introduction? The point is that if you know of Posner, you know that he is one of the foremost commentators on the law today.
Well, he certainly is a
prolific commentator, I'll give you that. But he is not uniquely influential in American jurisprudence.
Italgato wrote:I am sorry to hear that he might have been ignorned at the U. OF M. Law School. I don't think he was. I believe that Joe from Chicago may have fallen asleep when Posner was mentioned.
Quite possible. I recall having some 8:00 classes.
Italgato wrote:Samdford Levinson, for the University of Texas Law School has said-regarding one of Posner's chief works- "Overcoming Law" that "Posner can be compared only to people like Holmes, William O. Douglas. Jerome Frank and William Story." I hope that Joe from Chicago knows who those last four individuals are.
I've read works by each of those individuals. I've even read stuff by Sandy Levinson. Have you?
Italgato wrote:I also am certain that the U. Of M. Law School did mention Judge Posner since he was appointed as the chief mediator in November 1999 in the Microsoft Antitrust case.
That was over a decade after I graduated. I stopped attending classes once I got my degree.
Italgato wrote:Again, I hope Joe from Chicago did not miss that lecture.
Sadly, I must have.
Italgato wrote:Finally, Joe from Chicago missed my point in listing the U. of Michigan as seventh among USA law schools. He says it is a fine law school. Granted. My point was that it was seventh and there are at least six that are better.
That goes without saying, if you buy into the notion that the rankings actually mean anything. I don't, but then I'm not all hung up on how high my law school ranked in comparison to others. I got an excellent education, I got a good job, that's pretty much all that counts.
Italgato wrote:It is clear to me that Joe from Chicago, missed, among other things, the fact that my listing of U. Of Michican as the seventh best law school in the country as not only a boost to the school but also a SUBTLE knock insofar as it was ranked Seventh instead of first. second, third or fourth.
What? You were actually
showing contempt for my alma mater??? Oh, what cruel disappointment, what bitter irony! My secret shame is exposed: I may have gone to a law school ranked better than hundreds of others, but I did not go to Harvard or Yale.
Really,
gato, this childish game of "my school can beat up your school" is a confession that you have no genuine arguments left. You've asked people here about their educational background, ethnic heritage, jobs -- all with the intention of using that information to construct these silly, puerile little insults. Meanwhile, you divulge only the barest details of your own background, no doubt to insulate yourself from attacks in kind.
Well, I won't engage in that kind of spitball tossing. I have no interest in your educational background, your ethnic heritage, or your profession,
gato. Stick to the issues and leave the petty taunts for your family and friends.
Italgato wrote:Perhaps I should flesh out my messages more thoroughly. Subtlety does not seem to make the point.
Gato, you give yourself far too much credit. Subtlety has nothing to do with it:
you fail to make the point.
and feel very sad and angry. Angry at Mr. Bush and Rumsfeld, at all of them, really. Why is Rumsfeld so resistant to sending more troops if that is what is needed? Is it because he will have to back pedal, eat crow and say he was wrong? Good grief, is his pride more important than making sure the people and soldiers in Iraq are protected? 